I've been closely following the "Photokina Rumors, Speculation and Predictions" posts over at 1001 Noisy Compacts. First came the "DSLR Speculation and Predictions". Next came "SuperZoom Speculation and Predictions". Each was followed by a teaser for the upcoming update on Power Compacts. Of course, they published this the one day I had no access to the internet =).

1001 Noisy Compacts is on top of the latest rumors and has some interesting and entertaining speculation as well. If you're interested in learning more about the serious compacts possibly yet to come this Photokina year, go read "Photokina 2008 Speculation: Power Compacts".

Read More......

Ricoh has an admirable record of issuing firmware updates that add new features to released products. Today, Ricoh released the version 2.10 firmware update for the GR Digital II, which adds the following features:

• [Correcting the White Balance in Shooting Mode]
You can set the white balance correction manually in the shooting mode.
• [Correcting the White Balance in Playback Mode]
You can compensate the white balance in a captured image manually.
• [WB Correct] for [ADJ Lever Set. 1/2/3/4] and [Function Button]
You can register the [WB Correct] in an ADJ lever setting and the Fn button.
• [Detailed Information Display in Playback Mode]
You can see the WB comp. value and the image setting value in the display.
• [Auto Aper. Shift] in Aperture Priority Mode
You can have the Auto Aperture shift feature in the A mode.
• [Reduction Image Noise]
You can choose a noise reduction option depending on the ISO sensitivity.
• [ISO Sensitivity Display]
The ISO sensitivity is displayed at your half-pressing the shutter release button, when you set [AUTO] or [AUTO-Hi] in the ISO sensitivity.

A bug fix is also included with the update:
• With the [AutoRotate] is enabled (ON), if a playback image is rotated and make it enlarged, a histogram in the display may not appear properly.

Details are available in a PDF document.

[Via PhotographyBLOG]

Ricoh GR Digital II / Version 2.10 Firmware Update

Read More......

New York Times reviewer David Pogue has posted a video review of the Sigma DP1. Pogue is sometimes criticized in photography gear forums for his camera reviews, but this one is both (IMO) accurate and entertaining. The information is presented in a way that just about anyone will understand, and while readers of this blog are less likely to learn something new, it's definitely worth watching.

[Via The Online Photographer]

Sigma DP1 video review by David Pogue

Read More......

Wouter Brandsma has written an interesting article titled "Usefulness" on his blog. In it, he tackles the assumption that today's small pixel compacts represent a step backwards from older models.

Read More......

Panasonic’s new LX3 doesn’t simply crop away bands of pixels along the edges of its sensor to achieve the various aspect ratios. Rather, the LX3 uses a relatively new technique first introduced in Panasonic’s TZ3. The sensor is larger than the imaging circle of the lens. For each aspect ratio, a slightly smaller central portion is cropped out of the sensor. In each case though, the diagonal equals the diameter of the lens’ imaging circle. Thus each aspect ratio offers the same angle of view: the LX3 features the same 24-60mm (35mm equivalent) zoom range at all 3 aspect ratios. As is evident in the diagram below, although the angle of view and focal length remain the same at each aspect ratio, the horizontal field of view increases as you move from 4:3 to 16:9, taking in more of the scene horizontally.

The LX3’s predecessor, the LX2 used a more conventional approach. The left side of the diagram shows how the various aspect ratios are achieved by cropping millions of pixels away on either side of the 16:9 sensor. In this manner, the angle of view is not maintained and the LX2 only offers a 28mm wide angle when shooting in 16:9. For those shooting mainly in 16:9 mode, the LX2 has a larger effective imaging area at 16:9 than the LX3 does.

The diagram also illustrates the relative sizes of the respective sensors and imaging circles. Although both cameras feature sensors with a the same 2.00 micron pixel pitch and approximately 10 megapixel effective resolution, the LX3 makes more efficient use of the (smaller) imaging circle. This, in addition to the smaller zoom range, probably allowed for the LX3's lens to be much brighter while maintaining its compact dimensions.

A larger version of this diagram can be found here: http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/test

Read More......

David Rasnake has published a "First Thoughts" look at the new Panasonic LX3 for DigitalCameraReview.com. Multiple full-resolution image samples are included and discussed. The article also provides some interesting insights into Panasonic's approach to creating this new camera. A full review is expected next month.

Read More......

Today, July 21, Panasonic made a press release of the highly anticipated Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. The LX3 gets a 1/1.63-inch CCD sensor sporting 10.1 million effective pixels (no increase in the amount of pixels). They completely redesigned the lens into a fast F2.0-F2.8 24-60mm (35mm equivalent)! Just like the Ricoh GX and GRD cameras, and Canon G-series they added a hotshoe to the camera. That way the camera can be equipped with an optical view finder.











You can check a full list of specifications here. They changed the camera into a full system that can be fully expanded. Panasonic will offer a wide conversion lens and adaptor, a neutral density and polariser filter, a compact flash, an external optical view finder (24mm), leather casing, and a camera bag.

_______________________________________________________________



Additional information (posted by Amin):



Pricing and availablity are reported as $499.95 and August per Engadget.



1001 Noisy Cameras has an evolving, detailed meta-analysis of the Panasonic LX3 announcement, including links to all the buzz, coverage, and discussion of this exciting new camera.



Via Wouter photoblog comes word of a first impression report with two sample images at Photoscala. The article is in German. Click here for a Google translation to English.



Reasons to get excited:

• Leica has not used the label "DC Vario Summicron" with any Four Thirds zooms, nor have they applied this term to any small sensor camera lens collaborations with Panasonic save one, the Leica Digilux 2/Panasonic LC1.

• 24mm equivalent in 16:9 aspect ratio is wider than 24mm in 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio. This lens will give slightly wider coverage than an Xpan equipped with a 45mm lens!

• The combination of f/2, optical image stabilization, and 24mm angle of view means that opportunities for outdoor situational photography ought to continue as the sunlight fades.

• An f/2-2.8, 2.5x zoom lens is sort of a return to the age of bridge cameras, and they managed to do it without approaching the overall size of those cameras from 4-5 years ago. Good for Panasonic, deciding to limit zoom range to 2.5x to maximize lens speed and quality!



Reason for restraint: Sensor size and pixel pitch are very similar to those of the LX2. Therefore, avoidance of the "megapixel race" taken in isolation simply means more of the same. While some of the sample images are impressive, blocked up shadows are evident in others.

Read More......

As everyone reading this site knows, new cameras are coming out with higher and higher megapixel (MP) counts, corresponding to smaller and smaller pixels for any given sensor size. Conventional wisdom suggests that this MP race is bad for image quality, and it is common to read comments from camera enthuasiasts who wish companies would focus on making lower MP cameras better instead of pushing for higher counts. Even camera manufacturer representatives like Canon's Chuck Westfall suggest that the main drive for increasing MPs is that of market force rather than improved image quality. Camera reviewers including Phil Askey, Editor of DPReview, have frequently written of their disappointment over pixel stuffing. Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape displayed the typical reaction to the MP hike when he wrote "My first thought when I read about the W300 was – Good grief – 13.6 Megapixels from a 1/1.7" sensor on a body the size of a tin of Altoids. Will the madness never end?"

Yet for every person longing for the days of 6MP compacts, there is someone else decrying the "megapixel myth". These latter individuals suggest that having more megapixels is in fact better for any given sensor size. They point out that today's high megapixel cameras make better images than the low megapixel cameras of old. In fact, Michael Reichmann really liked the image quality from that W300 with its teeny pixels. Of course as technology has moved forward, comparing recent high MP cameras to older low MP cameras isn't a great way to get insight into the effects of pixel size. The more relevant comparison is that of two cameras featuring the same sensor size and generation of technology but different megapixel counts. An example of this would be the 22MP Canon 1Ds Mk III and the 12MP Nikon D3 or the 6MP Fuji F31 and the 10MP Canon G7. Many folks, including most of the major review sites, have done such comparisons. However, the common error is to compare 100% pixel level crops of the two cameras. Looking at the pixel level isn't instructive as to how two cameras with widely disparate MP counts will compare at the whole image level. While the camera with smaller pixels will have lower detail relative to noise at the pixel level, in theory the two cameras ought to have similar noise performance at the whole image level.

There has been plenty of discussion regarding these issues, but never as much as in the past two weeks since DPReview decided to add pixel density to their product database. The title for their announcement, "When Moore is Less," makes it rather clear that they feel that more MP can be a bad thing. Seems as though a hundred or so threads have blossomed in response, largely dominated by the same handful of engineers, physicists, and mathematicians. Most of these individuals argue that in theory, for a given sensor area, the more pixels the better. Resolution is increased. Noise should not be significantly affected at the whole image level, and dynamic range losses at the pixel level should also be mitigated at the whole image level.

My understanding of these technical discussions is limited both by my knowledge base and the time I'm willing to spend piecing together scores of threads across multiple sites. However, one particular example posted by John Sheehy yesterday caught my attention and is the reason for this blog post. In his example, titled "The Joy of Pixel Density", John presented a comparison of images taken with the Canon 400D (5.7 micron pixels) and the Panasonic FZ50 (1.97 micron pixels). He shot an ISO 100 image with an actual (not effective) focal length of 22mm on each camera. The subject distance and f-stop were the same for both cameras, and he pushed the RAW files to ISO 13,500 equivalent in each case.

I won't reproduce John's crops here, but I will explain the images he displayed in that post. On the left panel, the inset represents a 100% crop from the 400D image, with the larger image in that panel representing an upsized version. On the right, the larger image is a 100% crop from the FZ50 image, and the inset is a downsized version. The important point here is that the area of the bit of sensor used to generate the 400D image on the left is the same as the area of the bit of sensor used to generate the FZ50 image on the right. The FZ50, with its much smaller pixel pitch, has far more pixels in this particular unit of area. The images speak for themselves, and John has concluded that "the [FZ50] sensor is better per unit of area than DSLR sensors, because it has a higher pixel density, which is just a fact, that some people seem to have problems dealing with." Snarkiness aside, he makes a good point. To be clear, the example is not meant to demonstrate that the FZ50 sensor is better than the 400D sensor. After all, a much smaller percentage of the 400D sensor was used to make this image. However, the example suggests that for a given size of sensor (area in this case), the higher megapixel sensor will give more detail and less objectionable noise (at the image level).

John refers to his example as "preliminary". If you read through the thread, Emil Martinec plays the devil's advocate. While I don't understand half of what folks like John and Emil say when they're arguing with one another, I can say that John's demonstration is not consistent with what most of us believe we are seeing in the prints and on screen at the whole image level when comparing two cameras of like technology with the same sensor size and different pixel pitch. Again, take for example the Fuji F100fd vs Fuji F31 or the Nikon D3 vs Canon 1Ds III (giving the old F31 some credit here by presuming it is of the same generation tech as F100fd). When people who have both cameras in such a comparison report on their actual experience with prints, they almost invariably say that the camera with the bigger pixels has better detail/noise in low light at high ISO at any given print size. That certainly has been my experience in doing those sorts of tests. I can't get a high ISO G7 or G9 print to look as good at 8x10" as my old F31 images did. I don't believe the explanation lies in amazing in-camera noise reduction from Fuji (otherwise their F100fd 6MP mode would be able to match the F31 at same output size, which it can't), nor do I believe that the answer lies in deficient G7/G9 image postprocessing. Furthermore, while I can see how downsizing images can improve dynamic range, it doesn't equalize small pixel camera image level DR with that of large pixel cameras in my practical experience.

I can only guess that the discrepancy between the theory put forth and what I see in real prints comes down to fill factor, along the lines of what Dave Martin discussed in that thread. For the sake of making practical decisions when purchasing gear, I trust my eyes. Having looked at a number of cameras with equal sensor size and different pixel size (comparing current tech to current tech), my observations from a practical standpoint when considering image output at a given size are as follows:

• In good light at low ISO, apparent detail/noise is better with smaller pixels.
• In low light at high ISO, apparent detail/noise is better with large pixels, though less so at the image level than at the pixel level.
• Dynamic range and quality of color/tones is generally better with large pixels, especially at higher ISO values. Again, this is less the case at the image level than at the pixel level, but it is a noticeable difference even in the former case.

Read More......

Just a quick post to share some of the latest Serious Compacts news:

300 photographers in our Flickr group
Our Flickr community, less than four months old, has reached 300 members. There are talented photographers from all over the world sharing compact camera photography in our photo pool, and the discussion area is also picking up. Serious Compacts exists to foster a community based in the common interest of serious photography with compacts, and the Flickr group is an exciting realization of that goal. If you haven't joined yet, come check out our group!

Serious Compacts featured in Alltop
After a much appreciated nomination by 1001 Noisy Cameras, Serious Compacts was selected for inclusion on the Alltop Photography page. Alltop is an aggreggating service introduced by Guy Kawasaki which collects stories from "all the top" sites on the web. We're honored to be there amongst the company of some of the best photography sites around.

Review by Blogged
Serious Compacts was reviewed by Blogged and received an 8.5 out of 10, corresponding to a rating of "Great".

Feature on Indecent Exposure
The Serious Compacts Buy and Sell board was featured in Episode 5 of the CNET photography podcast, Indecent Exposure. They also mentioned us again in Episode 13.  Very cool!

Site statistics
Serious Compacts traffic has been rising steadily. We're approaching an average 1000 daily visitors (1793 visitors this past Monday alone), and the number of feed subscribers today hit a high of 350. Not bad considering that we've yet to enter the fifth month since our inception.

Thank yous
Special thanks to the blog authors and everyone who takes the time to read this blog and contribute to our growing community. As compact cameras become more and more capable, I can only see an expanding role for them in the future of photography.

Major thanks to 1001 Noisy Cameras, who have been supportive of Serious Compacts since before it was called Serious Compacts. If you're not familiar with 1001 Noisy Cameras, then stop reading this and go check them out! To quote from their "About" page, "1001 Noisy Cameras is digital camera news, speculation, analysis, rumors, unique and off-beat features with a dose of humor." 1001 is one of the very few sites I read daily, and they offer some great resources for the compact camera enthuasiast. In addition to the latest news and rumors, they have terrific coverage of the latest reviews and discussion around the web, a handy Power Compacts Review Matrix, and a companion site, the RAWsumer blog, which is right up our alley.

Special thanks also to Imaging Insider for keeping us on their radar and referring to a number of our stories. Imaging Insider is a terrific resource for keeping track of the latest photography news, reviews, and industry analyses. Be sure to check them out if you haven't already.

Contributors wanted
If you are serious about photography using compacts and/or enthusiastic about the remarkable compact gear developed for photography, we welcome you to contact us about writing for the Serious Compacts blog. This is an opportunity for you to share your thoughts and also to bring exposure to your other sites/projects on the web.

Support appreciated
This site takes a lot of time and effort as well as a little bit of money. Your support is appreciated. One great way to help Serious Compacts is to spread the word by using the StumbleUpon (SU) links at the end of each post to write a short review of any of our posts which you find particularly interesting. Lots of folks use SU to discover new sites, and your one line SU review can bring hundreds of people to a post on this blog.

Another highly appreciated way to show your support is to use one of the banners on this page to go to B&H or Amazon the next time you decide to buy yourself something. Those are both great places to buy photography gear/supplies, and they pay us a small referral percentage (2.5-4%) for anything you purchase there after getting there via one of our links. The small revenue brought in via our affiliates is used to pay for the Buy & Sell board, our associated domain names, contest prizes, and gear for testing purposes.

If you are interested in advertising on the Serious Compacts blog, please contact us.

One more thing
On a personal note, speaking as a photography enthusiast, gear head, and hopeless procrastinator, I've been interested in finding a good set of forums in which to discuss photography. I've yet to really find an ideal place to do this. Some forums seem to be unmoderated or haphazardly moderated. Others are overmoderated. In general the structure of most photography forums seems to lend itself to brand-specific discussion, and there is often a strange separation between the discussion of gear and the discussion of photography. None of this makes sense to me given the goal we all have in common, making great photographs. I've therefore started the Camera Work Forums at www.camwk.com. Right now, there are just a few of us there, but in time I hope Camera Work will develop into a great community in its own right.

-Amin

Read More......

It's good to see Sigma addressing some of the feature requests from users through this update. The digtal zoom buttons can now be customized to control settings such as white balance and ISO.

From the Sigma DP1 Software Download Page:

Benefits of This Firmware Update:

[Ver. 1.04]
1. A customizing function has been added to the Digital Zoom button.
2. The ft (feet) indicator has been added to the scale bar in MF mode.

Previous Updates:

[Ver. 1.03]
1. ISO 50 has been added into the ISO setting.
2. Grid Display mode shows Display Icons.
3. Shorten the pre-flash time in the Red-eye reduction flash mode.

[Ver. 1.02]
1. Correct the phenomenon that the "currently selected file" will be deleted, if the camera is turned off when the camera display remained in Delete Menu.

[Ver. 1.01]
1. Corrects the phenomenon of intermittent camera freeze under certain conditions.
2. The accuracy of the indication of the number of images that can be recorded with RAW format has been improved.
3. The grid display mode for picture taking is added to the LCD monitor. (It cannot be used in MF mode and movie mode)

Thanks Britton 

Read More......

Back in March, Björn Utpott previewed the Panasonic FX500 for us, referring to it as "Quite a Serious Ultra Compact."  PhotographyBLOG has published their review of the FX500, excerpted below:

The new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX500 bucks the trend of most 2008 cameras. Instead of building on an already proven design and incorporating a few bright ideas that enhance rather than revolutionize, the FX500 takes the FX-series by the scruff of the neck and makes some significant changes.

Read the review to learn more.

Read More......

Chipouille in the Fred Miranda forums has posted information regarding a new compact from Nikon featuring RAW, an optical viewfinder, 28-112mm (equivalent) zoom, hot shoe, and optical image stabilization along with a 13.5MP, 1/1.7" sensor. The source for the information is not specified in the thread. This camera would be a unique offering. No other currently produced compact offers a wide angle lens, RAW, and an optical viewfinder.

Read more...

Thanks sonomichele and eikona

Read More......