End User

Review: Nikon 24mm f/1.4

I have been on Nikon's case to release fast, wide primes since about 30 seconds after they discontinued the 28mm f/1.4, sending the price of existing copies into the stratosphere. It has been the biggest gaping hole in Nikon's lens line-up, and as zooms got better and better, and each new camera pushed the ISO boundaries -- 6400, then 25,600, now the D3s's 102,400 -- I worried Nikon might think professional fast primes were a thing of the past.

Thankfully not. With the new 24mm f/1.4, Nikon shooters have the option for extreme low-light shooting or depth-of-field separation at wide angles, but it comes at a steep price -- 2,199.95, almost enough to buy five Sigma 24mm f/1.8's. So the question is, is it good enough to be worth it?

Let's face it, for most people the answer is going to be no. Most people are never going to buy a two thousand dollar lens, and if they do, they might pick more of a general-use workhorse like a 70-200 VRII or the (bit cheaper) 24-70 f/2.8. The price and specialized nature puts it squarely in the market of rich amateurs, primes addicts, and that now-rare class of photojournalists who somehow make money. My documentary wedding style in dark, dark New York City venues puts me in the market, but most people may be better served with another lens due to price alone.

But if you like fancy toys, or can simply justify that it's still more than $4,000 cheaper than Leica's 24mm f/1.4, read on. Lots of pictures to follow, so I'm sticking it behind a cut. These are commissioned pictures, so I can't release full-size images, but you can see full-size snapshots and RAW samples from my quick impressions here.

Get more latitude out of iPhone 3Gs photos

 

I took these photos on a recent pre-season get-away in Jamaica. Admittedly the scenery did all the heavy-lifting for me, but they were pretty good for making my friends jealous. But the kicker is that they were taken on an iPhone, and ready to e-mail like this right from the phone. My travel partner, also standing there with her smartphone, gaped a bit: "How the heck?"

The answer is simple; a couple apps that quickly, simply, and effectively increase the tonal range your phone camera can capture: Pro HDR (iTunes link) and TrueHDR (iTunes link). HDR stands for High Dynamic Range, a technique that has been so overused in photography in recent years to create garish images that many of you likely rolled your eyes just seeing the acronym. But HDR is just a tool to fix the inherent problem most digital cameras have of being able to capture a much smaller range of lights and darks than the human eye, and few cameras need fixing as badly as a tiny cell phone camera. With all of those pixels crammed in to a space so small, each pixel isn't receiving very much light, and that tends to mean noisy images with blown out highlights. The noise problem is hard to fix, but tonal range is relatively simple: Just take a picture exposed for the shadows, another for the highlights, and slap them together. And that, simply and easily, is what both of these applications do.

Note: because these apps rely on selective metering, which the iPhone 2G and 3G cameras can't do, it has to be a 3Gs (or future phones)

Since they're both paid apps, you probably don't want to download them both (but I did). So which is better? On paper, that would definitely go to Pro HDR. TrueHDR only exports downsized images, and you're stuck with whatever you get. Pro HDR exports full-sized images, and has simple but effective controls to help you get the best final product:

 

But there's just one problem: It's nowhere near as good as TrueHDR at actually merging the photos. As you can even see from their own product screenshots, above, it tends to merge with horrible halos, one of the things that gives HDR photography such a bad name. TrueHDR is relatively seamless. I've merged two photos below with both products, ProHDR on the left and TrueHDR on the right. It's not even a question which one looks better to me.

So if you're just exporting to the Web, which is what I tend to do with iPhone shots anyway, TrueHDR may be the better choice. But if you're a control freak and can live with halos, give Pro a try.

Nikon finally fills some gaps with a 24mm f/1.4 prime and 16-35mm f/4 VR

There are certain thing every camera user likes to ding their system of choice over: Canon users can complain about the flash system or AF of some bodies, Sony uses complain about high-ISO, yadda yadda yadda. But the howls and yelps from Nikon users for years have been there: Where are the fast primes? Where are the lighter, cheaper f/4 zoom lenses?

Well, Nikon just took a major stab at making its users happy with the 24mm f/1.4 and the 16-35mm f/4 VR, both lenses made to fit full-frame cameras (but will of course work on DX models).

How big is this? These aren't merely updates with new technology: The last time Nikon made a 24mm f/1.4 was … never. There has never before been an autofocus Nikon lens faster than f/2.8 and wider then 28mm.

And the last consumer-aimed constant f/4 Nikon zoom (not counting the exotic 200-400)? I'm going to go with the 70-210mm, released in 1986.

Of course, the question that remains to be seen is "Are these any good?" and "Are these a sign of future Nikon lenses that more people have been asking for, like a 35mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/4 or 300mm f/4 VR?" The short answer is "Who knows?" But we can take a good guess until I test both models. They both feature nano crystal coating, and while you could put that coating on a poorly designed lens, all such Nikon lenses released so far have been exceptionally sharp and contrasty. The 24mm prime focuses down to 25 centimeters, which isn't bad for such a fast lens. The real trick will be to see how accurately it autofocuses, particularly at distance -- this can sometimes be a trick for wide, fast lenses because you're mixing limited depth of field with big frames of view, getting lots of different junk in front of AF sensors.

Another question is how useful VR will be in a lens that goes as wide as 16mm, and thus doesn't need very fast shutter speeds to begin with. Of course you can turn it off, but that will keep the street price from being too low. Of course, this sample Nikon photo, taken without a tripod at a 1.5 second exposure, shows that there may be some value.

I will test both of these as soon as they are available. I have been using the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 — a very good lens as long as you have a camera with focus micro-adjust to fix Sigma's poor quality-control — and it will be interesting to see how they stack up.

Of course, you pay for all this, and it ain't cheap. The 24mm f/1.4 clocks in at $2199, and the 16-35mm f/4 VR is $1259.

Olympus E-PL1 brings micro-4/3s prices into fixed-lens territory

2010 has seen a staggering wave of point-and-shoot camera updates, with more than 100 new models released this month from the major manufacturers alone, including a swath of releases just yesterday from Nikon and Fuji. But one of the biggest stories in the consumer market is the squeeze these cameras are feeling, from essentially free camera phones on the low-end, to the new Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens cameras on the high end (yes, the acronym is EVIL.) These offer the advantages of larger sensors and interchangeable lenses without creating giant-sized cameras. Now Olympus has released the new E-PL1, and at $599 with a kit lens, it's right in the same price range with some upper-level fixed-lens cameras.

Price is a major factor here over the E-P2, but it also adds some new features, mainly an on-board pop-up flash. Where it saves the money is in a more plasticky body, including no manual dials. So if you hate diving into the menus, you may want to look at the pricier models.

Taking a cue from Pentax, perhaps, the E-PL will be available in a variety of colors, from standard black and silver to blue, white, and red, depending on the region.

Basic specs: Weight: 296g with battery (compared to 335g for the E-P2), 12.3-megapixel sensor, dust-reduction, 720p video capture at 30 fps, live view, 3-stop built-in image stabilization, ISO range 200-3200.

In addition, Olympus announced two new lenses for Micro 4/3s, the 9-18mm f/4-5.6 ultra-wide zoom and the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 wide-angle to telephoto superzoom. As with any 4/3s cameras, you'll want to multiply the focal length by 2x to get the same approximate field of view as on a 35mm camera.

Early highlights from CES for photographers

It's time once again for the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), which in terms of the world of photography means a glut of new point-and-shoot cameras. Olympus alone released nine today, and Sony released TWELVE.

Clearly, the point & shoot marketing teams don't really believe in the Paradox of Choice. The problem is compounded because, unlike the dSLR market, image quality hasn't improved all that much in the consumer range over the years. There is a universe of difference between, say, the Nikon D3s and Nikon D2x in low-light, but a lot of the new point&shoots can be WORSE in poor lighting conditions than older cameras. Honestly, guys, 14 megapixels in a tiny sensor?

But there have been some bright spots in this market in recent years, and it's good for we nitpicking photographers to remember that consumers have different needs -- a camera that takes mediocre photos but uploads them directly to Facebook is going to be handy for a lot of people. As another example, I recently field-tested the Canon SD780, and while its slim profile and recessed buttons makes it almost impossible to use in darkness, it also makes it look really sexy. So here we're going to focus on some items that may actually change the game a bit for consumers. For full write-ups of every model, you can see all the press releases at Amazon's own DPReview.

News of note:

Good-bye, alternate memory formats?: Sony and Olympus seem to finally be realizing that CF and SD cards are the industry standards, and that it can be deeply annoying to use alternates like Memory Sticks and xD cards. The new Olympus cameras support SDHC, and some models have large amounts of built-in memory so that owners of old Olympus cameras can trade up and not be upset that their xD cards are suddenly worthless. Sony is still providing legacy support to Memory Sticks, but also has launched a new line of their own SDHC cards. Good riddance.

And speaking of SD cards, if you ever wanted to have a memory card that was more valuable than your camera, or to be able to flip through the last 100,000 photos you've taken on the go, Panasonic has the cards for you! Introducing the new 48GB and 64GB SDXC cards, priced at $449.95 and $599.95, repectively. In the days when most cameras are inching toward 1080p video, these are looking more and more practical.

Samsung updates Dual-View models: Samsung has released the TL210 and TL205 cameras, an update to their dual-view line, which have a second LCD on front of the camera. This is exactly the sort of consumer-friendly feature I'm talking about. In the era of Facebook, a lot of people mostly use their cameras arms-length, pointed back at themselves. These cameras actually lets them see what they're doing. Let's call them "Paris Hilton-friendly." The TL210 is a bit more advanced, with a slightly larger LCD screen on the back and 720p HD video recording.

Sony releases the a450 DSLR: You don't often see DSLR releases at CES, but Sony did it, with a 14.2 megapixel camera that takes most of the ergonomics of the a550 without the articulating view screen. It seems like a perfectly good budget camera, but Sony seems to be treating its dSLR lineup like most companies treat point-and-shoots. They are now selling six current DSLR models aimed at advanced amateurs, which may cause more confusion than relief.

More to come.

Review: Nikon D3s

(All photos by Ryan Brenizer, click on any picture for a larger version)

I'd say I know the ins-and-outs of the Nikon D3 pretty well -- after all, I've taken more than 200,000 photos with one. And I knew that Nikon had a big problem: The camera is so darned good, how do you make it better, especially with an incremental upgrade? The D3 isn't perfection -- the AF sensors are too closely grouped, the default white balance is a little too cool, the … AF sensors are too closely grouped -- but, as you can see from my struggling, it's generally close enough. If you can't do most jobs really well with a D3, it's probably your fault, not the camera's. So how do you convince people to buy something more expensive?

The obvious way was to stick video in it, and so they did. And that would probably have been enough to keep people at bay until the D4 came out, but some intrepid designer decided that the D3, previously pretty much the best low-light camera around, needed to get better. And so they changed the microlens array and modified the sensor in all sorts of ways, most of them secret or impossibly geeky, but long story shot, the D3s IS better, by about 1 and a half stops (or allowing about three times greater shutter speeds): ISO 12,800 looks better on the D3s than the already-crazy IS0 6400 on the D3.

ISO 12800, 52mm, f/3.2, 1/50th

In most other ways, the cameras are exactly the same -- the finish on the D3s is slightly more matte than that on the D3, the thumb joystick is a little snappier, and there's a quiet mode for the shutter that still isn't all that quiet, and there's an info button for quick review of the settings on the back LCD, but that's about it. The real user-interface changes came with a much, much better way to trigger Live View mode (which is important for video operation). Instead of having to move a mode dial to a certain position, which virually required you to move your thumb and look at the camera to see what you were doing, there's a simple button. Press it, it's on! Press it, it's off! Even for those who don't use movie mode ever, live view has some great tricks, and it's nice to be able to access it easily. My favorite Live View trick is that it shows the effect of white balance. Since on the D3 you can dial in the exact K-value, all you have to do is turn on Live View and look at the LCD while you get the white balance exactly perfect. You can do this on any camera with Live View, but the interface improvements make it a lot easier and faster.

Let's discuss the big changes in detail, with more photos and video:

Quick video tests with the Nikon D3s

I have Nikon's new D3s in my hot little hands, and I have some shoots lined up to be able to do a full review next week. But I know there are a lot of questions about the video capabilities and uncanny night-vision power, so here are some quick tests until then.

First, movement effects. All CMOS sensors of this sort suffer from a "rolling shutter" effect, which can make quick movement turn things into Jell-O. Nikon said they have made it better than in early cameras, but the D3s is not immune. I also included a quick panning shot, since no one actually films by shaking the camera violently from side to side.

Second, people want to see what ISO 102,400 video can do. So here it is. Watch as I move the camera away from the light sources and the night sky (which was as black as NYC skies ever get) becomes like late afternoon.

Second, people wanted to see even LOWER light video. Well, here you go. Watch the night sky become day as it creeps up to ISO 102,400.

There are a lot more still photos to come next week, but here is a quick one taken at ISO 12,800, f/1.4, 1/60th of a second (which is approximately 1/50th candlelight)

If you have any specific questions about the camera you want the full review to address, let me know!

Notes from PhotoPlus

Today is the Photoplus Expo, a giant trade show that, judging by recent new equipment releases, seems to be more important to camera manufacturers every year. All of the big players will be there showing off their new toys, and I will be covering it for End User. So that I down overwhelm the blog, I will post all of today's notes as updates to this post. So if you're interested in digital cameras and photography gadgets, keep checking!

There is a lot of media there, but I hope to bring a slightly different perspective as someone who makes more than 99 percent of their money from actually using cameras. The biggest perspective difference is that as an enthusiast, gear is a reward, part of the reason why you go to work in the morning. As a professional, it's a liability, and purchases are made with not-fun things like "bottom line" and "amortization" in mind. If I could do what I do with $5 of gear, that would be great. So photo gear has to not just be shiny and new, but actually make the job of photography easier or better.

Lightroom Beta 3 now available

Well, NYC's PhotoPlus Expo has begun with a bang! The poplar image managing and development software Adobe Lightroom has been updated with a version 3 beta, available for free download. The biggest thing is that is feels much, much more responsive, both in selecting individual images and in making changes to each image. The import module has also been completely rethought, and it comes with out-of-the box Flickr integration. I will talk more with the Adobe team about it in the morning, but for now you can download it for free here.

Canon keeps APS-H alive with the 1D Mark IV

(I've been holding off on new camera updates, because I will be doing hands-on testing of all sorts of new cameras this Thursday at the Photoplus Expo in New York, but this is definitely worth a write-up)

Canon has released the newest iteration of their sports-centered camera line, the 1D Mark IV. Like the newly announced Nikon D3s, it crosses the ISO 100,000 barrier with a noisy "three stops above what we recommend mode," with a recommended range that goes up to ISO 12,800. It does this with smaller pixels than the D3s, since it is a 16 megapixel sensor to the D3s's 12, and it is the smaller 1.3x crop APS-H sensor that the 1D, 1DII, and 1DIII are featured.

I have to admit I'm surprised that they kept the APS-H sensor. Obviously they are confident in the noise qualities of the chip, and sports photographers often want to get a bit more reach out of their lenses, but after all these years it feels like an unsupported format. We have many lenses made for 1.6x APS-C, countless lenses made for 35mm-size cameras, but there has never been an APS-H optimized lens. Many Canon wedding shooters, who were hoping for a D3 equivalent camera, are going to be shaking their heads tonight. (But that's OK, they can cry over their startlingly good array of prime lenses)

The 1D Mark IV offers 1080P video, in contrast to the D3's smaller 720P. News organizations trying to consolidate around a standard may take that into account, and Canon is billing this as a "multimedia machine."

There is an entirely new AF system for the camera, a necessity since the 1d Mark III's had so much controversy. Probably no one can explain that better than sports shooter Rob Galbraith, who caused most of the commotion in the first place.

You can wrap the major changes up into "Crazy-high ISO and video," and Canon has hired Vincent Laforet to shoot some samples showing what it can do. A wise choice, since Laforet made the 5D Mark II video possibilities apparent with his video "Reverie," which was shot on his own dime.

Otherwise it seems fairly little has changed, with upgrades to the viewfinder, LCD, and slight changes to the body. Shooters used to the 1DIII and 1DSIII should be able to pick this up and feel comfortable right away. I'll write more about the showdown between this and fellow ISO 100,000+ camera the D3s when I try them both on Thursday.

Review: Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX

The 35mm f/1.8, middle, between a very-well-used Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 35mm f/2D

When the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX was released, I wanted to hate it. I'd been clamoring for years for Nikon to release a fast, wide prime for professionals, and this seemed like it could be it … but it was DX, meaning it wasn't designed to work with Nikon's professional, full-frame cameras without vignetting. I was … not happy.

But then I understood -- I saw the price. Whatever cost-savings they had gotten from making it a DX lens were passed on to the customer. Nikon was only charging $200 at the exact same time that the yen/dollar comparison and recession forced them to raise the prices on all other lenses into the stratosphere. Pretty much anyone who could afford a dSLR system could afford this lens … but should they get it?

In my view, yes. This is a lens for practically all Nikon users -- even, amazingly enough, owners of the full-frame D700 and D3.

If you have a newer small-body Nikon DSLR like the D40 or D60, this lens is a godsend. Before the 35mm came out, the only fast prime that would focus on your camera is the $5,000 200mm f/2 -- and you're probably not the target market for that lens. Here is a cheap way to get far better low-light quality and shallow depth-of-field.

If you have a more expensive camera, $200 is probably a drop in your overall camera budget, so all you need to know is whether this lens is any good or not.

Well, it is -- even on full-frame cameras. Having used the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on the Nikon D3 for years, it is astonishing how much less vignetting the 35mm f/1.8 has, at least wide-open, just a minor darkening of corners. Like with the Sigma, stopping down will increase vignetting, so this is a lens for people who want to "shoot f/1.8 and be there." All of the shots below are uncropped captures from the Nikon D3 and D700:

And is it sharp? You be the judge. Here, with default sharpening, is a 100 percent crop of the image above, taken at f/1.8. It's actually taken from where the absolute corner would fall on a DX sensor. Wide-open plus corners usually spells dull details, but here you go:

Its focusing is not as fast as professional lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8, but it is silent and accurate, with far less hunting than the 35mm f/2D it replaces, allowing for good shots in low-light:

Above, a bit of contrast was added as the only edit, which emphasizes the vignetting. Still, it doesn't detract from the photo. Not the lens to use if you're trying to shoot a subject against a clean, high-key background, of course.

Also, there is very good subject isolation due to the fast aperture. Even on a broad scene like this without a close subject, it makes the subjects "pop" a bit. Small web-sized photos kill DoF rendition, so clicking on the photo will link to a larger version:

All in all, this is one of the few lenses I would recommend for just about everyone. The main exceptions would be shooters who have little need for fast apertures, especially full-frame shooters, since this lens HAS to be shot at a fast aperture on those systems. For those, a zoom or the old 35mm f/2D is a better choice. Conversely, for some people f/1.8 isn't fast enough, and there is always the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, a fine lens but with a higher cost, weight, and strange triangular bokeh in corners.

Leica introduces drool-worthy cameras at same sky-high Leica price

Yesterday, Leica introduced two new cameras -- the M9 rangefinder, the smallest camera ever with a sensor the size of 35mm film, and the X1, a new line of fixed-lens APS-C cameras. While insinuating that Leica was influenced by anything Asian is enough to have Leicaphiles try to strangle you with their ascots, it's fitting that they released the cameras on 09/09/09. In China, nine is the emperor's number, the symbol of the bridge between heaven and earth. With these new models, the Emporer of Small, Gorgeous Cameras have a gap between impressive function and that same to-the-Heavens Leica price -- $6,995 for the M9 and $1,995 for the X1.

People -- including me -- have been drooling over the idea of a full-frame digital Leica pretty much since digital photography began. There's something deeply refreshing about the process of taking photos with a rangefinder, and no question that everything Leica makes in its rangefinder lineup has been crafted with the highest care. But Leica doesn't make sensors, and the pairing with Kodak started off the digital M9 with some blemishes, an M8 with serious UV bleed issues. While the new M9 sensor still isn't going to impress D700, or 5DII users with its ISO sensitivity, it is an impressive fear to create a 35mm-sized rangefinder sensor without extreme vignetting.

Most people will never pay $7K for a manual-focus camera, no matter how beautiful. Leica knows that, and revels in it -- it hasn't tried to be a camera line for "most people" for many, many decades. Other than the 18MP sensor, it doesn't even make much sense to talk about features. This camera isn't about features. It's about the idea that, at heart, a camera is a box with a hole in it, so why not make a world-class box and fit it with some of the best lenses ever made?

While the X1 hasn't gotten the spotlight, in some ways it's even more interesting. It's an entirely new line-up, and currently competing with only the Sigma DP2. Now, you can buy three Sigmas and a flash for the price of the Leica, but still $2K is within a lot more people's reach, especially when you don't have to pay thousands for each Leica lens. It's fixed with a 24mm f/2.8 lens with a 1.5x crop sensor, and Leica also sells a large, bright optical viewfinder separately. It does autofocus, has 12.2 megapixels, and shoots at 3 fps. If you like the 35mm frame-of-view, this camera with attached viewfinder can give you that rangefinder feeling. And thanks to the integrated sensor design, it can shoot even more quietly than the M9.

Panasonic GF-1 makes micro-4/3rds more tempting

One of the biggest innovations in advanced digital camera design right now is, well, EVIL … Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lens. DSLRs have traditionally been very conservative, with most of the same mechanisms as film SLRs. In a world where most photographers use point-and-shoots with no optical viewfinder, though, there's space for cameras that don't have any of those mechanical guts.

Only very recently have camera-makers taken advantage of this to make interchangeable lens cameras that don't look like SLRs -- the Olympus E-P1 was a beautiful example of this, but with a few "first go-'round" problems. Autofocus was slow, and since all viewing is handled through the LCD screen, you'd hope for an excellent one … but no.

The new Panasonic GF-1, which uses the same lens mount as the E-P1, seems to address these issues in a camera that looks like a slightly bigger version of the massively popular LX3 point-and-shoot (the first point-and-shoot I ever truly loved to use). There's a high-detail LCD screen, an additional electronic viewfinder option for those who love that rangefinder feel, and a pop-up flash. It comes in red, black and silver, but like with the LX3, look for everyone to buy the black one.

You can mount any 4/3rds lens on this camera with an adapter, which would quickly get silly when you mount lenses like the massive 35-100mm f/2 on such a tiny body. To keep things petite, the camera ships with a new, tiny 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens. Now, 20mm on a 4/3rds camera is in the range of a "normal" lens focal length. People who want wider will either have to put on a larger zoom lens or wait for the not-released-yet 14mm f/2.8 pancake. Especially when that comes out, look for the Henri Cartier Bresson-worshipping legions of street photographers to flock to this camera in droves … at least depending on the details of what Leica has up its sleeve to be released on September 9.

GF1 Basics:

• 12.1-megapixel Live MOS sensor; same as in GH1.
• 720p video (1280 x 720 pixels)
• Full-time Live View
• Full range of scene modes, same as on Panasonic point-and-shoots
• Pop-up flash

DPReview has the hands-on preview

Canon raises the APS-C bar with the 7D, new lenses

Canonistas have been awaiting the coming of the 7D for years -- they had no idea what sort of camera it would actually be, but they were waiting. Well, it's here, and it's clear that what Canon is seeking to do is to show that, although they have given strong pushes for "full-frame" professional cameras, there is still a role for serious photographers using 1.6x-crop APS-C cameras. With an 18MP sensor -- a new record for APS-C cameras -- 8 fps shooting, a new AF system and, for the first time on a Canon body, an integrated off-camera flash controller, it's clear they're redefining their mid-range line.

They also added a range of new lenses to closely match lenses already in Nikon's line-up in a sign of clear head-to-head competition: The 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

What impressed me as a working photographer is that the 7D's new, bigger viewfinder got headlines in the press-release for 1.0x magnification and 100 percent coverage (compared to the 50D's 0.95 and 95 percent). While a lot of the bells and whistles of modern dSLRs don't matter from day-to-day, viewfinder quality affects the experience of every shot.

As is common with Canon, they brought the best tech they were ready to release to the newest model, even if it outpaces some of the existing, more expensive line-up. Many 5D Mark II owners may look on enviously new 19-point AF system and built-in off-camera flash commander, as well as an improved movie mode that includes an option for 24 fps, the standard for professional filmmaking.

It all sounds great so far, but reviewers' hearts tend to skip a beat when we see cameras crammed to the hilt with megapixels, and if this camera's sensor were extended to full-frame size it would have almost 50MP. This can mean decreased dynamic range and noisier sensors. Further testing in the field will tell, but early samples show that the high ISO ranges, as far as ISO 12,800, are not the noisy mush one might fear, but that there is some very heavy-handed detail-killing noise reduction going on in that range, killing the resolution advantage you'll be paying for with bigger hard drives and memory cards. How that can be changed with a good RAW converter is one variable that remains to be seen.

While the body is of a similar size to to 50D line, the button system and design has been rethought -- at first grab, a 50D user won't even know how to turn the 7D on, since the switch is in a new (and probably better) spot.

In all, it's an aggressive play for "King of the APS-C hill" by Canon, and barring misfortune may have done that job.

Canon Has Friends in Low(-Light) Places

Last year, Panasonic did something unusual with the LX3 -- it made advanced photographers happy with a compact camera. Instead of packing on megapixels that tiny lenses couldn't resolve well at the cost of low-light sensitivity, they stuck to 10 megapixels and a wide-aperture lens. The result? Panasonic wasn't ready for the intense market for a camera like this, and still has severe trouble keeping it in stock.

Canon, it seems, was listening. Today they announced two cameras, the PowerShot G11 and the Powershot S90, both using the same 10-megapixel sensor with headlines of increased light sensitivity. Since the G10 had almost 15 megapixels, you can see that Canon has bowed to the simple physics that cramming more diodes onto a small sensor will reduce sensitivity with little gain. For the enthusiast and advanced photographer who want cameras with a smaller profile, these should be very interesting.

The main differences between these cameras are that the S90 has a slimmer profile and a lens that starts at f/2.0 versus the G11's f/2.8 -- for those who don't speak f-stop, that means the cheaper camera is actually twice as light sensitive as the more expensive one. On the other hand, the G11 has a hot shoe for attaching external flashes. Since one of the things these cameras are great for is using the extremely fast flash sync speeds to obliterate ambient light with even a lightly powered external flash, this could be a big deal for users who are members of the Strobist cult.

Low-light quality is more important to the average user than absolute resolution under the best conditions, even if they don't know it. Most of life happens under poor photographic conditions, and pocket cameras are made to capture all aspects. In addition, we must give kudos to Canon for offering RAW capture on both cameras. In the future, this is simply a must for any compact that can be seen as a "companion camera" for dSLR owners who want a smaller camera to carry around.

The proof will be in the real-world testing, but if the LX3 sales show anything, it seems that Canon may find some winners here.

The Nikon S1000pj and What It Means

Nikon hasn't been known for innovation in the compact camera field since the days of the 950, so it's interesting to see them be first-out of the gate with a new hybrid technology, the digital camera/projector.

The S1000pj is fairly standard for a high-end Nikon compact as a camera. It's (perhaps overly) packed with 12 megapixels, a 28-140mm equivalent zoom lens with VR and a slow aperture, 2.7-inch LCD, etc. But it also doubles as a digital projector, allowing you to broadcast images on any flat surface. For a demonstration, see the video at the Amazon product page.

I admit, my first thought was "So? Who uses projectors in their daily life?" But of course, the big lesson of the explosion in digital photography is that when things become cheaper and more convenient, popular use explodes. Remember the days when it used to be weird when someone would bring a camera to a normal, friendly get-together? If nothing else, it's an interesting gimmick or party trick.

And then I thought some more. You see, projectors are a lot more powerful than people realize -- a proper projection system can make images look fantastic. Like viewing them on a big TV, it's impressive but, thanks to the low resolution, very forgiving. Portrait photographers have found in recent years that there is simply no better way to separate clients from their money than to display images on a nice projection system -- we're talking about profits increasing five-fold. Maybe it's that it's outside the normal way we see images, maybe it's just a neat trick, but a good projector is an impressive tool for photographers.

The real question is whether the projector in the S1000pj is any good, which bears in-hand testing. It is not rated particularly bright, so you will need a very dark room to view it at the maximum recommend site of 16x20-inches. Moreover, it displays in roughly VGA resolution, (think 640x480). At 16x20 inches, that is a an extremely low-res 32 dpi. Given the forgiving nature of the medium, I expect you should be able to see good, decently bright images closer to the 5x7 size. Will it wow people? The market will decide.

It's Sequel Time at Nikon

It's not just Hollywood that loves sequels. Nikon has just announced a new line-up of cameras and lenses, and they might look a little bit … familiar.

First is the Nikon D300s. As the name implies, it is very similar to the Nikon D300. The biggest difference is the addition of video, the same 720p video in the D90 and D5000 -- perhaps Nikon is saving the 1080p for the big, bad professional line? Other big differences are 7 fps shooting even without a battery grip and a dual card slot, with one CF and one SD card. That comes in really handy as backup in situations where you can't afford to lose a shot to corruption, but I prefer the simple card management of the two CF cards on the D3 and D3x.

Next is the D3000, a kid-brother to Nikon's still-new D5000. It breaks Nikon's recent 12-megapixel streak with a 10 megapixel sensor, and is aiming for the entry-level market, people who haven't moved up to DSLRs yet because they didn't want to lose video capabilities, but for whom the current options were too large or expensive. This target is reinforced by the new Guide Mode, essentially a system to teach you how to use a camera as you shoot.

But the real sequels are in the "new" lenses, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II and the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II.

Let's pause for a moment here while I release my traditional, Nikon-release primal scream: WHERE ARE THE FAST WIDE PRIMES? WE'VE BEEN WAITING 28 YEARS FOR A NEW 35mm f/1.4!

Ok, now that that's out of the way, what we can see is that Nikon is upgrading lenses that have been popular workhorses but which have also drawn heavy complaints -- the 70-200 for vignetting and softness on FX cameras and the 18-200 for zoom creep and softness in the mid range. These lenses will be popular eventually if they fix these issues, but at their initial price -- $2400 for the 70-200 II! -- many people will be looking for deals on the old ones.

The 18-200 seems to seek to fix just that one design problem by putting in a "zoom lock" switch, which is the cheap and easy way to do it. Many people have been using thick rubber bands as their zoom locks. The new 70-200, though, is an entirely new design, slightly shorter and fatter and with the "Nano Crystal Coat." It will be interesting to see how it performs, since all of Nikon's current N lenses -- mostly primes and exotic telephotos -- are optically excellent.

What this also means is that the "Nikon roadmap" that has been bandied about camera sites for many weeks, seems to be totally false. Which is why we didn't report on it.

Hard-tested lens review: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

If you're into photography, you're probably familiar with the common format of lens reviews: Walk around with it for a few days, subject it to lab tests, shoot some brick walls to test distortion, and pass judgement.

Well, most of us don't actually shoot brick walls for fun or profit, so I decided to be slightly more thorough with my testing of Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8G. Here was my method: Use it for 20 months on countless assignments, take nearly 200,000 photos with it, and grind it down from overuse until it began to fall apart in my hands, the rubber zoom ring falling off, and then the lens breaking entirely. So I know a few things about this lens.

When the 24-70 came out, it was overshadowed by the more shocking announcements of the Nikon D3 and the 14-24mm f/2.8. Whereas the 14-24 seemed to break the laws of physics, 24-70 is a fairly pedestrian range, and it may have seemed like catch-up to Canon's, which was released in 2002.

This is unfortunate. The 14-24 is amazing, and helped win me a major award, but let's face it -- on a full-frame sensor, it's a novelty lens with insane perspective distortion, and with a heavy, fragile front element. 24-70mm, though, is a range where the actual work gets done, where you can take photos that are more about the scene and less about wide-angle distortion or extreme telephoto compression. On a DX camera, it acts like a 36mm-105mm. That's a range that lens-makers deliberately make anymore, but it makes for a fantastic range for portraits, from full-body to head-and-shoulders.

So, if the range is useful, how is the lens itself? Darned well one of the best lenses I have ever used, absolutely astonishing for a zoom. Let's get into why.

For samples, here are hundreds of images I've taken with the 24-70.

The Bad: (I'm listing this first, because the good list is way too long.)

•It's a big, heavy beast. Slimmer and longer than the 28-70 it replaced, it's still something that instantly will cause wrist strain if you hold a camera with one hand. It's too big to be well-balanced on cameras like the D700 without an integrated vertical grip, so either a big camera or attaching a separate grip is recommended.

•Barrel distortion at 24mm, particularly when close-focusing. It's not awful, but is definitely noticeable. If you're shooting architecture or you really are into brick walls, you'll need some software to straighten out your lines.

Also, I'm not the only person who's had the rubber zoom-ring problem, though I've only heard of it from among seriously heavy users.

The Good:

Focus acquisition: Holy cow. This of course depends on the camera you're using and your technique, but with the excellent system of the D3 as a baseline, this lens focuses more quickly and accurately than anything else I've used except exotic, extremely expensive telephotos like the 200mm f/2. The focus locks immediately and is deadly accurate. The error rate even in challenging conditions for me is well under one percent.

Color: I have never even given a serious thought to lens color transmission before using the 24-70. For me, either a lens was bad and turned your images muddy or yellow or it worked right. But right from the first picture, and across a number of different cameras, the color of photos taken with the 24-70 has been vibrant and accurate.

Build quality: Admittedly, began to stick on me -- after I'd banged it into hundreds of walls, tossed it into my bag countless times, shot in the cold, in ludicrous humidity, on the beach, and done everything you're never supposed to do with expensive gear. It's a tank.

Sharpness: Very, very sharp, even wide-open. Certainly enough for the D3's 12-megapixel sensor, and stopped down it should match even the megapixel monster that is the D3X

When you put lens sharpness and focus acquisition together, you get something that you can't see in lab tests -- your images of challenging scenes will tend to be sharper than any other similar lens I've used. The Nikon 17-55 is pretty good, but the 24-70 schools it in accuracy. Whether this lens will make your pictures better is up to you and your composition, but it will definitely make them sharper and more colorful.

The final word is this: I don't like zooms. They're too big, they're not light-sensitive enough, and they don't have the depth-of-field control I crave. But I cannot ever let this lens out of my bag.

The Pen, Again

If forum debates are any indication, there are few loves as strong as those of a camera brand loyalist, and one way to stoke those flames is to compare current camera lines to beloved film cameras of yesteryear. Pentax naming convention still draws a parallel back to the ubiquitous K1000, Rolleiflex has a couple miniature models that look like their famous TLRs without being anything like them, but Olympus may have scored a coup by tying their new E-P1 in look and feel to the old, beloved half-frame Olympus Pen. If nothing else, just having a miniature-sized digital camera that actually looks professional and sleek has a surprisingly high effect on sales, as anyone scouring for in-stock black Panasonic LX3's can attest.

But the EP-1 is no simple historical curiosity. It comes packed with the latest Olympus tech, including a 12.3 megapixel sensor and two new lenses, the compact 14-42mm pictured above and the extremely compact 17mm f/2.8 pancake. It can also take any lens designed for the micro-4/3s format, so you can give up the portability by putting a fast telephoto lens on it if you need.

The proof will be in the pictures and hands-on experience, but with a sensor much larger than most other cameras in its size class (though smaller than the fixed-lens Sigma DP2's sensor), it should more than hold its own.

One possible worry for casual users -- the camera has no built-in flash, just a hot-shoe for external flashes. So if you don't plan on spending all of your time in good lighting, you will lose some of its portability. Also, there is no viewfinder, rangefinder, or EVF -- all photos must be composed on the back LCD. In the US, this will start at around $750. DPReview has a hands-on preview of this little guy.

Taking stock of DSLR video

Yesterday, Canon released into the wild a new firmware update for the 5D Mark II. Firmware updates are usually ho-hum affairs, but this one was a game-changer: It allows 5D users to manually control the aperture, ISO and shutter speed while shooting video.

This is important for a few reasons: first, one of the things that has gotten users really excited about video on the 5D is the crazy shallow depth-of-field you can get with exotic Canon lenses like the 85mm f/1.2. But since the camera set the aperture automatically, the sorts of convolutions users had to go through to get that wide-open look was almost comical. By releasing a dedicated firmware update, Canon has said "Look, we're serious about video."

Is that true across the board, and should it matter? Most DSLR video right now is aimed squarely at casual, consumer use, and that could be the right idea. Even Canon's own 500D, which also features 1080P HD video, works only at 20 fps, which isn't suitable for most professional work. Nikon, which was first to the market with the D90, and has supplemented that with the entry-level D5000, right now is limited to lower-resolution 720P. It may be unconventional cameras like the GH1 that begin to work best on the video level by taking out a lot of the "camera guts." Video focusing on these models ranges from paltry to none at all, and focusing HD video is hard work, because higher resolution shows mistakes. If there's any surprises that watching HD television brings, it's how often camera operators even for the biggest shows don't always nail the focus perfectly in tricky situations.

Should it matter? Will DSLRs ever really make waves in professional video use? I'm not sure of the extent. Yes, you can do great things with these cameras. Chase Jarvis made a slick promo video of and with the D90, and lots of people have been doing great things with the 5D. Partially, though, all of this creative energy is coming from the novelty, and partially it's coming because dSLRS tend to have sensors that work better in low light than traditional video cameras, allowing people to do more with less. But in the end, the form of a camera that's perfect to take pictures with all day and the form of a camera that's perfect to take video footage with all day are very different. There will be considerable convergence toward the middle for people to do hybrid work, but other people will soon find that photos do not instantly become more interesting when you add video, and vice-versa. But it's a nice tool to have in a pinch.

The real winners from all this, though, have got to be computer makers. For years most people have considered their computers to be basically good enough, fast enough for their daily needs. Well, that three-year-old computer that serves perfectly well for e-mail, web surfing, and even casual photo processing is probably wholly unsuited for editing 1080P video without banging your head against the wall, an issue DSLR and video camera users alike will face.