|Dolce vita Bondi LX100 |
In the heyday
of camera sales, around 2010-2011, many camera makers including Panasonic offered a plethora of models with annual updates.
Following the crash in sales especially of fixed lens models over the last few years some makers have drastically pruned their catalogue to concentrate on what they consider to be their core product offerings.
In the process companies like Olympus, Fujifilm and Nikon have pretty much abandoned compacts altogether, unless by some stretch of imagination you think the P1000 could be called “compact”.
This leaves Canon, Sony and Panasonic still offering a comprehensive catalogue of models in almost all categories.
With the least sales of this trio, can Panasonic afford to continue offering so many models ?
The LX100Mk2 was announced yesterday with barely enough changes to justify it being marketed as a new model. I suspect this lack of progress may be the result of Panasonic having insufficient R&D funds to upgrade all the models it produces.
A major Australian camera vendor currently lists for Panasonic 12 fixed lens models and 8 interchangeable lens models, not counting various lens kits as a separate model.
For the maker this must be burning up a lot of R&D money plus a lot of expenditure on inventory maintenance and manufacturing complexity.
For the buyer the number of models is confusing with very little to differentiate many of them.
I think that a smaller number of models each with better design and performance would be the best way forward for all concerned.
So I have put together a few suggestions for Panasonic’s product development people.
I have no idea if any of them read this blog but anyway………
The product proposals which follow are based on some underlying ideas of mine.
I think the future of camera photography lies with fixed zoom lens models.
This does not include the previously common small snapshooter’s compacts most with no EVF. This market has been taken over by smartphones.
I think that in the near future when small sensors have become good enough for just about any photographic purpose, interchangeable lens camera models (ILC) will become irrelevant for the majority of photographers.
Already we have models like the Sony RX10Mk4 which is almost at the stage of being good enough for anything.
It is hugely liberating to know that one does not have to buy, carry and mess about changing various different lenses.
For the present, however there is a place for a carefully chosen catalogue of ILCs.
Is there a place for cameras which use the previously ubiquitous “1/2.3 inch” (diagonal about 7.7mm) sensor ?
Some will say “no” because it can be difficult to get good image quality from this sensor size especially in low light.
However the small sensor allows camera designers to fit a really long superzoom lens into a compact, easily managed package and I think that will have enduring appeal to many different kinds of photographers who want to capture birds, wildlife and such like on a limited
I think every camera should have a built in EVF which is always ready for use without having to be raised.
So here is my suggested camera line-up for Panasonic.
* One waterproof/shockproof
take-it-underwater, take-it anywhere model.
* One model using the 7.7mm sensor. This should most logically be a bridge type superzoom with a proper handle and hump top housing an EVF. In terms of Panasonic’s existing models it would combine the best features of the FZ300 (wide aperture lens) and the FZ80 (60x zoom range). It would be a high performance model with capability greater than the FZ300.
* One ultra wide angle compact using the “one inch” (15.9mm diagonal) or similar sized sensor and a lens in the range 15-20mm (full frame equivalent).
Before Nikon aborted its DL trio of compacts the one which attracted the most interest was the ultra wide angle variant.
This makes sense ergonomically. It is much easier to pull a compact out of the camera bag than it is to dismount and stow the standard lens, then remove the wide angle one from the bag and mount it.
* One high capability, high performance bridge model with the 15.9mm or similar sized sensor to match or better the Sony RX10Mk4 which has no direct competition at the moment.
Neither the FZ1000 or FZ2000
provides serious competition for the RX10Mk4.
* One travel zoom. This is a popular category which I think would be better served by one really good model than the three or four on offer right now, (TZ80, TZ90, TZ100, TZ200), each of which is compromised as to the lens quality, sensor, or ergonomics. I think a focal length of around 200-300mm equivalent is plenty for this category.
The current TZ200 would be a good starting point for the shape and style of this camera.
* One advanced compact. As envisaged by me this would sit above the current LX100 in specifications and capability and would be a genuine alternative to the traditional 24-70mm f2.8 zoom on a full frame ILC. My advanced compact concept mockup (see attached photos) illustrates what I have in mind.
|My concept mockup for an advanced compact|
Interchangeable lens models
Panasonic has gotten itself into a complete mess in this section of the market with a muddled profusion of models which do not appear to form a coherent offering at all. There appears to be a mish-mash of legacy ideas and aimless pot-shots at the market with no overarching conceptual direction that I can discern. There are models without an EVF and various interpretations of both flat top rangefinder-style and hump top DSLR-style models all jumbled together in confusing fashion.
I think the previously popular category of “entry level ILC” would be better served by a well specified travel zoom (see above).
I would like to see just two Micro Four Thirds ILC bodies from Panasonic:
* Enthusiast level, very much in line with the current G85 model in shape, size and operation.
* Professional level, very much like the current GH series. This level could have a number of capabilities determined by firmware packages.
Panasonic is currently pushing the notion that the G9 is mainly for stills photographers and the GH line for videographers. This just seems ridiculous to me when the GH line could easily enough be configured for either mainly stills, mainly video or both.
The basic thrust of this post is a request for fewer models each with a more clearly defined market position and each offering a higher level of capability than existing models.
The total number of bodies would decrease from 20 to 8.
Hopefully this would free up more R&D funds for each model and provide us photographers with better cameras.
|Western Distributor, Sydney Not made with a FF MILC|
The Canon G1X3 compact was good enough
This month heralds
one of the more productive seasons in recent history for announcements of new models which actually are new.
The photography internet is buzzing with news, reviews and comment about the new “full frame” mirrorless models from Nikon and Canon.
What does “full frame” mean ?
In the latter part of the 19th
Century a new type of movie film was introduced. This was 35mm wide with sprocket holes on each side. The image frame size was 24x16mm with the long side across the run of the film.
Then in the early part of the 20th Century the same film was used for still photography. The frame size was increased to 24x36mm this time with the long side along the run of the film. Still cameras using this “35mm” format appeared from about 1913 and became well known when Ernst Leitz
Camera (Leica) adopted the format.
In the early days when “real” photographers used large format and medium format cameras, 35mm was known as “miniature” format and the even smaller 16mm (also using movie film) was the “sub-miniature”
Fast forward ninety years to the early days of digital photography and we saw camera makers wanting to control their R&D costs and keep prices down for consumers. Cameras which replaced the 24x36mm (diagonal 43mm) film format with a digital sensor “full frame” were prohibitively expensive so the “crop format” was introduced. Canon crop format, also known as “APS-C” as the size is similar to the short lived format of that name, uses a sensor 27mm on the diagonal, Sony and others use a 28mm diagonal.
Thus over the last hundred years the “miniature format” has come to be known as “full frame”.
The thing which intrigues me is that Sony, with virtually no history in 35mm film or DSLR production and without a huge inventory of legacy lenses to consider chose a 100 year old format for its entry into the “full frame’ mirrorless world.
Why not use a circular sensor which could incorporate a multi-aspect ratio function providing landscape or portrait orientation without having to turn the camera through 90 degrees ?
Canon and Nikon are forced by their own history to use a sensor size and aspect ratio which is compatible with their legacy lenses so their decision to stay with the old 24x36mm format is understandable.
Sony, Leica, Nikon and Canon each for their own reasons has elected to stay with the old “35mm” format which looks to me like a giant lost opportunity for Sony at least.
Anyway, on with my little story:
Sony, leading the way as usual with new technology, started the trend to
full frame mirrorless ILCs with their A7 and A9 models.
The first generation A7 models in 2013 were a bit of a disaster with poor reliability, shutter shock, some dodgy lenses, poor ergonomics, poor battery life and a host of other problems. But Sony iterated quickly and enough customers liked what they were doing to make the enterprise viable.
Now in their third generation the Mk3 versions of the A7 series are mostly well regarded products with a lot to offer serious enthusiast and professional photographers.
Sony has never been very good with camera ergonomics however leading to ongoing issues with the user experience.
Nikon (pronounced Nykon or Nikkon or Neekon depending on where you live) recently revealed their all-new Zee (or Zed, also depending on where you live) full frame MILC duo to a somewhat mixed early reception.
There have been grumbles from reviewers about the single card slot, the very small buffer, the AF system configuration and operation and various other matters.
As Nikon’s future as a camera maker depends heavily on the success of the Z program one might have expected they would resolve some of these issues in the planning stage.
Canon has just joined the party with its all new EOS-R model and brand new lenses. As usual Canon has approached this new product type with a decidedly pedestrian, not-far-above-entry-level model.
It does three
frames per second
with AF-C in focus tracking priority mode……Wow ???
It looks to me as though the EOS-R is seriously lacking in processor power, just like all the EOS-M models to date.
It also appears Canon thinks the EOS-R will keep users happy despite lacking IBIS and without a thumb-stick for moving the AF area.
Good luck with that given that the Sony A7/9 and Nikon Z6/7 do have these features as do the current top tier Panasonic M43 models so I think it highly likely these features will be included on any Panasonic full frame model.
Both Nikon and Canon have been forced to invest in a completely new lens mount for their FF MILC enterprises, presumably making this an expensive R&D project for both companies. In addition they have to figure out what to do with their legacy DSLR camera line up.
But wait: now we hear that Panasonic is about to make a foray into the full frame MILC arena with an announcement on 25 September.
No details have yet been leaked.
Oh my goodness, it appears we will have five makers battling it out for a share of the FF MILC market.
Leica has been there with the SL since 2015 and to be strictly accurate Leica put the first mirrorless FF ILC, the M9,
on the market in 2009, but that had an optical viewfinder not an EVF.
Why has there been an apparently sudden rush to produce full frame MILCs ?
Well, it might appear sudden but my guess is that these projects have been in the R&D works for several years.
Here are some of my thoughts on the FF MILC initiative:
Each of the FF MILCs which have been released by Sony, Nikon,
Canon and Leica has numerous problems regarding specifications, capabilities, performance or ergonomics which are sure to disappoint some potential users who are not already rusted-on brand faithful supporters.
Note that image quality is not likely to be a problem with any of them. The image quality available from each of these full frame models will far exceed the requirements of most users.
Any significant differentiation between the brands and models will be in the user experience.
This being so I think it is rather disappointing that there is some kind of user experience problem with each of them
2. Of greater interest perhaps is the next question… Who needs them ?
This question devolves itself into two parts:
2a. Who needs
full frame ?
Professional sports photographers, and maybe portrait photographers who need to blur out busy backgrounds.
There may be a few minor additional reasons but blurring out cluttered backgrounds is the main one.
Nobody else needs
I fully understand that enthusiast photographers want the best gear they can afford because that is their mind set.
Some of these people might think they need full frame to make “better”
But I think they are chasing rainbows.
I have been using cameras to make photos for 65 years. I have been through the whole cycle of wanting better image quality and buying ever larger cameras to achieve this. The apogee of this cycle was the 4x5 inch view camera which I dragged around for several years causing permanent back damage in the process.
Then I had an epiphany and realised that the best camera for me was the one which gave me “good enough” quality for my personal needs. I was greatly impressed by an exhibition of aerial
photos by Yann Arthus-Bertrand.
These had all been taken with the same 35mm film cameras which I owned and looked just fine when exhibited at poster size, greater than 1 meter on the long side.
In the digital era I have come to realise that my cameras which use the so-called “one inch” (15.9mm diagonal) sensor are giving me even better image quality than I ever achieved with 35mm film.
2b. Who needs
a mirrorless ILC ?
MILCs do not make better pictures than DSLRs.
Professional sports photographers are going to continue using their DSLRs because for the moment at least, these things have better continuous AF performance than MILCs.
However some people might prefer
the mirrorless variety as it does provide some actual or potential benefits to the user experience.
These are, smaller body depth (there being no flipping mirror), easier design of ultrawide lenses, no viewfinder blackout (only available on a few models thus far), global shutter (coming, sometime), option for silent operation when looking through the viewfinder, better WYSIWYG experience when looking through the viewfinder, ability to configure the viewfinder and monitor to look the same for a seamless transition from one to the other and no need to calibrate lenses for focus accuracy..
3. So why are the main camera makers moving, herd like,
to full frame MILCs ?
I suspect the answer to this in one word is “survival”, they hope.
Let me recap here briefly:
Only a very small number of photographers actually need full frame cameras.
a FF mirrorless
camera although some might prefer the user experience enabled by the better models.
So the push for FF MILCs is not being driven so much by the consumers as by the makers.
I think there are two reasons for this:
The first is that in a few year’s time the only people left on the planet still using cameras to make pictures will be enthusiast amateurs and professionals.
These people will pay serious money to get what they consider to be the best possible gear. For many buyers a camera will be a vanity purchase.
So the makers oblige by pushing their entire product lines up market. The customers are happy enough, we hope,
and the makers get more profit per unit which they desperately need.
Second, either about now or in the near future MILCs will be less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs as
MILCs have fewer parts in total and fewer moving parts requiring accurate alignment.
So on both counts the makers hope to make more money per unit than they are now doing.
They need this in order to survive in a falling market.
What about image quality ?
I have been using smaller sensor, meaning smaller than “full frame”
cameras since the beginning of the digital era.
I discovered 14 years ago that I could make high quality poster size prints about one meter on the long side from an 8Mpx
Canon EOS 20D which used the Canon 27mm “crop
Since then I have come to realise I can get excellent very large prints from micro four thirds cameras which have a sensor diagonal of 21.6mm and cameras which use the so-called “one inch” sensor with a diagonal of 15.9mm.
The strong rumor is that Panasonic will move into FF MILC territory soon. Why on earth would they do that ?
They are already making excellent Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras which produce top quality results.
I have no inside knowledge of course so I have to guess that their decision is likely motivated by the same desire for survival as the other manufacturers.
The thing which matters is consumer perceptions which drive consumer behaviour and the pointy end of that is what people buy.
If significant numbers of potential buyers think or believe for any reason, rational or otherwise that full frame is “better” or just want full frame for the heck of it then the maker had better be able to offer full frame or lose that sale to some other mob.
It has nothing to do with image quality or even anything to do with making photographs.
7 September 2018 update
: My main interest is in stills not video so the really obvious reason that Panasonic might want to move to a larger sensor slipped my mind at first. It is of course, 8K.
1080P (2K if you will, although its not called that) has a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels for 2.07 Mpx.
4K is 3840x2160 for 8.3 Mpx
8K is 7680x4320 for 33.2 Mpx
There have been plenty of rumors that Panasonic wants to hold/and/or extend its lead in video by moving to 8K and for that they need a sensor which gives 33.2Mpx in 16:9 aspect ratio. With current technology that is likely too many pixels for the M4/3 21.6mm sensor. Hence the requirement for a larger sensor.
Of course nobody actually needs 8K. Our TV set at home is 1080P and it looks just fine. Even 4K is over the top for most of us.
However as I said above, the manufacturers are pushing these larger sensors for their benefit not yours or mine.7 September another update
. My brain is a bit slow today, maybe every day, whatever.
It's about the 8K thing.
It occurs to me that if a camera can shoot 8K preferably without rolling shutter effect, which implies a global shutter or at least a very fast e-shutter scan speed then the difference between stills and video pretty much disappears. The user can just press the button and subsequently select stills or video as desired.
If Panasonic can deliver a product which does that it will make existing models including all the recently announced FF MILCs look like antediluvian relics from a bygone era.
At the top I of this post I put the provocative question “Is FF MILC a hoax”?
No, well not deliberately.
FF MILCs are no more a hoax than are medium format digital cameras, another category which hardly anybody actually needs.
You may notice in all the promotional blurb about FF MILC s that the manufacturers carefully do not
say that their new wunderkamera line
makes better pictures than previous models.
They are also not saying something like …”we offer you these products which we think are really good (and they mostly are with certain reservations) and if you the consumer are gullible enough to spend $5000 on a camera when a $2000 one would do the job just fine, then we have a product for you.”
|Breakfast Panasonic G85|
Warning - Complete guesswork here
Panasonic is due to
make some kind of big photography related announcement on 25 September.
There has been much speculation on the internet as to the substance of this with several writers opining that a ‘full frame” camera (whatever that means) is on the cards.
Not to be outdone here is my totally wild guess as to what might be forthcoming from Panasonic.
1. Panasonic is heavily into video with rumors of an 8K camera to come. So I think 8K (7680x4320 px in 16:9 aspect ratio) is the first thing this new product (if the announcement is about a product) will bring.
2. It will fully integrate stills and video capture in seamless fashion. The user will just press the button and start recording. The resulting frames can be used as video or single photos at will.
3. It will have a multi-aspect-ratio sensor like the LX100.
4. There will be no mechanical shutter. The camera will use a global shutter or very fast scanning e-shutter to minimise rolling shutter effect.
5. If the pixel pitch is the same as existing 20 Mpx M43 sensors then the image circle will need to be about 29.4mm, say 30mm.
This compares to 43mm for traditional 24x36mm full frame, and 27/28mm for APS-C. An image circle around this size would allow the deployment of smaller, lighter lenses than are required for the full 24x36mm format.
6. The M43 lens mount has an internal diameter of about 38mm which is larger than it really needs to be for the M43 sensor, so the larger sensor could fit into the existing mount, using the ratio of inner mount diameter to image circle (1.25) on the EOS R as a guide. However the data connection pins appear to be in the wrong place for a larger sensor. There is a rumor that they will use a wider lens mount with shorter flangeback distance. If there is no focal plane shutter or even with one, that could be done and an adapter could be used to accept existing M43 lenses.
7. If Panasonic can actually do all this they will have built a category creating new product which will make all existing cameras look like throwbacks to a previous era.
I think the recent full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens offerings from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Leica are all boring, based on an imager size over 100 years old and lacking an adventurous approach to the whole business of imaging. Some of the lenses are huge, heavy and expensive. The focal plane shutters are noisy and limit continuous shooting performance.
As camera sales continue to fall the big players have become cautious and risk averse which is understandable and might be successful in the short term. But I think that in the longer run he (or she, or they) who dares wins.
|Hitch hiking on the mirrorless bandwagon ?|
Three weeks ago I posted some wild guesses
about Panasonic’s Lumix brand entry into the hotly contested full frame mirrorless ILC market.
Well their planned entry anyway. In fact they made an announcement of intent to make an announcement about actual products next year.
Presumably this early pre-announcement was to give potential Lumix buyers pause about buying a Sony, Nikon or Canon product.
My post was really a wish-list of features I wanted the new full frame Lumix system to have.
The reality, or at least pre-announced probability was considerably less interesting.
1. 8K video, not because I think anyone actually needs 8K video but because it could potentially close the gap between stills and video allowing an output which could be used for either purpose.
Anyway it appears they are aiming for 8K in time for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic games.
So I was right but a bit premature on the 8K thing.
2. There is no multi aspect ratio sensor. The working prototypes on show had bog-standard, 100 year old 24x36mm sensors. Boo.
3. No global shutter either. Boo again. All the MILCs still have focal plane shutters. I hate these things. They are noisy, they sound like little jack hammers in burst mode, they slow down the response of the camera to pressing the shutter button and they carry the potential risk of shutter shock.
4. They chose the established Leica L Mount. I understand the logic of this but now we have M43 and L mount each with a flangeback distance of 20mm making it impossible to fit an adapter from one to the other.
5. The prototypes
on display had monitors of the swing-up-swing-down-swing-up at 90 degrees type, just like some other cameras including current Fuji models. Boo, double boo.
Having used just about every type of articulating monitor there is I am firmly of the view that the fully articulating type as seen on the Canon EOS-R and various others including the Lumix G9 and GH5 is the most satisfactory over all and the best for vlogging.
I am well aware that some camera users do not share this view. So be it.
6. I really wanted Panasonic to think out of the box and produce a category creator
product. Sadly this has not been the case.
Instead we have just another me-too trying to jump onto the ever shrinking bandwagon of full frame mirrorless.
I think I understand what they are trying to do. History shows that the brand(s) which get control of the high ground of professional photography also get the lion’s share of the consumer market. The reason for this is simple.
Buyers look at what brand(s) professionals use and say to themselves “I will get one of those”. This makes perfect sense to the consumer bewildered by all the confusing claims being made by competing manufacturers.
For many years Canon and Nikon
have commanded the professional market.
Many others have tried but failed to break in to that market and in due course their sales have
dwindled, in some cases to the point of extinction.
A further problem is that the number of professional photographers is declining as news media come to rely on multiple alternative sources for their images.
So I think Sony and Panasonic have an uphill battle ahead of them with Panasonic having the hardest task coming in last to the FF MILC market.
That is why I still think they need to come up with products which are outstandingly better in every way to those from the market leaders.
I wish Panasonic well with the Lumix S venture but I have difficulty imagining why a Sony, Canon or Nikon user would jump ship based on products and support levels currently announced.
My intentions ?
I do not care for any of the full frame digital cameras, mirrorless or DSLR. Cameras with one of the smaller formats have plenty of image quality and capability for my needs and are smaller, lighter and less expensive.
Why buy a bus when a compact car will do the job just fine ?
|Godafoss, Iceland. Lumix LX100|
You really don't need full frame or medium format to make good pictures
“Curioser and curioser” s
aid Alice as she grew much larger after eating the small cake labelled “eat me”.
think about this year’s Photokina offerings it seems to me that the whole thing is rather like Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland with most of the participants apparently having over indulged in magic booster cake.
The theme of this year’s show is BIG….BIGGER……More BIGGERER………
All shall grow until their heads like Alice’s bang into the ceiling.
If cameras are about photographs and imaging the point of all this bigness escapes me completely.
a very small number of professional photographers could in all honesty convince themselves that they actually need most of the products on show this week in Cologne.
Reviewer Lok Cheung described this, correctly in my view, as a “crazy” Photokina.
I think these new cameras have very little to do with photography and a great deal to do with marketing and in particular the desire of camera companies to entice their customers upmarket where
profit margins are attractive.
In the process decent cameras which make good pictures at moderate prices have been sorely neglected.
The old aphorism “perfect is the enemy of good” certainly applies here.
Let’s go through some of this year’s offerings in alphabetical order:
Canon sells more cameras than any other maker so it appears they are better at
marketing than the other players.
But I still have difficulty understanding their product strategy.
Having owned and used a G1X3 and an EOS-M50 I can say with some confidence that the 27mm diagonal (APS-C) sensor in these cameras is easily good enough for the vast majority of photographic purposes. If Canon upgraded the EOS-M5 with a fast processor, a much higher level of performance and a few really good lenses I think they would have a winner good enough for enthusiast and many professional uses.
Professional sports photographers are still going to use one of the top line DSLRs for their fast Servo AF and ability to blur busy backgrounds.
So where does the EOS-R fit into all this?
The camera itself is a bit weird with no Mode Dial, a strange touchy/stroky bar thingy for the right thumb, no thumbstick to position the AF area, no IBIS, a dial-like ON/OFF switch taking up space to the left of the viewfinder and an amazing AF Servo rate of three !! frames per second in tracking priority mode. (that’s the one where you want the subject to be in focus….duh…..)
At least it has a monitor which can be turned to face forwards.
Or not, if you wish.
It seems to me that the EOS-R is Canon’s way of pushing into a higher profit full frame system those enthusiast photographers whose needs could easily be met by a decently implemented version of the crop sensor M5 plus some really good lenses.
But Canon’s product development strategy would suggest it doesn’t want to go there and doesn’t want its customers to go there either .
The whole exercise appears to me to be mostly about Canon’s needs not those of consumers.
At the same time Canon announced the Powershot SX70 which has the SX60 body and lens with a higher pixel sensor and a new processor, both probably the same as those seen in the SX740.
I bought an SX60 some time ago and was most disappointed by its image quality, controls and performance. Many contributors to Canon user forums have observed that the SX50 which was released in 2012 (!!!) makes better pictures.
I actually think that compact superzoom cameras like the SX60/70 could be much more appealing than is now the case if the makers wanted them to be so.
The SX60/70 is just the right size for comfortable carrying, holding and operating. It has a very well designed handle. The overall concept and zoom range are very appealing. If cameras like this were fitted with a high quality lens (which the SX60 decidedly does not have) and a better quality sensor and processor they could become a very attractive option as a one-camera-for-all-purposes option for many users.
But we can’t have that can we ?
Oh no. The profit margin per unit is too low. At least it is at the present price point. But if the makers put really good lenses, sensors and processors in these cameras they could charge substantially more, keeping users and makers both happy.
But then the users wouldn’t need those high priced mirrorless interchangeable lens models would they ?
And we can’t have that either. Oh no.
I can see and appreciate the dilemma for all the camera makers, not just Canon.
But in their desire, maybe need, to keep profits up with high value products they are neglecting development of more useful, consumer friendly good-enough products for people with modest ambitions and budgets.
Apparently Fuji is on a roll with its 50 Mpx medium format models which are reported to be selling well.
This I take as proof positive that the camera market is no longer a rational place, assuming it ever was.
I can see that there might be a few photographers in the style of say,
Annie Leibovitz who could make use of these high megapixel cameras to produce huge highly detailed
But I bet that most affluent enthusiasts who buy one of these things don’t need it at all and cannot really make use of its imaging capabilities.
But wait, there’s more. Yes folks,
if for some unknown reason you thought 50 Mpx was not enough, Fuji is going to develop a 100Mpx model.
If the 50Mpx models are like a bus then the 100 Mpx model will be like a double decker bus.
All this in a world where a compact hatch model will get you there just fine.
Actually Fuji also makes budget cameras which are reported to make good pictures so one could say they take an ecumenical approach to the whole thing.
The wonder of all wonders in the camera world is that Leica has survived and apparently prospers despite a few corporate near death experiences a few years ago. They have managed this by supplying a mis-matched range of wildly overpriced models which nobody actually needs.
And now comes the S3. For those who are unaware, the S3 is a medium format digital SLR camera which is huge and ridiculously expensive. Yes, a DSLR when everybody including Leica (!!) is going mirrorless. It updates the S2 which was released in 2008, with a new 65 Mpx sensor.
Just out of idle curiosity I went to the website of the Leica shop in Sydney’s Queen Victoria Building and priced the S2, lenses and accessories.
The S2 body only is listed at AUD27,500.
If one was to invest in a selection of lenses from 30mm to 180mm the total cost would be, depending on exactly what was selected, in the vicinity of AUD80,000.
That’s about 100x more than you need to spend to get a camera which makes really good pictures.
Oh well I guess that proves there is a market in the camera world for the conspicuous consumption of prestige products.
That is not a trivial observation.
I think the whole camera market is headed in the direction of high priced, prestige products.
Anyway that is what the makers want to sell. We shall see if the buyers want to play.
Some of us will have to stop saying “nikkon” and start using the pronunciation used by Nikon execs themselves which is “nycon”.
Although it was released prior to Photokina I have to mention the Coolpix P1000.
I began this post with a reference to Alice in Wonderland and her alarming growth spurt.
Well it seems that Nikon’s product development people have embraced the whole Wonderland super growth experience with the P1000.
I have bought, owned and used the B700 and P900 models so I am quite familiar with Nikon’s recent bridge camera offerings.
I think the B700 has real prospects. It has decent image quality, a decent lens with a very useful zoom range, is compact and nice to hold.
is however seriously let down by a sluggish processor leading to poor performance and many frustrations with the user experience. With a (much) faster processor and a complete rethink of the way all the controls engage with the user a successor to the B700 could be a really attractive all purpose camera.
I found the P900 a much less engaging proposition. Although the lens reaches out to an effective 2000mm I found that over about 1200mm the process of making pictures got very difficult. It is difficult to locate one’s subject and keep it in the frame, lens
quality declines at the long end, autofocus is sluggish and unreliable and performance is poor.
I see the P1000 as just a revamped P900 with an even longer lens which in the real world will prove very difficult to use and in fact I think it will be difficult to find a use for it, once new owners get over the WOW-look-at-that initial excitement.
If I was to give an award for the silliest camera of the year (and I might do that) the P1000 would be a short list candidate.
Of course the main event for Nikon this year is their entry into the full frame Mirrorless ILC market with the Z6 and Z7 models. You can read and view endless analysis of these cameras elsewhere. The main issues I have with them are the same ones I have with the Canon EOS-R.
They are underspecified models whose place in the market is not altogether clear. From Nikon’s perspective I guess they represent an entry to the FFMILC arena. Better late than never, I suppose.
From a consumer’s perspective things are not so clear. As with Canon,
professionals and particularly those doing sport/action will stick with their high end DSLRs.
Enthusiast amateurs (if they elect to stay with Nikon) will pretty much be forced into the FFMILC stream whether they like it or not.
As with Canon,
Nikon’s product development record is clearly designed to encourage the
faithful to move up from APS-C to full frame.
And more profits for Nikon, they hope.
I put the “Lumix” in there because Panasonic has been trying, in half hearted fashion it seems to me to promote the LUMIX brand for its cameras for many years without much apparent success.
Anyway the big event for Panasonic this year is of course the L Mount consortium announcement with Leica and Sigma.
Panasonic, Lumix, whatever, has announced with much fanfare,
that it will announce two new FFMILCs next year, the Lumix S1 and S1R.
Let’s hope they actually deliver.
I for one am fed up with camera companies announcing proposed future announcements.
Some reviewers who have had their hands on all four (Sony A7Mk3, Nikon Z6/7, Canon EOS-R and Lumix S1) FFMILCs have indicated they feel the Lumix models have the best ergonomics, best handle and best control layout so that is something in favour of the new Lumix adventure.
Whether the new models will entice anyone up from M43 or across from the other brands remains to be seen. I am skeptical but we shall see.
Just to demonstrate they have not forgotten about Micro Four Thirds, the Lumix guys announced another announcement for some indeterminate future time of a 10-25mm (equivalent to 20-50mm) constant f1.7 zoom lens for M43. Looking at screen shots of the presentation slides this appears to be a giant lens which will no doubt be very expensive.
Maybe it will find a place in a professional videography kit.
On reflection I think that is most likely what it is all about.
I am more concerned by the things which Panasonic did not announce this year.
* There is still no bridge model to compete with the Sony RX10Mk4.
* The LX100Mk2 is underdone for a camera which is going to come on at almost double the price of the outgoing Mk1 version. The lack of an articulated monitor and updated EVF are particularly disappointing.
* No update for the G85.
Look, Ricoh still makes cameras. Well, someone does and they have a Ricoh label.
This year we have another announcement of an announcement of the proposed development of the GR3 which appears to be a mild update of the GR2. Eagle eyed Ricoh aficionados have apparently spotted some minor wandering of various buttons.
If this thing had a built in EVF it might have considerably wider appeal than is presently the case.
Sigma gets a mention because it has signed on to the L Mount triumvirate with various announcements about the possibility of further announcements about possible products maybe including a camera and probably some lenses.
Sony had an uncharacteristically quiet time at Photokina this year. Their contribution was yet more announcements about the likelihood of further announcements about 12 more lenses for the E mount.
Full frame ? Crop frame ?
Who knows ?
Zeiss is a long established company with a record of optical excellence. My Sony RX10Mk4 has a Zeiss branded lens which is very good indeed.
Now they have decided to put their esteemed name on
a digital camera, the first to wear the Zeiss brand.
The ZX1 is certainly the most unusual, innovative and maybe courageous offering shown this year.
Everything about it breaks from the usual camera conventions. It challenges the concept and operation of the camera genre on many levels.
It runs on Android, has a huge touch screen but no memory card and can run a version of Lightroom in camera.
It sure is different. We shall see if buyers are prepared to put their money down for such an adventurous product.
This is the camera ergonomics blog so of course the thing which attracted my attention was the shape of the thing and particularly the handle if that is what you could call the odd looking hump on the right side.
It reminds me of two other cameras.
First is the Sigma dp(x) Quattro series of four fixed lens models each having a very unusual shape. These were not exactly a great hit with buyers and seem to be unavailable in Australia although I see they are on special order at B&H in New York.
The second is the Leica TL you know, the one Leica billed as having been milled from a solid block of aluminium.
Or unobtanium. Or something. Expensive.
I was recently watching a video review of the Leica CL by Chris Nicholls. In the process of comparing the CL with the TL he said that the TL was a camera one either loved or hated and no-one loved it.
Well, the Zeiss ZX1 looks rather like that.
The “handle” is super smooth and shaped like no human hand. There is no thumb rest.
How does anyone get a grip on this thing ?
What is the point of all that innovative technology if the would-be user can’t hold the device safely ?
I would say this one is definitely “courageous” in the “Yes Minister” sense of the word.
We live in interesting times……………..
|Paddys Markets Lumix LX100 13Mpx|
Photokina this year
brought a virtual tsunami of new products, some with ultra high pixel counts, one with an ultra zoom lens.
Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Lumix and Sony each showed one or more product lines tempting potential buyers to move up market to something bigger, supposedly better and certainly more expensive.
So great has been the allocation of R&D resources to these new high value products and systems that development of decent cameras in a lower price bracket has slowed or in some cases possibly stopped altogether.
The lure of these new full frame and medium format cameras is the hope that users will be able to make better pictures with these products than they could
with smaller sensor cameras at a lower price point.
Note that the camera companies very carefully do not actually claim that you will make better pictures with their latest product(s). They know perfectly well that good photos are made in front of (the subject) and behind (the user) the camera, not so much in the camera.
They tempt enthusiast photographers with more pixels, faster frame rates,
better numbers for dynamic range, high ISO noise and color reproduction.
They aim to profit from the common malady suffered by enthusiast photographers known as G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome).
Reviewers, many of whom are given cameras on loan to review play up to this. They say ….”camera A makes really good pictures but camera B with a larger sensor (more pixels, whatever) makes even better pictures because it has more dynamic range (less high ISO noise, whatever)”
The implication is you should buy camera B which by the way is more expensive, larger and heavier and delivers a greater profit margin to those who make and sell it.
My thesis in this post is that you might like to think twice about buying camera B if camera A will do the job which you require of it.
May I digress briefly with a transport analogy:
If I want to drive four people across the city (Sydney, as it happens) a very suitable vehicle is my little Honda Jazz. It does the job with no problems whatever at a modest cost.
Would a seven seat SUV be “better” for this job ?
Of course not. It’s overkill.
What about a bus that can take 50 people ?
No ? Even more ridiculous overkill.
There are in fact thousands of seven seater SUVs running around town transporting one or two persons at a time.
This makes no sense but there it is.
The camera market is like the car market in some ways.
For the great majority of tasks which most photographers require their cameras to perform almost any modestly priced mid range model will do the job just fine.
photographic assignments do not need a dynamic range of 15 stops or invisible luminance noise at ISO 12800 or 50 million pixels on the sensor.
For challenging assignments mid price cameras can do the job perfectly well with a little ingenuity.
Extremely high subject brightness range can be tamed by exposure bracketing then in-camera or post capture processing. Extremely low light levels can be managed with image stabiliser capability or simply a tripod, or resting the camera on a wall or similar. Even 8-10Mpx files can be used to make very large prints with appropriate image editing.
How many pixels is enough ?
What is the resolution of the monitor screen you are now using ?
Mine is 1920x1080 dots. That is 2, yes, 2, megapixels. Pictures and text look very sharp and clear on this monitor.
Our household TV screen has the same resolution although it is much larger, 102x58 cm.
Photos displayed on this screen look sharp and clear provided they were technically good in the first place.
So you need 2 Mpx for sharp pictures. Any more is a bonus.
A sensor with 8 Mpx can do a fine job, 16 Mpx is more than enough even for huge prints.
What size sensor is big enough ?
I have made excellent A2+ sized prints from cameras with the tiny so-called ½.3inch sensor.There is no fixed standard for this sensor size but most of them are around 4.5x6.2mm for a diagonal of about 7.7mm.
But I have also seen too many mushy, grainy results from cameras with this sensor size.
For reliably pleasing results in a range of conditions including low light I have found the so-called “one inch” sensor which is actually 8.8x13.2mm for a diagonal of 15.9mm does a good job.
Current 16 and 20Mpx versions of the Micro Four Thirds sensor (17.3x13mm, diagonal 21.6mm) can deliver excellent results in any conditions with appropriate lens selection and usage practices.
The only intractable issue with small sensors which is locked into the characteristics of optics is depth of focus. This means that achieving out of focus backgrounds is more difficult with small sensors than larger sensors.
So if you want backgrounds out of focus, the bigger sensor is better.
Conversely of course if you want everything from foreground to background in focus, the smaller sensor is better. The photo at the top of this post was shot at f1.7 on a sensor with effective diameter about 19.2mm (the LX100 uses a cropped M43 sensor).
Buying a bigger camera in the expectation of better pictures is an exercise in futility for most enthusiast photographers.
Be careful what you wish for.
|Feeding time at the zoo. Sony RX10Mk4|
As I looked through the list of new and refreshed products announced at Photokina this year I realised that I have no interest in buying any of them.
I hate the whole clumsy, clunky business of having to change lenses. I did this for 50 years and never want to go back to it. I have found the process of changing lenses to be the most ergonomically disruptive aspect of camera use that I have encountered in my 65 years of making photographs.
So I have no interest in any of the interchangeable lens models being proudly displayed by the various makers.
I hate lens mounts. They are the curse of modern camera design. The argument for lens mounts is that they enable interchangeable lenses. What is less often mentioned is that they substantially make multiple lenses necessary.
Fixed lens models can utilise zooms of highly efficient optical and mechanical design which can be much smaller or have a wider aperture (or both) than lenses separated from the body by a mount.
|By removing the lens mount Canon was able to fit into the G1X3 a lens of the same focal length range as that on the M5 with a slightly wider aperture. My copy of the G1X3 lens is sharper all round than the ILC 15-45mm.|
The size difference is obvious.
|Same story with these Lumix models. On the left the G9X with 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 lens. The LX100 Mk2 on the right uses the same sensor but cropped to about 90% of the linear measurement. The lens aperture on the LX100Mk2 is two stops wider than that of the 14-42mm even though the package is much smaller.|
2. I hate focal plane shutters. They are loud, they sound like
little jack hammers in burst mode, they limit camera performance and can produce shutter shock in some situations.
the interchangeable lens models announced still have a focal plane shutter. (some of the medium format models offer lenses with a leaf shutter)
If the sensor makers have not yet gotten global shutter technology ready for the consumer market I will go for cameras which use a leaf shutter in the lens. These are almost silent and have very low inertia.
Thus they can respond very quickly when the shutter button is pressed
and as far as I am aware have not been reported to produce shutter shock.
3. I have no interest in single focal length lenses be they fixed to the camera or interchangeable. Zooms are now so good I use them all the time.
So I am not interested in any camera which has a single focal length lens.
4. I will not buy any camera which lacks a built in EVF.
I live in Sydney and travel around Australia and have found cameras without a built in viewfinder pretty much useless in bright sunlight.
I also have long ago given up using optical viewfinders. These simply do not have the WYSIWYG capability of a good EVF.
5. I hate big cameras. They are heavy, they attract sometimes unwanted attention to themselves and they are generally expensive.
6. I hate the appearance of pictures made with on-camera flash. So for low light/indoors work I want a camera with a wide aperture lens.
I prefer bridge cameras and compacts
These form the basis of my two camera kit as described below.
I base my camera kit on an indoors/low light-vs-outdoors/action paradigm.
For my purposes the best type of camera for indoors/low light
is an advanced zoom compact.
Some of these have a wide aperture lens giving good low light capability.
My picks in this category are:
* One of the Sony RX100 variants. I have the Mk4 which does a good job. The Mk5 is also reported to perform very well although the high speed sensor seems like overkill for this type of camera and better suited to the RX10Mk4 (see below).
* Panasonic Lumix LX100, original or Mk2. I sold my LX100 and pre-ordered a Mk2 which has not yet arrived. The Mk2 is a Mk1 with the sensor and processor from the GX9 plus a touch screen.
Nothing else really appeals. The G5X might if Canon ever decides to release a Mk2 version with a faster processor and better lens than the original.
I have a G1XMk3 which is a decent camera but not best suited to low light/indoors work due to the small aperture of the lens which is 1.5-2 stops slower than that on the LX100.
I prefer an advanced bridge model.
The list of suitable candidates here is even shorter.
* I prefer and use the Sony RX10Mk4. This thing delivers super-camera performance, has an excellent lens and good image quality. It is best suited to outdoors work but is not bad indoors due to the decently wide lens aperture. The only aspect of the RX10Mk4 which I find less than fully satisfying is the ergonomics which could easily be improved with some minor changes to the design and user interface.
The RX10Mk4 can handle just about anything outdoors from landscape to birds in flight.
* Next best I rate the ageing Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 which is still a very good camera but the performance, lens focal length range and continuous AF capability are not quite up to that of the Sony.
Unfortunately R&D in both these types of camera appears to have stalled in recent times with a sharp decline in the rate of new models.
This is a big disappointment to me. It seems the camera companies have (almost) all decided that their fortunes lie in the full frame mirrorless ILC sector in which I have no interest at all.
I can make excellent big prints of any desired size from cameras which use the so called “one inch (15.9mm diagonal) and “four thirds” (19.4mm diagonal when cropped as in the LX100) size sensors.
You may read pontifications from armchair experts claiming that only a “full frame” sensor can deliver good pictures. This is complete nonsense and likely a case of someone trying to justify having spent more money on a camera kit than was necessary.
|To camera kit in Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 25i bag. The compact pictured is a Canon Powershot G1X3 which will be replaced by a Lumix LX100Mk2 when that finally arrives, having been pre-ordered three months ago. This kit is compact, light and easy to carry and I never have to change lenses.|
|Silver Gull. Sony RX10 Mk4, a good camera for birds in flight.|
One of the most remarkable things about the new crop of
full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (FFMILC) announced at this years Photokina has been the persistence of the 100 year old 24x36mm imaging sensor size.
The makers of these cameras want you to believe that they have brought forth a revolution in photography. Nonsense. At best we are witnessing a process of evolution.
Even the otherwise avant garde Zeiss ZX1 uses this sensor, presumably because that is all they could get from Sony, probably the maker of the sensor and possibly the camera.
But if any camera maker was to ask me what kind of sensor I actually want I would say “DOMAR”
That is the acronym of “dual orientation multi aspect ratio.”
Here is the thing: I do not understand why 18 years into the 21st Century photographers still have to turn their camera over to shoot portrait orientation.
I want a camera which I hold always in the same position, corresponding to landscape orientation with most modern digital models.
I want a camera in which I can easily and quickly, by turning a dial or lens ring or sliding a lever, change from landscape to portrait orientation and from 1:1 to 5:4 to 4:3 to 3:1 to 16:9 aspect ratio while looking through the viewfinder and without having to move the camera at all.
How might this be achieved ?
Consider that a camera lens projects a circular image onto the focal plane.
No camera known to me fully utilises this.
But a circular sensor the same size as the image circle of the lens could be a DOMAR.
|DOMAR circular sensor|
If there are technical problems manufacturing a circular sensor the DOMAR concept could be achieved with a square sensor.
The image circle of the lens is smaller than the diagonal of the sensor.
There is no need to flip the camera over for portrait orientation and multi aspect ratio capability is readily achieved in either landscape or portrait orientation.
|DOMAR square sensor|
Either of these DOMAR sensors would probably fit best into a camera with a fixed lens, there being no discrete lens mount to interfere with the DOMAR implementation.
Combine a DOMAR sensor with a full global shutter and we might be seeing something a bit more revolutionary. These are features which really would benefit camera users.
|Hovering birds like this kestrel are reasonably easy to photograph|
The Sony RX10Mk4
is the best camera I have yet used for capturing birds in flight. It is fast and
responsive with the ability to follow focus on a moving subject at 24 frames per second for stills. In other words it can shoot stills at video speed with each frame separately focussed.
That gives it the fastest AFC performance of any camera at the time of writing this post.
Some contributors to user groups have opined that the RX10Mk4 is “too expensive”.
Forgive them for they know not that of which they speak.
Where else can you get a 24-600mm (equivalent)
lens with very high quality right across the focal length and aperture range ?
Right now you can buy an RX10Mk4 from a large Sydney camera retailer for AUD2123.
From the same source, Sony’s pro level full frame sport/action camera, the A9 with
100-400mm and 24-105mm lenses will set you back AUD9907.
I think the RX10Mk4 is one of the great camera bargains of the 21st
Century with a level of capability and performance way beyond that of any previous bridge camera.
Many contributors to Cybershot user forums have reported very favourably about the high level of follow focus capability offered by the RX10Mk4.
Would the A9 with the heavy artillery lens kit be better ?
I don’t know and am never going to spend ten thousand bucks to find out.
I do know however that the RX10Mk4 is pretty darn good and certainly good enough for BIF which is one of the most difficult challenges you can present to a camera.
|Large birds like this pelican are also reasonably easy to photograph. The fly straight and are big enough that you don't have to be very close.|
In general photography one expects most photos to be at least technically acceptable.
Nothing like that is possible with BIF.
My experience is that depending on the species of bird as many as 50% of frames miss the bird altogether.
It is VERY difficult to keep flying birds in the frame.
So you need to give the bird lots of space in the viewfinder and expect to crop a lot later.
Expect a low percentage of keepers with BIF even with the best possible equipment and technique.
At first you will probably call any bird reasonably sharp and with both wings in the frame a keeper.
But after some practice you will get more picky and want to keep only the really good shots.
As a general guide I rate about 2% of frames as keepers.
Don’t be discouraged by this. At 10fps it only takes 10 seconds to make 100 frames. In a BIF session
I not uncommonly shoot 500+ frames. If I get 10 decent BIF shots in a session I regard that as a very good result.
Trying to do BIFs in low light is an exercise in frustration. I find it is not often successful.
As a general principle I want the camera running automatically. BIF places heavy demands on both camera and photographer so the more things operate automatically the better. There is no opportunity for the user to check camera settings in the middle of a shooting sequence.
Here is a list of the settings which I use and the button to which I allocate the function. Other users have different ideas about the best settings and button assignments. The permutations and combinations are almost limitless.
* Lens focal length. I find 300-400mm (equivalent) often useful. 600mm is usable but requires a lot of practice just to keep the bird in the frame. Any longer will not be useful for most birds in flight.
* ISO AUTO MIN SS (C2) Faster.
* Focus Area (C3) for bird-against-sky I use Wide.
This is to allow the camera to focus on the bird anywhere in the frame.
For bird-against-background I use Flexible Spot L in the center of the frame.
This is because [Wide] will focus on background trees, foliage and similar.
* Function Button items: AWB, DRO Auto, Center Lock-on AF OFF, Shutter type Auto, Creative Style -2, 0, 0, Metering Mode Multi, Grid lines OFF.
* Steady shot (cross keys left) ON.
* Drive Mode (cross keys right) Continuous Mid (10fps). Why not continuous High (24 fps) ?
This after all is the RX10Mk4’s party trick which no other camera can do.
There are two reasons I stay with the 10fps speed.
First, 24 fps generates so many frames so quickly they become a burden when time comes to review them in post.
Second, I get a slightly higher keeper rate at 10fps.
* Quality (cross keys down), I have tried both RAW and JPG X-Fine. JPG allows you to shoot more frames in a burst but RAW allows more control of highlight and shadow detail, sharpness…etc in post processing.
* Disp (cross keys up) Clear the screen. Level gauge off, on-screen data OFF, grid lines OFF.
* I activate AF with the shutter button. I do not use back button focus. Others like to use the AEL button to initiate focus. But I find that the process of capturing BIF is demanding enough without having to remember to press two buttons.
* Focus Mode rotary controller. That is the sneaky little dial bottom left on the front of the camera which I frequently forget to change because it is out of sight and therefore out of mind. Turn it to C.
When you have all the settings in place go to Menu>Camera1> Camera1/Camera2 Memory and assign the settings to position 1, 2 or 3 at MR on the Mode Dial.
This enables you to make most of the required settings in one move.
* Use a big, fast memory card and a spare and have a couple of spare batteries ready.
At first the process of trying to photograph BIF can feel incredibly frustrating.
Medium sized birds operate on a time scale about 10x faster than humans. They will often be in and out of the viewfinder in about 0.1 seconds.
If you are accustomed to photographing static, co-operative subjects you will have to develop an entirely different approach.
This is sometimes unkindly referred to a “spray and pray”.
There is in fact a good deal more to it than prayer.
The essence of the technique is to start pressing the shutter button down before
you have the shot lined up. If you wait until the bird is framed up nicely you will never do BIF.
Always view through the EVF. This allows you to hold the camera securely and gives the best view of the subject. If you have your right eye at the EVF you can use your left eye to simultaneously scope a wider view of the scene ahead.
This is a brief summary of a few tips I have picked up over the years.
* Learn about the habits and behaviour of birds, where and when to find them.
At many locations birds often have a circuit. If you stand still for a while and observe this will become evident.
* Birds like to launch themselves into flight upwind. If you can get up-wind and up-sun of the bird(s) photo ops can arise.
* Don’t chase birds around. Stay still. They will come back in a while. The carpark adjacent to a known bird area is often the best place for bird observation believe it or not.
* Start with birds perched to get accustomed to the idea of shooting fast.
* Graduate to water birds at your local park. The ducks will come up looking for a feed and are easy to photograph as they swim along.
* If you live near the sea move on to gulls. These are often numerous, fairly large as birds go, they will come in close to humans and their flight patterns are somewhat predictable.
* Birds which hover are reasonably easy to photograph. Some will come down quite close if you are in the right spot.
* Practice………………….a lot………………..
| This subject provides a challenge for any camera with high brightness range, movement, light sources in frame and lots of detail. No problem for the LX100M2 hand held at f2. I included the sign for the Leica shop which you can see in the top right quarter of the frame. I could go up there and buy a Leica Q for the price of five LX100M2 s but have resisted the urge. Image quality from the LX100M2 is good enough for me.|
Fixed lens camera production
declined massively from 108 million units in 2010 to 13.3 million units in 2017, just 12% of the 2010 figure.
In the same period interchangeable lens camera production declined slightly from
12.9 million in to 11.7 million. (source Lensvid, using CIPA data)
Vlogger Tony Northrup recently said “Smartphones are the only compact cameras”.
In the same video he also opined that the Micro Four Thirds system would die, presumably with the aim of attracting traffic to his site by making provocative predictions.
It seems to me there are three groups of photographers:
* Snapshooters. These are the great majority of humans who make photos. These people once used simple compact cameras, first film then digital. Now they use smartphones and social media.
* Enthusiast amateurs. In this much smaller group are people who are interested in the process of making photos and the quality of the results. This is the group which will buy most cameras.
The question for the product development people is “what kind of cameras will this group buy” ?
* Professionals. This is numerically by far the smallest group, but professionals
have considerable influence on manufacturers product development decisions. Professionals use high end cameras, usually of the interchangeable lens type.
I rate myself an enthusiast amateur and this blog is directed to that audience.
Right now Canon, Nikon,
Panasonic and Sony all appear to have decided that enthusiast amateur photographers want highly specified, near pro-level full frame (43mm diagonal sensor) mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Fujifilm appears to have made essentially the same decision but with the smaller (28mm diagonal) sensor.
I want good picture quality but
have discovered that I can get it without any kind of interchangeable lens camera at all.
I currently use a two camera kit. One is a bridge type for long lens, outdoor sport/action work. The other is an advanced compact with large aperture zoom lens for indoor, documentary and street photos.
Some reviewers and vendors lump all fixed lens cameras into one group labelled “compact” or “point and shoot” which does not help potential buyers at all.
As I see it, there are basically two types of fixed lens cameras.
1. The so-called bridge type.
Typically a bridge camera looks like an ILC with a lens, has a substantial handle and thumb rest and a built in EVF in a hump (ILC style) on top of the body. The lens typically has a power zoom with a very big focal length range.
I have no interest whatsoever in any of the numerous models without a built in EVF. These cameras are VERY difficult to hold still at the long end of the zoom without the stable hold made possible by a built in EVF.
I suppose that the term bridge came into use when this camera type was seen as a kind of halfway station between a “proper” camera, presumably a DSLR at one end of the spectrum and a consumer compact at the other end.
But these days some bridge models are so advanced they can function as an entire camera system in one package. These are the models which interest me and which I use extensively.
2. Advanced compacts. This is a miscellaneous group designed to appeal to the enthusiast buyer but also be of small size for easy portability.
Some users say they like a camera to be “pocketable” but I think a pocket is just about the least camera friendly place I can imagine and a great way to ensure dust, lint and other bits of unmentionable stuff find their way into the works.
If an advanced compact is to interest me I need to see certain key features. At
minimum these are:
* A high quality zoom lens. Modern zooms are excellent. I see no point in restricting myself to a single focal length when I can have the versatility of a zoom.
* A built in EVF which is always ready to use. I find the Sony pop-up-pull-back-push-in-push-down system gets tedious after a while and the absence of an eyecup lets in a lot of stray light.
* A decent set of controls which allow me to drive the camera efficiently.
Let’s see what fixed lens models meeting my criteria are on the market in November 2018. For this exercise I just trawled through items available from a major Australian camera retailer.
I found a total of 55 fixed lens models listed, only a small percentage of which met my buying criteria.
Some models come with a 7.7mm diagonal sensor, others use the larger 15.9mm diagonal sensor. All the sensors are probably made by Sony.
Canon: SX60, SX70 (7.7mm).
Nikon: P900, P1000 (7.7mm)
Lumix: FZ300, FZ80 (7.7mm),
FZ1000, FZ2500 (15.9mm),
Sony: HX400V and variants H400, HX350 (7.7mm), RX10Mk3, RX10Mk4 (15.9mm).
In the compact sector there is a range of sensor sizes from 15.9mm diagonal, through 19.4mm (the cropped M43 sensor in the LX100Mk2) and 27mm. Sony probably makes all the sensors except the 27mm chip in the G1X3 which is made by Canon.
Canon: G5X (15.9mm), G1XM3 (27mm).
Lumix: TZ90 (7.7mm), TZ110, 220 (15.9mm), LX100M1/ 2 (approx. 19.3mm).
Sony: HX90V, HX99V (7.7mm), RX100 Mk 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6, RX10 Mk3, 4 (15.9mm),
The bridge camera
which I use most often is the Sony RX10Mk4. This is a super high performance model which is good for almost any photographic purpose.
I wish Panasonic would produce a Lumix FZ competitor for the RX10Mk4.
The FZ1000 was class leader when it was released in 2014 and is still available but cannot keep up with the speed of the Sony.
The FZ2500 has a soft-ish lens and is not competitive with the RX10Mk4 for still photos. It appears to be a version of the HC-X1 professional video camera in a traditional still camera body shape.
Sony has no real competition in this sector at the moment.
My advanced compact
of choice is the newly released Lumix LX100Mk2. This model is not perfect but beat the Canon G1XM3 and all the Sony RX100 models for a place in my camera bag.
I have extensively reviewed and reported on the RX10Mk4 on this blog and will be starting a review series on the LX100M2 shortly.
Are fixed lens cameras obsolete ?
You might think so if you believe the nonsense being spouted by some self appointed photography experts who will assure anyone watching their videos that anything less than a full frame ILC is incapable of making decent pictures and
not worth buying.
I think that when the excited chatter about new full frame mirrorless ILCs dies down a bit
then buyers will come to realise a few basic truths, such as:
* Full frame ILCs, DSLR or MILC are big heavy expensive things and some of the lenses are even bigger and more expensive, particularly as you move
up to long focal lengths.
* Smaller, less expensive but no less sophisticated cameras with fixed zoom lenses can make excellent photos in a wide variety of conditions sufficient for
99% of requirements when used thoughtfully.
These truths lead me to believe that in due course the main camera types which enthusiast amateur photographers will prefer are the bridge and advanced compact.
In my view some of them are good enough right now but the camera makers don’t want you to realise this.
They would much prefer to sell you an ILC, preferably full frame and four lenses for about $12000 than one very capable bridge model for about
I have been using the LX100Mk2 extensively in the last week and found that it is capable of making excellent photos capable of very big enlargement in a wide range of conditions. Anybody who thinks they need more imaging capability than this camera can deliver might like to consider very carefully just what their imaging requirements actually are and how much some modern advanced compacts can achieve.
|The LX100M2 is a very good street camera allowing many frames to be made in rapid sequence.|
I have been running my new
Lumix LX100M2 through my usual tests since it arrived a week ago. I had previously owned and extensively used two copies of the original (Mk1) version of this camera.
Three were three issues which I encountered with the Mk1 version which I hoped would be rectified in the Mk2.
The one which bugged me most was misfocusing when the camera is presented with multiple specular light sources. This is a known potential issue with cameras which use contrast detect autofocus. I found it particularly bad when I asked the LX100 to focus on foliage reflecting bright sunlight.
In this situation almost every shot would misfocus.
So I made several hundred exposures deliberately forcing the Mk2 to focus on subjects which I know would have unsettled the Mk1.
To my great relief I found a misfocus rate of less than 1 in 50 frames.
So the problem is much reduced although not entirely eliminated. For instance one shot of a motorbike with lots of shiny chrome reflecting the sun did misfocus.
With subjects not having multiple specular reflections the single AF accuracy rate was around 98%.
2. Viewfinder eyepiece issues.
I have no problem with the EVF panel itself nor with its optics, although a larger window on the world would be welcome. I do not experience the “tearing” issue often cited as a problem by some reviewers.
It is the eyepiece which bugs me. It is small, thin, hard and rectangular. It is uncomfortable in use and lets in stray light in bright conditions.
Does anybody have rectangular eye sockets ?
There appears to be no accessory eyepiece available.
Unfortunately the Mk2 uses exactly the same viewfinder unit as the Mk1.
It is serviceable but could be considerably improved.
The Mk1 had a fixed panel without touch capability.
The Mk2 has a fixed panel with touch capability.
Sigh……..Problem half fixed…………….
At least the touch capability works well. I use it to move the active AF area when viewing via the monitor or the EVF.
And the screen can be viewed decently well with the camera held high or low so all is not quite lost.
There are many reports in online forums of compact camera lenses from all brands having inconsistent optical quality.
So it is with some relief that I can say I am happy with the lens on my copy of the LX100Mk2. It is very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures in a large central area of the frame. Edges are not quite as sharp wide open but clean up well when the aperture is decreased one or two stops.
The only issue which could affect picture quality in some situations is that my copy of the lens is soft with double imaging in the lower left corner at 70 and 75mm equivalent focal lengths.
The LX100M2 makes excellent pictures in a wide variety of circumstances..
It delivers very good rendition of colors, tones and detail in highlights and shadows.
It can make very good pictures indoors or outdoors, in flat light or when subject brightness range is very high. It is a very good low light camera due to the wide aperture lens.
The Raw files can tolerate considerable manipulation in Adobe Camera Raw without developing nasty artefacts such as the grey fringing I encountered with the Canon G1XM3.
There is barely any sign of color fringing or distortion, even in Raw files. Presumably these things are corrected in camera.
Even Raw files emerge from the camera looking quite sharp. Very little sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw is required.
Images from the Mk2 have a pleasing appearance with very good local contrast.
They make very nice prints.
Pixel peepers who are phobic about a bit of grain might protest but in fact the grain is generally invisible in prints.
About the user experience
This is an ideal camera for street and documentary photography. It is small, discreet, fast and very quiet even with the mechanical shutter operating.
It is decently easy to hold although I would prefer a larger handle. All the controls except the aperture ring and shutter speed dial are located so they are easy to operate while continuing to make photos.
It is easy to move the AF area quickly when viewing on the monitor or viewfinder.
I really appreciate the multiaspect ratio sensor and change aspect ratio quite frequently.
I generally use the triple A setting which is A on the aperture ring, A on the shutter speed dial and auto ISO. This is equivalent to P on a camera with a mode dial. This usually gives an appropriate firing solution (aperture x shutter speed x ISO) for general photography.
This allows me to concentrate on the subject and not be distracted by having to mess about with camera settings.
The camera is very fast and responds quickly to all user inputs. Autofocus is very fast. EVF blackout after each shot is brief.
The camera can effectively follow focus on moving subjects such as children playing for instance.
Initial impressions summary
I will be reporting on this camera in more detail over the coming weeks but for now suffice to say that my initial impressions are favourable.
The LX100M2 has taken its place in my camera bag.
|LX100M2 a good camera for street pictures|
There are some practical
steps you might want to take on receiving your new camera.
Pull on powder free disposable gloves and photograph the camera from several angles before anybody lays a hand on it. This is to ensure you have photos of a clean product for subsequent resale.
Fit a high quality 43mm protect filter on the lens. I recommend and use B+W multiresist or high level
Hoya brands but no doubt others are suitable.
Contributors to camera forums argue endlessly about this but I have never found a high grade filter to degrade image quality and the filter is much easier and safer to clean than the front element of the lens.
* Buy a spare Lumix BLG-10E battery and a Lumix or
generic battery charger. USB charging has its advantages but when you want to use the camera while charging a battery a separate charger is required.
* Prise off those nasty, irritating triangular strap connectors and their plastic protectors and secure these in a small zip lock bag for subsequent resale.
* Leave the dorky neck strap in the box and buy a cheap generic wrist strap which is much better suited to the camera’s compact dimensions.
* A sensible option might be to fit a generic monitor screen protector, provided it is compatible with the touch function.
* I use and recommend the Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 5 carry bag. This is a bit oversize for the LX100M1/2 but provides plenty of room for a microfiber cloth, spare batteries and cards.
The LX100M2 is a far
cry from the basic little compacts which were so popular just a few years ago. It is a sophisticated, fully featured model suitable for advanced amateur or professional use.
It has an extensive range of features and capabilities which make it a very versatile photographic tool.
The camera can be configured to individual user preference. This is done in the Setup Phase of use and mainly involves making settings in the menus.
The new user should download the 308 page “Operating Instructions for Advanced Features” from any Panasonic website, by following the prompts from “Support” for the product.
This is one of the better PDF user guides with clear text and diagrams, mostly clear explanations and easy jump navigation.
The LX100M2 menu system is one of the best I have seen on a camera. The graphical user interface is clear and easy to read, navigation is straightforward, the menus and submenus are clearly and logically laid out.
The custom menu is now subdivided
into Exposure, Focus/Release,
Operation, Monitor/Display and Lens/others subheadings which make sense to me as a camera user.
There is a My Menu which can be populated with user selections.
Menu Resume allows the user to quickly recall a previously used item.
In this post I will run through the menus making reference only to those items which I think require explanation beyond that available in the Operating Instructions.
Custom Set Feature
Most Lumix cameras have a Mode Dial but for reasons unknown to me
Panasonic’s product development people decided
not to use one on the LX100 Mk1/2.
If there is a Mode Dial one or more positions on the dial can be allocated to Custom Modes which can be configured by the user.
This provides a fast reliable way to quickly change a group of several functions when required.
With the LX100 models the designers have tried to retain the Custom Mode facility but without the Mode Dial.
So the Custom Mode has to be accessed via the Setup Menu, which rather defeats the whole point of the feature.
[Utilise Custom Set Feature] can be allocated to My Menu which speeds access a bit.
I have my tripod settings grouped onto C1 (ISO 200, Stabiliser off,
2 Second timer, bracketing off)
and C2 (same as C1 but with bracketing on).
The actual procedure for allocating a set of values to a Custom Mode is well enough described in the Instructions.
Unfortunately you cannot see by looking at the camera if a Custom Mode has been set.
Monitor display speed/LVF display speed
Set these to 60 fps. If 30 fps is set the preview image becomes very jerky when panning and viewfinder blackout after each shot is prolonged.
Monitor Display Note !! Look in the viewfinder and this item changes to [Viewfinder].
The LX100M1/2 and most Lumix cameras allow the user to adjust both EVF (LVF) and monitor for brightness, contrast, saturation, red tint and blue tint.
I find the monitor looks good at default settings but the EVF can require some adjustment over the first few weeks of use to achieve settings which look good to my eyes.
I leave this on A (Automatic) which seems to work well enough.
I se this to LOW and LVF/Monitor Switch to LVF/MON AUTO.
Level gauge adjust
My copy needed adjustment on receipt. The instructions are clear enough.
Allocate this to My Menu so you can access it more quickly.
I see no point in setting anything less than the maximum which is L.
If you elect to shoot JPG use only the highest setting.
The lower setting seems pointless to me. If you shoot Raw be aware that the camera automatically generates a low res JPG with the Raw file so a review image can be displayed. This will not enable sharpness to be properly evaluated in camera.
Shooting Raw+JPG overcomes this problem.
This camera presents the user with several places for controlling focus.
MF/Macro/AF lever on the lens barrel.
2. The AFS/AFF/AFC selection in the Rec Menu.
I move this to My Menu for easier access.
AFF is not the same as AFC. If AFC is used the camera continuously hunts looking for best focus. In AFF the camera finds focus then stops focussing but will refocus if it detects a change in subject distance.
My practice is to use AFS or AFC as I like to have control over the camera’s behaviour.
3. The AF Mode accessed from the left cursor button.
4. The AF/AELock
button on the back of the camera. More about this later.
Lumix cameras including the LX100 models permit extensive user configuration of JPG output. Note that Photo Style adjustments do not affect Raw files.
You can select any one of the preset styles or make your own custom style.
I use a custom Photo Style with Contrast 0, Sharpness +2, Noise Reduction -5, Saturation 0.
There have been great arguments about this on camera forums, mostly above my head. I just set Adobe RGB.
I reckon I would need a very good reason to use any setting other than [Multiple].
Some users say they prefer spot but I might find that useful only when I am doing contemplative work, preferably on a tripod to be certain of placing the spot exactly on a mid tone are of the subject. And I don’t use it even then.
I leave this on Auto so if I am using JPG capture it will operate automatically.
ISO Auto Upper Limit
Take your pick. Some people are unreasonably averse to a bit of grain in their photos which leads to them missing shots by setting the upper ISO limit too low. I use 6400.
Min Shutter Speed
This camera does not shift minimum shutter speed as the lens zooms so you might want to experiment with the minimum (slowest) shutter speed you can readily manage hand held at the wide and long ends of the zoom.
I set 1/15 which I can manage reasonably well hand held with the OIS on. Of course the OIS cannot compensate for subject movement.
I put this on Fn2. As far as I am aware, all camera makers including Panasonic
advise users to switch the stabiliser off
if the camera is on a tripod.
I set M because this is the fastest rate at which the camera will provide AF and AE and EVF preview on every frame.
You can change the burst rate setting from the down cursor key by scrolling to the burst rate then pressing the up key for more settings.
As there is no Mode Dial you access panorama via the Drive Mode on the down cursor key. For hand held auto panoramas I hold the camera in portrait orientation handle side up using the bottom of the four options for Direction and Standard Picture Size.
The camera can make very good auto panoramas but some technique and practice is required. I will post about this separately.
I use the mechanical shutter almost exclusively. There is no downside to doing so, no shutter shock and only the faintest of click sounds if electronic beeps are off.
If you want a shutter speed faster than 1/2000 sec the E Shutter is required.
This is where you set up your bracketing preferences.
There are lots of options. I bring Bracketing up to fn5 for easy access.
HDR, iZoom and Digital Zoom
only become active if quality is set to JPG.
|Recharge Here LX100M2|
The Custom Menu now has
five submenus making it easier to understand and navigate.
As in the previous post I will only mention items about which I think I have something useful to contribute beyond that which you can find in the Operating Instructions.
Both aperture and shutter speed can use 1/3 EV increments so there is little point using ISO increments smaller than 1 EV step.
The standard minimum ISO setting and the lowest setting which the camera will make in Auto ISO is 200.
Extended ISO allows ISO 100 to be set. I have yet to conduct tests to see if there is any advantage in allowing this. In some previous Lumix models using the 4/3 sensor,
ISO 100 introduced some color artefacts.
Exposure Comp Reset
If you use the exposure compensation dial then the level of compensation is whatever you see on the dial.
But it is possible to allocate EC to a Fn button. In that case you might want to set this item to ON.
This will ensure that EC resets to zero when you switch off the camera.
AF/AE Lock button function
People have different ideas about the best way to use this button. You can set it for AE Lock, AF Lock, Both or AF-ON. I use it for AF lock. This is handy for street and documentary work when I want focus to stay put for numerous exposures while people move about in the frame often between the camera and the initial focus point.
AF/AE Lock Hold
Set this ON
so the usage above will work.
This is just the usual function in which AF is activated with a half press of the shutter button. But you can disable this and
allocate AF-ON to the AF/AE Lock button.
This is the back button focus which is more often used on sport/action rigs.
Half Press Release
Switch this off or it will drive you mad.
This is an effective way to burn up battery power for no particular benefit that I can see.
Likewise Eye Sensor AF.
Pinpoint AF setting
I set Mid time and PIP display. But this feature is more useful for bird photographers with long lenses.
AF Assist Lamp
Turn this off. It is annoying and not required.
Direct Focus Area
On the original LX100 without a touch screen I always set this ON to move the active AF area. But with the Mk2 you can set this OFF, use the touch screen to move the AF area and regain the normal functions of the Cursor buttons.
I see no sense in the shutter firing if the picture is not in focus so I set this to Focus for AFS, AFF, AFC.
Focus Switching for Vert/Hor
I have this ON. The camera will separately memorise the last used AF area position for landscape and portrait orientation.
Loop Movement Focus Frame
This is described on Page 188 of the Instructions but I can’t seem to get it to do anything.
AF Area Display
You want this ON to see where the camera will focus.
Lumix cameras allow you to autofocus then adjust focus manually if desired without having to change focus mode. Set AF+MF ON to enable this and allocate MF Assist
to the lens ring. The lens ring will zoom until AF is acquired when it will switch to manual focus, with PIP (picture-in-picture)
and peaking if desired. This is a very sophisticated system which I rarely use because I find autofocus is mostly more accurate than manual focus.
Fn button Set
and Q Menu
See next post.
That’s the one around the lens barrel.
There are several functions which can be assigned to this ring but beware, the ring moves smoothly and is easily bumped while handling the camera.
I leave it at Default which is step zoom with continuous zoom on the zoom lever. I often like to zoom in steps but sometimes not.
If you set the ring to exposure comp or white balance for instance it is all too easy to bump it off the desired setting and be unaware of having done so.
If you never do video it would be nice to be able to assign some other function to this button, but you can’t.
Touch Settings I use and recommend
* Touch Screen ON
That allows the functions to work.
* Touch Tab OFF. This refers to the little flyout soft Fn buttons on the right side of the screen. Having these active will drive you mad as they are too easily bumped.
* Touch AF,
I set AF. This works when you are viewing on the monitor screen. I like to leave the shutter button half press for AE.
* Touch Pad AF,
I set OFFSET. This works when you are viewing through the viewfinder. The AF area position is easily moved by dragging the right thumb on the monitor. This system favours right eye viewers. I am a natural left eye viewer but trained myself to view with the right eye because of touch screen systems like this one. Obligatory left eye viewers might want to explore use of the Direct Focus Area function on the Cursor buttons.
Switch this OFF to speed up operation.
Monochrome Live View
This who like to make monochrome pictures can preview the appearance before pressing the shutter button.
This is to assist manual focussing. I have it ON with the Detect Level High and color blue.
However I am not entirely convinced of the value of peaking which often appears to show large areas of the frame as being in focus.
I think the histogram just clutters the screen and is distracting. I find the Zebras a much more useful guide to highlight rendition.
I find this very useful for deciding whether I have my verticals properly upright in the center of the frame. I use the lowest of the three options with the horizontal and vertical lines running through the center of the frame.
This feature should probably be located in the Playback menu. If highlights are overexposed they will flash the “blinkies” in playback.
Zebras are very useful for stills photography to determine before pressing the shutter whether highlights will be blown out. Some experience and experiment is required to make the most of this feature.
I use Zebra 1 set to 105% for Raw capture. I advise users to run their own experiments to determine which settings suite them best.
More visual clutter. OFF.
LVF/Monitor Disp. Set
Lumix cameras including the LX100 models allow extensive user configuration of the EVF and monitor. I set both to “viewfinder” style with camera data displayed on a black background below the preview image. This always gives me a clear view of the subject and the camera data and provides a seamless transition from EVF to monitor as both look the same.
If this is ON the monitor but not the EVF can display a screen with a group of settings which can be adjusted by selecting one of them by touch. Press the Disp button repeatedly to bring up the screen. It is just another way to access control to a set of functions. I never use it.
Lens Position Resume
If you want the lens to zoom to the last used position set this ON.
For many years Lumix cameras annoyed their users by retracting the lens about 15 seconds after pressing the Playback button. So if one was in the middle of a shoot the lens had to be zoomed back to the previous position and refocussed. Set Lens Retraction to OFF to prevent this.
Self Timer Auto Off
Set this to ON to ensure the self timer automatically cancels when the camera is switched off.
The LX100M2 provides a level of configuration to suit
individual users similar to that of a prosumer interchangeable lens model.
In this post I review dial and button functions.
The conceptual framework which helps me to make decisions about the huge number of options available is that camera use is in four Phases, Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review.
Actions required in Setup Phase involve menus of various kinds.
Actions in Prepare Phase involve making settings accessed by dials and buttons often aided by touch screen functions.
This usually involves changing settings in one of the modes, typically Drive Mode, Focus Mode, Autofocus Mode, stabiliser, and so forth.
In Capture Phase adjustments to primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters need to be made easily while taking photos and viewing through the EVF without disrupting the capture flow.
So I would not bring out to a function button some item which I will only adjust infrequently if ever. This can stay in a menu.
See Pages 54 and 55 of the Instructions.
This ring moves smoothly and easily. Just holding the camera in normal use will nudge it a bit.
It can be set to control any one of several functions but I just leave it at Default (Step Zoom) so I can easily see if it has moved at any stage.
There are five function buttons with user assignable effect. Each user will have his or her own ideas about how best to utilise these buttons.
If [Direct Focus Area] is assigned to the cursor buttons then ISO, AF Mode, Drive Mode and possibly WB need to be distributed between Fn buttons, Q Menu and My Menu.
Level gauge. I put the level indicator here so I can switch it on and off easily.
You can leave the Q menu as it comes with standard options. I find it more useful to use a Custom Q Menu.
* Flash adjustments (these only become active when a flash is mounted).
I have allocated to My Menu:
* Min Shutter Speed.
This works if auto ISO is set.
If a specific ISO is set
Min SS is disabled.
* Utilise Custom Set feature
|Hand held auto pano LX100M2|
The LX100M2 is a more capable camera than you might
imagine given its small size and lack of promotion.
This post explores some of its capabilities.
I rated the original LX100 as the best auto panorama camera I had ever used.
The Mk2 is just as capable and the extra pixels allow it to reveal a bit more detail.
However the Mk2 requires a little more attention to good technique if the best possible results are to be achieved.
The camera can do very good auto panoramas in bright or dull light, indoors or outdoors, backlit or frontlit, with a variety of subjects.
As always with auto pano,
architectural oblique lines cause the most stitching problems.
In the Panorama Settings I use Standard picture size and the lowest of the four direction options with the arrow pointing down.
I hold the camera in portrait orientation, handle up and swing from left to right for horizontal panoramas.
For vertical panoramas I hold the camera in landscape orientation and sweep from top to bottom.
When handholding my practice is to:
* Pick an area of the subject on which to focus and set exposure. With the AF area in the center of the frame point the AF area at the selected subject area and half press the shutter button to lock in focus and exposure.
The final picture is a JPG so be aware that blown highlights cannot be recovered but dark shadows can be lifted.
* Swing the camera left to the start point of the pano sweep while holding the shutter half pressed.
* Fully depress the shutter and slowly and smoothly swing the camera to the right until the shutter sounds cease.
It is very important to achieve and maintain the optimum speed of swing. Several, possibly many, practice runs will be required to gain familiarity with this.
* The camera can be tilted down or up (hold the same angle throughout the swing) but must be held vertical
On a tripod my practice is the same but the camera is easier to control when panning on the tripod.
Post capture I often run the photo through the Camera Raw Filter in Photoshop for adjustment to tonal relationships and sometimes color balance.
|It was a very dark night. The only light sources are those you see in the frame. I could see no detail at all in the dark shadow areas as I was making the shot. LX100M2 Hand held, ISO 800, 1/15 sec F1.7.|
The shadows pulled up decently well in Adobe Camera Raw.
The LX100M2 can autofocus in very dark conditions so is suitable for low light work. The wide lens aperture of f1.7-2.8 helps as do the RAW files which behave well in Adobe Camera Raw.
The Optical Image Stabiliser is a bonus, allowing moderate ISO settings to be used even in very low light.
Obsessional photographers seeking grainless pictures at high ISO settings should look elsewhere.
Those with the more practical aim of making good photos will be well pleased I think.
Some contributors to online forums appear to spend more time pixel peeping at 100% on a large monitor screen than they spend making and displaying actual photos.
I realised years ago that a bit of grain is no impediment at all to the creation of good prints.
In AFC and Burst Mode M the LX100M2 can readily follow focus on moving subjects. It can readily manage children running about at play.
On my tests it can reliably hold focus on motor vehicles approaching or moving away from the camera.
I have used the original LX100 for boys basketball with reasonable success. I find it best to lock focus at a suitable distance with AF Lock on the AF/AE Lock button and AF Lock hold ON.
With focus locked and the shutter speed on Shutter Priority at 1/500 second I hang about near one end of the playing area and start shooting when the players come within range.
I have managed some decent shots this way.
Many LX100 users including me were disappointed
that the Mk2 did not get an upgraded EVF and an articulated monitor.
However there have been some upgrades to the user interface which make the Mk2 a more engaging camera for the enthusiast photographer than the original.
The graphical user interface for the menus is very nice, clear, sharp and easy to read.
Menu content is at the better end of the spectrum. Menus and submenus are logically arranged, meaningful to a photographer and easy to navigate.
There are few mystery items.
There is a My Menu with user assignable content. Menu Resume operates to make finding items easier.
Prepare Phase Score 12/15
There are dedicated, well located controls for the most used modes.
Drive mode, focus mode, autofocus mode, stabiliser…etc can be adjusted quickly and easily.
There is a Q Menu with user assignable functions and five Function buttons.
The absence of a mode dial means that access to custom modes and auto panorama takes more button presses than is the case on other cameras.
Capture Phase, Holding Score 12/20
The camera is acceptably secure in hand for a compact with a mini handle and a small thumb support. But a camera this shape can never be as comfortable or secure as one with a fully anatomical handle.
Capture Phase, Viewing Score 11/20
With an uncomfortable, thin, hard
eyecup and a fixed monitor the LX100M2 has no chance of achieving a high viewing score. The EVF could be larger to advantage and there have been many requests from users for a fully articulated monitor or at least a flip up-down one.
On the plus side both the monitor and EVF are extensively adjustable to suit individual preference.
Capture Phase, Operating Score 13/25
It is possible but awkward and difficult to change aperture while viewing through the viewfinder. In doing so I almost always bump the lens control ring causing a change to whatever function is assigned to the ring. Likewise it is possible but awkward to change shutter speed while looking through the viewfinder.
I find it much more practical to accept that on this camera the process of changing aperture and shutter speed are best regarded as Prepare Phase activities, not Capture Phase as they should optimally be and are on most mainstream enthusiast and professional cameras.
Other tasks of Capture Phase can be completed in a more streamlined fashion, aided considerably by the touch screen. These include zoom, exposure compensation, change position and size of active AF area.
The camera does most things I expect it to do. Playback of captured images is easily and efficiently managed. It is easy to scroll from one enlarged review image to the next.
Panasonic could improve the review experience by adopting Sony’s “jump-to-focus-point-at-100%-with-one pull-on-the-zoom-lever” feature which makes the review process even more streamlined.
This is not bad for a compact and an improvement on the original LX100 score of 54.
For comparison the Sony RX100Mk4 scores 52 and the Canon G1XM3 scores 68.
However there some operational issues with the Canon which make the LX100M2 overall a more engaging camera to use in my view. I will discuss these further in a subsequent post.
The appeal of the LX100M2 is enhanced by features like the multiaspect ratio sensor and the number of external hard controls.
How could the Lumix development team improve the LX100M2 ergonomics ?
Easy- completely redesign the exterior shape and configuration.
The present body shape and control layout are hopelessly antediluvian, a pastiche of some famous manual cameras from the mid 20th
Century and completely unsuited to supporting the capabilities and operation of a modern electronic camera.
Check out the top scoring cameras on my ergonomic score list. Each has a shape and control layout completely different to the LX100M1/2.
In December last year
I posted a comparison between the Lumix LX100 (original), Canon G1XM3 and Sony RX100M4. You can read this here.
This post is an update of that comparison with the LX100M2 replacing the LX100(original).
The LX100M2 uses the same body, EVF, lens and controls (with minor changes) as the original.
Improvements come in the form of a new sensor with more pixels and better high ISO performance, a new processor, improved autofocus and a new monitor with touchscreen capability.
These improvements are modest and have disappointed some LX100 users but they do provide the Mk2 with an improved user experience and slightly better image quality.
In the meantime I have been using the G1XM3 and discovering that some of its little quirks can be more annoying than I first realised.
|From the left, Canon G1XM3, Lumix LX100M2, Sony RX100M4|
Image quality from these three cameras is so similar that only pixel peeping at high magnification can distinguish one from the other.
The choice between them is based on features, capabilities, performance and the user experience.
The Sony RX100
series, in this case the Mk4 which I own and tested, delivers essentially the same
imaging capability as the other two cameras but in a smaller package.
The RX100 cameras are very easy to carry.
They are also the best performers in fully automatic mode with the best auto ISO algorithms in P Mode.
If you want a compact, utilitarian device which can make very nice photos with little need for user control, the RX100 Mk 3, 4 or 5 or even 6 can do a very competent job.
However it seems to me that if a utilitarian device is required maybe a smartphone might be even better.
The other issue many enthusiast photographers have reported is that the RX100 models are not particularly nice to hold or operate. In addition the pop-up EVF can become a nuisance after a while.
The Canon G1XMk3
Our family bought a G1X(original) several years ago and were mightily underwhelmed by its capabilities, performance and user experience.
We passed on the Mk2 (no viewfinder) but did get and have been using a Mk3.
This has many improvements over both the previous versions and in many respects is now a competent device.
But to me it appears to be an answer looking for a question.
It is not super compact like the RX100 series.
It has a small aperture (f2.8-5.6) lens and a sensor which is no better at high ISO settings than the LX100M2 so it is not well suited to low light work.
In operation it has some quirks which diminish the user experience.
Each of these is minor but together they are significant. The mode dial has a lock button which has to be pressed before it will turn. In P mode the camera behaves erratically sometimes selecting ISO 800 outdoors and sometimes 100.
This forces the user to set A mode which is more reliable. But the auto ISO algorithm is very basic so I often have to switch to S mode indoors.
The front dial is covered by the middle finger when the camera is held normally so I must shift my hand down to work the dial.
Raw files are quite prone to green/purple fringing at high contrast edges.
The list goes on but you get the idea.
Canon got some things right with the G1X3. The DPAF is very reliable. It ticks several boxes for specifications like the built in EVF with a decent eyecup.
It is the best of the three models here for vloggers with a fully articulated monitor and mic socket.
But after spending a year with it I find the G1X3 to be somewhat less than the sum of its parts. Which is a pity because if Canon had been bolder with the design it might have been much more appealing.
I rate this as the least unsatisfactory of a compromised trio of models and the one most likely to appeal to enthusiast users.
My apologies to fervent LX100 lovers, of whom there are a few out there, but “least unsatisfactory” is the best I can say about a camera with plenty of
issues which could have been fixed by the manufacturer but have not.
The touch screen does improve usability considerably. The AF area can be moved quickly and easily.
The cursor buttons can retain their labelled functions.
The modest improvement in image quality is appreciated. On my tests with Raw files at ISO 6400 (which by the way I hardly ever need to use on theLX100M2 because of the wide aperture lens) I rated the LX100M2 as having the least amount of luminance noise, the G1X3 had about ¼ stop more noise and the RX100M4 about 1/3 stop more noise than the G1X3.
Autofocus on the Mk2 is more reliable than the original.
All these things are welcome and just get the LX100M2 over the line as my recommendation for best currently available enthusiast/advanced zoom compact for general photography, street, family and documentary work.
It has the trademark Lumix multi-aspect-ratio sensor, a fast processor, is responsive, interesting to use with lots of external controls, gives a reliable firing solution (aperture x shutter speed x ISO) in P mode (actually A-A-A mode as there is no mode dial) and it makes nice looking pictures.
|The LX100M2 can produce pictures with lots of fine detail if required.|
As I go
out and about in Sydney I often see tourists with a small interchangeable lens camera fitted with a kit zoom. There is no camera bag in sight indicating that the kit zoom is a fixture on that camera.
There have been several posts on user forums recently deriding the Lumix LX100M2 and stating forcefully that buyers would do better to invest in (…insert your favourite small ILC body..) with a standard kit lens.
For many years that was basically my practice although I often preferred to use a higher spec lens in place of the kit option.
That was in the days when compact cameras used small sensors, typically having a diagonal measurement of 7.7mm (a.k.a. ½.3inch),
9.6mm (1/1.7 inch) or 11mm (2/3 inch).
Thanks to improvements in lens making and other technologies we now have compacts with sensors having a diagonal of 15.9mm (one inch), 19.3mm (cropped 4/3), 27/28mm (APSC) and 43mm (the old 35mm standard, now somewhat confusingly known as full frame).
These deliver much better image quality than the old small sensor compacts.
Several models using the 28 and 43mm sensors have a single focal length lens and are highly regarded by users with something of a purist approach to photography which embraces the fixed focal length ethic.
I find the “two foot zoom” does not always work for me so I prefer cameras which have a high quality zoom lens.
This approach has led me to the Lumix LX100M2 which is now my preferred camera when a focal length in the (equivalent) 24-75mm range is required.
However I also happen to have in my camera drawer a Lumix G85 MILC with two lenses, the 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 standard kit lens and a 12-35mm f2.8 lens which has a wider aperture, higher build quality and is much more expensive.
This gives me two ILC kits which I tested together with the LX100M2.
|G85 with 14-42mm on the left, LX100M2 on the right|
Which functions best as a stand-alone general purpose camera for an enthusiast user ?
This is a bit like comparing apples to oranges but here goes anyway.
Retail prices, AUD, GST paid in Sydney today are:
4 years from release
2 years from release. Lens about 5 years
Lens about 5 years from release
I put the LX100 Mk1 in there for comparison with the Mk2.
|G85 with 12-35mm on the left, LX100M2 on the right|
Advantages of the ILC based unit
The G85 in particular has many endearing features. It has very good ergonomics. The handle is well shaped, secure and comfortable, as is the thumb rest. The twin dial control layout allows very good user control of all capture parameters without having to change grip or take the camera away from the eye.
The EVF is very good with a nice eyepiece.
The monitor is fully articulated and touch sensitive.
The body has IBIS which when a lens with OIS is mounted enables dual IS which to my surprise actually works and is like magic.
Disadvantages of the ILC based unit
With either lens it is considerably larger than the LX100M2.
The 14-42mm lens has an aperture which is 2 stops (EV steps) smaller (higher f number) than the LX100. This is no great matter outdoors in good light but indoors and in low light the small aperture forces higher ISO settings than the LX100 can use.
Mounting the 12-35mm f2.8 makes the kit considerably more expensive as the lens alone costs $968.
Even with the 12-35mm the LX100 models still have a larger aperture (f1.7) towards the wide end of the zoom.
When I switch back and forth between fixed lens and interchangeable lens models I notice than the fixed lens models respond more quickly to pressing the shutter button. This is because the fixed lens models have a diaphragm type leaf shutter in the lens which is much smaller and has less inertia than the focal plane shutter of an ILC.
That same focal plane shutter makes more noise when it activates than a leaf shutter. The one in the LX100M1/2 is barely audible if you switch off the electronic shutter sounds.
Most lenses for ILCs utilise manual zooming. Some users say they prefer this to the power zoom used in fixed lens models. However having used both for many years I prefer the power zoom because I can work it with one finger.
Advantages of the LX100 Compact models
Smaller, lighter and less expensive for any comparable lens focal length/aperture combination.
More responsive to shutter button action.
Fast and quiet. Relatively inconspicuous on the street.
Disadvantages of the LX100 M1/2
Viewfinder eyepiece uncomfortable, wrong shape, thin, hard.
Note: I deal with this by curling my left index finger around the eyecup providing a sort of bionic accessory eyecup which is reasonably comfortable and puts my left eye at about the right distance from the eyepiece optics.
Mini handle gives user a less secure grip. (but still acceptable )
Lens and image quality comparison
The 20Mpx sensor in the LX100M2 is said to be the same as that in the GX9. With the crop that gives the LX100M2 and the G85 approximately the same pixel count.
The 12-35mm f2.8 is the most expensive lens so it should be the best and it is but by a smaller margin than you might expect.
The main difference between the three lenses is their aperture range. At matched apertures I find it difficult to pick which lens made which picture without consulting the exif data.
The 12-35mm is a bit sharper at the edges than the 10.9-34mm f1.7-2.8 unit in the LX100M1/2, most apparent at the largest apertures (smallest f numbers).
Outdoors there is not much difference between them.
Differences in picture quality will depend much more on practical matters like whether the camera was held steady at the point of exposure.
Indoors the LX100M2 wins with its smaller f numbers at the wide end of the zoom.
But the G85 has dual IS which works well.
One’s choice comes down to personal preference about kit size and the need for indoor/low light capability.
Each of the three kits compared in this post can make fine photos.
You pays yer money and makes yer choice.
Postscript: What about the Lumix GX9 ?
Over the years I have bought and used several of these flat top “rangerfinder-esque” M43 cameras and disliked all of them.
So I passed on the GX9.
I am aware that these cameras have quite a following among M43 camera users,I just don’t get it. They have a mini handle not a proper ergonomic one, they have less real estate on which to locate primary controls like twin dials and they often utilise stacked dials for that reason. They have small, thin viewfinder eyepieces which require an accessory eyepiece for comfortable viewing.
For all that as soon as you mount a lens the depth of the body+lens is the same as one of the hump-top “dslr-esque-with-proper-handle” models which I prefer.
|LX100M2. Focus Stacking. The depth of focus in this composite is about five centimeters, impossible to achieve with a single capture. I chose a difficult subject with lots of fine detail. The camera stitched it all together with no problems as long as the flower was perfectly still for the 4K burst.|
One of the reasons I
like Lumix cameras is that they have many features and capabilities gathered together into an attractive package.
The subject of this post is
Focus Stacking which is enabled by the 4K Photo capability which most Lumix cameras have these days.
Each of the 4K Photo options utilises the camera’s 4K capability to make a burst of pictures each of about 8 Mpx at 30 frames per second and to save or merge these as required.
A crop frame is used so at the wide end of the zoom
the focal length is equivalent to 31mm.
The instructions for the 4K Photo features are well described in the “Quick Guide for 4K Photo” which comes as a separate leaflet in the box.
The LX100M1/2 can get very close to a subject when the lever on the lens barrel is set to Macro. But depth of focus is always an issue with single shot photos.
Focus stacking permits a greatly increased effective depth of focus with close up subjects.
For best results both the camera and subject should be perfectly still so placing the camera on a tripod is desirable.
Select the [Post Focus] icon on Drive Mode, select an aperture (I used f4 for the photo above) and aspect ratio and press the shutter button.
The camera very quickly makes a series of pictures each one focussed on a different part of the frame.
Press the F1 button and select the [Auto] blending option. The camera makes its calculations and produces a finished JPG file in about two seconds.
I generally run this through the Camera Raw filter for final adjustments to tonal balance and minor sharpening.
The results can be very good.
Some experiment with subject selection and camera settings may be required for best results.
Focus stacking is one of those features which might appear to be a gimmick at first but actually proves to be a useful photographic tool.
|LX100M2. You can see by the sharp edged shadow of her shoes that the lady is in direct sun coming through the skylight and falling on her hair. The background is very dark with no direct illumination. RAW capture. With a bit of adjustment to the brightness, highlight, shadow and contrast sliders in ACR a good result has been possible.|
One argument often made in favour of cameras with a
large sensor is greater dynamic range [DR]
(ability to render detail in highlights and shadows).
This is generally true but if the smaller sensor has sufficient DR for the user’s purposes then the old adage “good enough is good enough” applies (actually I just made that up).
|LX100M2. Very high subject brightness range here with sun coming through the skylight and falling directly on the people in the right mid section of the frame. I would normally not bother to press the shutter button when the light is like this as a rather unappealing photo would be the result with any camera. However I include it here to show that the LX100M2 can cope with the technical challenge. RAW capture and use of the sliders in ACR to the limit of their range.|
Although the file has been heavily manipulated it remains clean and free from visible artefacts. Only minor correction of color fringing was required.
I like to use the LX100M2 for street and documentary photos. These often present the camera with subjects having a very high brightness range which is out of the photographer’s control.
So “good enough” for my purposes means very good.
Here are some pictures which show the capability of the LX100M2 in situations where there is high subject brightness range.
|ISO 200, RAW, adjusted in ACR. Subject brightness range was very high. I judged exposure with the zebras. |
Using the Zebras for exposure assessment
Lumix cameras have zebras which can be very useful for adjusting exposure to prevent highlight blowout without undue underexposure.
I recommend readers run their own tests but my practice is:
* I set Zebra 1 to 105% for RAW capture.
* I turn the exposure compensation dial down until the zebras no longer flash on the brightest part of the scene.
* I then turn the EC dial back up 1/3 EV step until the zebras just start flashing again. That is my exposure.
|ISO 1600 normal exposure edited in ACR. more noise and less dynamic range than ISO 200 with normal exposure.|
In recent times some camera testers have developed the practice of
stress testing sensors to see how they respond to severe under or over exposure with subsequent brightness correction in Adobe Camera Raw.
I am not convinced this is particularly useful but I tried it anyway.
Cameras which use current micro four thirds sensors (21.6mm) have a maximum 12 bit per channel output. Most 43mm (a.k.a. full frame) sensors can output at 14 bits per channel.
This gives the larger sensors greater flexibility for manipulation using the sliders in Camera Raw.
Some reviewers report good results from 43mm sensors with 5 EV steps of underexposure.
This is not feasible with M43 sensor cameras but no matter,
they can still make good pictures if normal exposure is used.
|ISO 200 underexposed 3 stops. Lightness corrected in ACR.|
As you can see this is not a good result.
1. The LX100M2 and recent M43 cameras can make good photos when subject brightness range is very high provided that:
* Optimal exposure is achieved without blowing out highlights. The zebras are useful for achieving this.
2. In low light increasing ISO at the point of capture gives much better results than underexposing at ISO 200 then using the sliders in ACR to correct image lightness.
|The LX100M2 is a very capable street and documentary camera, fast and responsive with good dynamic range and image quality.|
makes the EC5 eyecup as an accessory for the Lumix GX9 micro four thirds camera.
Unfortunately there appears to be no dedicated accessory eyecup for the LX100 original or Mk2.
I bought an EC5 and modified it to fit the LX100Mk2.
This required a bit of minor surgery and the result is not exactly elegant but it does work and greatly improves the user experience when looking through the viewfinder.
If nothing else the success of the EC5 reinforces my view that some kind of accessory eyecup for the LX100 original and Mk2 and also Leica D Lux 7 would be welcomed by users who are not so happy with the standard, thin, hard, rectangular eyecup.
A dedicated accessory eyecup for the LX100 would be smaller than the EC5 and of course it would fit properly but if well designed could greatly improve the viewing experience.
|This is the minor surgery. I cut 6.5mm off the front of the EC5 so it could fit on the LX100. |
As the EC5 is so large relative to the size of the camera I had to look at a different carry bag.
I usually carry the LX100 Mk1/2 in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 5 but with the EC5 fitted this becomes a bit small so
I am experimenting with a Lowe Pro Apex 100 AW with the interior divider removed.
|Here is the EC5 in place without anything to restrain it.|
We need some means to hold the modified eyecup in place. I tried a small cable tie but that was not successful. In the end rubber bands worked reasonably well.
I can remove the eyecup should adjustment to the eyepiece diopter be required.
|I could not find any black rubber bands. This lash-up is reasonably secure for normal use but will not tolerate rough handling. I did not want to glue the EC5 in place as modifications like that have an adverse effect on resale value.|
|B Line D-Lux 7|
Leica and Panasonic have had a collaborative relationship for several years. Some lenses for Panasonic Lumix cameras bear the Leica label and some
Lumix fixed lens camera models have been released with the Leica brand and sold through the Leica international network.
The latest of these to hit the retail shelves is the Leica D-Lux 7 which is made by Panasonic and is essentially a rebranded Lumix LX100M2.
There has been some speculation on user forums about differences between the Leica and Lumix versions of this camera.
I have both cameras and have identified several points of difference.
The most obvious is the price.
Today the LX100M2 is listed by one well known Sydney camera outlet at $1300. The same outlet has the D-Lux 7 at $1850. The accessory handgrip which I regard as essential for comfortable and secure operation is $120.
This pitches the Leica at a 50% premium over the Lumix, with no deals or discounts as the Leica became available in Australia only three days ago.
What do you get for the extra outlay ?
Mostly cosmetic changes which I will detail below.
In addition Leica Australia offers a 3 year warranty and Leica Elements membership which the Leica sales person assured me would entitle me to a sensor clean once a year, even on the D-Lux which has a fixed lens.
After several hundred exposures and side by side testing of the two cameras I have been unable to find any significant difference in specifications, features, capabilities, image quality,
lens quality or performance.
In particular I found
JPGs of matched subjects to be identical in appearance at ISO 200 and ISO 3200 on my comparisons using the same subject, same exposure and controlled conditions.
I used Custom Photo Style: Contrast 0, Sharpness +3, Noise reduction -5, Saturation 0, for both cameras.
Adobe Camera Raw does not yet support the D-Lux 7 .RWL files so I have no comment about the RAWs at this stage.
The EVF and monitor appear to be identical. I did find the Leica EVF required slightly different adjustments to suit my preferences but that may have been sample variation. Or maybe the Leica EVF setup is slightly different from the Lumix.
The Leica goes for a red border on the AF area, the Lumix has the usual yellow. In use I find the yellow slightly easier to see, but there is not much in it.
The menus have the same content but arranged by slightly different subheadings.
There are minor differences in the colors and style of the graphical user interface with the Leica going for red accents presumably to match the red dot and Lumix favouring yellows and other colors like purple.
I prefer the Lumix style but there is no functional difference between them.
The D-Lux 7 without handle weighs 415 grams, with handle 485 grams.
The Lumix LX100M2 with attached handle, presumably stuck on with adhesive,
weighs 420 grams.
Both cameras were weighed with filter, lens cap, battery and memory card in place.
The reason I bought the Leica is that it is sold without a handle. This enables the Leica accessory handle to be fitted. This is taller (63mm vs 47mm) and deeper (10mm vs 4mm) than the fixed handle on the LX100M2 and also adds 8mm to the height of the unit.
These figures might not sound like much to read about but the benefit of the larger handle is considerable.
It provides a much more secure hold on the camera. I can carry the camera by the handle which my desired practice. It gives a shutter button height of 75mm which is actually more than the Lumix G85 shutter which is 72mm above the base.
This allows my average adult male hand to get all four gripper fingers on the handle should I wish. In fact I usually tuck my little finger underneath but the height is there to use if I want it.
With the handle fitted the D-Lux 7 feels like a proper camera not a toy.
It is a pleasure to use.
The only downside of the handle apart from having to buy the D-Lux on which to fit it is that it must be removed to change battery or memory card. It does have a tripod socket.
Now for the cosmetic stuff.
You can have the D-Lux 7 in boring black, but why would you when the more visually appealing black/silver version is available.
There is the red dot of course.
The D-Lux 7 has a different top plate with sharper edges. The EVF eyepiece housing is slightly different to match the top plate. The hotshoe cover is neater, hiding the rear end of the metal parts.
The shutter speed and exposure compensation dials are about 0.5mm taller and have vertical grooves, not the cross-hatch style on the Lumix.
The shutter button assembly is about 1mm taller and the zoom lever has more prominent vertical groves.
The markings on the dials are finer and black-on-silver. The exposure compensation dial on my copy of the Leica is a bit easier to turn which may or may not be an advantage.
I have bumped it once while carrying the camera.
The left side of the Leica is different. It is rounded with no chamfer in front of the viewfinder. This adds 3 mm to the width.
The thumb support on the Leica is a slightly different shape and has a different surface texture.
The buttons on the rear of the Lumix are round, those on the Leica are rectangular. There are subtle differences in their height above the body.
The lens assembly, viewfinder and optics and baseplate appear to be identical.
The battery is labelled Leica but is likely a rebranded Panasonic item.
So that’s it. If there are other differences I have yet to find them.
Is the Leica version worth the considerably greater price ?
Of course not, the two cameras make identical pictures and are the same inside.
But buying a Leica is never logical.
I got mine for the handle. Well, that’s my excuse and it is nicer to hold and operate than the Lumix.
Anyway Christmas is coming.
|9-18mm at 9mm on Lumix G85, hand held. The sky was very clear with direct sun above and behind the mangroves. Some lenses would be unable to delineate the thousands of leaves each reflecting sunlight. But the 9-18 manages well holding detail everywhere.|
The Micro Four Thirds
system started in 2008 with cameras and lenses from Panasonic (Lumix) and Olympus.
Since then a total of more than 90 lenses for the M43 system have been released,
from Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Laowa, Sigma, Kowa, Cosina,
Rokinon, 7 Artisans, Opteka and Tokina.
B&H in New York lists 13 super-wide and ultra-wide lenses available for the M43 system: 4 zooms, 3 rectilinear primes and 6 fisheyes. None of these has lens IS so they are best used on a body with IBIS.
|This is a heavy crop of the right mid section of the photo above showing the ability of the lens to hold detail in this difficult subject.|
* Olympus M.Zuiko 7-14mm f2.8. This is the largest and most expensive of the group with the highest specification. The front element is dome type.
* Pana-Leica 8-18mm f2.8-4. This one is not quite as wide or expensive and the aperture is not constant but a standard 67mm filter can be fitted.
* Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm f4. This was introduced early in the history of the M43 system and is still available new. The front element is dome type. This is still a very good choice for an ultrawide zoom at a lower price/size/aperture point than the M.Zuiko f2.8.
* The subject of this post, the M. Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 was released in 2010.
I think it is one of the best expressions of the original concept of the M43 system.
This was and I hope still is (although recent products make one wonder), for a camera/lens system which is small, light and moderately priced yet capable of making excellent pictures.
|Hand held Good detail, good highlight and shadow rendition, good rendition of details into the corners. It would be hard to improve on this with any camera system or lens.|
The M.Zuiko 9-18mm is the smallest, lightest and least expensive of the super wide zooms by a considerable margin.
The dimensions are diameter: 55mm
50mm bare, 60mm with front and rear caps,
165 grams with caps.
The lens accepts a standard 52mm screw in filter.
It is remarkably diminutive for a superwide zoom and small enough to slip into a pocket or otherwise vacant corner of a small camera bag.
It uses a collapsing barrel design to reduce size when not in use.
|Everything looks sharp and clear here, hand held.|
I wanted a compact, not-too-expensive ultrawide for the occasional times when I want to make a picture for which my usual lenses are not wide enough.
The M.Zuiko 9-18mm appeared to fit this bill so I bought one when it was on special.
I have to say some of the published reviews of this lens made me wonder if I was wasting my money.
I also noted some disparaging remarks about the lens on user forums.
Like all the other super/ultra wide M43 lenses the 9-18mm lacks an image stabiliser so is best used on a body with in-body-stabiliser [IBIS].
I have been using the Lumix G85 which has proven to be a good match for the lens. This camera also has a fully articulated monitor which makes it easy to check pictures in landscape or portrait orientation for accurate vertical/horizontal alignment.
|Hand held at 9mm|
The mount is metal but the rest of the housing appears to be lightweight plastic. There is nothing wrong with this but I have seen reports that the twist-to-extend mechanism could be susceptible to failure. Whether this is true or not it would seem prudent to treat such a lightweight construction carefully. It would not be the first choice for professional or hire use.
Unusually the lens barrel extends most at the wide end and least at the long end.
Zoom and manual focus actions are smooth.
No lens hood is supplied in the box.
My copy is very sharp in a large central circle, decently sharp at the edges and soft in the extreme corners. In the majority of photos this softness will not be evident or at least not problematic for the integrity of the image.
The best aperture for sharpness appears to be about 2/3 stop less than the maximum available at each focal length.
Looking at many photos taken in different situations I have been impressed by the sharpness and clarity of the images.
|Hand held, high subject brightness range|
Ultrawides can be prone to flare but the 9-18mm is not.
Local contrast is excellent. The lens can clearly resolve high contrast edge details with no smearing or local flare.
It is possible to induce veiling flare with the sun or other bright light source at or near the frame edge but this is true of almost any lens.
On the Lumix G85 there is mild barrel distortion at the wide end. This is even in curvature so is easily corrected for architectural work in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom.
can be seen in some high contrast situations towards the corners but generally fringing is not an issue.
One of the few potentially problematic issues I encountered with this lens is a tendency to misfocus when the AF area is placed over a part of the subject with multiple small specular highlights.
I found it desirable to move the AF area off such subject elements for reliable focussing.
The lens will focus very close if desired, close enough for flowers certainly.
One of the downsides of the diminutive size of this lens is the relatively small aperture. This is no problem outdoors or in well
lit interiors but limits hand held use in dimly lit situations. This will not be an issue if the camera is on a tripod as is often the case for architectural work.
The other issue is that the range of useful lens apertures is restricted. Best sharpness is around f5-f7.1 and diffraction starts to impair resolution after about f8-f11.
The M.Zuiko 9-18mm lens is better than its reputation might suggest.
Within its focal length and aperture range it can be used to make excellent photos capable of great enlargement.
I recommend this lens for the enthusiast Micro Four Thirds user who has occasional need of a superwide zoom.
The other three zooms are larger and more expensive.
Most of the primes are fisheyes which have their uses but are not suitable if you want a rectilinear representation of the subject.
I have seen several positive reviews of the Venus Optics Laowa 7.5mm f2. This is very compact, rectilinear and can take a 46mm standard screw in filter, although there may be corner clipping unless the filter is very thin.
Overall sharpness is reported to be very high particularly in a large central circle of the frame.
Focus and aperture selection are fully manual. There are no electrical contacts.
It is a bit more expensive than the M.Zuiko 9-18mm.
But worth consideration I think.
|Leica D-Lux 7|
2018 has been the year
each of the big camera makers made their move into “full frame” (24x36mm with a diagonal of 43mm) sensor mirrorless.
Actually Sony made that move 5 years ago and Panasonic will do so early in 2019 we are told.
The question which I put in this post is why ?
I watched Chris Nicholls’ D P Review video of the Nikon (Nycon, Neekon, take
Zee (or Zed, whatever) 6 camera recently. As usual I found this useful as the emphasis of these video reviews is on the user experience.
In a world when just about any camera can make good pictures that becomes the key differentiator between various models.
Chris pointed out that the Z6 is not much good at follow focussing on moving subjects and the AF struggles in low light. It also lacks a flip out screen suitable for portrait orientation of the camera.
I though to myself, hang on….my little Lumix G85 can do all those things with no trouble at all and it costs about half as much. It also has dual IS which works like a charm.
Prices vary with specials and deals but today one major Australian vendor is offering the Z6 with 24-70mm f4 lens for $4199.
The Sony and Canon approximate equivalents are more expensive.
The same vendor has the G85 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 at $2136.
So what do the 43mm sensor cameras offer to justify their considerable price premium over Micro Four Thirds models ?
As best I can tell, the answer is “not much”.
Using the DPR Image Comparison Tool I compared a current mid range M43 model, the Lumix GX9 with the Nikon Z6, Sony A7Mk3 and Canon EOS R.
I can see very little difference between them apart from more high ISO luminance noise in the GX9 images.
In the context of
user practice that is less significant than the numbers might suggest due to depth of focus considerations.
A M43 camera will have about the same depth of focus at f2.8 as a full frame one at f5.6.
This means that in low light the full frame model has to use an ISO setting two EV steps higher to compensate for the smaller lens aperture.
The result is that there is little perceptible difference between them in the output pictures.
Outdoors in bright light the full frame models will have a bit more dynamic range than the M43 ones.
M43 has enough
DR for the subject, and it mostly does, then the technical advantage of the larger sensor is not able to be expressed in the actual output.
On thoughtful consideration it seems to me that the only ineluctable difference between full frame and M43 is that it is easier to get blurry backgrounds with full frame.
This might be an advantage for instance with sports in front of a messy, busy background.
Or it might be a disadvantage if you want everything in focus as is often the case with documentary work.
Now here comes computational imaging which is finding ways to blur backgrounds in convincing fashion so maybe even that which is ineluctable today will become commonplace tomorrow.
So why the rush to full frame mirrorless ?
This is all complete speculation on my part so don’t take any of what follows seriously.
The first question is why mirrorless
That one is easy to answer. The DSLR has reached the end of its evolutionary journey. The only way to improve camera capability, improve the user experience
and reduce manufacturing costs is to go mirrorless.
The only surprise is that it took Canon and Nikon so long to make the move.
The next question is why full frame ?
1. It seems to me that one reason which is relevant to all the manufacturers is that there is more profit per unit on high price items.
2. Camera makers want to separate themselves as far as possible from smart phones. My guess is they want to take all cameras upmarket into the prestige arena.
3. It seems pretty clear that Canon and Nikon never wanted to go down the APS-C pathway in the first place but were forced there by sensor manufacturing costs. Both companies have shown half
hearted support for their crop sensor lines.
It would not surprise me at all if Canon and Nikon were to quietly phase out support for their APSC lines.
Sony wants to be number one in the camera market which means number one in the mirrorless full frame sector and they appear to have succeeded.
they need to do now is design products which people actually enjoy using.
Panasonic says they intend to deliver 8K video by 2020 and they cannot do this on the Micro Four Thirds platform.
Technically this seems logical but it leaves me wondering “who wants/needs 8K video”.
Hardly anybody owns an 8K TV set or even a 4K one so why the push for 8K ?
Again this is just me guessing but maybe the goal is to create a seamless blend between still and video. The user just presses the button and decides later if
32Mpx stills or video are required.
We live in interesting times.
have the luxury of being able to make good pictures from almost any camera
they might decide to buy.
My frustration is that nobody
is making the camera I want to buy. More about this in the next post.