Most Promising and Puzzling Cameras of 2012

The blogger's Imperative  The process of creating and maintaining a blog like this one involves considerable labour. Most of the articles I publish consist of  a carefully worded summary of detailed observations. But just occasionally one has to loosen the shackles of self imposed restraint and express personal opinions more freely. I did this with "MILC, Gap Filler or Distruptive Innovation" published in November and  the three part part "MILC 4th Birthday Progress Report" in December. Most camera website and blog proprietors have a shot at "Year's Best Camera" evaluation, so here is mine, albeit in a different format from most.

Introduction  The reported number of cameras sold in 2012 declined in favour of smart phones. Some of the big name makers are in serious financial trouble. Despite or maybe because of this there were many new and  interesting products  released during the year.  It appears manufacturers are trying to come up with something special to revitalise consumer's interest in cameras.

Best ?  I decided that any attempt to declare a "Best" camera was an enterprise doomed to fail as each individual has a different set of requirements. So here is a slightly different idea, namely my personal take on the Most Promising CameraSystem of the year. This is obviously as much a bet on the future as it is a comment on the present. I think that is fair enough. Anytime one buys a camera or a car or smart phone, whatever, one wants to be part of a successful enterprise with future prospects.

Camera Systems  The two big systems are the well established DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) and the newcomer, the MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera).

First the DSLR has reached the end (apart from the side trip to Sony SLT) of it's evolutionary voyage. The DSLR cannot evolve into anything else. It is stuck with inherent separation of optical view from live view. It is stuck with the flipping mirror and it's attendant complications. The Sony SLT does have continuous live view in the EVF and Monitor and the mirror does not flip. But there is always a mirror sitting between the lens and the imaging sensor, collecting dust,  and the flangeback distance is the same as a DSLR.

Second there is a lot of  optical/mechanical stuff  in a DSLR which is expensive to make and assemble and is not required for a MILC.  So the MILC should be cheaper to make.

The demise of the DSLR will not be sudden for several reasons.

First CaNikon make most of them and these two have a strong hold on camera selling outlets and brand recognition.

Second millions of people are holding millions of DSLR lenses and would probably be disinclined to give them up in a hurry.

Third there are still a few performance realms where MILC's are not quite up to DSLR's yet, in particular follow focus on moving subjects with continuous AF. On the other hand the latest MILC's are at least as fast, probably faster and certainly more accurate with single shot single AF.  

MILC  I think over time the MILC will prevail to become the dominant interchangeable lens system camera type. The question then becomes, which size, variant or brand  will become most popular ?

Sensor Size I discussed this in more detail in Part 1 of my "MILC 4th Birthday Report" on this blog.  In summary Micro Four Thirds is the smallest which gives me "good enough" image quality for a wide range of photographic assignments.

Body Size  This is determined by a range of design parameters, sensor size not being one of them.

Lens Size  This is basically determined by sensor size. In a multi lens kit, lens size will be the main determinant of total size, weight and carrying requirements.

The Happy Medium  My assessment is that Micro Four Thirds delivers the most convincing balance between  image quality and compact lens size.

APS-C  Sony NEX,  Canon EOS-M,  Samsung NX,  Fuji X-Pro/EX  (why all the X's ??) and Pentax K-01 have all gone with the larger 27mm (Canon) or 28mm (The rest) APS-C sensor.  There is nothing "bad" or "wrong" with the APS-C sensor size. But these makers are stuck forever with  lenses which will always be appreciably larger than those for M43. When M43 is delivering really excellent image quality and even Nikon CX has "good enough" image quality for most people, what is the point of the larger sensor ? I think that future prospects for the 27-28 mm sensor are not wonderful.

"Full Frame"  Leica uses the 43 mm diagonal sensor which is the same as a standard  35 mm film frame. Many DSLR's use this sensor size. I think professional photographers who want/need the very best image quality will skip the 27-28mm sensor and go straight to full frame. At present they can only do this in Mirrorless with Leica, but the potential is there for a maker brave enough to launch a full frame MILC.

Nikon CX   (a.k.a. "One Inch")  Nikon's entry into the MILC contest has been with the 15.86 mm diagonal, 2.7x crop factor CX sensor. They made an awful lot of ergonomic mistakes with the first iteration of cameras at this size. However I suspect this format has more prospects for the future than APS-C. Why ? Because it's image quality will be good enough for most people most of the time and the lenses, and therefore kit size, can be much more compact. The Sony Cybershot RX100 which uses the same sensor size, has a DXO Mark IQ rating of 66 which is the same as the Canon EOS 60D.  I don't hear too many people complaining about the IQ of the 60D.

So my award for Most Promising Camera System of the Year 2012 goes to the Micro Four Thirds System.  M43 has been rolling out some excellent products over the last year with more rumored to be in the pipeline. Image quality has taken a jump, courtesy of Sony with the new sensor in the Olympus EM5, EPL5 and EPM2. The Panasonic GH3 is rumored to have the same or very similar sensor. Panasonic and Olympus have a selection of very high quality single focal length lenses and Panasonic has released some high quality pro style zooms which are still very compact.

I am backing my own judgement by investing in M43 and nothing else. I have a GH2 and G5 with GH3 on order. My lenses are all zooms, mainly (Panasonic) Lumix, 7-14mm, 12-35mm, 35-100mm on order, 14-45mm, 45-150mm, 100-300mm. There is a Lumix 150mm f2.8 rumored for 2013 which sounds very appealing.

Now for the puzzles  Advancements in the technology of image capture and manufacture have provided camera product developers with options never before seen in the history of photography. The result has been a rush of new camera styles, sizes and shapes. In all the excitement it will come as no surprise that some of these new products appear to be suffering from a lack of clear direction and purpose. Others have apparently been released to market before full product development was completed.  

Samsung produced a few decent NX cameras then appeared to lose interest in favour of  Galaxy cams, which actually might be a better fit with Samsung's overall product lineup. Sony made some amazingly small NEX cameras, gave them a dreadful menu system then forgot about good  lenses. Fuji made some technically innovative sensor designs but struggled to get their  lenses to focus with reasonable speed or accuracy. Then they neglected  to collaborate with the independent RAW converters. Nikon had an interesting idea with the strangely named 1 Series but then gave the cameras truly dreadful ergonomics. Pentax, with 60 years experience in cameras,  got a furniture and jewellery guy (who cheerfully admitted no camera experience at all) to design them a camera. What on earth were they thinking ?  So there are candidates for the  Bad Camera prize on all sides. I have chosen three as they seem to me to represent the gap which can develop between marketing hype and reality when, in my view,  generally competent camera makers lose touch with customers who wish to use a camera for the purpose of making photographs. That is, making photos as opposed to showing off  how small it is or how many pixels it might have or that it comes in cool colors or tells you where you are right now or any of a host of other things peripheral to or totally unrelated to making photos.  

Sony Cybershot DSC RX-1  Right now camera reviewers are lining up to shower praise on this thing so what's the problem ?  In two words, conceptual integrity. If you buy the Camera, Electronic Viewfinder, Thumb Grip and Lenshood the outlay will be about $3600.  For that you get a moderately but not very compact camera with no built in viewfinder, no secure handle and no flip out monitor. Sony's game plan here appears to have been to put the Biggest  sensor into the Smallest camera body.  If that is so, they appear to have succeeded.  If good camera design was determined by numbers this one would be a winner. But numbers, of pixels or DXO Mark scores or dimensions are only a part of the story. A good camera, Especially  one this expensive has to have good ergonomics. This means good holding, viewing and operating. The RX-1 lens axis is almost centered in the body. As a result there is no room on the right side (as viewed by the operator) for a handle. There is room on the back for a decent thumb rest, but none is provided. Instead you are offered an expensive accessory thumb rest. If they moved the lens axis over to the left there would be room on the right for a handle. Don't believe me ? Entry level Sony NEX cams are 117mm wide and have a decent handle.  The  RX-1 is 113mm wide, just 4 mm less. There is plenty of room for a small but ergonomically useful handle. The lack of an inbuilt viewfinder at this price is inexplicable to me, the viewing problem being compounded by the monitor being of fixed type.

So we have a camera which doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Is it a compact camera ? If so it's not all that compact and is ridiculously expensive. Put the thumb grip and one of the viewfinders on, and it's as high as a small DSLR.  Is it a tool for professional photographers ? With poor holding and viewing characeristics I doubt it.  So the puzzle is- Why did they make it ?  I have no inside knowlege about this at all  but I would  be surprised if the answer was very far from "Because They Could".

Just by way of historical comparison, I mention that ten years ago I owned a film compact camera called the Contax T3. This had very similar design specifications to the Sony RX-1. Compact size, 43mm sensor (in the form of 35mm film in the case of the T3), 35mm focal length lens. The Sony, without a viewfinder,  has 2.5 times the box volume of the Contax  and 1.5 times the mass of the Contax. Yet the Contax had a built in optical viewfinder of good quality. The Sony has an f2 lens while the Contax was f2.8. A lens of  f2 aperture doesn't make better photos than one of f2.8 aperture but it sure is bigger. The Contax, in it's day, was overpriced for the boutique market but still less than half the price of the Sony.  My point is that progress in camera design is sometimes real, sometimes illusory, and that bigger numbers do not necessarily make a better camera.

Next we have the Canon Powershot G1X    My wife, who is an occasional snapshooter, came home with one of these several months ago. She bought it because it had a better grip than her previous camera, a Canon IXUS 220HS.   Canon's promotional material at the camera's release included the following   "Created for professional and serious photographers......the Powershot G1X creates a prestigious new category at the top of Canon's legendary G Series lineup and redefines the performance achievable from a compact camera"  It would appear that Canon with the G1X and Sony with the RX-1 are both trying to appeal to the market's desire for big camera image quality in a compact camera size.  So does the G1X deliver on it's maker's claims ? In a word, no. The DXO Mark score is 60 which puts it in line with mid range M43 cameras. Not bad but hardly a prestigious new category. Holding is reasonable with a decent handle but inexplicably a video button where the user should find a thumb rest. There is no EVF. The optical viewfinder does not do the camera justice at all. On a recent trip my wife complained that the picture which the camera made was different from the view she saw in the viewfinder.  Indeed. Operation is slow. Slow at everything. Slow to start up, slow to focus, slow shot to shot times. The lens is of good quality but people like me who had previously used a G12 were disappointed at the lack of close focussing ability.

Apparently the G1X sold quite well, suggesting that many photographers are indeed looking for big image quality in a small package. However I suspect that quite a few of them will be disappopinted by the G1X. The two puzzles with this camera are (a) Why did Canon make a camera which falls so far short of it's own promotional claims ?  Again I have no inside knowlege but I would not be surprised if the answer was "Price Point". (b) Why did  lots of people buy it ? I have no idea what people's camera buying motives might be but I would not be surprised if the answer was the prospect of getting something really special at  a very attractive, you guessed it.........Price Point.  All of which suggests Canon knows how to market cameras. But I wonder what effect  in the long run this kind of half baked product will have on  Canon's reputation.

Talking of disappointment brings me to the third camera on my "most puzzling" list, the Canon EOS-M.    Canon was the last player to arrive at  the MILC party. They waited 4 years from the first MILC which was the Pansonic G1. They had all the time in the world to evaluate their competitor's products, analyse their strengths and weaknesses, develop  a strategy then produce a category killer product line.  Instead they presented the EOS-M, in my view the most derivative, uninspiring, under achieving new camera release in recent photographic history. To create the EOS-M,  Canon took an EOS 650D then hacked off  most of  the useful holding, viewing and operating parts.    Canon's image quality is going backwards. My EOS 40D of 2007 had a DXO Mark score of 64. The EOS 650D which apparently uses the same sensor as the M, scores 62. The slow autofocus performance of the M has been widely reported. The 650D's handle and thumbrest along with the eye level viewfinder and most of the buttons and dials, have all gone, along with the swing out monitor. If this thing were really inexpensive it might make sense, but they are asking you to pay the Same price as a 650D.  While I am complaining about Canon I can't resist a comment about naming. Canon has gotten itself in a complete mess with confusing and inconsistent naming for it's DSLR's.  They appear to be doing it all over again with the EOS-M. Is it the first of a line and if so why not call it the M1 ? Or M something. Will they introduce a more upmarket version with EVF and if so what will that be called ?

The puzzle is - What is Canon trying to achieve with the EOS-M ?  I really can't figure it out at all. I can understand  that maybe they are trying to make something that puts them in the MILC tent but won't steal sales from their own DSLR line. The problem, it seems to me, is that it is unlikely to steal sales from anywhere. Of course, it might turn out to be a smash hit contrary to my prediction.  In that event the second puzzle will be--why did they buy it ??

But that question, if it arises, will be for another day and another blog post.