What do you do when you’re the latecomer to a very exclusive party?
You’ve got one of two options:
Dress up like everyone else and blend in with the crowdMake a huge entrance wearing an outfit that’s louder than a Rolling Stones concert
Sony has chosen the latter when it comes to their new digital SLR camera.

expose highlights, or will blow out the highlights when exposure is set for the attention and admiration of professional photographers, while Olympus, Pentax and Minolta preferred to target the consumer market. With the megapixel race pretty much over, these three companies gained consumer attention with their own proprietary features. Olympus developed the Supersonic Wave Filter, a device that “scrubs” the camera’s electronic sensor, removing tiny particles of dust. Pentax made their cameras small and light, some of the Pentax digital SLRs.

Then Sony takes it one step further. The A100 has one feature not available in any camera from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Konica Minolta. Canon and Nikon duked it out for the attention and admiration of professional photographers, while Olympus, Pentax or Minolta. In fact, only two lesser-know cameras made by Fuji have something similar: extended dynamic range is better equipped to capture detail from shadow to light. Cameras can’t. A digital SLR cameras at the Digital SLR Guide. His 5-week ecourse in digital SLR cameras.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chris_Roberts lens. With But the here’s digital the SLRs. Digital Then SLR Sony camera. competes The with built-in every anti-shake compatible (like Minolta Olympus), beat built-in everyone anti-shake else arena, and made it an integral part of their digital SLR cameras. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chris_Roberts lot your of eye, detail 10.2 from megapixels dark for to huge target 16×20 the inch camera’s prints electronic and sensor, all removing the tiny Digital particles SLR of will their tell backs.

how Chris well Roberts Sony dispenses claims practical that plain-English their advice cameras and small Minolta and beat Co. everyone will else either and lose a detail dust-repellent from sensor shadow (like to Olympus), release built-in feature-rich anti-shake cameras reduced small camera and from Co. dark will to either your lose eye, detail 10.2 from megapixels dark for to huge release 16×20 feature-rich inch cameras prints at and the correctly market. expose With highlights, the or key: Minolta.

since Canon all and of light, contrast some in of digital dust. SLRs. Pentax Then digital Sony SLR.

Inspired by a recent decision to revisit my D200s while my D3 and 24-70 – and an SB-800 – were in for service, following some consideration (and rejection, so far at least) of the relatively new Micro Four-Thirds system – and I’ve been pleased to get it back into use.

The image above exemplifies two of the clear benefits of using a Nikon DSLR : great dynamic range, and accurate colour rendition. With careful exposure, the highlights remain detailed, without  blowout, and there’s also plenty of detail in shadow areas.

Alongside this are colours that are accurately captured and reproduced by the D200’s CCD sensor, that makes this particular camera still a desirable choice for many. Even in the light of the newer D300 and more recent D300s (adding video capability), their CMOS sensors – as reported by some owners – apparently don’t have the ability to render colours in quite the same way as the 2005-introduced D200. Have to say I’ve seen some fantastic results from the D300, and I’m quite partial to the results from my D3, but nevertheless …

Available these days at around the £500 mark for a clean one, the D200 is a real steal, with dust and moisture sealing on a magnesium alloy chassis, choice of tons of legacy and modern lenses from the Nikon range as well as 3rd party lens options, actual buttons (!) for things that you may want to change on the fly eg white balance, ISO …and comes very highly recommended.

Many more D200 and D3 images at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com

SMALL SENSOR QUALITY : 2009

Following my ‘AR’-style post of a few days ago, this is in repsonse to a few requests for the ’saturated’ version of this F200EXR image, without the posterisation effect from the DxO FilmPack Polachrome simulation.

One great advantage of small-sensor cameras – whether F200EXR, LX3,CX1 or a swathe of others – is that they always exhibit great depth-of-field, even at their largest aperture :

F200EXR  : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

LX3 : f2 at 24mm equivalent

CX1 : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

This makes small-sensor cameras absolutely ideal for shooting subjects like architecture & landscapes, or for maintaining decent depth-of-field in night & low-light shots, where the camera’s maximum aperture is needed to let the light in.

Add to this the huge benefit these days of in-built image stabilisation – whether sensor-shift or optical IS – and the result is a very useful photographic tool that supplements an SLR very well. On some occasions, it’s definitely my preference – usually no need for a tripod – and in 2009, the results can be very impressive.

Certainly a far cry from my first Fuji 0.95 Mp (!) digital clunker that was pretty well only able to produce thumbnails through to 6×4 at a push !

The market is maturing well, and 2009 has seen some excellent & innovative compacts, SLRs that are more highly-specced with better high-ISO capabilities than ever before, and more recently, the new ‘Hybrids’ …Micro Four-Thirds cameras such as Panasonic G1/GH1/GF-1, and of course the Olympus E-P1.

So far, I own several compacts and SLRs ….But why no hybrid (yet)?  

See my next post for why I’m holding off (for now!)

Many small- (and large!-)sensor camera images at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com  and much more information for the camera-inquisitive at http://1001noisycameras.com

SMALL-SENSOR QUALITY 2009

Following my ‘AR’-style post of a few days ago, this is in repsonse to a few requests for the ’saturated’ version of this F200EXR image, without the posterisation effect from the DxO FilmPack Polachrome simulation.

One great advantage of small-sensor cameras – whether F200EXR, LX3,CX1 or a swathe of others – is that they always exhibit great depth-of-field, even at their largest aperture :

F200EXR  : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

LX3 : f2 at 24mm equivalent

CX1 : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

This makes small-sensor cameras absolutely ideal for shooting subjects like architecture & landscapes, or for maintaining decent depth-of-field in night & low-light shots, where the camera’s maximum aperture is needed to let the light in.

Add to this the huge benefit these days of in-built image stabilisation – whether sensor-shift or optical IS – and the result is a very useful photographic tool that supplements an SLR very well. On some occasions, it’s definitely my preference – usually no need for a tripod – and in 2009, the results can be very impressive.

Certainly a far cry from my first Fuji 0.95 Mp (!) digital clunker that was pretty well only able to produce thumbnails through to 6×4 at a push !

The market is maturing well, and 2009 has seen some excellent & innovative compacts, SLRs that are more highly-specced with better high-ISO capabilities than ever before, and more recently, the new ‘Hybrids’ …Micro Four-Thirds cameras such as Panasonic G1/GH1/GF-1, and of course the Olympus E-P1.

So far, I own several compacts and SLRs ….But why no hybrid (yet)?  

See my next post for why I’m holding off (for now!)

For those using, or interested in using a DSLR system, take a look at http://nikonpro.wordpress.com

Many small- (and large!-)sensor camera images at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com  and much more information for the camera-inquisitive at http://1001noisycameras.com

SMALL SENSOR QUALITY : 2009

Following my ‘AR’-style post of a few days ago, this is in response to a few requests for the ’saturated’ version of the image, without the posterisation effect from the DxO FilmPack Polachrome simulation.

One great advantage of small-sensor cameras – whether LX3, F200EXR, CX1 or a swathe of others – is that they always exhibit great depth-of-field, even at their largest aperture :

LX3 : f2 at 24mm equivalent

F200EXR  : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

CX1 : f3.3 at 28mm equivalent

This makes small-sensor cameras absolutely ideal for shooting subjects like architecture & landscapes, or for maintaining decent depth-of-field in night & low-light shots, where the camera’s maximum aperture is needed to let the light in.

Add to this the huge benefit these days of in-built image stabilisation – whether sensor-shift or optical IS – and the result is a very useful photographic tool that supplements an SLR very well. On some occasions, it’s definitely my preference – usually no need for a tripod – and in 2009, the results can be very impressive.

Certainly a far cry from my first Fuji 0.95 Mp (!) digital clunker that was pretty well only able to produce thumbnails through to 6×4 at a push !

The market is maturing well, and 2009 has seen some excellent & innovative compacts, SLRs that are more highly-specced with better high-ISO capabilities than ever before, and more recently, the new ‘Hybrids’ …Micro Four-Thirds cameras such as Panasonic G1/GH1/GF-1, and of course the Olympus E-P1.

So far, I own several compacts and SLRs ….But why no hybrid (yet)?  

See my next post for why I’m holding off (for now!)

Many small- (and large!-)sensor camera images at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com  and much more information for the camera-inquisitive at http://1001noisycameras.com

If you use Photoshop to correct errors in your exposure all the time then that is a bit sloppy and shows a lack of care.  On the other hand the simple truth is that the camera has a limited dynamic range and then the use of PS is part of the technical virtuosity.  There are many other examples where this is so.  Most images can benefit from enhancement and it is a legitimate part of interpreting the scene.  I am sure that Ansell Adams would have used Photoshop if it had been available in his day.  The camera does not shoot what you can see but post-processing can move an image much closer to the reality that our eyes see.

cheap shoot and burn photographers (not that there is anything wrong with that!) often fail to understand the subtlties of post editing and production. Either that or they dont know how to drive Adobe ACR!!!

CX1 AHEAD OF THE PACK ?

(Macro image from Ricoh CX1)

Prompted to post this, following several recent e-mails from readers of my (various!) blogs …. hope this answers some questions for you : 

The LX3 is acknowledged as one of the very best compacts out there, and enjoys a huge fan base, which has perhaps grown further lately as some potential buyers – swayed by the announcement of the Olympus E-P1, Panasonic GF-1, Ricoh GRDIII (and CX2), and Leica X-1 – have more recently decided that this fixed-lens model, producing consistently great-quality images, has to be considered a relative bargain at around £350 …and have bought-up all available free stock. Pretty well globally.

But whilst the LX3 undoubtedly has a huge, die-hard fanbase, there have been a couple of other contenders for buyers’ cash …notably the Ricoh CX1 and Fujifilm’s F200EXR.  Both have proven extremely popular.

For those interested in all of the (potentially boring) technical differences between these three ‘pocket rockets’ – you’ll need to look elsewhere. Life’s too short. But if it’s real-world usability and satisfaction rating you’re more interested in, you’re at the right place. No waffle, here’s how it goes :

1/ LX3 : Excellent in very many respects:

• Stunning lens (of course), starting at 24mm f2 …but ends at 60mm (equiv).
• White balance dramatically better than it once was – I feel there’s still a little room for improvement. Reds are still oversaturated, even when cooled-off. If you like Canon colour, you’ll like LX3.
• BW – in ‘Dynamic’ form …very film-like, fantastic high-contrast, highly-detailed results.
• Multi-film mode – three separate, consecutive images
• Multi-Aspect mode : very useful. 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 options
• Superb Mega O.I.S
• Slightly ‘hollow’ feel to chassis
• RAW files – very detailed, but need to use (time-consuming) SilkyPix software to extract quality
• Separate lens-cap
• Almost pocketable (!)
• User interface – a bit fiddly, but ok

2/ Ricoh CX1 : vastly underrated

• Some say it’s a far cry from ‘GRD output’ – I disagree (unless you want to pixel-peep… but why would you?)
• White balance – superb. Multi-awb is a useful extra. Great colour rendition, and fantastic ‘Outdoor’ setting
• Electronic level …excellent, should be standard on all cameras 
• Very flexible 7x zoom focal range - 28-200mm(equiv), capturing images that the LX3 is simply incapable of
• Image stabilisation very effective – and this camera is capable of surprisingly good low-light images
• Rapid response …focus, image display, scrolling, changing options ….CMOS etc means very fast all ’round
• Reliable exposures, and wide dynamic range (without the inhibiting DR Double-Shot mode)
• As advertised, not prone to sky ‘whiteout’  …more useful and more impressive than I expected
• Multi-film (Colour, BW, sepia) works brilliantly – exactly same image processed three ways
• Multi-Aspect – but only one at a time : 4:3, 3:2, 1:1  (needs addition of 16:9!)
• Stunning 920k screen – looks like the image you download and view on pc screen
• Amazing 1cm macro capability
• User interface – as good as it gets – intuitive, fast, logical, reliable
• Great build quality exceeds all other compacts I’ve ever used
• Very recently superceded by the new CX2,  with even greater 28-300mm(equiv) focal range

3/ Fujifilm F200EXR : useful award-winner

• EXR sensor promises much, delivers some (sometimes)
• Sensor option (three in total) has to be manually selected for best results
• Some strange metering/exposure reactions, so inconsistent results …even in fairly ‘normal’ shooting conditions
• Irritating real-world aspect : the high-contrast (but fairly lo-res) screen makes you wonder what you’ve captured … or not
• Images often – but not always – look far better on computer display, once downloaded (thank heavens !)
• Multi-Aspect modes : can select one at a time from 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9
• 5x zoom range : 28-140mm (equiv) …again, captures some images that LX3 just can’t
• Image stabilisation ok, but definitely not as effective as CX1’s
• Some blackout after image capture, as if processor working really hard
• Feels ‘lightweight’ and small in the hand, compared with bulletproof CX1 build and solid feel 
• 12MP files (jpeg only) are very detailed …although images not quite as responsive to processing as CX1 jpegs, in my experience
• New F70EXR has wider focal range, and is less expensive – but its sensor is more highly pixel-packed
• Overall – great camera, hoped for more than it has delivered (so far, at least)

Hope this helps you draw your own conclusions on usability for your own needs – because that’s all that really matters.

Without doubt, all three are very high-quality cameras, and all are capable of great results much of the time, even under very difficult conditions.

Images in separate galleries from all three models at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com – enjoy !

Recording Studio

I want to share a discovery with you that I came across several months ago. I am a huge music lover mostly in the hard rock and heavy metal genres but a huge fan of rock in general. Technology today has created the ability to carrying my entire music collection (500+ albums) in my pocket thanks to the iPod. In order to do this I needed to convert my compact discs to a common format known as MP3 and there are many other digital audio formats that can be used as well but today we will focus on CD’s and MP3’s.  Now there is a comprise that is going to occur here. I want the best sound quality I can get, I am not a complete audiophile but I also cannot tolerate distortion either. Fortunately using good software and learning a few techniques can really help in making a good sounding MP3, in most cases being difficult to tell between the cd and the mp3 versions of certain songs.  As I embarked on my venture of ripping audio cd’s and converting them into mp3’s to be cataloged into iTunes I came across a peculiar problem, there seem to be this consistent amount of distortion and lack of sharpness in quite a few albums that I was ripping. It also seemed that the newer the album the worse it got. I quickly reviewed the settings I was using for mp3 compression since I know this is a lossy format and that no matter what certain bits would be discarded for the sake of file sizes. My settings were very conservative using 320kbps VBR to improve the dynamic range as much as possible and reducing the amount of compression as much as possible. I also used good encoding software (LAME 3.97). So it seemed that the encoding process was not the issue. I started to listen to the CD’s in their native form and was completely surprised how bad they sounded and what lead me to discover that this is a trend that is affecting the quality of music in all genres today.

I will give you a very good example, if you listen to the latest release from Metallica called Death Magnetic this is a very loud album and is riffled with distortion and at some points so compressed it just sounds like a wall of noise with no detail at all. Many have criticized this recording, and it’s not just this album but many others. Pop music seems to suffer the worse for it due to the competitiveness of the genre. So why is this occurring and why has it not been corrected. It seems the problem is compression.

Back in the day of vinyl and tape cassettes there was limit to the dynamic range of the recordings. Dynamic range is the range between the softest or the quietest part of a song to the loudest part. LP’s and tape cassettes typically had a range of 60 db. In 1982 the compact disc was introduced as new digital audio and had a range around 90 db, this improved sound quality tremendously. Allowing the audio to have much more detail and sharpness. The volume or loudness of a recording has to be watched carefully as not to exceed the db rating otherwise the recording would become distorted and very difficult to enjoy. However there was a growing demand from record companies to make the music they recorded louder, the idea was, the louder the recording the more likely it was going to get your attention when listening to it on the radio, tv or on a cd. Also the same theory is applied when a TV commercial comes on and you find yourself grabbing the remote to lower the volume. More and more recording engineers where being pushed in this direction. Engineers were forced to use technology called compression.

Compression is an old tool used in recording or mastering studios to reduce the dynamic range of a original recording and essentially pumping up the volume so that it will fit in the cd’s 90 db’s. Under normal circumstances, compression is not a bad thing it can really help in a recording to get all the instruments and vocals to a more equal volume. But when it is just done for sheer volume, quality begins to suffer severely . Today the technique has been pushed so far that it’s commonly exceeding that 90 db’s creating the distortion that you hear. Many of today’s engineers are speaking out against the practice as they understand that good quality audio recordings are being ruined by marketing and that there is no excuse for it. What was to become a major step forward in the quality of music and audio with the introduction of the compact disc has been sacked by the marketing powers of the record companies. If you are still buying CD’s today and demand the audio quality promised from it, you should speak up and let your favorite bands know and the record companies too that we know how to use the volume control on our playback devices we don’t need your help and want the best audio quality we can get for our money. Below is some links if you would like to read more about this or google “loudness wars”.

George Graham,  Guitar Gear.org,  Music Machinery.com

PANASONIC GF1 ...RICOH'S VERSION TO FOLLOW ?

As mentioned with the recent announcement of the new Fuji F70EXR, and again in my post of about an hour ago – without having seen this at that point – the compact market is hotting-up, and here’s another that’s likely to see the light of day pretty soon – although maybe in an altered form ?

Either way, it’s another Ricoh competitor, and really a type of product that they should be developing … perhaps they already are ?

YORKSHIRE LANDSCAPE : DYNAMIC BW 16:9

It was time for another CX1 Black & White image, again in my favoured 16:9 aspect ratio.

CX1 BW output is really good anyway, but I find with some enhancement in Nikon Capture NX software that it’s easy to get that unusual look of fairly high contrast while maintaining detail – just wish it was more like that straight out-of-camera, which we may see in the CX1’s successor.

Likewise, 16:9 is becoming a much more available standard aspect ratio option, and Ricoh would be making a mistake in omitting it from either being covered in a firmware update – which would be very simple for them to do – or adding it in to the spec of a new model, as & when.

There’s a distinct ‘hotting-up’ of the compact camera market, with several new models announced recently, and no doubt many more to come shortly. The Fuji F70EXR is only a few weeks away (EXR sensor, 24mm-240mm equiv focal range, 16:9 option !), as is the new Ricoh GRDIII …and manufacturers are starting to realise that the only way to reverse the trend in the now-declining global compact camera market is to go with the first rule in sales : GIVE THE CUSTOMER WHAT THEY WANT.

Some rules are made to be broken – this is one that should remain unfettered, if those brands who rely on compact sales for at least a part of their income stream want to survive. DSLR sales will not continually grow, and there are signs that lens technology needs to improve now, to meet resolution available from sensors on even the lower-priced models … so there’s another potentially declining market area…for a while, perhaps.

Fact is that virtually all DSLR owners still want/need a compact – like me, they may well find it becomes their most-used camera, and many will consider ownership of more than one or two (or more!). Excite the market with innovation, and notice how, even in tough economic times, consumers will make sacrifices to own the model(s) they desire. Selling the dream ?  Definitely.

Many more CX1 images, in gallery folders for ease of viewing, at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com

Many more camera details, rumours & commentary at http://1001noisycameras.com

INGLETON WATERFALLS TRAIL : PECCA FALLS

And as if it wasn’t wet enough …here’s another image, this captured at Pecca Falls, along the Ingleton Waterfalls trail.

Rather than the usual ’smooth’ flow of water usually depicted with long DSLR-on-tripod exposures running often into 5 or more seconds (with filters etc) – which can get a bit ’samey’ after a while –  I instead used the CX1’s flash, at the right level, on the slow sync setting, to add some sparkle and freeze, as well as capturing some of the water’s flow.. which I reckon worked well on this occasion.

The CX1 zoom range was of course a huge help, and the short focal range of the LX3 couldn’t have covered many in this series …there are many more, and also a larger version of the above, to be seen at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com

INGLETON : JULY 09

Typically Yorkshire weather last week – although it didn’t quite rain all the time – here’s an image from the first outing in the Ingleton area… there are more, and much larger versions, at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com

Although I also packed the LX3, I barely used it on this trip … the CX1’s 28-200mm (equiv) focal range was not only useful, but actually necessary for very many of the images I wanted to capture, and I was more than pleased with the results – some of them could almost be filed under ‘low-light’ !

Anyway, for those that haven’t been to the Yorkshire Dales (in the UK), it’s an area considered to be of ’special scientific interest’, and some of the landscapes seem to be ‘not of this Earth’ – well worth a visit

FENLAND LANDSCAPE

A different colour treatment for this CX1 landscape, with a little more contrast and less saturation …plus some Capture NX  ‘ND Grad filter’ for the sky.

Again cropped into my favourite 16:9 format, it would be preferable if camera manufacturers included this as a standard option. Panasonic and Fuji manage it on some models, and it really does make a difference if the composition can be made at the time of  exposure … perhaps Ricoh are listening ? They need to these days, more than ever.

Formats are a key point in camera usability – and user satisfaction – and I can see why many are drawn to models from certain manufacturers that enable various format options…often 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9.  I appreciate that Ricoh have included a useful 1:1 format …so a 16:9 addition would be an easy firmware upgrade. Rant over.

A visit to http://nickbland.zenfolio.com will ensure your exposure to many CX1 images in 4:3, 1:1 and 16:9 formats.

IMAGE COURTESY OF FUJIFILM

Ricoh has had little direct competition to the CX1, insofar as it has some really interesting & innovative, well-executed features that conspire to take it way beyond any standard ‘point&shoot’ compact camera.

With the announcement yesterday of the new Fuji F70EXR, with some very interesting features – not least of which are a further development of their unique EXR High Dynamic Range sensor, ‘Pro Low Light Mode’, and ‘Pro-Focus’ to give DSLR-like bokeh (out-of-focus backgrounds for increased subject impact) – this seems to be a model that will tick so many boxes for photographers that need a pocketable compact with 10x (27mm-270mm equiv) zoom range that will cover so many bases…that have so far not succumbed to the Panasonic TZ7 and the like.

But will the F70EXR be able to deliver ?

As usual, even though the camera hasn’t yet been released – that’s in August – and no-one’s even seen one in the flesh yet, nor used it - there’s already much speculation on pixel density, low-light ability, lens quality, criticism of the ND filter for slower shutter speeds (instead of an actual aperture control), and whether the whole thing is just too compromised to be a workable tool.

There’s jpeg-only output as well – no RAW.  Same as CX1, then, in that respect. Also, the Fuji’s new ‘Multi-frame technology’ is along the lines of CX1’s DR mode operation. Fuji state that subject and camera need to be still while several exposures are made in quick succession, and this does have obvious drawbacks – I’m intrigued to see how well this works in the real world.

What is absolutely certain, regardless of the answers to all of the above, is that Fuji’s marketing machine will be in full swing shortly …and we’ll no doubt all want one !

 I’ll be featuring more of the F70EXR here as things develop - I think it will be of great interest to many Ricoh shooters, as well as users of lesser cameras (!) that may be looking for a model with cutting-edge technology and what’s likely to have, like all previous Fujis, fantastic colour rendition. The CX1 has this in common with Fuji.

As a matter of particular interest to me, and you may have already noticed…. did I mention the F70EXR, like the Fuji F200EXR, will have a 16:9 format option ?

Just go to http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/f/finepix_f70exr/ for more on this exciting new camera. There are also many more details on the F70EXR via http://1001noisycameras.com. 

As always, there are many new & updated galleries of CX1 images at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com – including some in my favourite 16:9 format !

WILLEN LAKE

Foliage, and a camera’s ability – or otherwise – to fully capture the detail, became the subject of a discussion today, with a feeling that some cameras are better than others (of course), but that its level of success doesn’t necessarily correlate with the investment made.

Because there are so many factors in the capture of a successful image, which can be even more relevant when shooting an image that involves greenery, it’s a real test of any camera, film or digital, SLR or compact …or an in-between ‘prosumer’ model.

Elements such as shooting in relative still ie not breezy, selecting the right camera settings, appropriate metering/exposure, amount, type & direction of light, sharpening and other post-processing can all have a major effect on the success of the final image.

Seeing results from some very expensive cameras, where it’s obvious that they couldn’t nail such a shot, with the level of detail required, no matter what, certainly helps endear compact, convenient cameras to me – depth-of-field is always assured on wide-angle settings on a small-sensor ‘pocket-shooter’, then it’s a case of making the best of that camera’s particular characteristics.

I’ve long since realised that cameras are currently very compromised beasts – they have to suit the mass market to be economically viable, be feature- (and seemingly, megapixel-) ridden, and have at least one ’dumb’ setting for users that can’t be bothered to acquire the skills to use a camera properly, or to even RTFM (‘read the flippin’ manual’ )!

All things considered, I’m really pleased with the results here from the CX1 …many more new images, including some with foliage (!), at http://nickbland.zemfolio.com

BEDFORDSHIRE LANDSCAPE

Not that there’s a ‘Dynamic Black & White’ setting on the CX1 – there needs to be – but this image was processed from a CX1 bw original in Nikon Capture NX, with some dodging & burning with added localised and overall contrast.

Not much else to add – the CX1’s in-camera BW setting is really pretty good anyway, but is unfortunately not at all customisable. Just a firmware update, to enable change of contrast, sharpness and ‘look’ in black & white images would be a fantastic addition.

And while Ricoh are at it – don’t forget the 16:9 aspect ratio option, which again could be achieved in a firmware upgrade… how about it, Ricoh ?

In the meantime, results of my very many ‘manual’ versions of DBW alongside images in 16:9 format can be found in several CX1 galleries at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com

Another comparison image, shot this afternoon. Knowing how well my LX3 can do this, I was keen to see how the CX1 handled the dynamic range in ever-changing light, working at the 28mm end in the ‘normal’ (rather than DR) mode.

With exposure compensation set at -0.3EV, I expected that the CX1 would capture sufficient detail in the shadow areas, hopefully without blowing the highlights. The result, after a little post-processing in Capture NX, is this image that exhibits decent Dynamic Range, with what I’d call great colour rendition and accurate detail.

I set the CX1 white balance to ‘Outdoors’, which always gives a slightly cooler tone than the Auto White Balance setting. I find this a far better starting point on many images, where a touch of ‘warming-up’ in pp is far more effective – and natural-looking - than having to cool-off an overly warm-looking start image. The other colours are also often positively affected in this way, whereas the latter can make life very awkward in trying to achieve a good balance of tones.

So – how does the CX1 compare ?

Well, I shot at the widest (28mm) setting on the CX1, whereas the LX3 lens starts at 24mm … but the 28mm was wide enough for the look I was after, and there’s not a huge amount in it. With the addition of a 16:9 crop, the semi-panoramic look I enjoy so much was achieved, along with all the other aspects you’d hope for.

I’m using the CX1 these days for many more architectural and landscape shots, especially in that wb setting – makes a difference that’s really worthwhile & I’m very pleased with the final ‘look’, especially considering that with the CX1’s jpeg-only output, there’s no going back.

The captured colour range really is excellent, and I’ve a feeling that the lens coating is contributing to the overall great feel to the CX1s images.

Many more new ones at http://nickbland.zenfolio.com, with daily additions to CX1 galleries – enjoy !

Enfin un site qui nous permet de comparer les spécifications des capteurs des boitiers en RAW. Je cherchais pour ma présentation HDR un site me donnant le Dynamic range de chaque boitier.

Ma Nikon D200 donne 11,5ev comparé à la D700 qui donne 12,2ev. La Canon 40D donne 11,3ev et la Fuji S3 pro donne 13,5ev.

Ils classent les résultats selon que vous voulez faire du studio, du paysage ou du photoreportage. Ces trois mesures sont combinées en une note globale logarithmique. Un écart de 5 points équivaut à 1/3 de stop.

http://dxomark.com

Ce n’est qu’un des aspects que vous pouvez comparer si ça vous intéresse. Bien entendu ces tests ne tiennent pas compte d’une foule de paramètres comme l’ergonomie ou la précision du viseur etc.

Voir mon petit tableau excel reprenant les modèles de boitier des membres et nos boitiers de rêve.

Gilles

Similar to the the Pleasurize Music! project I mentioned a while, turnmeup.org is a website dedicated to increasing the dynamic range of new albums.  Their goals are stated as: 1) Defining an objective measure of dynamic range on a record, 2) defining a level of dynamics that is considerably more dynamic than today’s agressively limited records, but not so quiet that it wouldn’t be an option for contemporary artists, and 3) establishing and putting into place a system to measure and certify records that would like to be considered for Turn Me Up! certification.

They’re letting people join the organization as supporters, submit albums to be certified, and become mastering houses capable or certifying records.  This looks like an interesting project, and Vagrant Records (among others) is one of their corporate sponsors; I just hope this all leads somewhere!

The iHDR workshop I did 10 days ago was awesome!  Jay and Varina Patel are both excellent photographers and great teachers.  I learned quite a bit about post-processing, including their “iHDR” technique.  This technique involves creating luminosity masks to blend multiple exposures.  It especially useful where a Grad ND filter would not work well, such as if there were trees poking their measly little branches above your horizon.

NOTE: the iHDR technique is NOT an HDR technique like that found in Photoshop or Photomatix.  These HDR techniques have their place and create very artistic results but are unsatisfactory to me since they produce unbelievable results with added noise, odd tonal transitions, and often excessive saturation.  iHDR is more akin to the “manual blending” technique of combining two images of the same subject but different exposure values.  It is just VERY advanced blending using luminosity masks/clusters.

I saw an AMAZING sunset yesterday at the Treepeople reserve in Los Angeles.  The sky was exploding in all directions.  One side was orange, red, and yellow while the other side of the sky was pastel blue, purple, and pink.  Foregrounds are hard to find at Treepeople but I was able to find some good ones (these shots are soon to come).  I am still processing these images but I thought I would post the following image – my first real attempt at the iHDR technique.  I thought this technique worked beautifully here, allowing a very natural tonal range even in the tree sticking out above the horizon.  I’ll be posting more images from this sunset later; I am going to High Sierra Music Festival this weekend, which is going to be an absolute blast, but I won’t be able to work on any photos for about a week.  I will be taking lots of photos of the wonderful musicians there however.  FESTIVAL!!!!!!!  =)

"Treepeople Sunset" - a blend of four exposures to capture dynamic range