Something About Canon

I have recently been writing an immense amount on Sony and Micro 4/3, but have written almost nothing about Canon. This is funny since I'm heavily a Canon user. I think that I am only one example of a vast number of enthusiasts, though, who have little emotional interest in Canon. True, when it counts, I bust out my Canon set, but I would prefer other cameras.

The EOS 1D-X is a suitable flagship camera, and considering the escalating megapixel wars, I have all the confidence in the world that it will not be the only one. I would imagine that a 1D-Xs is in the offing, even though Canon would never, ever admit that for fear of hurting sales of the 1D-X. Because remember, kiddies, it's not about serving your customers, it's about fleecing them for as much money as possible.

I'm sorry for the obvious disdain, but camera companies, more so than any other industry that I can think of, make ripping off customers part of their overarching business model. Maybe the pharmaceutical companies. Good God, Canon! You don't want to be compared to Pfizer!

The EOS 1D-X is outside of my price range. Not because I can't specifically afford it, but because it is impossible for me to justify the expense of it when cheaper cameras can do pretty much everything that I want. What the 1D-X indicates, though, is the sensor that will likely be in the upcoming 5D Mark III, and that has me very excited.

I want to like Sony. Truly, I rather much want to make the switch entirely, ditch all of my Canon and Micro 4/3 gear and fully invest in a Sony combo. But that damned translucent mirror and its significant light loss is too much for me. I love to shoot in challenging environments like parties, dinners out, and nights on the boardwalk. All of these situations require large apertures, which, while pretty and dramatic, result in most of my shots being thrown out for poor focus, or they require high-ISO. Half-a-stop worth of light might seem small, but for me, every photon counts.

This is critically important in a decision about whether to abandon Micro 4/3. As far as dynamic range and color is concerned, as long as Panasonic gets off of its ass and makes better sensors, the only severe limitation of the smaller sensor is inferior noise characteristics. Assuming similar sensor designs, m4/3 would be about one full stop inferior to APS-C cameras. But here's the rub, not only does the Sony mirror lop off half-a-stop's worth of light, Micro 4/3 is the only smaller-format system with no less than FIVE lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/2 or lower. Include legacy 4/3 lenses and that brings the total above ten. This completely negates the advantages of having the larger sensor.

But back to Canon. The reason why Canon has lost my interest is because they have done nothing to break the mold. They are the mold. They are also just plain mold. I think that Canon could capture some hearts with an APS-H EOS 7D successor, but I doubt that they will do that because that would require doing something bold. Boldness is obviously not in Canon's DNA, seeing as they accidentally reinvented the movie industry with the 5D... and then did nothing with it.

It is unfortunate, because Canon has some mind-blowing telephoto lenses. Their wide-angle offerings suck, but their medium and long telephoto are easily the best in the industry. Now that I think about this state of affairs, how the hell has one company not managed to get everything at least partially right? It's not that hard! Good lenses, fair prices, innovate on the bodies. WTF?

Pro-Level Mirrorless Cameras From Nikon and Olympus

Maybe this explains the absence of Olympus' counterpart to the Panasonic GH1/2.

Rumors are circulating that both Olympus and Nikon will be announcing pro-level gear for mirrorless systems. Nikon's logic assumes that releasing a direct competitor for the Pen and GF2 would more likely cannibalize sales of their own entry-level APS-C cameras, and not steal sales from the 4/3's format. Instead, they're going to release compact gear for professionals, recognizing that many pros have been using Panasonic and Olympus products as walkaround gear because it's so much lighter. I think that the logic is sound. But how "pro" they plan on going is the big question. If they're talking $1,500 or less, I think they've got a deal, but any more than that and I can't think of many professionals who would be interested. Just look at the Olympus E-5. The E-Series has been a success, but not the flagships. Olympus won't talk, but sales of the E-5 are supposedly a fraction of the numbers that Canon, Nikon, or Sony do in the same price range.

The biggest question is, of course, the hardware. As Panasonic pointed out, the larger the sensor, the larger the corresponding lenses are going to be. Will Nikon go for an APS-C sensor and simply charge more for miniaturized lenses? Will they embrace an entirely new format? Considering the incredible quality from the new D7000, I find it highly unlikely that they'll abandon their APS-C sensors. Then, all Nikon lenses would be quickly compatible with an adapter.

Olympus is exciting. I don't find it coincidental that rumors of pro-level gear start circulating right after their contract to buy Panasonic sensors terminated. They're not free to buy sensors from Kodak, who is a bit behind in the noise category, but their sensors work wonderfully without low-pass filters and their colors at low-ISO are among the best in the industry. Just look at the Leica M9.

Even though Nikon is an excellent company, I'm sticking with the 4/3's group. They're the innovators. They're pushing the boundaries. For now at least, Nikon is following, and I'd rather hang out with the guys leading.

Where are the Micro 4/3's Compacts?

In a recent interview, some dude from Panasonic was talking up Micro 4/3's in comparison to the APS-sized where he bashed them for degrading the quality of their glass to get it sized down far enough to be worthwhile. While I agree that the Samsung and Sony lenses aren't the best, he dodged the question of whether people will care at all and, instead, be swayed by the superior low-light performance. For example, I'd happily take a crap lens on the Nikon D7000's sensor than a great lens on almost any other sensor.

Also, since most people who bought into Micro 4/3's did so because the cameras were so bloody compact, and a paired lens/sensor can be distilled down to a very compact size, why aren't there any Micro 4/3's compacts?! The Leica X1 is smaller than the GF1, and the upcoming Fuji X1000 is compact and will likely have excellent image quality. If the sensor size is such a limitation on the lenses, and companies are making super-compact cameras with full APS sensors, then 4/3's sensored compacts should be freaking amazing.

And I think that they would be! The smaller sensor would give slightly better zoom capability and much more latitude in the physical design of the camera body. Olympus could have been the first into this arena, so what do they release? Yet ANOTHER compact sensored camera. Yay. I'm sorry Olympus, you've got to really kick it up a notch to capture our attention. A 50mm equivalent compact camera with a 4/3's sensor would be an excellent product. It would likely be so excellent that it's actually baffling that they haven't released one yet.

Nikon D7000 Dukes It Out With Pentax K-5

Holy crap! The Nikon D7000 has been ranked near the tippy-top of APS-C sized SLR cameras! With an overall score of 80, that puts it with or above all of Sony and Canon's full frame cameras. Excellent work, Nikon!

The D7000 is fighting with Pentax's K-5, which even more shockingly mustered an 82, which matches the Nikon D3s. If these numbers are to be believed, sensor development in the APS-C arena has kicked into turbo. I'll wait for further information, but this is making me reconsider my previous ideas about Micro Four-Thirds.

I still say that m4/3's is the best system to buy into for someone wanting a family shooter. It's compact, fantastic lenses cost very little and weigh even less, and Panasonic has proven a complete dedication to the format. You can buy a m4/3's camera and lens for less than $800, buy two more lenses for $500 to $1000 a piece, and you'll have a complete kit that fits into a small camera bag and will do for any situation an average person could imagine. Perfect.

But I used to also argue for the four-thirds format over APS-C because the increased sensor size didn't seem to net much benefit. Going up to full-frame resulted in a significant difference, but notsomuch APS-C. The smaller sensor's 2X crop factor meant that zoom lenses positively sung, with greater length and deeper depth of field. Colors were somewhat better on the larger sensor, as was dynamic range, but I felt that if that was a serious concern, you should save up for a full-frame camera. APS-C just didn't provide enough of a quality boost to warrant the increased size and cost.

These results change that perspective. The best 4/3's sensor on the market is the Panasonic GH1/2, which has a best score of 64 on DxO Mark. That plopped it smack in the middle of most modern APS-C cameras, truly, trailing the EOS 7D supercamera by only two points. But trailing the leading APS-C camera by 18 points cannot be ignored.

As I said, I'll wait to pass judgment, but if these early results hold up, anyone with enthusiast or semi-pro aspirations cannot consider the 4/3's format any more. APS-C has just walked away.

Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D7000 (DxO Mark)