FZ1000 Quirky Programme AE Mode

FZ1000 at E400mm focal length hand held

 

Quirky:  Having or characterised by peculiar or unexpected traits or aspects.

Algorithm:  A procedure or formula for solving a recurrent problem.

With reference to the operation of a camera, the "Recurrent Problem" to be solved in Programme Auto Exposure Mode [P] is the "Firing Solution", which is the correct exposure expressed as ISO setting, Aperture and Shutter Speed. In [P] Mode the camera has to figure out a value for all three exposure parameters, assuming Auto ISO is set and make allowance for the focal length of the lens.

[P] Mode  on the FZ1000 selects an unexpected aperture and shutter speed in certain conditions.  

[iA] and [iA+]  modes appear to use the same algorithms for Aperture, Shutter Speed and Auto ISO.

In bright light  As subject brightness increases, the FZ1000 holds onto the widest aperture available at any focal length until the shutter speed reaches about 1/2000sec. Only then does the aperture start to decrease (the f number starts to increase).

So for instance in bright light the camera will select 1/2000sec @f2.8, with the focal length at E25mm.

Most cameras which I have used close down the aperture as  well as increasing shutter speed as light levels increase. This usually brings the lens to an optimal aperture for resolution and allows for increased depth of field.

This would produce say, 1/500sec @ f5.6 giving the same exposure but a more workable aperture and an easily fast  enough shutter speed.

The remedy for this  is to

* Keep a close eye on the readouts for aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder,

* Apply Programme Shift with the Rear Dial to bring up the f number to a more workable level.

However  [iA] and [iA+] users are out of luck as Programme Shift is not available in these Modes.

In moderate light  The camera makes decisions about the firing solution which appear to be in line with other cameras which I have used.  The shutter speed increases as the lens is zoomed out and the ISO setting progressively moves up to 1600.  There are no surprises here,  however the camera selects a shutter speed of 1/60 sec at wide angle when 1/30 sec would probably suffice given the very good 5 axis OIS.

In low and very low light  As subject brightness decreases the camera holds on to ISO1600  until shutter speed drops to 1/6 second at any focal length. Only then does the ISO setting start to increase  Obviously the camera doesn't want to use an ISO setting greater than 1600. But holding  ISO 1600 can result in a very slow shutter speed and unsharpness due to camera shake.

This can be managedof course by using the flash, putting the camera on a tripod  or selecting a higher ISO setting.   

I find it desirable to keep a close eye on the shutter speed readout in the viewfinder and be aware of the "one over E Focal length" rule for handheld shutter speeds.  So if the [Full frame effective] focal length, marked on the lens barrel and appearing in the viewfinder whenever the lens is zoomed,  is, say 100mm, then the slowest shutter speed for hand held photos is about 1/100sec for a person with steady hands.

With OIS ON a slower shutter speed may be possible but OIS does nothing to control subject movement.

Summary  For best results I find it very useful to closely monitor the aperture, shutter speed and ISO readouts in the viewfinder or monitor and to apply correction as required for best results. Simply leaving the camera to select a firing solution in [P] Mode will sometimes give a suboptimal result, in the form of insufficient depth of field  in bright light or camera shake blur due to slow shutter speed in low light levels.

For this reason I do not use [P] Mode with the FZ100. I use [A] or [S] Mode most of the time.

Panasonic could make an adjustment to the exposure algorithms via a firmware update to bring the FZ1000 firing solution in [P] Mode more in line with other cameras.

 

Panasonic LX100 An Ergonomic Alternative



Mockup Ergonomic Alternative to the LX100. This realisation of the concept is very comfortable to hold and would if built be very smooth and fast to operate. The mockup has the same width (115mm) height (66mm) and depth (64mm counting the EVF protrusion) as the actual LX100.

 

Panasonic's designers   deliberately gave the LX100 a "retro" style control layout with top/rear shutter button location, mini handle,  aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on top of the body.  My time and motion studies have  shown that operating a camera with this arrangement requires more actions and  more complex  actions than are required with a well implemented version of the modern layout using ergonomic handle, mode dial and control dial arrangement. 

As soon as I saw  photographs of the LX100 I realised there is an alternative, more ergonomically efficient way to implement the same concept,  within the same envelope of  dimensions.

LX102  or maybe LX100E ? Whatever the designation this represents my best effort at realising the optimum shape, layout, design and user interface for fast streamlined operation.
When making a mockup I do not start with drawings. I set a few basic size limits within which I will work and I make sure the body thickness is at least equal to a similar actual camera. The shape of the handle and thumb support are created in plywood so the result feels comfortable. It also has to pass the comfort test of several family members with different sized hands.
The buttons and dials are placed where my fingers want to find them, not where I or anybody else imagines they should be located and not where somebody thinks they will look good.
The result has it's own "style" which follows function.  I think the result looks just fine in the "technical" genre which I suspect the LX100 designers wanted to achieve.

 

Basic Principles  There are four phases of camera use: Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review.

Prepare Phase is the few minutes before making photos. This is the time to make camera settings for the prevailing conditions and the photographic task ahead. 

A very useful type of control module in this phase is the set and see dial, lever, switch or ring. This means a module with marked settings which can be seen by looking at the outside of the camera.

This type of control module is invisible in Capture Phase when one is looking through the viewfinder (or at the monitor but not anywhere else on the camera body)  in the process of taking pictures.  So the main appeal of such modules (that the user can see the settings on picking up the camera) becomes irrelevant when the user is in the process of making photos.

A well implemented camera allows all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters to be seen and adjusted in Capture Phase while continuously looking through the viewfinder and without having to change grip.

Best use for set and see modules   If  primary exposure parameters such as aperture, shutter speed and ISO  are allocated to set and see modules the setting has to be duplicated in the viewfinder/monitor. But if  settings for these parameters are visible in the viewfinder/monitor they are redundant on set and see modules. The opportunity cost is that  Prepare Phase settings cannot be allocated to those same modules.

Readers unfamiliar with  my ergonomic language might like to click on the Basic Concepts  page at the top of this blog and review the many posts listed there.  

 

 

Getting the ergonomics right  The mockup illustrated in this post is my vision of the ideal camera built within the dimensional envelope of the LX100.  It has the same width, height and depth.  But you can see the layout is very different.  The handle makes the mockup appear larger than the LX100 but they share the same width, height and depth.

The lens has been moved across to the left leaving space for  a fully sculpted ergonomic handle on the right. I assume this is technically feasible as several Sony NEX cameras have this relationship between the body, lens and EVF.

On top of the handle is a shutter button, control dial and two buttons with user allocated function.  I would use one for ISO and the other for Exposure Compensation. This arrangement allows for the ergonomically optimal shutter button forward position with the right hand in the half closed/relaxed posture.

Adjustment of aperture/shutter speed (depending on the Mode Dial position), ISO and exposure compensation is very fast, requiring just one finger which has to move no more than 11mm. Both hands hold the camera securely and steadily while these adjustments are made.

The alt button allows the function of a dial or other button to be switched to any user preset alternate function. It is easily reached by the fourth finger of the right hand without disrupting the grip.

The two set and see  dials on top are for Drive Mode and Main Capture Mode.

The largish protruding button just to the left of the thumb is a JOG lever for direct control of AF box position.

Including the 4 way controller on the camera back there  is a total of 10 buttons, each with user allocated function.

The monitor is  fully articulated, which experience has taught me is the most versatile type.  

The set and see modules on top of the body and lens barrel are used for Prepare Phase actions, not squandered on Capture Phase adjustments.

Aperture is adjusted with the Control Dial. The rings on the lens are for manual focus and zoom.

All the buttons are larger,  more prominent and more tactile (well they are Phillips head screws which actually serve well as buttons because they are easy to locate by feel)  than those usually found on a small camera. But they are located so that none will be accidentally pressed while using the camera.

In due course I will fully test a real LX100 and will run time and motion studies comparing the LX100 with the Mockup "LX102".

Looking at you, ergonomically

 

Panasonic LX100 Ergonomics

Grevillea.  FZ1000 Hand held

 

In the previous post  I expressed considerable enthusiasm for the LX100 concept.

Now I turn to the realisation of that concept and ergonomic issues in particular. This is after all the Camera Ergonomics Blog.

I offer this analysis on the basis of published photos, descriptions and specifications of the LX100 as I have not yet had the chance to handle one. I have however made a mockup which has exactly the same dimensions as the LX100 and will present this in the next post.

I have also had over a 50 year period, considerable experience using cameras with the "traditional" design and control layout. This I would summarise as

* Top rear shutter button location.

* No handle or a mini handle.

* Aperture ring on lens and shutter speed dial on camera top.

Contrast this with the  "modern" style of control layout the main features of which are

* Forward shutter button location, on the handle.

* Sculpted ergonomic handle.

* Mode dial and one or two control dials.

The three main elements of camera ergonomics are holding, viewing and operating.

Holding   The LX100 has a mini handle and a small thumb support. These features will be adequate for  holding   the camera. But why stop at adequate ?   If the lens were to be moved to the left (as viewed by the operator) this would free up space on the right side of the body for a fully sculpted ergonomic handle.  The top of the handle would form the platform for an efficient quad control set.  This design can be achieved within the confines of the width, height and depth of the LX100.

Viewing  The LX100 has the basics in the form of a fixed monitor and a built in EVF which mercifully does not have to be popped up and pulled out for use. But why stop at the basics ?

My main camera these days is a Panasonic FZ1000. I find myself using the fully articulated monitor very frequently. It is extremely useful for overhead, waist level and low level work in landscape or portrait orientation. It is very useful for hand  held closeups.  It can be used to point the camera at 90 degrees to the direction of my gaze with full functionality and image preview.

Inclusion of a fully articulated monitor would lift viewing capability of the LX100 from good to excellent. This would make the body a bit thicker, but the overall depth would not alter, as the EVF protrudes rearward beyond any style of  monitor.

Operating  I have spent considerable time investigating the operational merits of the "traditional" versus "modern" style control system.  I will post detailed time and motion analysis comparing the actual LX100 with my mockup when I have an LX100 in hand.

I have recently compared a Panasonic GX7 (as an example of the modern control layout)  with Fuji EX-1  (representing the traditional control layout)  I conducted a time and motion analysis of actions required to carry out the tasks of operating each camera.

I found that for almost every operational task the GX7 required fewer, less complex actions than the X-E1.

Some camera users say they "like" the traditional control system for various reasons but "liking" something (or not), is an idiosyncratic personal matter subject to change without notice or reason.

LX100 aperture ring   An aperture ring with marked f stops works quite well on a single focal length lens or a zoom with constant maximum aperture. But the LX100 has a variable aperture zoom so the marked aperture setting will be incorrect any time it is set to an aperture larger than the lens can manage at the current focal length. So checking the aperture on the ring will not be very useful unless that aperture is f2.8 or smaller.

LX100 shutter speed dial  This cannot display a shutter speed longer than 1 second. It is also not clear from the photographs whether it is click stopped in 1/3 step intervals or just whole step intervals.
So for both aperture and shutter speed the user will have to check in the viewfinder or on the monitor for the correct reading.
In my view these  set and see  type modules are better used for setting modes in the Prepare Phase of use. (see the next post)

Summary of my reaction to the LX100, for now:  I think the LX100  represents an excellent concept which has been  realised in a way which does not optimise ergonomics.  A more  efficient camera could be developed within the dimensional envelope described by the  width, height and depth of  the recently announced LX100.

The Panasonic view  is well expressed in the promotional material at the link below:

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/lx100_interview/vol01.html

This is worth reading for those interested in the thinking behind the LX100.

The Panasonic product development people indicate clearly that they are aiming at a market segment that ......"really appreciates the mechanics of a quality camera".... ...........

.........."We repeatedly asked user opinions and built these features into the LX100"......

They do acknowledge that a design based on a Mode Dial is......"more functional".......

"But we think that being able to operate the camera yourself  (the italics are mine. Who else would be operating the thing ?) is what makes the LX100 so much fun to use"..........

My interpretation of this is that they were not looking to make a  camera with maximum efficiency or functionality but one which some users might enjoy because ........"there's something enjoyable about physically turning rings and dials"........

I also note there is a little button on the LX100 labelled [iA] presumably for those buyers who actually don't like messing about with the rings and dials.

My response to this  is

* To the users whose opinions were sought...."Be careful what you wish for"

* To the designers......I think the current enthusiasm for retro type controls is a fad, a push back against the more efficient modern control system for reasons not clear to me. Nostalgia, perhaps ?  Professional photographers use cameras with  the modern system precisely because it is more efficient.

* I got over the "enjoyment" of physically turning those rings and dials about 40 years ago after spending several years with a Pentax Spotmatic. The shutter speed dial in particular was always a pest of a thing to turn requiring the right hand to completely release the camera so the index finger and thumb could both be applied to the dial.

I am sure the LX100 as offered will work well enough just as the Fuji X series cameras work well enough if one is prepared to live with the sub optimal ergonomics.

I will present my alternative vision for the LX100  (LX100 Modern ?) in the next post.

 

Panasonic LX100 The Concept

Going into battle. HMAS Vampire Ops Room. FZ1000.

 

I think the LX100  is one of the most interesting new products announced  last week.  Fair enough it was a lacklustre  Photokina so maybe the LX100 maybe did not have very much competition. But still.........it stood out from some of the other offerings like a bright little light.

Big quality, small camera   Many, probably millions, of photographers have dreamed for years about that elusive ideal, the camera with big image quality in a small body.

The pocketable solution  Sony has defined what is possible in this category since the first RX100 of 2012, followed by the Mk2 in 2013 and the Mk3 this year.

If you want to carry a quality camera in a pocket or purse or want really good image quality in an ultralight  camera for hiking and similar activities, the current model RX100Mk3 is simply unbeatable.

But some people, myself included, think a pocket is a really bad place in which to carry a camera. Pockets collect dust,  lint,  dirt,  gum, leaves, unidentified icky stuff and who knows what else. In due course, the dust finds it's way into the lens and onto the sensor and bits of grit get into the operating mechanism. Yuck.  So the sensible way to carry even the smallest camera is in a pouch hooked to a belt or even over the shoulder on a strap.

But as soon as you decide to carry a camera in a pouch or small shoulder bag there is no disadvantage to using a slightly larger pouch, which will hold a somewhat larger camera.

Photo courtesy of camerasize.com
RX100 with LX100

 

Ergonomics  The other issue with the genre of pocketable cameras is ergonomics. The RX100 trio are marvels of engineering but they are so small that the experience of  using them is not  particularly enjoyable.  They are difficult to hold comfortably, the monitor is very difficult to see in sunlight, the pop up EVF of the Mk3 has to be lifted and pulled out before it will work and the controls are very small and crowded.

There are two RX100s  (original version) in our household at the moment, one of which is readily available to me.  They make very nice pictures. But I never select the RX1000 for photographic opportunities. I just don't like using that camera. 

The non pocketable solution   Moving up a step in size opens up several possibilities for the design. The sensor can be larger for potentially better image quality.  Holding viewing and operating can be improved.  A camera can be developed which provides both better picture quality and a more enjoyable user experience.

In fact if done well such a camera can be a realistic alternative to a DSLR or MILC with kit lens or even a DSLR or MILC with E24-70mm f2.8 pro lens.

LX100---What a big camera !  This is the title of a recent post on a Panasonic Compact Camera users forum. Indeed, compared to one of the RX100 models the LX100 is very large. In fact it's box volume (width x height x depth) is exactly twice that of the RX100 Mk3.

You can compare them  in the photograph and the table. 

Model	Width mm	Height mm	Depth mm including EVF extension of LX100	Box Volume c.c.
Sony RX100 Mk3	102	58	41	243
Panasonic LX100	115	66	64	486

 

Photo courtesy of camerasize.com
The sensor size given is the diagonal measurement. That of the LX100 I derived by calculations and reference to published diagrams of the multi aspect ratio sensor.
Note that each of the cameras which appears in the photographs above has a lens of very similar equivalent focal length range and aperture. 

 LX100 What a small camera !  Now look at the next photo comparing the LX100  to the Panasonic GH4  (a micro Four Thirds MILC), the Canon EOS 70D (an APS-C DSLR)  and  the Nikon D750 (a full frame DSLR), each with an approximately equivalent 24-70mm f2.8 fast zoom.

Compare the equivalent focal lengths and apertures listed beneath each camera in the photo.

Consider that at the wide end the LX100  has a 1.5 stop brighter aperture than the larger cameras. The LX100 is said to be using the sensor from the Panasonic GX7, a known entity. You can see that the overall imaging performance of the LX100 is likely to be at least as good as the GH4 with 12-35mm f2.8 lens, very close to the EOS 70D with 17-55mm f2.8 lens and not a vast distance from the full frame D750 at the wide end.

Now consider the  typical buyer of an entry to upper entry level DSLR or MILC. This type of camera is often purchased with an E28-85mm or thereabouts, f3.5-5.6 kit zoom which stays on the camera all the time. This lens is two stops slower than the LX100 at all comparable focal lengths. Even the best of these cameras has a sensor only about one EV step better than the GX7.   So the  LX100 should have an advantage in straight image quality over the majority of  entry/upper entry DSLR/MILC kits.  I very much doubt the smallish, by modern standards, pixel count will be a problem.

And it is much smaller than any interchangeable lens camera with a built in viewfinder with any 3x zoom lens mounted.

Summary  I think there must be quite a few photographers out there who want a camera which is enjoyable to use, pouch size compact, and which makes really good pictures for which no excuses need to be made.

I don't know the size of the cohort who will be attracted to the LX100 but I do know that the Canon G series cameras were very popular for many years. These cameras attempted with partial success to fill the demand which is undoubtedly there for a  small camera  which makes big images. I had several of these Canon G cams over the years but was always frustrated by their image quality which was not quite up to the standard I wanted due to the small 9.5mm diagonal sensor.

Our family had a Canon G1X which was an ergonomic disaster and the G1X Mk2 also appears to be burdened with ergonomic problems.

Conclusion  I think the Panasonic LX100 gets the size/sensor/image quality/lens/price balance just right. The concept is very appealing.

FZ1000 Preventing Blown Highlights with JPG capture

 

Honeyeater. FZ1000 with I-Zoom at E800mm then cropped. Reasonable picture quality on the bird but the branch is blown out. I used  I-Dynamic but not exposure compensation.

  Preventing blown highlights with high subject brightness range

Exposure Compensation, i-Dynamic and Zebras

The previous post  was about using RAW capture in situations with high subject brightness range (SBR).  This post covers some strategies for shooting JPG in the same conditions.

Until the FZ1000  arrived in my household I almost exclusively shot RAW, using a succession of DSLRs then Panasonic and other MILCs.

However many useful features of the FZ1000 require JPG capture. These include the extra zoom options,  Intelligent Zoom (i-Zoom),  Extra Optical Zoom,  Digital Zoom  and Macro Zoom.

I have recently been using i-Zoom to photograph birds with a focal length of up to E800mm at f4.  I find this preferable to shooting RAW at E400mm and cropping later as focussing and exposure appear more accurate with the i-Zoom. I am usually trying to capture a bird which appears very small in the full E400mm frame.

I also use i-Zoom to photograph flowers with the camera at 1000mm or more from the subject. It's a novel new experience which I call "standalongwayback" macro.

Many camera users prefer to use JPG for all their shots as it is so much more convenient than RAW capture.

I live in Sydney Australia where bright clear sunny days are the norm. Yes, it's tough but someone has to live here. The weather is great but the photographic challenge consists of situations with high SBR.

With RAW capture this is no great problem but FZ1000  JPGs are frequently subject to blown out highlights with unrecoverable detail  loss.

Setting i-Dynamic to Auto or High does not solve the problem. Simply setting negative exposure compensation results in very dark  mid tones.

 

Scene with I-Dynamic High, no exposure compensation.

Same scene with I-Dynamic high and negative 1.6 steps of exposure compensation. I progressively reduced  exposure until the zebras on the clouds just disappeared.

 

On the  Digital Photography Review website (dpreview.com) there is a review of the FZ1000 posted in July 2014. I refer the reader to Part 13 by Rishi Sanyal titled  "JPEG Tone Curves/Dynamic Range". 

You will notice the JPG tone curve which is typical of Panasonic cameras, almost straight at the highlight end with no roll off towards the top.  This allows  good detail definition in light tones with plenty of contrast at the upper end of the curve. The problem is  that without roll off, slightly overexposed highlights are lost completely, never to be recovered.

Among other things, this interesting analysis explores the relationship between Exposure Compensation, i-Dynamic and  highlight capture.  Specifically Rishi discovered that a combination of  negative exposure compensation and i-Dynamic High allows for a substantial increase in highlight capture with normal mid tone lightness.

This discovery provides the JPG shooter with a way to manage high subject brightness range.

It involves using Exposure Compensation, i-Dynamic and Zebras simultaneously.

Zebras ?  This feature has been available on video cameras for some time but is now provided  for still capture on the FZ1000 and other cameras.  It is like the preview version of "blinkies", the black and white pulsing indication in playback images that highlights have been overexposed with lost detail.

You can find Zebras in Tanzania or perhaps more conveniently on page 5/8 of  the FZ1000 Custom Mode.  Explanation can be found on Page 193 of the Operating Instructions.

There are two zebra patterns, I have no idea why, they serve the same function. Zebra 1 leans to the right at the top, Zebra 2 leans to the left. Take your pick.

When you click on the [Zebra Pattern] tab a submenu with 4 items appears, Z1, Z2, Off,  Set. In the Set tab there is another submenu Z1 and Z2.  In this last submenu you are invited to pick a number labelled as a percentage, from  50% to 105%. You can Google this to discover what the percentages mean but for the moment just regard it as a number indicating a level.  Video practitioners use levels around 70% to judge correct exposure for light toned faces.   But I want a level which helps to identify and control blown out highlights in still photos.

After some experiment I am currently using 105%.

i-Dynamic  You find this in the Rec Menu, Page 3/7.  Explanation is on Page 134 of the Operating Instructions.  There are 4 options, Auto, High, Standard, Low and Off.  For readers living in places where high SBR  is the normal circumstance I recommend setting  High.  This means whenever Quality is JPG then i-Dynamic is active. If you are not sure set Auto, which I have found usually gives the same result as High with high SBR.

The concept behind i-Dynamic is that the camera underexposes to protect the highlights then applies a tone curve correction to lift the mid tones to a normal level.  It only works in JPG capture.

Putting it all together  

Setup 

* Set Zebras to 105% (or a bit less if you prefer).

* Set i-Dynamic to High or Auto.

* Set Quality to JPG.

* Set the Zoom Lever (the  one around the shutter button) to [+/-],  Page 7/8 of the Custom Menu. Why ? You can achieve exposure compensation with the rear dial but this takes three actions, Press to click, adjust EC, Press to return to normal operation.  Using the Zoom Lever only takes one action if it is configured for [+/-]. It's faster and the lever only has one job. When I use the rear dial for  [+/-] I constantly find myself changing the exposure when I really wanted to change the aperture or shutter speed (depending on the Mode Dial position).

* Set [Exposure Comp Reset] in Page 4/5 of the Setup Menu (Page 54 in the Operating Instructions) to ON. This way any [+/-] is cancelled if you switch the camera off, change the Mode on the main Mode Dial or the camera is allowed to go to sleep.

Managing the exposure 

* Preview the subject, see if zebras are blinking on highlights.

* If so nudge  down the exposure until the zebras just stop blinking.

* Make the exposure. If you have time and opportunity try a few slightly different exposures.

* Again if you have time press the Playback button to review the last few shots.  Adjust exposure if necessary and try again.

* When the lens auto  retracts, curse the misguided  boffin at Panasonic who dreamed up that silly lens retract idea.

* Remember to cancel the [+/-] if the next exposure is in a different location.

That's it folks  enjoy better JPGs.

 

 

 

FZ1000 Malleable RAW Files

EC 0 adjusted in PsCR
This is a JPG from the adjusted RAW file

 

Malleable--  "Able to be hammered or pressed into shape without breaking or cracking".

Synonyms:  Pliable, workable.

When I started using  the FZ1000 I was concerned that the small (8.8x13.2mm, diagonal 15.9mm) sensor (presumably made by Sony, although I have seen no official confirmation of this from any source), would produce brittle RAW files unable to be manipulated in Photoshop Camera Raw without seriously disrupting picture quality.

In the past it has been my experience that the smaller sensors have this problem.

But Sony (presumably) and Panasonic have created a winning combination with the FZ1000. In practice the files respond very well to considerable manipulation in PsCR.

Specifically there is considerable capacity to pull in overexposed highlights and to lift underexposed dark tones.

By way of example  I present 2 versions of a photo of the Strand Arcade in Sydney.  As a test subject this has several advantages, one being that management allows photography. The other for the present purpose is the high subject brightness range. Even though the interior is well lit it is much darker than the glasss roof in direct spring sunshine and the high rise buildings beyond.

I made one set of pictures at the exposure indicated by the camera in Multiple Metering Mode, then just as an experiment made other exposures at minus 1.66 stops, then ran them all through Photoshop Camera Raw.

EC 0 Before adjustment.
This might not look terribly promising but the file responded well to adjustments in PsCR leading to the photo at the top of the post. 

 

EC - 1.66 EV Before adjustment. This might appear terminally underexposed with no hope of recovery but see the adjusted version below

 



 

EC -1.66 EV after some fairly extreme slider adjustments in PsCR.  Tonally it's not bad with more detail in the roof area than the picture at the top of the post. But the lower part of the picture is quite grainy with reduced color fidelity and tonal gradation.

 Conclusion  The 15.9 mm sensor in the FZ1000 performs at least as well as APS-C (27-28mm) sensors did just a few years ago. There is considerable room for manipulation within the RAW files.

There is some cost to this however.

Highlights pulled down a lot are liable to exhibit chromatic aberration (correctable in PsCR), purple fringing (correctable in PsCR) and a phenomenon which I call "edging". This shows as a halo or edge around highlight subject elements and cannot be removed in CR.

Strongly lifted dark tones exhibit increased digital noise appearing as grain. More lifting leads to more grain. In addition these lifted tones lose contrast, color saturation and color fidelity. These problems can in many cases be at least partly improved in CR and/or  by subsequent manipulation in Photoshop.

So there is no free lunch. There is a price to pay when  FZ1000 RAW files are "hammered and pressed"  in Adobe Camera Raw.

But as long as this is not taken to extremes, I find the results quite  acceptable even when output as a large print.  On that subject I remind readers that grain is less evident and/or less objectionable in prints than in pictures viewed at 100%  or even 200% for IQ tragics, on a monitor.

In practical terms I find that even in situations with high subject brightness range RAW capture works best with exposure at or close to the camera recommended settings using Multiple Metering Mode.  In extreme cases application of minus 0.33 or 0.66 EV steps could be beneficial.

With RAW capture I have found it is not necessary or even desirable to dial down the exposure so as to remove blinking Zebras even when these are set, as I have them, to 105%.

This capability adds to the already considerable appeal of the FZ1000 as an all purpose photographic tool.    

The management of  JPG capture in subjects with high brightness range is different as I will discuss in the next post.

Photokina Roundup 2014

FZ1000.  Building for the future.

 

Every year  I offer commentary on the state of the camera industry from a consumer's perspective. This year Photokina appears to be a suitable window on the products  and possible direction of the major players.

I have no affiliation with any maker or vendor of  photographic equipment. I have over the years bought and used equipment from almost every manufacturer.

So without further ado and in alphabetical order:

Canon  Canon had two really huge, innovative wonderful new product announcements this year.

*  In the DSLR category they revealed the amazing new EOS7D Mk2.  After 5 years of intensive research since the release of the Mark1 Canon revealed to an awed audience that they have Changed the location of the DOF Button !! (whatever that is).

* In the Powershot compact category Canon revealed with great pride that they have Stolen the RX100 from Sony!!  But someone forgot the EVF. Oops, sorry about that, maybe next time.

Seriously, well semi seriously anyway, Canon is showing a lack of initiative which I find puzzling. You see back in the late 1980's Canon was the innovator, turning out products with technical and product initiative which moved the whole industry forward.  I switched from Pentax to Canon and stayed with Canon until the arrival of  the mirrorless Micro Four Thirds system, the new innovator.

Whatever happened at Canon ?  Have they gone to sleep ?

Fuji    For some reason Fuji insists on calling itself Fujifilm. Maybe that sounds  better than Fuji Digicams. I read recently that their biggest selling product is the Fuji Instax instant film camera, so maybe the  ".....film" name is not so strange after all. 

Fuji released the X30  not-very-compact which is just like the X20  but with an EVF instead of an OVF.  Fair enough but most other players in the compact category have gone for bigger and better sensors leaving even Fuji fanatics wondering why they would buy the X30.

Then in the even-less-compact category the amazing new X100T was revealed to a packed audience of admirers.  This has the same sensor, same lens and same body as the previous model. Apparently the viewfinder is a bit different. And a few other inner tweaks.  Wow ??

But the really BIG  announcement and I do mean BIG was the 140-400mm XF lens for the X-T1, E2, Pro 1 line of APS-C cameras with 28mm diagonal X-Trans sensor.

This is Fuji's long zoom with a field of view and aperture range very similar to the Olympus 75-300mm or Panasonic 100-300mm lenses for the Micro Four thirds system.  But look at the size difference.  The Fuji lens has twice the box volume of the M43 lenses. 

It seems to me that Fuji has shackled itself to three design features which I think  

a)  Give Fuji some points of difference in the marketplace  but which I believe are

b)  Holding back present and future development at Fuji.

These are

* The X-Trans sensor. I see little evidence this is any better than a modern sensor with standard Bayer layout. But many RAW converters can't or won't  handle the X-Trans files, or don't manage them very well,  which limits their more mainstream acceptance.

* APS-C sensor size (28mm diagonal). In my view this sensor size is obsolete.  It works well for normal lenses but long lenses become very big like the Fuji 140-400mm just pre-announced. You can have almost the same or in some cases better  image quality (it depends on exactly which products are being compared)  with the Micro Four thirds system which allows for much smaller lenses.

* The "Retro" control system with old style aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on top of the camera body.  I have conducted  ergonomic comparisons between "new style", Mode Dial + Control Dial systems -vs- "old style" Aperture ring + Shutter Speed ring and found the new style is more efficient in operation.

Leica  The venerable Leica announced a bunch of new products this week.  But wait,  several of them look suspiciously like recently released Panasonic models  with the handle  removed, so Leica can charge its gullible customers extra for the body and double extra for an add on handle. Is that marketing genius or what ?

Leica also came up with the T also known as Typ 701 for some mysterious reason. Apart from the absurd marketing which went on and on about some poor employee, or maybe it was a desperate stock holder, sanding the surface of the thing milled from a solid block of unobtanium mined in the outer reaches of Alpha Centauri, the T actually looks to be interesting.

I have not had the ecstatic pleasure of actually laying trembling hands on one as yet, so I can't comment on handling and ergonomics  but somewhere behind  all the silly hype, someone at Leica seems to be trying to design a camera which is pared down to the essentials of picture taking. And that could be worth doing.  Potentially, anyway.

Nikon  "Our product development people want you to buy a NIKON brand full frame DSLR.   And if you can't afford one we suggest you eat very little food for a few months so you can save up for one. We now have lots of nice full frame DSLR's.  Each is slightly different from the other and if you buy one of each you will eventually come to understand the subtle differences between them.

We also make other cameras but there is not much profit on them, in fact recently no profit at all,  so we really want you to buy a full frame DSLR.  And lots of big expensive zoom lenses.

Please support our brand. We face difficult trading conditions and we need you to buy a full frame DSLR and some really big expensive lenses quite soon. Today if possible."

Olympus  has been a bit quiet this Photokina but they did announce the  Big Bazooka 40-150mm f2.8 mid range pro level zoom for the M43 system. This thing is big. It is 160mm long, has a mass of 880 grams and uses a 72mm filter. In fact it is in the same size/mass range as one of the 70-200mm f4 lenses for full frame.  Olympus did  the same sort of thing with it's ill fated venture into the 4/3 DSLR system. They produced big fast lenses of excellent quality which very few photographers bought. I wonder if they are going to have the same problem in the Micro Four Thirds arena. Panasonic's offering in the same general range is the 35-100mm f2.8 which is less than half the size and mass of the Olympus lens. It has a less ambitious focal length range of course but it's compact dimensions are much more in keeping with the ethos of the M43 concept.

The promotional material with the big bazooka  indicates  that it has only 2 aspheric elements and I wonder if a lack of access to affordable aspherics is part of the problem.   By way of contrast the lenses in the Panasonic FZ1000 and LX100 each have 8 aspheric surfaces according to the promotional material. Both these lenses are remarkably compact for their specification, due presumably to the extensive use of aspherics made by Panasonic in house.

Panasonic  The Panasonic parent company has been in deep financial trouble in recent years with top execs reportedly telling divisions to make a 5% return on capital invested or close up shop.

Maybe this is the fire which is driving product development in the camera division right now. Whatever the reason Panasonic has emerged as the year's strongest performer, with a range of innovative, desirable products indicating vigorous evolution in the technology and product development realms.

I have the FZ1000 which performs well above expectations in a wide range of photographic environments. The GM5 is interesting and will appeal to users who lust for smallness. The LX100 is, in my view, the star product of the show, setting a new standard for the advanced compact camera genre.  The GH4 is deservedly winning awards all over for outstanding performance in both still and motion picture operation.

Bravo Panasonic.

Ricoh/Pentax  Last year Pentax stunned the world, or possibly put people to sleep,  by offering a camera, I forget which one, in "a hundred different color combinations". This year they have threatened to make a full frame ILC next year.  In a hundred color combinations ?

Samsung  I bought and used the NX10, 11 and 20 along with if memory serves correctly about 16 lenses over a three year period. I became completely disillusioned with Samsung's inability to keep up with their competitors in any field  of technology or product development. In addition I found a high proportion of the lenses had serious defects mainly decentering.

Now Samsung presents to, I suspect, a mostly indifferent world the big and bold NX1 with a set of very big and bold high specification lenses. Samsung wants to be taken seriously as a maker of professional cameras, having presumably failed to make much headway with  cheaper consumer models.

Good luck Samsung. The question is why would anybody jump ship to join the Samsung team ?  I can't think of a reason.

It seems to me Samsung's NX1 venture is too big, too late. Some of the lenses are very big indeed.  If I were in the market for something big and brash, which I am not, I would probably stay with the proven performers,  CanoNikon DSLRs.

Sigma   As they used to say in Monty Python skits "And now for something completely different"  Sigma offers the dp2 Quattro and a stranger camera-like device I never did see. Apparently it takes quite good pictures in the right conditions. But so do several million ordinary cameras which are not afflicted by idiosyncratic behaviour, ergonomics and image processing. OOPS.

Sony  Last but by no means least we come to the industry's most innovative player. But  innovation needs to proceed hand in hand with coherent product development and there Sony and it's customers have a disconnect.

Sony, with no outside assistance, has created a huge mess with it's proliferation of lens mounts, back focus distances and  product line names. How they will extricate themselves and their customers from this remains to be seen. But not this year.

In fact Sony had very little to show at Photokina this year.

If Sony hired me to advise on their product development strategy I would suggest they do a Canon 1987. In that year Canon dropped the old FD breech mount and adopted the completely new and  incompatible all electronic EF mount. The FD faithful screamed  but the customers bought EOS cameras in their millions and sent Canon to the top of the sales charts.

I think Sony needs to clear the product decks in similar fashion. They need to dump the old Minolta SLR mount altogether and concentrate their ILC energies on a single lens mount, possibly but not necessarily the existing E mount.

But I would take this one step further and suggest that in addition they dump the APS-C (28mm diagonal) sensor size and replace it with something very close to the 4/3 (21.5mm diagonal) sensor, which will work just fine in the E mount.

They could of course simply join the M43 consortium and go all the way with the M43 system but that of course uses the M43 mount which is not the same thing as the E mount at all.

But if they did that, which would be a very sensible move by the way, it would make a standalone  E mount problematic because the inside of this mount is actually smaller than the full 24x36mm frame size which makes designing lenses for the FE mount challenging ........................................as I said, it's a mess.

The problem with the APS-C (28mm) sensor

The problem with APS-C (28mm diagonal) is that it requires telephoto zooms and superzoom/travel zooms which are much larger than those for the M43 system with very little if any gain in picture quality. In fact in my recent testing M43 travel zooms tend to deliver better picture quality than those of comparable focal length range from 28mm sensor systems.

This problems afflicts Canon, Fuji, Leica, Samsung and Sony.  In my view they jumped on the wrong bandwaggon with their mirrorless ILCs.  Micro Four thirds was and is the ILC system most likely to succeed.  It strikes a nice balance between size/mass and quality/performance.

Summary  The most recently arrived major player in the field of mainstream camera manufacture is Panasonic. Perhaps because of this or  perhaps consequent on the threat of annihilation in the event of ongoing losses, Panasonic has this year presented the most coherent and thoughtful set of  photo products, which I believe people will want to buy and use.

Well, I buy them. And use them.