Well, Canon did as predicted at Photokina: finally producing the Canon 5D Mark II and pretty much fulfilling expectations if not hopes. Much more resolution. A bigger, better screen. Supposedly better high ISO performance. The downsides: the autofocus system has been left untouched. Weather sealing is perfunctory: enough to put it on the brochure, but not enough to give anyone confidence to risk a $2700 USD camera in the rain or at the beach. I’ll get one, for sure. For landscapes and portraits it is, on paper at least, the top of the leader-board. But, alas, the handicapped and antiquated autofocus system and its continued vulnerability to the elements means that it cannot be a one-stop solution for all my photographic needs.

Step up to the plate: an Olympus E-3. Sporting a sensor only half the size of the 5D Mark II and a relatively paltry 10 megapixels, it has something that other four-thirds cameras do not: probably the best weather sealing on the market (of any camera), a brilliantly fast autofocus system, and a decidedly large viewfinder. The smaller sensor means that the focal length of a lens needs to be multiplied by 2 to give its equivalent length on a camera with a full-frame 35 mm sensor such as the Canon 5D Mark II. Thus, a 50-200 mm f2.8-3.5 lens is the equivalent of a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens used on a 5D: a definite plus for things like wildlife photography. In addition, the E-3 comes with image stabilisation built into the camera body. Sounds good so far – but how did it pan out in the flesh so to speak.

I’ve had the E-3 for less than two days, so this is simply a record of my immediate impressions.

First: it’s quite big. Solid. In the same ballpark as a Canon 50D or 5D Mark II. No weight advantage there. It’s in the lenses where the four-thirds system provides less bulk for a similar reach and aperture. I’d read all sorts of nonsense about how the E-3 was an abomination of a design, so I was pleasantly surprized with how comfortable it was in my hands. On hand I had a Canon 20D and a Leica Digilux 3 to compare: the E-3 felt better than the Canon, and only a masochist like myself could say they even enjoyed holding the ergonomically-challenged Leica. There has also been much written about the location of all the buttons on the E-3 that provide direct access to just about every facet of the camera. After just a few hours use, I don’t think it is fair for me to comment too much on how intuitive the camera may or may not become to operate, but I will say this: I don’t find it awkward to reach and operate most of the buttons even when keeping my eye to the viewfinder. I have big hands and the location of the buttons and dials has not been an issue for me yet.

Compared to other four-thirds cameras the viewfinder is in a league of its own and, were all other things equal, it would still be reason enough for four-thirds users to upgrade to an E-3. I haven’t as yet had cause to put the weather-sealing to any sort of test, but the rugged nature of the camera’s construction really inspires confidence: this is not a camera you feel inclined to treat with kid gloves, like I do the Leica.

The dynamic range seems fine. If anything the Olympus metering is somewhat conservative, so there is seldom any risk of blowing highlights and, unlike other cameras I’ve used of late, I have only had one occasion where I had to dial in compensation to keep the histogram within the margins where the highlights were not clipped. I hear a lot of talk about Olympus colours on the boards, and while I don’t doubt that in a digital medium like this you should be able to get the outputs from various camera manufacturers to match each other with the right amount of tweaking, the fact is that colours output directly from the camera tend to look better to my eye from the Olympus E-3 compared to those from Canon (note: the Leica is more similar to the E-3, which may stem from the sensors of both originating from Panasonic if I am not mistaken).

Focusing with the Olympus 12-60 f2.8-4 SWD lens is superfast and it nails focus first time in most instances. The Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD lens is also very fast to focus and is so sharp that it should probably be registered as a lethal weapon. The combined bulk of those two lenses and the E-3 is considerably less than that of a Canon 20D with the Canon 24-104 IS and Canon 100-400 IS.

A terrific start. So where’s the downside you ask? Well, I’m not really a high ISO shooter. I most often shoot at 100 or 200 ISO. I haven’t put the E-3 through its paces in this regard, but the shots I took at ISO 800 indicate that while the E-3 produces passable results in this arena, it is no match for a Canon 5D and probably not a 50D either (which, ironically, with its 15+ megapixels is not too far off the E-3 when it comes to the size or pitch of individuals pixels on the sensor): so that noise at high ISO is not the E-3’s strength, even if it is not the achilles heel that others would make it out to be either.

In-camera image stabalization (IS) sounds like a wonderful attribute – and it is – reducing the likelihood and extent of motion blur with all lenses that are attached to the camera. But this is what I’ve discovered so far.
1. The claims made by Olympus for its in-body IS of a 4-5 stop advantage are ludicrous.
2. In-lens stabalization is superior to in-camera stabalization.

My guess is that the E-3 buys you about 1-2 stops of hand-holdability over a non-stabalized lens. Whereas, good in-lens stabalization will get you an extra stop or so in addition. I was able to confirm this using the Leica 14-50 lens, which is optically stabalized. Whether mounted on the E-3 or D3 it consistently took photographs less affected by camera shake than that of the Olympus 12-60 when using the in-camera IS. To test this further, I mounted the Leica 14-50 on the E-3 and used the camera’s IS with the in-lens IS turned off. Even the best of the resulting images were worse than any of the images obtained when using in-lens IS. In-camera IS seems a lot more variable in its results than in-lens IS.


Olympus E3 with IS turned off using Leica 14-50 lens with IS turned on



Olympus E-3 with IS turned on using Leica 14-50 with IS turned off



Best of in-lens IS left (f4 1/13sec), best of in-camera IS right (f3.5 1/20sec)


In-lens IS at same settings (f3.5 1/20sec) as in-camera IS above right

Resolution-wise: in real world usage there is not much extra detail in photographs from a 10 megapixel camera (like the E-3 or Canon 40D) compared to the 8 megapixels of the Canon 20D or even the 7.5 megapixels of the Digilux 3. Don’t expect to see worlds that you could not see before. The E-3 is much more about the “ease” of seeing photographic opportunities and being able to record them in the way you wish than it is about the resolution in a single image. It’s too early for me to say yet with confidence: but my initial impressions are very positive. This is a camera that is about being a tool. It’s not just concerned with the ends, but the means of getting there.

Tags: Olympus, Canon, IS, E-3

If you are like me, you’ve been sitting waiting patiently for Canon to produce a replacement for the 5D. Its arrival has been rumoured to be “imminent” for over a year now. In that time Nikon has brought full-frame digital photography to a host of new users: first with the D3, second with the D700. As Photokina – the German-based photographic exhibition – approaches, the rumours have intensified to a frenzy. Chief among the attributes of the supposed new camera is the pixel count. The Nikon D3 and the D700 both boast a resolution of 12 megapixels, similar to the current Canon 5D. If the rumours are to be believed, the Canon 5D Mark II (or whatever it’s called) could have anything from 16 to 21 megapixels.

And, yes, there’s a part of me that applauds that; a part of me that has been seduced by all the hype: bigger is better...at least when it comes to tax cuts, dessert portions and photographic file sizes. Except, when I stop and think about it, the reality is far different. I have a Canon D30, which produces a paltry 3 megapixel file – and yet the photos are of sufficient resolution that I’ve had them published in books, calendars, on magazine covers, and printed them as large as 24 x 16 inches. The main advantage of larger file sizes comes when cropping of an image may be desirable. Even so, 8-10 megapixels should provide enough latitude for cropping in most circumstances: if you need to do more than that, then you’ve probably used the wrong lens in the first instance or failed to give enough consideration to composition at the time the image is taken.

The reality is that for most of us all the time, and some of us most of the time, we only see the benefits of resolutions beyond 10 megapixels when we are pixel-peeping on a screen. Large-scale prints for landscape photography is one situation where really high resolutions are desirable – but come on, how many of us are really into doing that? The answer is: not many.

Nikon seems to understand this. A 12 megapixel D3 or D700 is more than adequate for most. A new camera with a 24 megapixel sensor will satisfy those that need to print really large (and those that cannot be bothered with lens choice or composition too). Nikon understands that it is the features that affect the usability of the camera that are important once adequate resolution has been achieved. Included among these are speed – such as the autofocus and tracking abilities; the resolution of the LCD monitor for reviewing captured images; the waterproofing and sealing of the camera; lowlight capabilities -– especially as enhanced by high ISO performance. In all these areas, the Nikon D3 and D700 trounce the Canon 5D.

I have sufficient money tied up in Canon glass that it creates what appears to be loyalty but in reality is inertia. I really want Canon to produce a killer 5D replacement – but it is not increased resolution I am after, it is things that will help me capture images in situations where I might otherwise not be able to. I want fast and accurate autofocus, an LCD monitor that shows me what I’ve got rather than leaves me guessing, waterproofing and sealing that will allow me to use the camera in situations where I would hesitate now, and cleaner high ISO images for situations where I need to keep the shutter speed up or work in low light.

According to the rumours, we can put money on Canon staying ahead of their competition when it comes to resolution. But when it comes to the usability factors, it seems that Canon will be playing “catch-up” and, if the rumoured specs of the 5D Mark II are to be believed, in some areas it may struggle to get even close.

Canon reminds me a bit of those World War II Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands and continuing to fight a war that had long since ended. It’s time for Canon to turn their considerable expertise to the enhancement of the camera as a tool rather than its transformation into a telescope. I hope the next few days will prove the rumour-mongers wrong and that Canon’s next iteration of the 5D will concentrate on features that allow me to take better photographs more easily, rather than just larger ones. Otherwise, a Nikon or, even, an Olympus E3 may be in my future.

Tags: Canon, Nikon, Resolution, Canon 5D, Nikon D700, Nikon D3

I love tennis and one of my most memorable days involved watching Andre Agassi and the Williams sisters, Serena and Venus, beat their lesser opponents into submission on the hallowed grass of Number 1 Court (that day the schedule was better there than on Centre Court). If I came away with any sort of lasting impression, it was that of the power and dominance of Serena and Venus. It was hard to think of anyone else ever being champion as long as they chose to put on their Nikes and pick up a racquet. And, indeed, five years later, the two still dominate the Women's Final at Wimbledon, having won seven of the last nine championships between them.

In some ways you might liken the Williams sisters to Canon, because up until this year, if you looked in the press box you saw only a swathe of big white lenses. Canon was clearly the dominant player in action sports photography. But if the Williams sisters have been impressive at Wimbledon, Roger Federer's reign as champion has seemed as predictable as the showers that soak the championships at inopportune intervals. A champion for five years in a row – and going for a sixth – surely he is a better analogy for Canon's complete dominance?

Until this year, that is. Just as Rafael Nadal won a scintillating contest to uplift the Men's Championship Cup, a glance at the photographers' dugout showed that there was a new kid on the block there too: the black lenses of Nikon seemed to be the match of those of the white ones from Canon. Such a transformation in the representation of pro gear is unprecedented in my experience and points to the undoubted success of the autofocus system and performance on the Nikon D3 and D300 – coupled with excellent high ISO noise control – making for fast, responsive cameras that produce output of the highest quality.

Like Nadal's focus and tenacity, you just have to sit back and admire it. I have too much invested in Canon glass to shift camps at this stage, so I am going to enjoy the competition. As the Men's Final showed, Nadal didn't just play well, he also brought out the best in Federer. I'm really hoping that the competition from Nikon will bring out the best from Canon.

Tags: Nikon, Canon

For landscape photography, a really wide lens can often give a dramatic perspective – especially if there is something close to camera in the foreground to give the image depth. Even for nature photography, where telephoto lenses are prized for their ability to draw a subject closer, a wide angle lens can be useful for setting animals or plants within their environment. And, for some photographers, the wider the better.

But, there is an issue when it comes to getting really wide perspectives using entry-level digital cameras and prosumer models such as the Canon 40D and Nikon D300: the crop factor – whereby only a portion of the imaging circle of the lens is used – means that the image is effectively magnified compared to that produced on a camera with a full-frame sensor using the same lens, thereby negating its putative perspective. A 28 mm lens may be regarded as a standard wide angle on a 35mm film camera or digital camera with a full-frame sensor (such as the Canon 5D, Nikon D3 or the newly announced Nikon D700), but on a Nikon D60 or D300 that would effectively become a 42 mm lens, while on the Canon 450 or 40D, it would be transformed into a 45 mm lens.

Fortunately, for those wishing to use super wide angle lenses on crop cameras, the manufacturers have come up with a solution: extremely wide angle lenses. The Canon 10-22 f3.5-5.6 is one such lens. Intended to be mounted on Canon cameras with a 1.6 crop factor (ie those that can take EFS designated lenses), it produces images with an effective focal length of 16-35 (the same as that of the flagship 16-35 mm f2.8 L lens optimized for use with the 1D series of cameras). Perhaps its main rival when it comes to image quality is the robustly-made Tokina 12-24 f4.

Like many photographers before me, I was faced with the decision of which of the two lenses to buy?

Read More...

Tags: Canon, Tokina, Superwide, Lenses, 10-22, 12-24

A recent review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens in Popular Photography has prompted me to report my own experience with this much-maligned lens.

A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.

Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).

First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was.

Read More...

Tags: Canon, 70-300, DO, Review, Lenses, IS