Panasonic FZ1000 Lens Evaluation

FZ1000 at E400mm, hand held. 1/1000 sec f5, ISO 125.  I included this photo to show that even at it's "worst" focal length the FZ1000 lens still does a very good job. The boats in the foreground are about 500 meters from the camera, the trees in the background about 1000 meters. I have printed this photo at 600x400mm size, 360 dpi on an Epson 4880. It presents very well in print with no apparent grain and very good definition of fine details.

 

This post is part of my ongoing evaluation of the FZ1000. In due course I hope to discover whether the FZ1000 can replace my interchangeable lens camera (currently a Panasonic GH4) and a bag of  lenses.

In the previouspost I looked at ISO range picture quality. Now it is time to investigate lens quality.

Method   I went about this in two ways. The first was to go forth into the world and make hundreds of photos at all focal lengths and apertures using many different types of subject material. Most of these pictures were hand held. 

The second was to photograph my standard test chart on tripod with timer delay, focus confirmation with MF and peaking. This chart is a repeating set of classified newspaper adverts affixed to a board. It does not give any kind of absolute reading but is very useful for comparisons. In this case I used a Panasonic GH4 with 12-35mm, 35-100mm and 100-300mm zoom lenses for comparison. These are three of the best zooms in Panasonic's lineup. I have used them extensively and know they deliver high quality pictures.

To assess resolution/sharpness, I  compared  pairs of frames matched for E-Focal Length and Aperture on screen at 100% in Photoshop. 

Focal length range  I will use "Full Frame Equivalent" (E)  focal lengths throughout this post. The FZ1000 refers to it's own lens focal lengths in this way by inscription on the lens barrel and by display  in the EVF or monitor.

The FZ1000 has a focal length range of E25-400mm.  This covers most of the combined range of the comparison lenses which is E24-600mm.

Pricing and dimensions  The Australian retail cost of the  GH4 + 3 lens kit is around $4600. At the time of writing the FZ1000 is selling for about $1150.

The FZ1000 weighs 865 grams and fits easily into a Lowe Pro Apex 110 AW bag with space for two spare batteries, SD cards and microfiber cloth.

The three lens kit weighs 1965 grams and requires a much larger bag such as a Lowe Pro Nova 180 AW.

Expectations  I think it reasonable that one would expect the high grade three lens kit to easily best the FZ1000 at all focal lengths. My findings indicate a more complex comparison with a  closer result than I had originally expected.

Results

Sharpness/resolution   Best lens indicated.  Test aperture indicated. Approximate optimum aperture for the FZ1000  indicated in brackets.

Wide angle, E25mm  f2.8.  [f4]
            Center: FZ1000

Edges: Equal

Corners: 12-35mm

Comment: Any lens which can match the 12-35mm over most of the frame is doing very well. A very good result.  

Short Mid range, E70  f3.5   [f4]

Center: FZ1000

Edges: 12-35mm

Corners:12-35mm

Comment:  Another good result from the FZ1000. The 12-35mm is really excellent at this focal length and the FZ1000 is close.

Mid Mid Range, E 170mm  f4   [f4]

Center: FZ1000

Edges: FZ1000

Corners: FZ1000

Comment: The comparison lens at this focal length was the 35-100mm which is a very fine performer. Both lenses delivered an outstanding result at this focal length but the FZ1000 was just slightly ahead.  Remarkable for a superzoom.

Long Mid Range, E230mm  f4  [f4]

Comment: The comparison lens was the 100-300mm which I know from experience delivers very fine results at this focal length. Both the FZ1000 and the 100-300mm gave an outstanding result and both were equal across the frame.

Maximum focal length for the FZ1000, E 400mm  f5.0   [f5]

Center: Equal

Edges: 100-300mm

Corners: 100-300mm

Comment: The FZ1000 lens is suffering a bit from loss of contrast right across the frame at this focal length. There is also some loss of resolution towards the edges. The overall result is still good however as shown by the photograph at the top of this post. Careful technique and a bit of help from Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw can produce very satisfactory prints.

Super tele, E600mm  f5.6  [f5.6]

For this I used the 100-300mm at it's longest optical focal length and the FZ1000 on iZoom (JPG) at E600.

Comment: As expected, the 100-300 was clearly and substantially superior, center, edges and corners. Unlike all the other focal lengths where there was a surprisingly even contest between the two kits, this focal length saw a no contest with the 100-300 well ahead. Bird photographers note.

Corner shading  Was not much of an issue with either kit, I assume it is corrected in the camera software.

Chromatic aberration and Purple fringing   was quite noticeable from the FZ100 especially in the corners at the wide end.  Both are correctable in Photoshop Camera Raw or Lightroom.

Distortion  is being corrected in camera software in both cases, with the FZ1000 applying almost complete correction.

Flare, sun  All lenses can exhibit various streaks, spots and veiling when exposed to the sun in frame or just out of frame. All four lenses in this test were so affected. However I made many photos with the FZ1000 pointed directly at the sun with no ill effects. Flare is very well controlled in the FZ1000.

Flare, local  The FZ1000 showed a sometimes obvious tendency to flare out a halo around very bright subject elements such as white boats in direct sun. The 12-35mm can also do this.

Contrast/microcontrast  You would expect the GH4 lenses to have higher local contrast than the more complex lens on the FZ1000, and they do. The FZ1000 loses contrast toward the long end.  This can make AF more difficult with low contrast subjects and requires extra  sharpening in Photoshop Camera Raw, plus often a bit of Clarity increase.

Bokeh  Out of focus rendition from the FZ1000 is very smooth in the great majority of photos which I have made. There is an occasional minor tendency to nisen (double line) bokeh with branches, twigs and the like but this is not common.

Mechanical Function 

Zoom type  One would expect a lens like this to be varifocal which means it has to be refocussed after zooming.  A parfocal lens stays in focus while zooming.  Using manual focus I found that if I focus on a subject at the wide end then zoom in the image goes out of focus. But if I focus at the long end then zoom out the image appears to stay in focus. Hmm...  It's a varifocal.

Image Stabiliser  The stabiliser in the FZ1000 is much more effective than that in any of the Panasonic M43 lenses which I have used.  I will report on this separately.  Fair warning though, OIS does nothing to counter subject movement.

Zoom   For those of us accustomed to manual zooming, the FZ1000 power zoom comes as a bit of a surprise. However it works well in practice, with practice. The trick is to understand that the zoom ring is just an actuator for the zoom motor. Gentle but constant turning pressure on the ring allows full zoom from wide to long in about 3 seconds. Twisting the ring faster/harder is counterproductive.

Manual focus  This uses the same ring as zoom after setting the control lever to "Focus". Focus is motorised. With practice MF works well and is accurate, assisted by peaking which is well implemented in this camera. However like zooming, Manual focussing requires practice and familiarity with the behaviour of the actuator ring. This can be a bit disconcerting at first as the position of the ring is not directly related to the focus movement of the lens elements.

Decentering  I cannot remember buying a zoom lens in recent times without some small or larger degree of decentering. This occurs when the lens elements are not located in the optical pathway in exactly the correct position to very fine tolerances.  My copy of the FZ1000 is a bit soft on the right side at mid zoom and a bit soft on the left side at full zoom. Closing the aperture one stop minimises the problem.

Summary  The FZ1000 lens has performed well above my initial expectations.  It  is capable of making highly detailed photos across the focal length range.

For all focal lengths except E400mm and E600mm it performs at a level comparable to the three comparison M43 zooms, especially in a large central area of the frame where most critical subject information is located.

I am investigating strategies for optimising sharpness/resolution at E400 and E600 and will report on these in an upcoming post.

 

 

Panasonic FZ1000 ISO Range Picture Quality

 

High ISO RAW Picture Quality Compared with Panasonic GH4 and Nikon 1 V2

I am considering  the feasibility of giving up my Interchangeable Lens Camera System and a bag of very nice zoom  lenses, to be replaced by the FZ1000.

To make a sensible decision I need  comparative data on performance, ergonomics and picture quality. This post is about picture quality.

For my tests I compared the FZ1000 (sensor diagonal 15.86mm) with two cameras, a  Panasonic GH4 (sensor diagonal 21.5mm) with Lumix 14-140mm lens and a Nikon 1 V2 (sensor diagonal 15.9mm) with 1 Nikkor 10-100mm lens.

I chose these bodies because they happen to be in the household and selected the lenses because each makes a versatile family/travel/holiday kit when mounted on it's matching camera body.    Both the GH3/4+14-140mm and V2+10-100mm have been used by our family in a wide variety of photographic situations. I have found the GH3/4+14-140mm  to be a very high performing single module (no lens changing) kit with which I have made thousands of excellent photos. The V2+10-100mm is a less expensive kit which still delivers good results in many settings.

The Test   I used each camera on tripod to photograph a static subject at ISO settings from the minimum to the maximum available. I opened the files in groups of 3 (at each ISO level) in Adobe Photoshop Camera RAW then transferred the files to Photoshop with no adjustment beyond the default settings. I viewed the files side by side at 100% on screen.

I looked for grain, sharpness/resolution, color fidelity, color shifts and highlight/shadow detail. As far as possible I matched images for output size which meant reducing the (20Mp) FZ1000 files and increasing the (14Mp) V2 files to match those of the GH4 (16Mp).

I ran the test three times using a different test subject each time. There was some minor variation in the results but overall the results were as described below.

Results
Exposure  The two Panasonic cameras used the same aperture and shutter speed. On each frame the Nikon used a 1/3 stop faster shutter speed. Despite this the Nikon files were slightly lighter than the Panasonics.
 
Resolution and  grain  At low ISO settings the FZ1000 had slightly more detail resolution than the GH4 but I had to pixel peep very hard to pick the difference. The V2 files showed some grain even at base ISO and reduced resolution compared to the Panasonics.

At high ISO settings the FZ1000 continued to provide slightly more resolution than the GH4 with the V2 last.

At ISO 6400 the GH4 showed the least grain, as expected. The FZ1000 was about 0.66 stops more grainy and the V2 a further 0.66 stops more grainy.

For grain the GH4 files at ISO 6400 looked like those from the FZ1000 at ISO4000 and the V2 at ISO2500.

Color   Files from the V2 were slightly more yellow and those from the Panasonics slightly more blue. At high ISO settings there was some green shift in the Nikon files.

Dynamic range   One would expect the V2 to have less dynamic range (highlight and shadow detail) than the GH4 with it's larger sensor and I have found this in general photography .  FZ1000 DR  is very close to the GH4 such that they are difficult to tell apart.

Summary  The GH4 tested about 2/3 stop better than the FZ1000 with respect to grain. The FZ1000 tested better then the V2 by the same amount.

Discussion  Of these three cameras the V2  has clearly the least appealing output at all ISO settings. That is not to suggest it is a bad camera but users have to be careful about  ISO and shutter speed settings to get the best from the camera.

In general photographic usage in a variety of conditions the FZ1000 and GH4 can produce very similar results. The GH4 has a definite but not dramatic high ISO advantage but the FZ1000 has more effective  OIS than any of the Lumix lenses which I have tested,  allowing slower shutter speeds and therefore a lower ISO to be selected.  

Although not included in this test I have recently tested two cameras with the larger APS-C size sensor (28mm diagonal). These were the Nikon D5200 and Sony ILCE-A3500. Both of these cameras have a previous generation imager. I found the GH3 and GH4  (their IQ is the same) to produce slightly better image quality than both those cameras right across the ISO range.

 

 

Panasonic FZ1000 Evolution of the Fixed Zoom (VZ) Camera

Lunch at the Opera House. E33mm, 1/250 @ f5.6 ISO 125 Hand Held 

Art Gallery of New South Wales FZ1000, E25mm, 1/60 @ f4, ISO 1000, Hand Held

 

Fixed zoom lens cameras have been around for quite some time.  Most have been consumer compacts. But a more highly specified camera type has been evolving steadily.

Panasonic produced the FZ1 in 2002 with a specification quite similar in some ways to the current FZ1000.   Both  lenses have a long zoom range and bright aperture. Both have a built in EVF. Both are substantial in form. Both are pitched at the photographer who wants a camera which can handle almost any assignment including those requiring a long lens.

Since the FZ1 Panasonic has produced the FZ10, 20, 3, 5, 30, 50, 8, 18, 28, 35, 38, 100, 40, 45, 47, 48, 150, 60, 200 and 70. I may have missed a few, there are so many. 

Although the theme of the FZ series has been consistent over the years big changes have occurred to the technology inside the cameras.

Consider the imaging sensor. The CCD  in the FZ1 had a diagonal of 5.7mm and 2,  that is not a misprint, megapixels. In 2006 the FZ50 had a considerably larger 10 megapixel CCD  with a diagonal of 8.9mm.  By 2012 the FZ200 had changed to a CMOS type sensor with 12 megapixels but a smaller diagonal of  7.67mm.

These cameras delivered  good picture quality considering their very small sensors and were very versatile.

The first FZ camera which came into our house was the FZ200, in 2013. My wife and I thought it was quite an impressive performer in many respects but it's picture quality made no case for either of us to give up our interchangeable lens cameras (ILC), both of which had a much larger sensor.

Many people call the FZ series and similar cameras from other makers "Bridge" cameras. Presumably they are perceived as a "bridge" between compacts and ILCs. 

The FZ1000 makes the biggest jump in sensor size and resolution since the FZ series began. It uses a 20 megapixel back illuminated CMOS type imager with a diagonal of 15.86mm.   In the past such an increase in sensor size and resolution would have required a massive increase in the size and cost of the lens.  But advances in aspheric technology have made it possible to contain lens size on the FZ100 to a remarkable degree.

I don't regard the FZ1000 as a "bridge", but a fully realised photographic device able to stand alone and produce excellent pictures in a wide range of circumstances. I see it as a game changer that could have the potential to encourage many people to abandon their present attachment to DSLRs and MILCs.

I like to call it a  [V]iewfinder [Z]oom (lens) Camera (VeeZeeC), to distinguish it from cameras with fixed zoom lens but no viewfinder.

I suspect we will see more high specification versions of this camera type in the near future from all the main manufacturers, with variations on the VZ theme.

 

Panasonic FZ1000, Rise of the Fixed Zoom Camera

From the right: Baldafix, Pentax Spotmatic with 55mm f1.8 lens, Canon EOS 300 with 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 lens, Panasonic  GH4 with E28-180mm f3.5-5.6 lens,  Panasonic FZ1000 with E25-400mm f2.8-4 lens.
(Prefix E means "equivalent focal length on a full frame, 43mm diagonal sensor camera")

 

I call it the  Vee Zee [V]iewfinder [Z]oom lens Camera

 A (very) brief history  of camera design in one photo.

The photo above highlights some of the key features of hand held camera design and technology over the last 60 years. I used these particular cameras because I happen to own them and because together they illustrate my little story.

On the right is a Baldafix 6x9cm folding rollfilm model produced in 1950. I first used this camera at age 10. It is still in the household and still works although it's lens succumbed to the ravages of fungus many years ago. There is a built in lens of fixed focal length and  a dreadfully inadequate viewfinder.  It has by far the largest "sensor" of this little group and even at it's prime made the least sharp pictures which were really only intended for contact printing.  Due to it's folding bellows design this has the smallest carry mass and volume of the group, even though it uses the largest film size.

Next comes a Pentax Spotmatic, introduced in 1964. This uses 35mm perforated film to produce an image 24x36mm (43mm diagonal). This imager size remains in use today for professional and enthusiast DSLRs.  This is a Single Lens Reflex camera (SLR), a type of Interchangeable Lens Camera (ILC). The lens fitted here is a 55mm f1.8. This type of camera was very popular in  it's day. 

Compared to the Baldafix the Spotmatic's imager size has shrunken dramatically yet picture quality has improved markedly. Versatility and speed of operation have improved also.

In the middle we have the Canon EOS 300, a consumer film SLR  launched in 1999. Here we see the arrival of a consumer zoom lens with a decently useful range of focal lengths from 28-105mm. Electronic controls, a Main Mode Dial and motorised operation all make an appearance.  The transition from all manual device to hybrid mechanical/electronic machine is well under way.  Another key feature of the consumer SLR is seen. This particular camera like many others of it's type has never been used with any lens other than the 28-105mm zoom with which it was initially purchased.  The convenience of the zoom easily outweighed the slight improvement in picture quality which might have resulted from using several single focal length lenses.

Further to the left we come to the Panasonic GH4 fitted with a 14-140mm all purpose zoom lens. While Pentax and Canon have a long history of making cameras, Panasonic did not begin making cameras until 2001. They jumped straight into the digital/electronic era. The GH4 shown here is a highly sophisticated hybrid stills/video model with very advanced specification and features.  The imaging sensor has a diagonal of  21.5mm giving it only a quarter the area of the old 35mm film. Despite this the imaging output is of very high quality. The small sensor also allows the lens to be much smaller. Canon does or did make a zoom of comparable focal length range for the 43mm sensor. It is huge, heavy and expensive.

Last is the Panasonic FZ1000.  This has a fixed zoom lens with an even longer zoom range and wider aperture than that fitted to the GH4. The sensor continues the trend to even smaller size while giving up very little in picture quality.

This camera has the zoom range, picture quality and performance to replace many DSLR and MILC multi lens kits on the market today. It is much smaller than or has a much greater zoom range than any current interchangeable lens camera (ILC) fitted with a superzoom/travel zoom lens.

I have been making a lot of photos with this camera in recent weeks and have been very impressed with it's capability both indoors and outdoors.  I have been printing some of the pictures at 600x400mm size and been very favourably impressed with the results.  People look at these prints and say, Wow ! that looks good.

The FZ1000  is a nice camera to use, with good ergonomics and performance. It is very versatile and competent in many different photographic situations. I will probably use it exclusively for several months and in due course decide whether or not to keep my ILC and lenses.

FZ1000, casual hand held snapshot. This picture illustrates the excellent clarity, resolution, highlight and shadow detail which is routinely available from the FZ1000.

 

Summary  The  little group camera photo  illustrates some very clear trends in design and technology over the last 60 years.  Each camera is approximately the same size. No surprise there, each is intended to be used hand held and human hands have not changed size in the last little while. The use of electronics is one dramatic change. Imaging sensors have become progressively smaller. This has allowed designers to fit compact lenses of ever increasing zoom range. The FZ1000 lens would have been hailed as the ninth wonder of the modern world had it appeared ten years ago. 

Discussion   In retrospect it seems to me that the interchangeable lens camera was a clever answer to a specific question arising in the first half of the 20th Century, namely "How can a camera system  provide for different angles of view when lenses are of fixed focal length ?" 

Now we are in the first part of the 21st Century and zoom lens technology has improved dramatically. It is no longer necessary to use different lenses to cover the angles of view required by most photographic situations.  

It seems to me the question now is "Is it possible to include most of  the benefits provided by an ILC in a very much smaller, more affordable  single module package ?"

And I think the answer to that question is moving closer to "yes" with each generational improvement in the Vee Zee camera.

 

 

Panasonic FZ1000 Introduction

Evening scene Sydney. FZ1000, tripod. I shot the same scene last year on GH3 with 35-100mm f2.8 lens mounted. On my assessment this is the best zoom lens for the M43 system. The FZ1000 image matches it for resolution of fine detail across most of the frame except the edges and corners but even there it is very close. In the original file on screen I can read all the words on the signs on the expressway overpasses.

 

Is this the best fixed zoom lens camera of all time ?

Is the FZ1000 the beginning of the end for the ILC ?

I started using cameras 60 years ago. For most of that time I have used  interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) because that has been the way to decent performance with a range of lens focal lengths. But the least appealing and least ergonomically satisfactory feature of an ILC is the process of changing lenses. I hate changing lenses. I hate having to buy and carry a bunch of lenses. The whole business is complicated, awkward and expensive. When a photo op. appears I invariably have the wrong lens mounted.

I really want  an "all in one" camera which has a fixed zoom lens providing a wide range of focal lengths together with good enough picture quality and performance.

Many users   want the same thing. Most DSLR buyers mount some kind of zoom lens, often a "travel zoom" type at purchase and leave it in place permanently. Camera makers have tried to meet the need for a more compact approach to the problem.  Thus we have fixed travel zoom lens cameras and fixed superzoom lens cameras in various configurations.

But there have been  problems with each of  these interpretations of  the ideal "do everything" camera.

Long zoom lenses on DSLRs are quite large, heavy and expensive. Similar zooms for the Micro Four Thirds system are smaller but still have limitations on focal length range if compact dimensions are to be maintained.  Long zoom lenses on compacts without an EVF look good on paper but are very difficult to hold steady at the long end of the zoom. Superzooms with an EVF have until now all had very small sensors which compromise picture quality.

Recent advances in technology  have allowed  the use of many high quality aspheric elements in lens design. This has enabled the development of smaller lenses with a high zoom range.  Small sensors are improving every year.

The Sony RX10  released last year utilised these new technologies to create an advanced, modern version of the "all purpose" camera with the picture quality, performance, lens focal length range and maximum aperture of a good quality ILC with two high performance interchangeable lenses.  All this came on the market in a package much smaller and less expensive than the equivalent ILC with twin f2.8 lens kit.

As is often the case Sony was first to market with this new style camera. Unfortunately as is also often the case Sony's ergonomic design was less than optimal so I passed on the RX10 and  waited for a more coherently realised version on the same theme. In due course this appeared in the form of the..... 

Lumix FZ1000,  the latest do everything wunderkamera from Panasonic.  This uses the same or very similar 15.86mm (diagonal dimension), back illuminated, 20Mpx sensor as the RX10, possibly the Sony IMX183CQ.

But the FZ1000 wraps a more appealing package around the sensor at a substantially lower initial price. The FZ1000 has almost double the zoom range, better ergonomics, faster performance and 4K video.

I found this irresistible so I bought one and am very pleased that I did so.

The FZ1000 comes close to the camera I have been wanting for the last 60 years.

It is the first  "one module" camera to make me think very hard about selling off all my ILC equipment, bodies and lenses. It's that good and I am fussy about picture quality and performance.

I think the FZ1000 really does represent the beginning of the end for the ILC as a camera genre. I believe it easily meets the requirements of most camera users, including expert/enthusiast types,  in most situations most of the time. I believe that for all but professional users it makes the ILC redundant.

Followers of this blog will be reading a lot about the FZ1000 in coming months.

 

 

Panasonic GH4-vs-GH3, RAW ISO Image Quality

GH3 at ISO  12800 Crop

 

GH4 at ISO 12800 Crop

 

Executive summary--No difference

For those who want the details, read on. Although to be candid there is not much more to say.

I finally got my GH3 back from repairs yesterday. It had gone in to get a new EVF eyepiece lens as the original had become finely scratched from normal and careful cleaning. The Panasonic service contractor in Sydney, Definitech, was on the case but Panasonic was very slow to supply the required part.

Anyway the GH3 is like new now. The eyepiece optics may have been changed in mid production because the "smearing" problem initially reported on GH3 cameras is no longer evident.

So I ran my usual  ISO test comparing the GH4 with the GH3. I simply photograph a set of bookshelves with a section of newspaper advertisements for resolution testing, at each whole stop ISO setting.  The files were viewed in Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.6, final version.

Results  I found across the ISO range that the two cameras used the same  aperture and shutter speed at each ISO setting.The GH4 files were darker with a left shifted histogram compared to the GH3. The amount I had to increase the exposure of the GH4 files to match the GH3 files with the slider in Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw was about 0.3 stops from ISO 100-12800.

The 25600 files from the GH4 were a bit odd. I had to give them 1.2 stops extra exposure on the PsCR slider to match the GH3 files even though both cameras used the same aperture and shutter speed. Across the ISO range the GH4 files were a little more blue and those from the GH3 a little more yellow, both using AWB.

All the files were evaluated side by side on screen at 100% after matching for exposure (brightness) and color as best I could.

At ISO 25600 the GH3 files showed noticeable magenta color shift in the shadow areas. The GH4 files displayed  negligible color shift.

With respect to digital luminance noise (grain) and ability to resolve detail I found no difference between the GH3 and GH4 at any ISO setting.

There was negligible chroma noise from either camera.

But several reviewershave reported that the GH4 provides a modest IQ improvement over the GH3.  How can this be ?

I think the  explanation lies with PsCR.  When I started using the GH3 I found that ISO 6400 files were quite grainy with magenta color shift in dark tones. Now with an updated version of PsCR the ISO 6400 files are less noisy and have negligible color shift.

I hypothesise that reviewers may have been comparing files from the GH3 converted with an older version of PsCR (and  saved as JPG or TIFF) with those from the GH4 converted with PsCR 8.6.  Or maybe some people just saw what they wanted to see.

The reasons for upgrading from a GH3 to a GH4 have to do with the EVF, AFC/Burst performance and 4K video.

The image quality/picture quality has not changed.

Most Cameras are obsolete or soon will be

GH4 with 14-140mm lens

 

July 2014

I read today  on Thom Hogan's dslrbodies website a report of Canon's latest quarterly results for camera sales. Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC) are down 19% year on year and Compacts down 38% year on year.

At the same time I noted a high level of interest on the dpreview website for the Panasonic FZ1000,  a new "all in one" superzoom camera.

What does this tell us ?  Two obvious things, I think. 

First regular compact cameras are being replaced by smart phones, en masse.

Second,  customers are increasingly opting not to buy a new ILC.

I have been using  ILCs for almost 50 years. I find the least appealing feature of  the interchangeable lens camera is precisely that which defines it, namely the requirement to change lenses if a wide range of focal lengths is required. I am not alone.

I understand industry data indicates the majority of ILC buyers mount a kit zoom or superzoom lens to their ILC and leave it there permanently.

The message is: (almost) everybody hates changing lenses and most camera users avoid doing so. Even professional photographers will carry two bodies, one with a standard zoom lens mounted, the other with a tele zoom lens, so as to avoid having to change lenses.

Aspheric lens elements Recent developments in technology have made highly accurate aspheric elements available in mass produced lenses for consumer products. Those same aspheric elements allow lenses to be made which have a longer focal length range and more compact dimensions at a lower price point than was possible in the pre-aspheric era.

Rise of the superzoom,  "all in one" camera. This type of camera has been around for several years but has until now not managed to challenge ILC hegemony of the  quality camera market. Indeed this camera type has for years been referred to as a "bridge", presumably meaning a bridge between compact and ILC types.

Until very recently most superzoom cameras used very small sensors with a diagonal of about 7.7mm. but the latest ones including the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000 use the larger 15.9mm sensor providing much better picture quality.  They are able to do this because of the benefits offered by lenses containing multiple aspheric elements.

These new superzoom cameras are starting to make ILCs  look irrelevant. They are less bulky and less expensive than an ILC with superzoom lens mounted.  I would say right now the picture quality of the RX10 and FZ1000 is good enough for most photographers most of the time and that most users are probably wasting their money on larger/more expensive ILC kits.

Better zoom lenses.   For many years after I started using cameras there was no such thing as a zoom lens for the mass market. There were a few zooms available for motion picture use but these were huge and cost as much as a house.  Now we have budget consumer zooms producing picture quality every bit as good as that of fixed focal length lenses. The argument for fixed focal length lenses is becoming weaker all the time.

Improved performance of small imaging sensors   The imaging performance of small sensors is increasing every year. My first digital SLR was a Canon EOS 20D. This has a DXO Mark RAW performance score of 62. When I look back at my photos made with this camera I never think that they are in some way deficient.  The camera's technical capability was perfectly adequate to make a good photo in almost any circumstance. The current Sony RX10 with a considerably smaller sensor has a DXO Mark score of 69.

So to the extent that DXO Mark scores are a valid guide to real world performance, we see a strong improvement in performance over time, such that the performance  of large sensors a few years ago is now matched or exceeded by current generation smaller sensors.

Smaller sensorspermit the use of smaller lenses and allow the use of zooms with increased focal length range.

Multi asphericelements permit the use of smaller lenses, with increased focal length range.

DSLR - vs- MILC  A few years ago I thought that the DSLR as a camera type would be overtaken by the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens type (MILC). I still think the MILC will become more popular than the DSLR but I now think they will both be overtaken by the fixed zoom lens type.

In fact, I think that apart from special purpose items such as the waterproof/shockproof  type almost the entire camera/lens lineup of the major manufacturers could be replaced by just 6 products.  Here they are:

1.  Advanced Compact  This has a 15.9mm (so called "one inch") or 21.5mm ("four thirds") sensor, a compact handle, built in EVF,  and a zoom lens which covers wide to normal diagonal angle of view, say 85 degrees to 24 degrees. This corresponds to a focal length of 23-100mm on a full frame (sensor diagonal 43mm) camera.

This camera would suit the enthusiast/expert or even professional user who wants more performance and  better ergonomics than a smartphone can offer but still maintain compact   dimensions.

2. Superzoom, all in one camera   This already exists in the form of the Panasonic FZ1000 with 15.9mm sensor. If a smaller sensor was used, say about 10mm diagonal, an even greater zoom range could be used, covering very wide to super telephoto.

This would suit the beginner/enthusiast/expert who wants one camera which can do just about everything with good picture quality. It is ideal for holiday/travel use.

Now we come to four products which I think can replace all the DSLRs, MILCs and all their interchangeable lenses.  Really. All of them. 

These are full featured  cameras each with built in zoom lens of high quality. Each has a fully articulated monitor, built in EVF in a hump, built in flash, full anatomical handle and thumb support and a full suite of controls for the enthusiast/expert user. They would have a sensor in the size range of 15.9mm ("one inch") to 21.5mm ("four thirds") diagonal.

In my conception there are two focal length ranges, wide/normal and long/very long.

There are two specification levels:

The first is for the amateur/enthusiast emphasizing compact dimensions of body and lens.

The second is for the expert/professional user, with an emphasis on higher performance, larger battery and buffer, higher burst speeds and wider lens apertures. Size, mass, performance and price are greater.

3. Amateur/enthusiast, wide/normal  This has a diagonal angle of view in the range 90 degrees (wide) to 20 degrees (long). This is equivalent to about 22-120mm on a full frame camera or 11-60mm on a micro four thirds camera. The package is compact yet well specified. The lens has an aperture of about f3.5-5.6. The angle of view range is suitable for most photographs made by most users.

4. Amateur/enthusiast, long/very long  This has a diagonal angle of view of about 21 degrees to 4.1 degrees, equivalent to about 130-600mm on a full frame camera or 65-300mm on a micro four thirds camera. The angle of view range is suitable for many types of sport/action/wildlife/bird photography. The lens aperture range is about f3.5-5.6.

5. Expert/professional, wide/normal  This has the same diagonal angle of view as #3 above. The body is larger with a bigger handle holding a larger battery. There is a larger buffer, faster burst performance and more highly specified user interface with three dials. The lens has a wider aperture of about f2-2.8.

6. Expert/professional, long/very long  The lens focal length has an extended range with a diagonal angle of view of 21 - 3.5 degrees, equivalent to 130-800mm in full frame or 65-400mm in micro four thirds. The body has the same features as that of #5 above with a high specification and performance capability, especially for sport/action. The lens has a wider aperture than that in #4, in the range f2.8-5.6.

That's it. Six products. That's all.

What about ultrawide lens capability ?  No problem, just mount a converter.

What about specialty lenses  Such as tilt/shift ?  I used large format cameras then 35mm cameras with tilt shift lenses for many years. But since the advent of Photoshop I regard the tilt shifts as obsolete.

What about single focal length lenses ?  In my view, they are not required. Their limitations exceed their benefits in my view.

That's it really,  I think that great changes are coming to  the  market for new cameras.

I think that the number of different makes, models and manufacturers will fall steeply to a much lower level than that which prevails now. 

I think that ILCs will be overtaken by cameras with built in zoom lenses which will better serve the majority of buyers' requirements.

If users can have the main advantage of  an ILC  (choice of different focal lengths) without having to change lenses and  without losing picture quality, I would say it is game over for the ILC.  

We shall see.