Mẹo vặt đồ gia dụng

 

Why am I writing this article ?  I was talking about cameras with family members recently. The subject of discussion was a Nikon 1 V2 camera. The question was put ..."What kind of camera is that" ?  I said  "It's a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, not a digital single lens reflex camera, OK" ?  They replied..."What are you talking about, we don't understand any of  those words".

These particular family members are pretty smart people but they are, like most other people,  just not camera geeks.

(very) Brief Historical Background   For many years if you wanted to step up to better picture quality from a compact camera, you got a Single Lens Reflex (SLR).  In due course film gave way to digital and the SLR became a DSLR.

Leica can probably claim to have been the first to introduce a MILC with it's original 35mm film M series rangefinders dating from 1954, and also the first to introduce a digital MILC with the M8 of 2006. But M Leicas occupy a select niche with manual operation and very high prices.

The MILC  entered the electronic era with the 2008 release by Panasonic of  the G1 which was the first camera made to the new Micro Four Thirds (M43) format. Olympus soon followed with it's own M43 cameras. Other makers were not far behind with their own interpretations of the MILC theme, using a variety of different sensor sizes and proprietary lens mounts.

Now all the makers of interchangeable lens cameras offer some kind of MILC. Some, such as Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji are fully committed to mirrorless ILC's. Others such as Canon, Nikon and Pentax remain heavily involved with DSLR production. Sony appears (although this is not entirely clear)  to be in transition to an all mirrorless model  lineup (maybe).

The DSLR  Has it's roots in mid 20th Century technology. It is essentially a mechanical/optical device  onto which has been grafted autofocus and digital image capture. It's effective operation is highly reliant on optical and mechanical components which must be manufactured and assembled with a high degree of precision. These include the flipping mirror, submirror, autofocus module, focus screen and  pentaprism.

The MILC  Is a creature of the 21st Century and of electronic technology. The MILC does away with the mechanical components referred to above. It replaces the optical viewfinder (OVF) with an electronic viewfinder (EVF).

Size/mass   Much of the manufacturer's promotional material for the MILC concept strongly emphasises the reduced body size made possible by the new technology. This is all true of course but maybe not as important to consumers as the makers appear to believe. There could be several reasons for this. 

* Cameras can get smaller but the hands which hold them do not, so there reaches a point at which the camera body is so small it becomes difficult to hold and operate confidently.

* DSLR's can also be made quite small.

* We are talking about cameras which use interchangeable lenses so we need to consider the size and weight of a camera body with several lenses. As it happens, lens size is mainly determined by sensor size which is unrelated to the question of DSLR vs MILC technology.

EVF vs OVF   The debate about the relative merits of the two types of viewfinder continues to find energy on camera user forums. However as EVF's improve with each iteration and given that the OVF reached the end of its' evolutionary journey many years ago, the balance is gradually shifting in favour of the EVF. 

* A good quality OVF provides better highlight/shadow detail than even the best current EVF's,  especially in bright sunny conditions, but the gap is closing.  

* With continuous shooting an OVF preview image refreshes at the speed of light which we all know is pretty darn quick. The best EVF's are not yet as fast.

* Preview image brightness can be configured to remain constant in bright or low light. It can also be set to emulate the effect of exposure compensation.

* The EVF can be adjustable for brightness, contrast/saturation and color balance, to suit individual requirements.

* The EVF can be configured to a variety of image preview and review formats. The aspect ratio can be selected. The preview type such as SLR style or Monitor style, can be selected.

* A large number of user selectable image overlays can be displayed or not displayed, to user preference.

* The EVF typically displays a 100% accurate image preview size and boundary.  Most OVF's do not.

The DSLR  is really two cameras inhabiting the same body shell. With eye level viewing the light path passes through the lens, is partly reflected off the flipping mirror, travels up through the focussing screen, pentaprism and viewfinder eyepiece.  But switch to monitor view (often called live view in DSLR parlance) and the light path is completely different. The mirror flips up and the camera now functions like a MILC, with image preview, focussing, and exposure measurement all derived from the imaging sensor.

With the MILC  there is no need to switch from one view to the other. They are the same view, streamed directly and continuously from the imaging sensor. The EVF and monitor can be configured to have exactly the same appearance and  features. [note: not all MILC's currently offer this facility.  They should, it makes a big difference to the user experience.]  Look at the monitor, you see the monitor. Look at the viewfinder, you see the EVF.  The segue from one to the other is seamless.

Whenever I use a DSLR I am reminded of just how clunky and discontinuous is the DSLR experience when switching view modalities, compared to the smooth and seamless experience with a good MILC.

Auto Focus  In a DSLR there are two completely different autofocus systems. (Sony SLT's  use one system). 

With eye level view AF is managed by a module in the base of the camera. This receives light passing through the semi reflective flipping mirror, onto a submirror, then to a series of prisms and lenses making up the AF module. This system has two characteristics

1) It can be very fast

2) It is prone to inaccuracy from two sources

* The slightest misalignment of the optical/mechanical components of the AF pathway will lead to repeatable AF error, i.e. always  too close or always too distant.

* The Phase Detect AF technology used is subject to random type errors. This is because the PDAF system determines where it thinks a lens focussing module should be sent and does so. This is fast, but does not confirm exact focus hence the inaccuracies.

With monitor viewing the DSLR uses the imaging sensor for autofocus just like the MILC described below.  However many DSLR's focus very slowly in monitor view as their on sensor AF technology is not as advanced as that in MILC's.

With a MILC autofocus is always determined right on the imaging sensor. It can utilise phase detect (PD), contrast detect (CD) or some combination of both.

The AF speed of early model MILC's was slightly slower than typical DSLR's. However as I quickly realised when I started comparing my early model Panasonic MILC's to my mid range Canon DSLR's, the Panasonic MILC's were very much more consistent and accurate in all conditions.  It was  in fact this inconsistency with Canon DSLR  AF which caused me to move to MILC's.

AF speed in MILC's has now increased to the extent that many are now both faster and remain more accurate than DSLR's with single shot capture.

Continuous Autofocus (follow focus on moving subjects)  While many MILC's are now comprehensively better at single shot AF than DSLR's the same is not true for follow focus capability.

One of the issues here is EVF blackout time in MILC's. Because viewfinder blackout is longer (than a DSLR) after each frame, using the MILC for continuous AF at high frame rates is difficult. The other issue is that the makers of MILC's are not yet quite up to DSLR speed with their on sensor AF-C  systems. There are some exceptions to this, notably the Nikon 1 series V1 and V2 cameras which allow 5 or 15 frames per second with AF on each frame.

Mirror Slap vs Shutter Shock  DSLR's can produce unsharp photos at certain shutter speeds (often around the 1/8-1/4 sec range)  due to vibrations caused by the flipping mirror. Some MILC's can also exhibit unsharpness with some lenses in some conditions  due to the initial closing action of the focal plane shutter. This has been reported in the shutter speed range 1/20-1/160 second and is often referred to as "Shutter Shock".

Cost  At the moment, DSLR makers are working to retain  market share with aggressive discounting. And it must be said MILC makers are doing the same thing with runout and discontinued models. However when the silly season is over, assuming it will ever be over, and the makers of MILC's have recouped more of  their R&D costs, there are reasons for believing that MILC's can be inherently cheaper to make than DSLR's. They have fewer components to make and assemble, fewer components which require accurate location in three dimensions and more electronic components which should be cheaper to mass produce and easier to assemble.

Evolution  The DSLR evolved from the film era SLR. In the 1980's the SLR acquired autofocus and in the 21st Century it replaced film with digital capture.  In the process it acquired a monitor screen on the back and lots of buttons to control the electronics.  But the  basic architecture remains. There is a discontinuity between eye level view and monitor view. The flipping mirror and other optical/mechanical components remain in place. Sony tried, with some success, to address these concerns with it's SLT variant of the DSLR theme. But these cameras have a translucent  mirror permanently located in the image forming light path and they do not permit reduction of the flange back distance. For these reasons I suspect the SLT variant is unlikely to have long term prospects.

In effect DSLR evolution has come to an end.  The basic architecture is locked in. Most of  the recent technology advances seen in DSLR's, such as improved sensor and image processing technology,  could be applied to MILC's or any other kind of camera.

The MILC however can be any shape or size, almost without restraint. The EVF can be located just about anywhere. Technology will improve EVF and AF-C performance.

As many operations on a MILC are drive by wire, the function of user interface modules can be user assigned for a high degree of  configurability.

What do MILC's need to improve ?

I nominate three main areas in which improvement is needed.

1. Improved EVF appearance, smoothness in low light and refresh rate.

2. Improved follow focus capability.

3. Elimination of shutter shock by moving from mechanical to electronic shutters.

I believe each of these challenges is amenable to a technological solution. Many current model MILC's already incorporate partial solutions to each.

 

The season for awards  Most camera related websites and blogs offer some kind of recognition for achievement by camera makers at this time of year. This usually takes the form of  a camera of the year award with subcategories. This provides information or possibly confusion for prospective camera buyers and is a bit of fun for those of us who get to pontificate about the merits of various products. 

I take the view that selecting a camera system is the first step in the decision making process. I think that the long term viability and appeal of the system is more important that the attributes of any one particular camera model at a point in time.

So Camera Ergonomics again nominates a "Most Promising Camera System" of the year.

Last year  I picked the Micro Four Thirds System [M43] as the most promising. This year it's M43 again, going from strength to strength as some of the other systems struggle to find  direction and momentum.

Let's briefly review the contestants, in alphabetical order:

Canon   Canon is still the market leader and was once very adventurous in pushing the envelope of camera design and technology. In my view Canon is now the market leader because  of it's legacy of past innovation.   But in recent years Canon has been iterating models with at most only very slight improvements from one to the next. Canon's main problem is that it is locked in to the DSLR, a camera type at the end of it's evolutionary journey.

Canon's foray into the world of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera [MILC]  has been unconvincing. It's EOS M cameras are underspecified and overpriced relative to DSLR's, presumably because Canon doesn't want to compete with it's established product lines. The question is whether the EOS M can compete with anything.

Fujifilm  Why does Fuji insist on keeping the word "film" in their name ? Maybe it's all part of the retro-style appeal of it's camera lines. Fuji's MILC system is the X series of interchangeable lens cameras.  Some of these are based on a faux rangefinder shape with OVF or EVF top left on the camera body and a control system based on aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top plate. Fuji has also invested in innovative sensor technologies such as the current X-Trans sensor which does have the benefit of low noise at high ISO settings but presents difficulties to the designers of RAW converter programs. Having used and tested an X-E1 recently I find the retro style control system less streamlined and slower to operate than the "Mode Dial + Control Dial" system on recent Panasonic M43 cameras. Fuji has a history of spawning  multiple models of a theme. Thus we have the X-Pro1, X-E1 and 2, then X-M1, X-A1 and X-Q1.

This market review is about camera systems and it is here I find problems with the Fuji lineup. One of these cameras has an OVF, some have an EVF, some have no viewfinder. Some have the traditional "aperture ring and shutter speed dial" control layout, others have the "mode dial and control dial" system.   None of them has a decent built in handle. Some lenses have an aperture ring some do not. In my view the Fuji X system lacks coherency and consistency. I don't really see it as positioned to move forward to become a fully comprehensive, all purpose system. Maybe Fuji is content to occupy it's present niche.

Leica  Trading on an illustrious reputation and possibly the most recognisable brand name in the camera world, Leica is still in business following several close encounters with corporate death. I read recently they are even opening new production facilities to increase output. Leica still makes the M system of rangefinder cameras. These are real rangefinders with an old fashioned optical viewfinder / rangefinder and  manual focus lenses.  The fact that this type of camera survives in the electronic era and the even more remarkable fact that customers are prepared to pay astounding sums of money for such relics of the (good ?) old days  is quite remarkable. I suspect this says more about human nature than cameras.  Anyway there are rumors Leica may be about to release a new interchangeable lens system with bodies to be built by Panasonic, with whom Leica has a long standing relationship.

Olympus  Appears to have survived a corporate near death experience resulting from massive fraud and to have been re-invigorated by an infusion of capital and sensor technology from Sony. Olympus had good  success with the  EM5 model now followed by the considerably more convincing EM1 with better performance and ergonomics. Olympus appears to have managed to make it's existing, highly regarded 4/3 system DSLR lenses compatible with the EM1, a bonus for Olympus fans with legacy 4/3 DSLR lenses.

Panasonic  corporation suffered from major financial losses in the last year but is restructuring and may be recovering. Well, I hope they are, my cameras and lenses are all Panasonic. The M43 camera division while not yet profitable, is pushing ahead with innovative new products, some of which redefine the concept of a camera. With no significant DSLR legacy acting as a brake on development, Panasonic has been free to concentrate on the M43 system with evident results. 

The GH3 is an excellent professional workhorse, the G6 and GX7 a pleasure for enthusiasts to use. The GM1 has attracted much attention by being the world's smallest camera with interchangeable lenses. I personally have no interest in the cult of smallness and would never buy a camera with such limited ergonomics. But it is getting Panasonic in the photographic headlines and maybe that is the point of the GM1.

Olympus and Panasonic users benefit  from the growing list of lenses from many makers which can be used on the M43 mount. Lenses with M43 mount are made by Olympus, Panasonic, Voigtlander (Cosina), Sigma and Tokina. The M43 official website lists 25 zoom, 2 macro and 17 single focal length lenses with M43 mount. Using adapters, a multitude of current and legacy lenses from many makers can be used on M43.

 Panasonic's lens line is expanding at a great rate. There is now a full spectrum of zooms and primes from full professional models to ultra tiny and light but still optically excellent kit zooms.  The only missing piece of the Panasonic high performance zoom lineup is the 100-300mm range where the present offering is of budget price and quality.  

Nikon  The market number 2 has had problems similar to those experienced by Canon, notably Nikon's dependence on DSLR's for volume and profitability. Nikon is doing much the same thing as Canon with it's DSLR offerings because they have no real alternative. Sensors improve every year or two and there are minor changes to the user interface with each new model. But overall the DSLR is not evolving because there is no direction in which it can evolve.

Nikon does have an ace in it's corporate hand but appears not to know quite how to play it. I refer to the Nikon 1 system, the top tier models of which have some remarkable performance capabilities. I think that if Nikon were to focus more attention on developing the 1 System it could become very attractive to users seeking a compact alternative to  the  DSLR.

Ricoh/Pentax   I am a Pentax user from way back and would love to see this once proud brand  return to market prominence. Sadly that appears unlikely with market share and product rollout declining each year.  Ricoh's experiment with the GXR system appears to have failed to the surprise of hardly anybody.

Samsung   This mega corporation (chaebol) makes just about everything from ships to (electronic) chips and also has a camera division which makes up a tiny percentage of total production.  Samsung entered the system camera market with a model sharing agreement with Pentax then went alone with the NX System which is still in production, but with a limited model lineup and no clear sense of direction as far as I can tell. Samsung's recent interest appears to be less about cameras and more about  devices which blend the characteristics of camera and smart phone. The recently released Galaxy S4 Zoom is an example, featuring a 10x zoom lensor module fixed  onto  the back of a smartphone module.

Sony  To my mind Sony is the most adventurous and innovative of all the camera makers, not always to Sony's or it's customer's benefit. Sony entered the ILC market with the purchase of the Minolta camera business and made DSLR's for a short time, using the A mount. Then they dropped the traditional flipping mirror DSLR and introduced the fixed mirror SLT variant of  the DSLR type camera also using the A mount. Then came the MILC NEX system using the new E Mount with very short (18mm) flangeback distance and 28mm diagonal sensor. But now it seems the NEX name is no longer to be used.

Recently we saw the arrival of the new FE mount which squeezes a full frame (43mm diagonal) sensor into the E mount. The sensor is longer on the diagonal than the internal diameter of the lens mount.  That could be thought of as "courageous", in the sense the word is used in the classic TV series  "Yes Minister".  It means no lens designed for that mount will ever be able to have a rear element with a diameter equal to the diagonal of the sensor. This means the light rays going to the corners of the image will always strike the sensor at an angle. Digital sensors have to utilise special design features to enable corner sharpness, brightness and color fidelity with such arrangements. Presumably the Sony engineers figure they have this issue under control but it will still be interesting to see what lenses are developed for the special requirements of the FE mount.

Sony's promotional material says the A mount continue but  if so what type of camera will it support ?

What lenses will fit on the FE mount and will they give full coverage on the sensor without vignetting or sharpness problems at the corners ?

What is Sony's overall product strategy  ? What system is Sony going to promote and what lenses are /will be available for it ?

You see the problem here.  We are so many years down the evolutionary pathway of digital cameras and yet it is not clear to me (and I follow the photographic news with reasonable diligence)  where Sony is headed with all these recent changes.

Sony has a history of introducing  innovative new ideas, but has thus far struggled to  translate  those ideas into a market leading camera system.

Some final comments about the M43 system  It has been my view for several years and remains so,  that M43 represents the best balance between image quality and compact size, when considering a camera system with bodies and lenses, including long telephoto types. 

If, dear reader, you don't  believe me, consider the new (for 2013) Lumix 14-140mm 10x zoom lens mounted on a Lumix G6, GX7 or GH3 body.  In no other camera or system can you find such an effectively realised combination of compact size, light weight, superzoom all-in-one convenience, image quality, performance and ergonomics. Check it out.

An abiding mystery to me is that Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji did not join the M43 consortium and have not produced M43 cameras. Canon, Sony and Fuji MILC's use the larger 27-28mm sensor.  The Nikon 1 System uses the smaller 15.9mm sensor.

My theory on this is totally speculative and based on nothing other than the absence of M43 in the models being offered by  those companies.  You see, Panasonic is the most recent of the corporations reviewed here to enter the camera making world.  That includes Samsung which made compact film cameras for many years before the digital era.

I wonder if the reason is pique, as in... "that upstart Panasonic went with M43, and the buggers got there first,  so we will go somewhere else, so there."  Maybe I am being a touch paranoid here. Maybe Canon, Sony and Fuji simply thought the 27-28mm sensor would make a better system. But that doesn't explain Nikon going to an even smaller, 15.9mm sensor than the 21.5mm M43 one.  To the slightly cynical observer (me) it looks as though they went anywhere else except M43.

I guess we will never know......................

 

My history with Canon G compacts   Over the years I have bought, owned and used a G7, G9, G10, G12 and now the G16. So I am very familiar with the breed. I used the G9-G12  a lot especially bushwalking when I did not want to lug along my (then) main camera kit which was Canon DSLR based.

Why the G16 ?  I recently travelled by ship to the southern ocean, visiting assorted wet, windy islands. My main camera kit was a Panasonic GH3 with 14-140mm superzoom lens. I wanted a compact as backup in case an elephant seal ate my main camera, or more likely it got drowned in salt water. In the event there were no problems with the GH3 even though it was subjected to quite a lot of salt and fresh water in very cold conditions.

I looked at all the compacts on the market and to be quite candid was not impressed by any of them. I posted my thoughts about this here.  The G16 was selected more or less by default as the least worst of the options available and also because all my previous G cams had at least been reliable which is a big deal when one is 2000 kilometers and an ocean from the nearest service facility.

G16 usage  I used the G16 for several weeks before the trip away and made several hundred photos with it on the trip. So it got a pretty good workout which enabled me to evaluate it's capabilities reasonably well.
 

Market position  Canon popularised the advanced compact camera genre with it's early model G cams. However the world into which the G16 has been launched is very different from that which greeted the original G1 in September 2000. Compact camera sales have been slashed by the rise and rise of smart phones. Some cameras with interchangeable lenses are smaller than the G series compacts. So Canon really needed to deliver something special with the G16 to keep the advanced compact category and Canon's presence in that category  thriving.

Unfortunately that has not been the case.
 

Progress from G12-G16   The G12 had a fully articulated monitor, which went some way towards  making up for the dismal optical viewfinder which is still present and incorrect on the G16.  Unfortunately Canon fitted the G16 with a fixed monitor, presumably to make the body slimmer.  Image quality has improved a bit. Lens aperture has seen a welcome increase from f2.8-f4  to f1.8-f2.8.  Operational speed has improved a bit.  Control modules on the top of the camera have been rearranged a bit.

So, compared to previous iterations the G16  has mostly a bit more of  things which matter such as image quality and performance but also less of other things, such as the articulated monitor.

Camera Concept  The G16 sticks fairly closely to the original G cam concept which is for a compact, competent, do-almost-anything- camera for expert and professional users who do not have or want  their big camera kit in hand right now. The G16 has plenty of external interface modules for direct control of primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters by experienced users.  With one glaring exception these work well.

Larger than the Sony RX100/100Mk2, the G16 is easier to hold and operate than the Sony cams.

Picture Quality  The G16 makes pictures which are good enough for most purposes including publication and printing. It delivers good results indoors or outdoors. AF, AE and color balance are consistently accurate. Dynamic range is good. Recovery of highlight and shadow detail from RAW images is good even when subject brightness range is high.

The lens is of good quality and is consistent across the focal length and aperture range, providing very good resolution in a large central area of the frame with noticeable but not objectionable softening towards the edges and corners. Canon has apparently optimised the lens performance for central resolution which works well for most photos.

I would rate pictures from the G16 as equal to or better than those which I could get from 35mm film about 10 years ago. I think that if this camera had existed 10 years ago it might have been hailed as the 9th wonder of the modern world.
 

Performance  Published reviews say the G16 operates faster than the G15 (which I never tested) and G12 (which I used extensively) This may be true however the G16 is no speed demon. With RAW capture,  using a fast 95MB/sec memory card I clocked the G16 at a shot to shot time of 1.7 seconds with AF and AE on every frame. Compared to my Micro Four Thirds cameras that's a leisurely pace and slow enough to impede the picture taking process on occasion.  Switch on/off, AF speed and response to control module inputs are all decently but not remarkably brisk.

Holding  Being larger, the G16 feels more secure in the hand than say, the Sony RX100 but it could still be better with some minor changes to the shape. The handle at the front and the thumb support at the back could both be slightly deeper without affecting overall dimensions, appearance or price of the camera.  The G16 is at the large end of the compact camera spectrum. To justify it's size I think this camera could and should provide a more secure holding experience for the user.

Viewing  I found viewing to be the least satisfactory aspect of using this camera. You get to view using either the zooming optical viewfinder or the fixed monitor.

The monitor works well indoors or in low ambient light, in which case you can see the image preview and usually also the camera data superimposed on the lower part of the image.

I had not realised until I started using the G16 just how useful was the fully articulated monitor of the G12.  The articulated monitor enables off center viewing, overhead  and  low camera position with landscape or portrait orientation. It is very useful.

In bright sun the G16 monitor is almost useless. The image preview is very difficult to see and camera data superimposed on the image are impossible to read. There is no option for configuring the monitor with "DSLR" type layout with the camera data on a black strip below the preview image.

The zooming OVF is the same one which Canon has been putting on it's G cams for many years and in my view is long past it's use by date. It provides a view 77% of the final image both vertically and horizontally. 0.77x0.77 = 0.6 which means you get to see only 60% of the actual image area. This makes composing very difficult. You know the final image will be considerably larger than the view seen in the OVF but guessing the actual amount is something of a lottery.  In addition there is parallax error, the lens protrudes into the OVF image and there is no camera data, gridlines, histogram etc available.

Operating  Most of the user interface modules (buttons, wheels etc) on the G16 are sensibly located and operate efficiently enough. The camera can be driven somewhat like a mirrorless ILC or DSLR.

There is one glaring exception however and that is the Front Dial which is very poorly located. The G16 has a "Mode dial + control dial" type of user interface, like most DSLR's.  Contrast this with the "Aperture Dial + Shutter Speed Dial"  interface found classically on Leica M cameras and in modified form on Fuji X- MILC's.

For the "Mode Dial+Control Dial" system to work properly the Control Dial (Front Dial on the G16)  must be located and angled such that it can be easily operated by the right index finger or thumb without having to release grip on the camera to get a finger onto the dial.

If you look at the photograph below you can easily see that with the camera held normally the Front Dial lies beneath the right middle finger and is inaccessible without completely releasing the right hand from the camera.  In addition the dial lies in a horizontal plane whereas the right index finger moves in a plane about 80 degrees from horizontal.

 

 

This is the kind of elementary ergonomic mistake one hopes not to see from the camera market leader, but there it is. Why is the Front Dial so located ? I have no idea and have no inside knowledge of Canon or any other maker's design processes. But if I have to take a guess, which I do, I would guess the dial is there because it looks  neat and tidy, sort of tucked in there out of the way. It certainly is out of the way which is exactly the wrong place for it.

 

Another, lesser issue is that the shutter button is set about 15mm too far to the right and about 5mm too far back, as viewed by the operator, for a really comfortable finger position.

The whole top deck of this camera needs to be redesigned to put the shutter button and Front Dial in ergonomically effective locations. There is nothing difficult about this, but in the process the camera will end up with a different appearance.

As it stands the G16 is an example of style having been preferenced over function and the camera's user appeal suffers badly as a result, especially since the target user is an expert/enthusiast photographer.

How Canon could fix the G16's deficiencies  (My prescription for the G17)

* First they could get serious about making good cameras which photographers might enjoy using.  In the 1980's and 90's Canon was a leader in innovation. They dropped the old  FD breechlock lens mount to introduce the all electronic EOS mount. They introduced a string of consumer friendly DSLR's. They started the G line of advanced compacts. ...........................and then ran out of steam, or courage, or whatever it takes............

* Specifically the G17 needs three things

1) A good quality EVF, configurable to DSLR style appearance.

2) Bring back the fully articulated monitor, also configurable to match the EVF in style and appearance.

3) Redesign the handle and top deck of the camera to relocate the shutter button and Front Dial for greater ergonomic efficiency.

4)  Yes, I said three things, but faster shot to shot times would be a bonus.

Yes, the resulting product would cost a bit more. But Sony is asking and getting a lot more for it's RX100/100Mk2 than Canon is getting for the G16.

I think that mediocre products like the G16, not bad but not fully realised to maximise the potential in the genre, will not appeal to buyers in the long run.

 

It seems the Panasonic Lumix Designers have a hobby.  Panasonic offers a remarkable 6 standard zoom lenses for it's Micro Four Thirds cameras. I recently had the opportunity to test 4 of them at the same time.

Notes on lens testing.  There are two main approaches to lens testing.

The first is to go forth and take lots of photos of many different subjects in a wide range of conditions. This is very informative but time consuming.

Ultimately the most robust method is to pool the experience of many users of a particular lens over time.  User forums do provide this to some extent especially with lenses which have been on the market for several years.

The second is to photograph some kind of  standard  chart in controlled conditions. I find this gives me about half the information I want to know about a lens. However it  is still useful for comparison purposes and for specific characteristics such as resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration and centering errors. I use a test chart made up of repeating pages of the classified adverts of a newspaper. This of course does not provide absolute measurements of resolution. However I find that just looking at the way each of the pages is rendered by the lens gives me a good sense of how the lens will perform in the "outside world".

There are many lens characteristics not tested or not fully revealed by the chart method.  These include physical operation, effects of shutter shock, AF accuracy, field curvature, flare resistance and behaviour in optically stressful conditions such as very high or low subject brightness range and high local contrast such as when foliage is backlit against a cloudy bright sky.

Another matter which came to light when I was testing these lenses is that sometimes the resolution of a lens focussed close can differ considerably from the resolution of the same lens focussed at a distance.

I try to use both approaches, time and opportunity permitting.

Notes about sample variation  This is a fact of life especially with zoom lenses built to a low price point. My rankings in this report are based on my observations of lenses in my posession. Others may differ on the basis of different samples.

Performance ranking  I have found at most only minor differences between these lenses with regard to test chart resolution/sharpness in the central part of the frame. Most of the difference between them lies in their aperture range, resolution/sharpness at the edges and corners of the frame and  their behaviour in optically stressful situations.

OIS  All Panasonic's M43 zooms have optical image stabiliser function. The more expensive ones have an OIS  On/Off  switch on the lens barrel.

Lens Hoods  Each of the Lumix zooms which I have tested  comes with a reversible lens hood.  These are the non retractable types. I doubt if it is possible to reverse mount a lens hood on a retractable lens.

Over view of quality  If these Lumix M43 zooms had been available 10 years ago they would have been hailed as the wonders of the photographic universe. They combine remarkable imaging capability with small size, light weight, fast performance and extremely low price. I think us consumers get a bit blasé  about the quality of current lenses and their remarkable value for money.

Design trends  The original, and still available, 2008 kit zoom for M43 (the 14-45mm) has 12 elements including 1 aspheric. The latest little wonder,  the 12-32mm has 8 elements of which 3 are aspheric. So we see the number of elements decreasing, the number of aspherics increasing and the overall size and weight decreasing. 

Which one should I buy ?  This is probably the most frequently asked type of question on M43 user forums. I hope this comparison review will help those who are trying to decide.

 The choice depends on your requirements.

12-35mm f2.8   If you want the best, forget the rest,  the choice is easy, get the 12-35mm f2.8. Note that the main advantage of this lens over the others is it's constant f2.8 aperture. At the long end this is 2 stops better than the f5.6 of the smaller zooms. On my testing the 12-35 also renders fine textures with more "bite" than the other zooms. It focusses very close and is claimed by Panasonic to be weather sealed. I have not yet put this to the test. The 12-35 delivers very good results right from f2.8 at all focal lengths and focussed distances which makes it well suited to indoor and candid work. This is the M43 equivalent of the classic photo reporter's 24-70mm f2.8 zoom for cameras with a 24x36mm sensor. Sharpness across the frame at all focal lengths with this lens at f2.8 is as good as or better than the others at f3.5-5.6. The exception is the 14-42(II) which just edges out the 12-35 (at f2.8) when set to  25mm f5.3 and 42mm f5.6.

14-42mm X PZ   If you want a collapsing lens specifically designed for video this is the one to get. Note that there is no zoom ring and no manual focus ring. These actions are both enabled via sliding levers on the lens barrel. On some cameras (G5, G6) you can also zoom this lens (and the 45-175mm)  with the front lever on the camera. This lens has a reputation for producing unsharp pictures attributed to shutter shock so it might not be the one to get if still photography is on the agenda.

14-45mm f3.5-5.6   This was the original Panasonic Lumix kit lens released with the G1 in 2008. It's an oldy but a goody. I have had two copies of this over the years and made many photos with it. It delivers clear, sharp photos at all focal lengths and apertures with good resolution right across the frame. It reveals textures clearly. It is particularly crisp at the long end unlike some other lenses which can lose contrast and sharpness when zoomed out.

14-42mm f3.5-5.6  (The Mk1 version although it is not so named by Panasonic) This lens has been offered as a kit with G5, G6 and other bodies.  On my tests it delivers notably low contrast images compared to the other zooms. Actual resolution on a test chart is quite good,  however the low contrast gives photographs a soft  look which I think most people would probably interpret as lacking sharpness. There is probably no reason for anyone to buy this lens unless it comes effectively free in a kit.

14-42mm f3.5-5.6 (II)   This is the new version of the standard M43 kit lens and is quite interesting. It is very small and light. When supplied with a camera body in a kit the lens mount is plastic. If purchased separately a metal lens mount is provided. Some vendors apparently remove the plastic mount lens from a kit and sell it separately at a very low price.  I tested the plastic mount version which I believe is optically identical to the one with metal mount.  I think the plastic mount is very suitable for very small, light lenses such as this. The optical formula uses 9 elements, 3 aspheric. Compare this with the 14-45mm which uses 12 elements, 1 aspheric. The 12-42mm (II) has a very large fixed rear element, which at 23 mm diameter is even larger than that of the 12-35mm f2.8 at 22mm. It also has a different zoom action being shortest at 25mm focal length. My copy of this lens out performs the 14-45mm on the test chart, with remarkable sharpness right into the corners at all focal lengths and apertures. In fact it slightly out performs the 12-35mm on the test chart, at some apertures.

However  You will recall that earlier in this post I made the point that resolution moderately close focussed   (as for instance on a test chart at about 60x lens focal length) and the same lens focussed at or near infinity, can be significantly different.

I found this to be the case with the 14-42mm (II). When focussed on distant subjects, over 10 meters from the camera, the 14-45mm was clearly superior with better sharpness. The difference was quite obvious.

So, which is the better general purpose Lumix zoom lens for those users who do not want to move up to the 12-35mm ?

This might all come down to sample variation. On the copies in my posession the 14-45mm is the better all rounder.

12-32mm f3.5-5.6  This one is brand new, not yet released to the market so I can say little about it. However just on the specifications there are some worthwhile observations one might make. It is amazingly small.  It is of retracting type. There is a zoom ring but no means of actuating manual focus on the lens itself. Digital Photography Review reports that on the diminutive GM1 camera body, manual focus is achieved by touch screen.  Some users might be perfectly happy with this arrangement, others will not.

14-140mm f3.5-5.6  Just for fun I included this Lumix superzoom lens in the test protocols. In the focal length range 14-42mm, the superzoom performed quite well. It was a bit soft on the right side at 25mm presumably due to some amount of decentering which is common in zuperzooms. This cleaned up with one stop reduction in aperture.  It delivered more convincing results than the 14-42mm (I), but was not quite able to keep up with the  other lenses, especially at the edges and corners. It was close though, indicating this is quite a nice lens. I recently used this lens exclusively on a GH3 while on holiday in New Zealand and the southern ocean. It reliably delivered clear sharp photos at all focal lengths, with just the edges and corners a bit soft in some shots. If you don't want the bother of changing lenses, the 14-140mm Mk2  is a very viable option especially if mainly outdoors subjects are contemplated.