Category: Photography Page 7 of 10

Lately again, I’ve been fairly actively involved in forum discussions at DPReview, posting these comments. For some reason, aspect ratios are important to me — the shape of the rectangle or square. Most cameras only work best in one aspect ratio. I was thrilled to see Panasonic continue their multi-aspect ratio feature in this camera. This is some of what I’ve learned.

Panasonic is releasing its latest compact camera in the LX series, the LX100, that also has their multi-aspect ratio feature, introduced in the LX3 in 2008, which I tremendously enjoyed in the LX5.

The LX100 uses the huge M43 sensor from their GX7 camera. In the video below, Gordon Laing briefly explains what Panasonic has done, including some of the drawbacks and advantages at minute-5.

The huge advantage of the multi-aspect ratio sensor is that at 24mm, the LX cameras maintain true 24mm field of view diagonally in the 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios! In comparison, the Sony RX100 series camera loses field of view in the 4:3 and 16:9 ratios, so getting a true 24mm wide is impossible, except in 3:2. Having been shooting with the RX100 for a few years now, I greatly miss this feature.

This article points out how fun this is for 16:9 at 24mm:

Panasonic going down with a fight: the new LX100

At 24 mm-e, the 16:9 aspect ratio of the LX3 has the same horizontal angle of view as a 22.8 mm-e lens on a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor (or 135-format film). That’s seriously wide for a compact camera with a zoom lens. The LX100 retains this fun feature.

I discovered this anomaly. Like with the LX7, Panasonic used a 4:3 ratio sensor, instead of the ideal sized 3:2 sensor, so the 16MP sensor is a bit too tall for maximum efficient use of its pixels, so it loses more megapixels with their multi-aspect ratio tweak, which results in only 12+ MPs, much lower than the 20MP 1-inch sensor competition.

Panasonic’s aspect-ratio madness

Now the LX7 has an off-the-shelf 1/1.7″-type sensor (PDF) like the rest, but it uniquely treats that sensor as ‘oversized’ (the image circle never fills the sensor). The result is that the active sensor area in the LX7 is noticeably smaller than direct competitors, never mind the likes of the Sony RX100 with its 1″-type sensor.

What’s more, instead of having a sensor of the ideal ~3:2 aspect ratio, the LX7 sensor has the usual 4:3 aspect ratio. That means more of the sensor area is never used. And that’s why the difference between the ‘total megapixels’ and the ‘effective megapixels’ has risen compared the LX5: those figures are now 12.7 and 10.1 (compared to 11.3 and 10.1 in the LX5).

The LX100 is large, and only zooms to 75mm. That and with only 12+ MP makes it less than compelling, unless the image quality ends up being superb because of the lens — results aren’t out yet.

The bigger pixels of this sensor will probably make it the low light champion in a camera of this size.

THE ULTIMATE COMPACT

I’d prefer to see a multi-aspect ratio camera designed from the smaller pixels that the Sony 1-inch sensor has, or an oversized 1-inch sensor version. Panasonic could do this in the LX8, if they still have plans for it.

If the current 1-inch 3:2 sensor was used in a multi-aspect ratio design, a 3MP or so loss in pixels would result, but the smaller image circle wouldn’t stretch the limits of the small lens so much (like the G7X*), and greater image quality could result, or even greater zoom range if the lens were made larger (the RX100 III only zooms to 70mm). It still could be smaller than the LX100 and have superb image quality.

*It’s too soon to see if the G7X has sacrificed image quality in order to get the very useful 24-100mm zoom range in a 1-inch sensor camera of this small size. Gordon discusses the G7X at minute-43 in this video.

The ultimate would be made with an OVERSIZED version of the 1-inch sensor, so it wouldn’t take a MP hit in the 3:2 format, and would gain MPs in 16:9 and 4:3, and allow the same aspect ratio diagonally in 16:9 and 4:3 as in 3:2.

THE SUPREME ULTIMATE

I can’t understand why this hasn’t happened yet.

My passion is for all mirrorless cameras, including full frame to have either ROUND sensors that capture everything the lens throws into the camera (the sensor would be the same size as the image circle), or an OVERSIZED SQUARE sensor, which would be just as wide as Panasonic’s multi-aspect, but taller, so that 1:1 would also completely fit into the image circle, and would also not lose pixels or field of view. An oversized square sensor has many other advantages too, especially for tripod mounted cameras, discussed here:

Square sensors for mirrorfree cameras

Up With Squares! More on Square Sensor Cameras

THE GOLDEN RATIO (also called the golden mean)

1.618:1 has been known for 2000 years to be the most pleasing rectangular shape, but no camera offers this ratio. Panasonic could add it to their ratio options without hardly any extra cost. One photographer suggested 3:2 is close enough, but to me, 3:2 looks like a fat golden mean, not close enough at all.

The golden mean wouldn’t always be the preferred ratio, because the subject often determines the best ratio, but it could prove to be more preferable than 3:2 in many situations, if camera companies would only give us this option. It’s difficult to shoot in the golden ratio currently, because we would only be guessing where the borders are.

I’ve been saying: “THINK OUTSIDE THE (SLR mirror) BOX,” now that mirrorless cameras are no longer so limited. We may as well use the entire image circle with sensors big enough to capture all that the lens sees.

This is even more important in full frame, interchangeable lens cameras in which lenses are big and heavy. Why are we only capturing the 3:2 horizontal strip, and not what’s above, below and on the sides?

It makes no sense. Camera companies are stifling artistic creativity, big-time!

The LX100 is apparently the first compact to sport 4K video. Gordon explains in the video at minute-7 two advantages of shooting in 4K that many don’t realize.

– –

LX100 at minute-5[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYK1yalNfI]The best new cameras and lenses at Photokina 2014! Canon, Nikon, Sony and much more!

Gordon Laing

Published on Oct 1, 2014

In this video I’ll show you all the most exciting new cameras, lenses and accessories launched at the Photokina 2014 show! You’ll find out about all the latest camera gear that’s coming soon! It’s a big video, lasting 53 minutes, but I’ve divided it into sections for each company, so if you want to skip to your favourite, you can use the guide below. As always you can find my latest reviews at http://www.cameralabs.com

Running order

1:56: Panasonic
7:46: 4K Video
10:39: Red Digital Cinema
13:11: Sunbounce
13:36: Olympus
16:52: Fujifilm
18:39: PhotoMadd
19:55: Sony
22:44: Three Legged Thing
24:26: Sigma
28:48: Zeiss
33:18: LEE Filters
34:00: Samsung
35:42: F-Stop
37:54: Nikon
40:09: Canon
50:08: Bonus!

Related:

[videos] Charlie Waite: Watch what can be done with a compact camera | The LX5 to replace my G11?

(TWIP video) Panasonic Lumix LX100

Doug Kaye at minute-32:15:

“As much as I like the LX100, I really don’t know why someone would buy that over the Sony (RX100 Mark III), and spend the extra $100, unless they wanted that questionable 4K video. It’s bigger. It’s more expensive. The image quality of both cameras are excellent. The controls are better on the Lumix. Menus are better on the Lumix. But I would much rather have one that I could put in a pocket.”

(B&H video) First Look: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Matt Frazer, Panasonic rep says:

“This is the successor to the LX7, which is frankly a series of cameras that has been very successful for Panasonic. And we decided to take the camera in a direction where it gets a little bit bigger….”

Also: the lens has 5 “all glass” aspheric lenses with 8 aspheric surfaces, with two of them ED glass. And their new milling technique gets rid of the ‘onion rings’ in the bokeh balls.

I’ve spent thousands of hours researching various aspects of photography, but still, every once in awhile, I’ll see something that blows away what I’ve thought for many years. This is one of those very exciting, eureka-moment articles that has blown away my previous paradigm, so I thought I’d share.

Color used to be determined by the film companies, mainly Kodak, and then Fuji. But then came digital, so now the camera companies are in complete control of what color their cameras can capture. I’ve thought that Nikon and Canon would never compromise color for anything, until I read this article a few months ago.

Apparently, they’re compromising color in order to get higher ISO, low light sensitivity, which isn’t good news for me, since I go to great lengths to get the best color I can, but can’t afford to switch from full-frame Canon to medium format, at this time, where color has not been compromised for ISO.

Here is the scoop. Apparently, most photographers are completely unaware of this. So far, every pro I’ve mentioned this to didn’t know. Very interesting how marketing works. Sometimes high ISO is more important than color, for shooting the northern lights and night photography, for example, but for most of what I photograph, I’d rather have the best color possible.

It would be nice if Canon and Nikon offered two versions of their higher end cameras: one tweaked for ISO (current models) and the other for color.

Note: apparently, this is the first time a medium format camera is using the CMOS sensor, which is the current standard in 35mm cameras, such as Nikon and Canon.

From: Luminous Landscape

The Phase One IQ250 CMOS Fully Realized
by Doug Peterson

Prerequisite Reading

If you haven’t heard about the IQ250 yet, I’d suggest before you read this article you read this site’s preliminary review and Digital Transitions’ 11 Things to Know About the Phase One IQ250

[…]

…Color. Color. Color.

…when Sony approached Phase One with an offer to build what would eventually become the IQ250 sensor there was one looming questions, could Phase One tame CMOS color?

Historically, CMOS has not had the best reputation for color rendition. But teasing apart cause and effect has been, up until now, very difficult. CMOS and CCD were being used by very different companies in very different systems. Most CMOS cameras are built for the broadest possible range of applications. They are built by consumer electronics companies with a volume sales business model, where features and price are higher priorities than image quality.

As one example, the selection of a CFA, the color pattern put in front of the sensor, is a choice between quality of color, and ISO performance. If the CFA allows each pixel to see a broader spectrum of color (e.g. for the green pixels to see a bit further into yellow) a camera’s ISO range can be modestly increased. The resulting loss in color quality is subtle – subtle variations in color are missed and a handful of specific colors become difficult to photograph. In a market where a ISO 25,600 camera has a leg up on a ISO12,800 camera, the engineers are under enormous pressure to pick the modestly increased ISO over subtle color quality. Copenhagen, We Are Go / No Go For Color

This sort of mentality is blissfully lacking in the R+D at Phase One. …color and image quality were far more important than a marginal improvement in ISO. …

Niels [Niels V. Knudsen] has the informal title “Image Professor,” and is best known inside Phase One as the dark wizard of color. He is responsible for the fine tuned profiles made for all the cameras that Capture One supports.

This has meant that for over a decade he has produced color profiles for every major CMOS camera. He has come to know CMOS color from dSLRS like a friend or perhaps like a frenemy. As he describes it, “I am always fighting with profiling CMOS dSLRs to control accuracy while allowing for subtlety and robustness. Every time I fix one color another color jumps out and bites. These cameras’ color response is brittle.”

Entire Article Here

Related:

The World’s First CMOS Medium Format Back: An Interview and First Tests (A more pleasing noise is mentioned, making 6400 ISO very useable)

Rodney Lough Jr. asked on Facebook, discussing this image:

More Yosemite for Wednesday; here’s Reflections Along the Merced! What do you think, do you like black and white images? Do you want me to see more of them, or do you prefer color?

I commented:

It seems to me that color almost always touches the heart more, perhaps because it more accurately shows off God’s creation, the way He made it. It shows His glory!

Rodney responded:

Thanks for your answers, everyone! Those of you who like color; don’t worry, I won’t stop releasing photos in nature’s glorious colors, including the image I’m going to be releasing in a little more than a week, Cathedral Forest. Those of you who like black and white, though… Well, I guess I’ll just say stay tuned

______________

Here is more on my perspective. I just shared this with a Facebook friend who prefers black and white:

… I’ve studied Ansel. I like some of his work, and have seen some of his originals in Monterey. He can emphasize a particular feature with extreme contrast, etc., making a piece of rock look really gnarly, and the sky super dark, for example. And I do like his later darkroom technique over his earlier, where he was more conservative. But I still don’t get the ‘awe’ factor that I get with many color photos.

In this photo, one of my favorites of his, Ansel used a red filter to greatly darken the sky, etc., and heavy dodging and burning. It does emphasize how mighty this piece of rock is. And it may be more stunning than the color photo would be, taken during that same moment, especially if it was midday. But to me, a color photo taken during the right light could still be even much more impressive.

In general, in order to make a black and white look impressive, the photographer has to tone down certain colors and/or crank certain tones up, because a green tree will only look dissimilar in shape to the cliff behind it if they’re both the same brightness. So the photographer might greatly brighten the tree while darkening the cliff, so they can be more distinguishable.

The end result of doing that throughout a photograph for the different elements may be interesting, and draw me in to look at the photo more (which is good), but these photos rarely make me rejoice.

Another possible factor, which I don’t understand why it’s taking so long to solve, is that most computer monitors aren’t color accurate without being specially calibrated, which mostly only photographers do. So the photos don’t look the way they’re supposed to. If you ever get to see a Rodney Lough Jr. gallery in person, please do.

Accurate color isn’t a high priority for most consumers, so computer manufacturers can probably make a screen brighter without subduing certain colors in order to present color naturally.

Many people lose their color accuracy as they get older too. I think it’s probably a nutritional deficiency, mainly, and older photographers may have a hard time getting the colors right, so end up doing black and white instead.