Nikon 1 V2 Review, Part 1, First Impressions

A curious combination of features

Author  Andrew S   June 2013

Nikon V2 in the author's average adult male sized hand.

A new arrival  Our family recently acquired a new Nikon 1 V2 with 10-100mm f4-5.6mm long zoom, all purpose lens. Over the next few months I will be testing this combination and reporting  my findings on this blog. This post includes a few initial impressions after approximately 500 exposures.

Why the Nikon 1 V2 ?  Readers of this blog will be aware that my main camera system is Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3. However I have an abiding interest in the evolution of camera technology and ergonomics as expressed in working products.   I was attracted to the Nikon 1 system by reports of it's remarkable continuous autofocus capability. I wanted to discover for myself whether the camera's real world performance matched the various claims made about it. I chose the V2 because it is the latest  version of Nikon-1-System-camera-with-inbuilt-EVF. I will not buy a camera without an inbuilt EVF for reasons given elsewhere on this blog.

On the left, Nikon V2 with 10-100mm lens. On the rightLumix G5 with 45-150mm lens. The new Lumix 14-140mm Mk2 lens is just 2mm longer than the one shown here. Box volume of the V2 kit with lens shown here is 75% of a Lumix G5 with 14-140mm Mk2 Micro 4/3 kit. The Nikon 1 kit is smaller than an equivalent mid range M4/3 kit but not dramatically so and the M4/3 is nicer to hold..

In due course I plan to test the V2+10-100mm alongside  DSLR and  M4/3 cameras, each with a long zoom lens having similar angle of view and aperture range to the Nikon 1 10-100mm.

Birds. Watching. V2 +10-100mm @100mm.

First Impressions

* It's white ! Our family's first white camera.

* It feels small but solid and well made.

* I really like the shutter sound. It's a soft,  muted  blp...blp. By comparison my M4/3 cameras have a slower, louder  ker..lang...ker..lang.... sound.  This is not just an aesthetic issue. I have thus far not found any evidence of shutter shock with the V2/10-100mm.

* It's gone ! My wife has appropriated the V2 for her birdwatching endeavours and taken it on a pelagic birdwatching expedition this weekend. The birdos are out on the ocean in a fishing boat with severe storms forecast. Hmmm....

* My wife says the handling is acceptable but could be a lot better. I agree with her. The thing needs a proper thumbrest. The handle appears to have been designed to fit the battery within (good) but not the hands which hold it (bad). Surely Nikon can manage both. Good ergonomic design costs no more than bad.

* The lens has no manual focus ring!! You have to enter the main menu, make  a selection then turn the rear dial to focus manually. This is the worst implentation of manual focus I have seen in years. I sure hope the AF is accurate.

* Outdoors in bright light, it really does do continuous autofocus at 5 and 15 frames per second. The buffer is huge. The camera is very fast and responsive in operation.

* The EVF/Monitor refresh rate is super fast. So fast that in continuous shooting (of still photos) at 5 or 15 fps, the EVF or Monitor appearance is like streaming video with no perceptible blackout.  Every time I use the V2, I think "why don't other MILC makers emulate the EVF refresh performance of this camera?"  

* I tried it on cars travelling towards the camera at 60 kph in direct sunlight. At 5fps with the lens at 100mm I got about 80% of frames sharply in focus. In overcast conditions, cars moving more slowly but close to the camera, I got about 50% of frames sharply in focus, with 40% slightly unsharp.  I need to experiment with single area -vs- auto select multi area AF options.

* Indoors, AF slows substantially with frequent hunting, although it appears to be accurate given a static subject.

* Auto ISO often sets a level which produces a slow shutter speed. Fortunately the VR appears to work very effectively, stabilising the lens and the EVF preview.

* Preview image quality on the EVF is quite good but not excellent and not as nice as the Lumix G5 and GH3 which I have been using for comparison.

* Photo image quality is about what you would expect for a camera which scores 50 on DXO Mark. It's not bad but grain is evident even at base ISO.  At higher ISOs  indoors it can't keep up with the M4/3 cameras. Dynamic range is acceptable, particularly if RAW files and Adobe Camera Raw are used to good effect.

* Compared to the latest mid range M4/3 cameras like the G5/G6, the user interface is less complex. This is a good thing is you prefer simplicity but not so appealing if you like a higher level of user configuration.

* The lens is very good for an all purpose long zoom model. There is a bit of chromatic aberration and purple fringing at the wide end. The edges are noticeably soft at the long end although the main central area of the frame is quite sharp.  

V2+10-100mm. Hazy/bright day, backlit. The yachts are about 250meters from the camera, the houses in the background about 1 kilometer away.

Who is it for ?That's a difficult question to answer.  Maybe soccer parents could make good use of it's excellent outdoors predictive AF capabilities. Bird watchers might like the system if a really long lens was available. I am referring here to a native Nikon 1 system lens. You can use many of the Nikon full frame lenses with an adapter as a way of achieving super telephoto reach.

On reflection it seems to me that the V2 and in fact the whole Nikon 1 system appear to be an answer without a clearly expressed question.  That could change in future if the image performance was lifted a stop or two and the ergonomics were substantially improved . The Nikon 1 system could then start looking like a viable all purpose, do anything solution to a wide range of photographic challenges.

V2+10-100mm. Reasonable management of the subject brightness range although  highlights on the sunlit mid foreground foliage are blown out.

Summary The Nikon 1 system and the V2 specifically are a curious mix of super high tech, high performance features and gimmicks like "Motion Snapshot", aimed at the gadget loving snapshooter crowd. The whole package is overpriced. I paid AUD1546 over the counter retail with Nikon Australia warranty, for the V2 body, 10-100mm lens, a 55mm UV filter and a spare battery.  My initial impression is that Nikon needs to clarify it's intentions with its' 1-System-with-EVF cameras like the V2.  Is it to be an enthusiast's camera ? If so it needs better image quality and a more compelling user interface and feature set. If it is to be a snapshooter's camera it doesn't need the high powered AF/Continuous Drive/Predictive Focus capability, nor the high price.  

Staying With Photoshop

Author  AndrewS  June 2013

Masai Structure. I made this color transparency in Tanzania, 1991. The resulting printable photo has been improving over the years as each iteration of Photoshop provides more sophisticated management of scanner output.

My first digital camera  was a Canon Powershot S70, in 2004. To edit the images I bought Photoshop Elements 3 and began climbing up the long steep learning curve of image editing software.  Later I upgraded my camera to one which produced RAW files. At the same time my image editing ambitions grew so I entered the 16 bit world of "Big Photoshop", starting with PS CS4.  The learning curve grew steeper. I spent several years gaining basic competence, upgrading to each new version of Photoshop along the way.

Cost  Over the 4.5 years from November 2008 to June 2013, I spent AUD844.81 on Ps  CS4/5/6. That is AUD15.60 per month. I believe that Photoshop prices in Australia were  significantly higher than in other countries, particularly USA.

The new deal  Adobe recently announced that most of  it's products would move from a purchase model to a monthly subscription model.  The introductory price for one year is AUD9.99 per month. That gets you the full Photoshop Extended which previously cost much more than standard Photoshop. I have to confess this is entirely academic for me as the features of Ps Extended are way beyond  my capability level.

The Rage Response  The subscription model appeared very sensible to me so I signed up within minutes of it becoming available. I was completely astonished by the very different response from other bloggers, website proprietors and users on photo forums. The anti Adobe rage fest went into full swing. Photoshop users cursed Adobe, using vituperative and colourful language. Many proclaimed Adobe would never see their money again.

What was the fuss about ?  Some of the rage response came from people who appeared not to have read even the press releases properly, let alone any of the many product details available. Some appeared to think they "owned" their current version of Ps and would no longer do so in the subscription model.  Of course all they ever bought was a license to use the Adobe software. It was never owned in the sense that anyone could legally resell the product. Some appeared to think that the whole Photoshop enterprise would move up to some nebulous cloudy place, taking all the files with it. Adobe can take some of the blame for that one, the name "CC" did seem to suggest that everything was headed for the clouds.

Apart from that there were various issues, but perhaps the main one was simply change and maybe people are tired of relentless change. 

Alternatives to Photoshop  I have over the years investigated many of these and have discovered that none of them even claims a full set of capabilities equal to Photoshop.

Photoshop  does everything I want within one operating environment, at a level of capability which usually exceeds competing software products. I have found that if another software provider improves on Photoshop in some particular way, Adobe generally buys that provider to incorporate their discovery into Photoshop or reverse engineers it. Either way the good stuff ends up in Photoshop sooner or later, and usually sooner. 

Masai Boys Tanzania, 1991. Color transparency, Epson V700 scan, photoshop.

 

What about Lightroom ?   I bought and paid for Lightroom 4, tried it and removed it from my computer. Why? Two main reasons:

1. I don't like the Lightroom file management process one little bit. I strongly prefer Adobe Bridge (which comes with Ps) which utilises the Folder/file system I already have in place on my hard drive. I have spent years evolving this and it allows me to dowload and find photos quickly and efficiently.

2. Lightroom still needs Photoshop for all the (many) editing tasks which Photoshop can do and Lightroom cannot. Conversely Photoshop does all the things which I would want from Lightroom.

What about Elements ?  This is basically an 8 bit program in most of it's operating space, or at least it was the last time I looked. I feel sure Adobe would announce an upgrade to 16 bit with a very loud fanfare were that to occur.  Its' less expensive than Photoshop because it's less capable.

Today I downloaded Ps CC.Yesterday brought ACR 8.1. On a quick look, it appears there are many improvements in Ps CC which have not even been advertised. For instance I was using the Spot Healing Brush on a scan (I use that a LOT on scans) today and discovered newly added refinements to the capability of the tool. You get to choose from Proximity Match, Create Texture or Content Aware.

I have also been experimenting with the improved version of Smart Sharpen which has new features which will take some time to learn.

Like everything else in Photoshop it's very dense and complex, but extremely capable and worth the steep learning curve.

I like the new Adobe subscription deal and am pleased, so far, with Photoshop CC.

Ideal Sensor Size ? Part 6 Smaller Formats

Author Andrew S  June 2013

The surf was up today so I snapped a few boardriders off the point at Dee Why. Not made with a superzoom camera as I don't own one. I used a Lumix GH3 with Lumix 100-300mm lens

All together  I have grouped the smaller formats together as they have to some extent a common purpose. This has been to provide the imager for compact cameras and superzooms, with numerous variations of each type. The smaller sensor size allows designers to create cameras with a fixed, non interchangeable, zoom lens and either very small size or a very great zoom range. Given that compact digital cameras are being swept away by the roaring tide of phone cams, we are left with superzoom, all purpose cameras as the main raison d'être of small sensors.  

Interchangeable lenses, boon or burden ?   I read somewhere but now forget the reference, that for every camera capable of taking interchangeable lenses, the makers sell 1.5 lenses. Given that some enthusiasts have many lenses, it follows that most owners buy the camera with one zoom lens and leave it on the camera permanently. Most people really don't want to be bothered with changing lenses.

 My dream camera  I am one of those who change lenses only because I must do so to get the results which I seek. My dream camera would have a fixed zoom lens with a diagonal angle of view ranging from 100 degrees at the wide end to 4 degrees at the long end.   This is equivalent to a focal length of 18mm-610mm in 24x36mm format and 9-305mm in M43 format.  This is a 34x zoom range starting very wide at the short end. It would need to have an aperture not smaller than f2.8 at any focal length. Image quality would be equivalent to a DXO Mark score of 75. It would have a fully articulated monitor, a high quality EVF and excellent ergonomics.

Of course such a paragon of photographic capability does not presently exist but might it be possible in the near future ?

Big Surf. Lumix GH3, Lumix 100-300mm lens.

 

What's on offer ?

2/3" 6.6x8.8/11mm   Fuji uses this sensor size in it's X10/20 compacts and, of more interest to my quest for the dream camera, the X-S1 superzoom model. This has a 26x f 2.8-5.6 zoom ranging from 84-4 degrees diagonal angle of view. This is a moderately large camera weighing 920 grams but it is very much more compact than an ILC model with 3 or 4 interchangeable lenses. The X-S1 is actually not such a long journey from my ideal. The lens is two stops slower than f2.8 at the long end, the short end is not as wide as I would like and the DXO Mark score is 50. At least DXO marked the X10, which uses the same sensor, at 50.   If the lens were to meet my criteria it would be very large indeed and probably unmarketable. So barring some dramatic new lens making discovery we need to look at a smaller sensor size, bearing in mind that lens size is largely determined by sensor size.

1/1.7"  5.6x7.5/9.36mm (and variations)  This size is very popular for advanced compacts such as the Lumix LX7, Canon G series and several others.  Strangely I have not been able to find a superzoom camera using this sensor size. Which is odd because I have an idea that this size might be the largest which could provide a lens meeting my requirements but with marketably compact dimensions. Best DXO Mark score for this sensor size as I write is 54 (Nikon P330) which seems to me to be within reach of a 20 point boost [equivalent to 1.3 stops better noise performance] over the next year or few.

Pentax offers  the Q series cameras with interchangeable lenses using this sensor size from the latest iteration. This is undoubtedly cute and comes in "120 color combinations" according to the promotional literature. But the point of the Pentax  Q  as a camera somewhat escapes me. If they put a wide range zoom on the thing it wouldn't need interchangeable lenses at all.

1/2"  4.8x6.4/8mm  This sensor size is used by Fuji on it's HS series superzooms and  F770/800 EXR long zoom compacts.

1/2.3"  4.5x6.2/7.72mm (and variations)  This size is used on most compacts and superzoom cameras. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200  is one of the more interesting because it's lens is a constant f2.8 from a diagonal angle of view of 80 degrees at the short end to 4.1 degrees at the long end. This almost meets my criteria. The other features of this camera come close too, including a fully articulated monitor and built in EVF. The big letdown is of course it's image quality which at DXO Mark 37 is almost three stops short of my desired level.

Summary So it seems my ideal camera is not yet within reach. But if some clever maker does produce a camera meeting my admittedly taxing specifications, I expect the entire interchangeable lens camera industry will go down the drain faster than you can count to ten.

Do the camera makers really want that ??

Now there's a thought.................

 

Ideal Sensor Size ?, Part 5, 1" [NikonCX]

Author  Andrew S   June 2013

Nikon 1 Mockup Front View

Nikon 1 Mockup Rear view

 

What is it ?  The so-called "one inch" or Nikon CX imager size measures 8.8x13.2mm, with a diagonal of 15.9mm. It is the next size down from M43 with about half the area of a M43 sensor. For some reason unknown to me this size uses a 2:3 aspect ratio which I find a bit puzzling as the 3:4 ratio used by M43 and most of the smaller sensors, makes better use of the available image circle.

Cameras The two most notable camera types to use this sensor size are the Sony RX100 fixed zoom lens compact and the Nikon 1 System cameras with interchangeable lenses.

The Sony RX100 arrived to great fanfare last year with some excited previewers claiming it would be the most important camera of the century etc, etc....... Once users got their hands on it some deficiencies in ergonomics became evident.  However it still remains a landmark camera because of the high pixel count (20 mpx) and  image quality which Sony managed to extract from such a small sensor. The DXO Mark score is 66 which is the same as the Canon EOS 60D and 7D both of which have less pixels on the much larger APS-C sensor size. I rate a DXO Mark score of 66 as indicating good enough image quality for a wide range of users, uses and photographic challenges.

Nikon introduced it's strangely named "1" system to a distinctly  unimpressed cadre of camera reviewers in 2011. One photo magazine editor described the V1 as a "mongrel". There were many problems with the first round of 1 system cameras. I think the fundamental one was that the product development people at Nikon appeared to be uncertain as to the target buyer. Was the 1 system for snapshooters, snapshooter upgraders, expert/enthusiasts or gadget /gimmick lovers ? The V1 and it's siblings featured atrocious ergonomics, making one wonder what planet the 1 series designers had been living on while the rest of Nikons' enterprise rolled out millions of DSLR's with mostly decent ergonomic capability (with a few notable glitches). The V2 is a complete redesign of the 1- system -with- EVF concept  featuring improved but still not excellent ergonomics. Unfortunately image quality as measured by DXO Mark anyway, has gone backwards, from 54 to 50.

Development potential   I think this format has considerable development potential. I rate it as the smallest practical sensor around which a fully featured interchangeable lens system can be built and the largest practical sensor which can be accommodated by a compact camera with inbuilt viewfinder and zoom lens of useful aperture and range. The second proposition is almost proved by the Sony RX100, although this camera lacks an EVF.

To test the first proposition I made a wooden mockup camera with exactly the same dimensions, WidthxHeightxDepth, as the V2. You can see the photos of this mockup at the top of this article. This mockup features a fully ergonomic handle and control interface design, with all the hard controls you would expect to find on a full featured pro level DSLR. It is very comfortable to hold and operate. It has three set and see dials on the top plate with the very efficient quad control system on top of the parallel top handle. There is a JOG lever within easy reach of the right thumb without having to shift grip with the right hand.

The mockup lens shown is about 15mm longer than the actual 10-100mm f4-5.6  1 Series superzoom lens. If this were a real lens I estimate it would be about 10-120mm. This makes an extremely compact all purpose, superzoom one lens kit ready for almost any purpose and ideal for family, travel, holiday or  junior soccer. Don't laugh, junior soccer action is very difficult to photograph. There are very few cameras on the market today which can cope with the unpredictable, constantly shifting pace and direction of the player's movements.

When Nikon can source a higher performing sensor for the 1 series and correct the V2's remaining ergonomic deficiencies, I think they will have a very competitive product line.  Oh, Yes, realistic pricing would help too.

Watch this space.

Ideal Sensor Size ? Part 4 Micro 4/3

Author  Andrew S  June 2013

This photo was made at night, Lumix GH3 camera held at waist height, viewing on the articulated monitor. Composition, framing, focus and capture took about two seconds. ISO 6400, 1/60sec, f2.8. If this photo had been made with a full frame camera f5.6 would have been required for the same depth of field, and ISO 25,600 for the same shutter speed.

In the beginning  The first camera built to the new Micro Four Thirds [M43] standard was the Panasonic Lumix G1 of 2009. At the time I thought and several other commentators opined that the destiny of M43 would be to become the dominant interchangeable lens camera format for amateur, enthusiast and eventually professional photographers.

What is M43 ?  The format uses a sensor with half the diagonal and about one quarter the area of traditional full frame. Much of the complex stuff in a DSLR such as the flipping mirror and prism  is not required  so the bodies can be much smaller than a DSLR. The smaller sensor allows the lenses to be much smaller as well.  The M43 standard is open, so any maker can produce bodies and/or lenses to fit. At the time of writing the M43 system offers a wide selection of bodies and compatible lenses from several manufacturers.

The latest models offer very good image quality, performance and ergonomics.  On my analysis, M43 cameras should be flying off the shelves right now.  But that is not the case. In fact some recent industry reports have indicated sales of m43 equipment have slowed recently after an initial surge.

What's the problem?   I have no inside knowlege of the camera industry at all but as a consumer I can see several issues which could be impeding market penetration of the M43 system.

Marketing:  In order to fly off the shelves goods need to be on the shelves in the first place. In Australia, that is not the case. It is difficult to find any M43 equipment on display in most camera shops and other places where cameras are sold.  Vendors want to carry fast moving lines, so they stock only the best known brands and camera types, so that is what their customers see and buy. This reinforces the dominant CanoNikon duopoly. Panasonic and Olympus need to devise assertive marketing strategies to counter this.

Brand Recognition/System recognition: The big names are Canon and Nikon. Panasonic has good brand recognition but not in the camera business, and I would guess that few people  recognise "Lumix" as a camera brand.  Olympus has a long camera making tradition but more as a niche player than dominant force.  

Corporate Problems: Olympus was hit with a giant fraud scandal last year and Panasonic has been posting massive corporate losses for the last several years.

Image Quality/Performance/Ergonomics: The latest M43 camera and lenses deliver excellent image qualiy, performance and ergonomics. But this has not been the case until very recently. Early M43 models lagged significantly behind their DSLR competition.

The burden of Disruptive Innovation:  The DSLR is an established technology. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras and M43 in paticular are a Disruptive Innovation. It takes time and effort for the makers of the new technology to convince buyers that the new thing  is really better than established offerings.

Will M43 prevail ?  Who Knows?  If  Olympus and Panasonic can avert bankruptcy, stay in the camera business and  continue M43 research and development then yes, I think M43 can prevail. But those are big if's. We shall see.  

Ideal Sensor Size ? Part 3, APS-C

Author  Andrew S    June 2013

Birdsville Hotel 2007.  I made this photo with a Canon EOS 20D which did a good job with it's 8 mpx sensor.

Background  In the early days of digital photography, imaging sensors were very expensive. So the first digital cameras with interchangeable lenses did not have full frame 24x36mm sensors.  The 3.1 megapixel Canon D30, introduced in May 2000 used a much smaller and less expensive sensor measuring 15.1x22.7mm.  This was close to although slightly smaller than the 16.7x25.1mm APS-C film size. APS stands for Advanced Photo System which was introduced in 1996, but failed to thrive because it delivered less image quality than standard 35mm film and in any event got rolled over by the march of digital image capture. Nikon's response was the 6 mpx D100, introduced in 2002, with a slightly larger sensor measuring 15.5x23.7mm. The megapixel race had begun.

Since then the great majority of interchangeable lens digital cameras have used either the Canon or Nikon (and others)  APS-C imager size. This has been a great  success for the APS-C digital format and, you might imagine, the basis for future triumph in the market place.

On it's own merits, APS-C could form the basis of a high quality photo system with enough image quality to satisfy the most critical professional and enthusiast photographers. The cameras are reasonably compact and the lenses can be smaller than those for full frame sensors.  Several makers (Sony, Fuji, Samsung, Pentax, Canon) of Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens  Cameras [MILC] have opted for this sensor size.

But my crystal ball becomes cloudy when I look at future scenarios for APS-C.

It seems to me that APS-C is under pressure from above (full frame) and below (Micro Four Thirds).

I think that CanoNikon want to upsell their customers to full frame. Both Canon and Nikon have a restricted lens lineup for their APS-C cameras. There are plenty of consumer style zooms but neither has the equivalent of the classic 70-200mm f2.8 tele zoom and both offer  a very restricted range of fast prime lenses for APS-C.  The message is clear enough. If you want the good gear, move up to full frame. 

We see a similar picture with the APS-C MILC's.  Sony offers a restricted lens choice for it's NEX cameras and Sony's promotional material clearly indicates they want you to step up to the larger format if you want the best gear. Fuji offers some interesting MILC's but again with a limited lens lineup and a rather niche approach to design. Canon may  have a coherent plan for it's mirrorless offerings but if so they are keeping it secret from potential buyers. Pentax tripped up with it's disastrous K-01 and Samsung may or may not be going somewhere with it's NX system.

On the other hand there is pressure on APS-C from below, in the form of the Micro Four Thirds format. The M43 sensor measures 13x17.3mm with a diagonal of 21.6mm which is just about exactly half that of full frame, giving a sensor area about one quarter of full frame.

Being mirrorless, M43 cameras can be, and in fact are, substantially smaller than those for APS-C DSLR's. But the biggest difference lies in lens sizes, which particularly at the long end of the spectrum are markedly smaller than those for APS-C cameras, be they DSLR or MILC. The latest M43 cameras have image quality very close to Nikon APS-C and in fact better than Canon APS-C.

I think that if a manufacturer gave whole hearted support to an APS-C system, either DSLR or MILC, it could be an ongoing success and serve the needs of enthusiast and professional photographers very well.  But none of them is giving the format full support.

Which makes me wonder...............

 

Ideal Sensor Size ? Part 2, Full Frame

Is There an Ideal Sensor Size ? Part 2, Full Frame

Author Andrew S  June 2013

Thamel, Kathmandu.  I made this photo several years ago on 35mm film. A modern full frame DSLR would deliver better image quality but would not, I think, be any better able to convey a sense of place.

Background  The 24x36mm film/sensor size, with a diagonal measurement of 43mm, is deeply embedded in the history of photography. The format arose in the early part of the 20th Century from movie film which used, and still uses, perforated film 35mm wide with 4 perforations per frame, giving a picture size of 24x16mm.   For still photo the frame size was increased to 24x36mm, using 8 perforations per frame. The first still camera using the new "miniature" format appeared in 1913. The format was popularised by Ernst LEItz CAmera in 1924 and made famous by the work of Henri Cartier Bresson and other photo journalists.

The present  Fast forward 100 years and much has changed. The 24x36  format is no longer regarded as "miniature". It is more often referred to these days as "Full Frame". Image quality [IQ] of the latest and best full frame DSLR's is dramatically better than that of any film based 35mm camera. In fact I would rate the IQ of the Nikon D800/800E cameras as about the same as fine grain low speed 4x5" large format color transparency film. But the modern full frame DSLR is vastly more versatile and portable than any large format camera.

Professional photographers use high grade full frame DSLR's for most of their work, because these cameras and their lenses are reliable, dependable and deliver the goods, in terms of publishable images.

But smaller, less obtrusive, less expensive cameras such as the Panasonic Lumix GH3 are now able to deliver the photographic goods most of the time, so what does the future hold for the full frame DSLR ? 

I guess that CanoNikon will keep making them as long as people keep buying them. My reading of current trends in the industry is that in fact the full frame DSLR is one of the few market categories that is growing just now. I can see the logic of this. Photographers who must have  the best image quality and best performance from a camera have really only one place to go. That place right now is a full frame DSLR.

Another factor is that there are millions of  very good quality full frame lenses out there providing an incentive for their owners to stay with a full frame system.

The drawback of full frame DSLR's is that they are, compared to other hand holdable cameras, large, heavy, expensive and obtrusive. Their top level zoom lenses are also large, heavy, expensive and obtrusive. A Canon EOS 1DX fitted with an EF 70-200mm f2.8 lens costs, at Australian retail rates $9095. A Lumix GH3 with Lumix 35-100mm f2.8 lens, giving the same field of view and aperture, costs, from the same vendor, $2658. The Canon with lens cannot be used unobtrusively, the Lumix can.  

CanoNikon are trying to address the size/weight/cost/obtrusiveness problem with a range of low, or at least lower than previously, cost bodies and compact prime lenses of good quality like the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM.

If the rumors which I read are correct, it appears Sony may try to upset CanoNikon's hegemony of the full frame market with a mirrorless interchangeable lens [MILC] offering. This appears logical on two grounds. First Sony is unlikely to dent CanoNikon's market share with a look-alike DSLR. Second, I would bet Sony and other manufacturers see  the future of interchangeable lens cameras as being with the MILC camera type.  Sony needs to tackle CanoNikon with a disruptive innovation and it appears they will do that.

We live in interesting times.

Is There an Ideal Sensor Size Part 1

Part 1, Just the Facts

Author Andrew S,  June 2013

 

Gasherbrums from Concordia, Pakistan.  Original photo on medium format film, Mamiya 7. Scanned with Epson V700

Introduction   Way back in the days of film, there was a limited selection of sizes from which to choose. Most people used the ubiquitous 35mm film, giving an image size of 24x36mm. Some cameras such as the original Olympus Pen, made half frame images on standard 35mm film. Just at the end of the film era the APS photo system was introduced, but failed to thrive under the onslaught of the digital revolution. This system used  a film size smaller than 35mm and produced  images a little smaller than half frame. Professional studio workers and a few enthusiast amateurs used medium format rollfilm, giving an image size of 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9 cm.  An even smaller number of hardy souls used large format film usually in the 4x5 inch size. One of the advatages of film in rolls was that dedicated panorama cameras could utilise a super wide image format.

The digital era  By my count there are 9 sensor sizes in common use for cameras at the time of writing. Is there any sense in which one of them can be regarded as "ideal" ?  Can one predict which, if any, will prevail in future ?  These are not entirely frivolous questions particularly for the photographer seeking to make an investment in a system with one or more camera bodies, several lenses and other accessories. Nobody wants to be left holding equipment from a photo system which has failed in the marketplace.

Sensor size comparison  Below is a diagram showing comparative sizes and dimensions of sensor sizes. Various medium format sizes, all larger than full frame, are not shown. 

 

Sensor size vs image quality  We know that larger sensors deliver better image quality. That is the principal selling point for the larger sizes, which of course are more expensive and presumably deliver more profit margin for the manufacturer and vendor. I have put some numbers on this for consideration. As a proxy for image quality I have used the DXO Mark score [dxomark.com] for the best sensor at each size, published at the time of writing. I know there is some discussion about the validity of the DXO Mark score, but in my experience using many cameras there is  broad general agreement between DXO Mark score and real world image quality. In the table below I have compared the DXO Mark score to the area of each sensor. This makes no pretence at being "scientific", in the sense that the ratio doesn't have any specific meaning,  but I did the exercise to show that on a score per image area basis,  smaller sensors dramatically outperform larger ones. You get a lot more performance per square millimeter from small sensors than large ones.

The table below summarises these relationships.

Sensor Name	Diagonal mm	Area square mm	Camera	Sensor maker	Score	Ratio score/area
1/2.3"	7.75	29	Lumix FZ200	?	37	1.3
1/1.7"	9.35	42	Nikon P330	Sony ?	54	1.3
2/3"	11	58	Fuji X10	Fujitsu ?	50	0.86
1"/Nikon CX	15.9	116	Sony RX100 Nikon 1 V2	Sony   Aptina	66   50	0.57   0.43
Micro 4/3	21.6	225	Lumix GH3/ Olympus Pens	Sony	71/72	0.32
APSC Canon	27	332	EOS 60D	Canon	66	0.12
APSC Nikon	28	367	Nikon D5200	Sony	84	0.23
Full Frame	43	864	Nikon D800	Sony	96	0.11

 Table highlights:

* Sony appears to have the upper hand as sensor maker for consumer cameras at the present time. To illustrate this I included two cameras at the 15.9 mm sensor size. The Sony RX100, presumably using a Sony sensor, is 16 points ahead of the Nikon V2 with Aptina sensor. The Nikon V2 can do a great many things of which the RX100 is incapable but the sensor performance difference is clear, at least at base ISO levels.

* You get a lot more bang for your buck with the smaller sensors.

* The march of progress is bringing the performance of smaller sensors up to the same level as that of larger sensors just a year or few previously. Of course the larger sensors are also improving. This raises the question of "good enough" image quality which I will explore in  later articles.

* I hasten to point out that image quality is only one criterion one might use when considering which camera to buy. For instance the Nikon P330 has a very good  DXO Mark score [54] equal to some of last year's Micro Four Thirds cameras which use a sensor two size steps larger. However CNet Australia reports that the RAW shot to shot time is 6 seconds. Good Grief. I could operate much faster than that in 1967 with an all manual Pentax Spotmatic DSLR.

 

Epson Perfection V700 Photo Scanner

User report after Four Years

A good scanner for large, medium or small format film

Author Andrew S  June 2013

Angophora After Fire.   From Original 4x5inch Velvia transparency

Introduction   I stopped using film six years ago, but  have many large, medium and small format film images in my personal collection  I have been re-scanning a lot of these  negatives and transparencies recently so I thought it timely to report on my experience using the Epson V700 over the last four years.

V700 Overview (top) and detail (above)

 

Description The Epson Perfection V700 Photo is a versatile flatbed scanner which came onto the market around 2006 and is still available new in the AUD650-900 price range.  There was initially a V750 Pro version with a fluid mount option but I have no experience with this. There is a theoretical advantage to fluid mounting originals for scanning but the process appears to be  messy and tedious and the scanner does a good job with standard dry scans anyway.

The V700 Photo can scan original prints or other documents up to A4 size. It comes with a set of film holders for 35mm film in strips or mounted, medium format rollfilm in strips and 4x5inch large format sheets. It can manage monochrome or color originals as print or document, positive transparency or negative.  

Arusha Street Scene.   From 35mm positive original

 

Scanning software  For my first two years with the V700, I used Silverfast [SF] scanning software. But when I upgraded my computer and operating system that particular version of Silverfast software was no longer compatible, so I went back to using the basic scanning software package supplied by Epson. I discovered this worked just fine and gave me scans of equal quality to those made using the rather expensive SF plug in.

Hyde Park Sydney.   From a 35mm TRI-X original

 

Working with Epson Scan   I spent much time and effort wrestling with the adjustments provided in Epson Scan. These include a comprehensive Histogram management facility, Tone Correction, Image Adjustments and Color Palette. In addition the scanner provides Unsharp Masking, Grain Reduction, Color Restoration, Backlight Correction, Dust Removal and Digital ICE.

Then one day I had an epiphany and made some scans using "Auto Exposure" and all the adjustments switched OFF.  I edited the output TIFF files in Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw (which works just fine on TIFFs) and got even better results than before.

I accidentally discovered that I got best results by making a plain, low contrast, unmodified scan using auto exposure then doing all photo editing adjustments in Photoshop.

Tanzania.   From a 35mm positive original

 

Epson Scan Window  A screen shot of the main Epson Scan window is shown below.

Screen Shot of  V700 Epson Scan Window

 

The settings which I use are:

Mode: Professional

Name: Default

Original Document Type: Reflective or Film

Film Type: Positive film, Color negative film, B&W negative film.

Destination Image Type: You get several choices here. I make things simple by using 24 bit color [8 bit per channel] for color originals and 16 bit grayscale for monochrome originals. You can select 48 bit color [16 bit per channel] for color originals but the results are in most cases not discernably better then 8 bit per channel.  Selecting 48 bit slows scanning markedly and produces huge files.

Resolution:  

Reflective: 300 or 600 dpi, depending on the size and content of the original.

4x5 inch large format transparency or negative: 1200 dpi.

Medium format rollfilm; 2400 dpi.

35mm film: 4800 dpi.

I find that scanning at higher resolutions just prolongs scan times and produces very large files with no discernible benefit to the final prints.

Document Size/Target Size: I just leave these at default and adjust image size later in Photoshop if required.

Adjustments:  There is a row of icons with bounding boxes just beneath the word Adjustments in the scanning window.  These are Auto Exposure, Histogram, Tone Correction, Image Adjustments and Color Palette. Having spent years fiddling around with these I now simply select Auto Exposure for all scans and completely avoid the rest. This is much easier and gives better scans as well.

Adjustments: Below the Auto Exposure icon is a list of scanning adjustments. From the top these are: Unsharp Mask, Grain reduction, Color Restoration, Backlight Correction, Dust Removal and Digital ICE.  I switch all of these OFF. Note that USM is on by default and has to be  deselected for every preview and scan.

Working this way moves all image editing into the Photoshop environment which in my experience, particularly with Adobe Camera Raw, does a better job and is easier to use than the scanner based adjustments.

Preview: I use Normal, not Thumbnail as the preview type. This allows more accurate selection of the scanning area. Thumbnail routinely crops the frame edges.

Scan: Before scanning, set up a folder in Windows Explorer or Mac equivalent to receive the output TIFF from the scanner. Align all mounted 35mm images with their long sides parallel to the long side of the scanner.

Remarkable Rocks Kangaroo Island.   From a 6x7 cm medium format original

Image Adjustment  My practice is to send the output TIFF to Photoshop first, for rotation and L/R flip if required, as is often the case. I then send it to Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)  for adjustments to brightness relationships, contrast, clarity etc. After that it goes back to Photoshop for the often tedious process of cleaning up dust, scratches, blemishes etc.

Results  The V700 does an excellent job with all types of large and medium format originals, revealing all the information and tonal range present in the originals. Prints from large and medium format originals, color or B&W, can be made up to any size of which the printer is capable, including large mural style prints.

Avalon Beach New South Wales.  From a 35mm negative

In the case of 35mm originals I am seeing very good results from Black and White (silver/gelatin) film originals, with all the information and tonal range present in the originals being expressed in the output TIFFs. I have printed several of my 35mm B&W film negatives at A2+ size with very pleasing results. My subjective impression is that Kodak TRI-X scans a little better than other B&W films which I have used. This film also prints well in the darkroom.

The V700  apears to be less capable with color transparency or negative originals in 35mm size. These have a tendency to flaring at light/dark boundaries, lack of resolution/sharpness and a blotchy, unappealing appearance of the film grain, particularly from color negative materials. I have found that with 35mm color originals heavy sharpening adjustment is required. In ACR I need to push the Amount, Radius and Detail sliders across to the right, not always with entirely satisfying results. I rate the output from color 35mm originals as suitable for prints up to A3 size.

Summary  The V700 is a versatile, capable scanner with many uses and high quality output. It has been very reliable over the last 4 years with no operational problems.  It is easy to use. When working it makes a cacophony of sounds like the  haunted house at Luna Park, all of which appears to be quite normal.   

If my collection of film images was mainly of 35mm color negative or transparency type, I would seriously consider getting a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Otherwise the V700 does a very good job.