Photokina 2014: The Big Sleep

Another Photokina has come and gone and now we can make sense of what was announced. Before I touch on anything, I think it a significant point to recognize how Photokina has lost some of its luster in the past few years. Most big camera announcements do not come at Photokina. Think about it: The Fuji X100 and X Pro were both announced in early spring, as were Sony's A7 cameras. Olympus E-M5, Panasonic GH3 and GH4, Sony RX100: as far as I remember, none of them were announced at Photokina.

Still, it's the only photography-specific show with major, international coverage, so that will always make it something.

So, that said, moving on.

This was a very boring Photokina. Maybe I'm being spoiled by the world of cell phones, tablets, and computers, but I've come to expect some degree of surprise and excitement from big shows. This Photokina isn't a huge letdown, but it's far from exciting. We have Canon playing catch-up two years late. We have Nikon producing capably boring, or boringly capable, products. Panasonic continues its quest to make a m4/3 camera that is somehow smaller than the sensor. Olympus continues to release pro-thusiast gear at a glacial pace. And Leica released some products for prices that make me question the sanity of Leica fans.

The Good:

Panasonic LX100: For me, the star of the show was the Panasonic LX100, which further confirms that camera companies need to stop fucking using X's in their camera names. It has far exceeded the realm of stupid and has entered utterly baffling.

I very much like the Sony RX100 and even bought an RX10, but the images never fully lose that P&S look. The colors are never as rich as a larger sensor, the noise is always visible, and on and on. The 4/3 format is as small as you can go and maintain an image that stands up to pixel peeping, and even then, that is sometimes not true. The LX100's sensor means that this is the most compact, pro-level imaging device that you can buy, besting the Canon G1X by about a centimeter in every dimension.

All is not well with the LX100, though. The camera's viewfinder is underwhelming, and the controls aren't really the best, and it's overpriced by about $200. Also, it's too big to be pocketable, but too small to be usable with gloves, large hands, or with truly professional speed. It is at least progress, though. The Sony RX100 was the first, others copied, and now Panasonic is moving it forward again with more robust video features and a larger sensor.

Panasonic and Olympus have both hinted at the prospect of dropping m4/3 in the future. This is because they want to charge Canon-like prices for their products, but can't because they're products haven't really been all that good. Then Sony comes along with the RX1, A7, A7R, and A7S and can suddenly charge Canon prices while still selling as many cameras as they can make. Just as with the RX1, a good transitionary product for Panasonic could be a fixed-lens camera with serious video chops. It would be expensive, since video requires fantastic optical mechanics, but I bet that it would sell. I see the LX100 as a portent of this future.

The LX100 can be seen as a pocket-sized GH4 in many respects, and that is awesome. The battery is too small for significant video work, but perhaps an extended battery grip will be released. The GH4 is a fantastic product and the only product in Panny's imaging stable that is both impressive and well-priced. Some of its thunder was stolen by the amazing Sony A7S, but even then, the GH4 does many things that A7S cannot do, and does it for $1,000 less. If Panasonic isn't cowardly, they will wedge as many pro-level video features as they can into the LX100. That is the only way they will be able to justify the extreme price.

Otherwise, the $900 will be much better spent on a compact camera with interchangeable lenses.

Canon G7 X: All aboard the X train! Canon finally realizes that their P&S market will continue to erode unless they do something, and the best course of action is to copy Sony! So they did. The G7X is an RX100 with a Canon wrapper, and that's not a bad thing. Canon's wrapper is better than Sony's. It's unfortunate that the camera is priced at a premium, but ah well. Also, I will always trade a bit of size for image quality, and if I were in this market, I'd take the new LX100 over this any day of the week. But, to Canon's credit, I'd probably rather take this over the RX100.

Fuji: Fuji was pretty quiet this show. They released the updated X100T, which is a solid update. If you have the older X100's, I don't see you wanting to upgrade. If I wasn't so interested in video, I would have bought an X100 long ago.

The real progress is in Fuji's ever-growing lens system. They've produced some winners and losers, and these new lenses look like winners. I'm worried about the distortion on the 16mm lens, since Fuji has shown Olympus-like predilections when it comes to dealing with optical problems in software, but I withhold judgment. Also, Fuji appears to be getting a bit too confident as the prices on these lenses are rather high.

All in all, I like Fuji, and these does little to alter my opinion. In fairness to other companies, though, Fuji is able to do this simply because their lens system is small. Canon and Nikon have huge lens systems already and...... you know what? No. I take that back. I'm thinking as I write this, in case you couldn't tell.

Canon and Nikon could do this. They could release updates to their lenses, especially since many of them suck. But instead, they don't. They rest on lenses, some of which were designed in the 80's. So again, kudos to Fuji.

Leica D-Lux: Say wha?!... you may be saying. But yes, the overpriced Leica versions of the LX100 is a fine choice. Basically, it's because you get a license for Adobe Lightroom included with the camera, a $140-ish value. Along with what I consider to be a much more attractive design, the $100 final premium doesn't seem too bad.

Olympus E-PL7: This is almost bad, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Olympus continues to work at the small, feature-packed, mid-range camera segment with good results. None of Olympus' cameras are selling terribly well, and Fuji and Sony are slowly but surely eclipsing the m4/3 format, but they still deserve recognition when they release a decent product.

It's unfortunate, though, because both Sony and Fuji have more impressive products for the price, and in Sony's case, cheaper. Even Olympus offers the E-M10 for only $150 more. I feel that this camera will be stillborn on the market, even though I'm sure it will be fine.

Sigma: Sigma continues to impress with their new lenses for great prices and their innovative Foveon cameras. I talk up Sigma a lot since they are truly innovating. They are truly providing new tools and new experiences, not just rehashes of old ones. Their DP cameras are utterly unique and I think that everyone should own one. And since their DP cameras are such unique tools, the new viewfinder attachments don't seem bulky, they seem like a new form of imaging, because they are. Definitely the domain of deliberate professionals and enthusiasts and all but useless for Soccer Moms/Dads, these cameras have captured my imagination.

The Bad:

Samsung: Samsung continues to plug away at this mysterious product called a cam-ehr-ahh. Nothing they have hitherto produced has been correctly priced or competitive with other companies. Their sensors only very recently entered the same league as Sony, Nikon, and even Micro 4/3. Their lens selection is poor and expensive. Their workflow is poor and slow. Their system is lean. And worse still, serious photogs seem to be a corporate afterthought for a company that is making most of its money from Galaxy cell phones.

The new NX1 is an SLR-styled camera just as SLR style cameras are beginning their long, slow descent into sales Hell. It's APS-C just as Sony, Canon, and Nikon are beginning the rush to fill their product lines with Full Frame. It's among the most expensive APS-C cameras out there, besting everything that Fuji makes and cheaper than only the new, ridiculously over-priced Canon EOS 7D MkII.

The new camera will have only a single, high-end lens, which unsurprisingly is the lens they are releasing with the camera, the new 50-150mm f/2.8. That sounds like a decent lens, except that they will be charging $1,500. This isn't as badly overpriced as Panasonic and Olympus' lenses, but it's close. There is always the possibility that the image quality will be exceptional (for example, the Panasonic 42.5mm lens is priced too high, but at least the images are great) but since this is Samsung, I doubt it.

Moreover, if you are interested in saving money, you can buy very impressive lenses for cheaper than this lens from Sigma for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and even Pentax.

Basically, Samsung has given us no reason to ever consider their cameras, and this show doesn't change that.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8: Just as with Samsung, Olympus is releasing a similar lens with a similarly stupid price. Worse for Olympus, they have superior optical designs available in their Zuiko lens line, but they incomprehensibly refuse to release them.

Panasonic GM5: The strange success of the GM1 has of course spawned the GM5. It's slightly larger but has a few more features. Just as with Sony and their bizarre feature swapping with the various versions of the RX100, the GM5 loses the flash of the GM1 and replaces it with a viewfinder and hotshoe. I feel as though Panasonic is chasing the success of the Nikon 1, without realizing that the 1 only succeeded because it was a Nikon. It was actually a terrible camera.

Moreover, to me, this is Panasonic going down a market niche that is already dead. The GM1 was a surprise to me, but it wasn't a huge hit. It was simply a success. This area of the market — compact, fashionable phones — is doomed to die. Cell phone imaging has already reached a point where most people are happy with it for their uses. And as phone companies increasingly focus on their cameras, stylish, small cameras stand no chance.

The Ugly:

Canon EOS 7D: Canon's EOS 7D Mark II was a huge disappointment. The 7D, for reasons I do not fathom, was a legend. It was a huge success, selling millions of units over its five year life. Its sequel is an event. Leave it to Canon to make that event so thoroughly meh. The 7D MkII isn't even terribly competitive with other cameras from last year.

Canon has also spent the past five years showing everyone that it doesn't give a shit about APS-C as a viable professional format. Everyone thought the 7D heralded a new wave of pro-level crop lenses, but these never appeared. We got some in the form of Sigma and Tamron's excellent crop lenses, but none from Canon. Hell, if not for Fuji and Sigma, I would say that APS-C is dead.

Along with that, Canon will cripple its video so as not to step on the toes of their more expensive video equipment. And for the honor of owning this product, you will have to pay almost as much as the Sony A7R, nearly twice as much as a Nikon D7100 or Sony A77, and right about the same price as the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.

There is only one conclusion to draw: Canon is insane.

The Open Camera Module: Olympus should be proud. They're the only company to make all three lists. Their Open Module display was just silly. To me, this was Olympus saying "Look! We innovate and stuff too! We've got, like, ideas!"

I make this highly negative assessment because even in their presentations they say that they are unsure as to why or how anyone would use this. This is Olympus screwing around and thinking that it was viable for public presentation. It's not. Try making something that people want.

Nikon D750: It seems pretty harsh to place this under ugly, but it's because this camera is much more than just a camera, it reveals the intransigence that still holds sway at Nikon.

Basically, the entire market is changing. Camera sales are dropping. SLR sales are dropping quickly and mirrorless cameras are not picking up the slack effectively, even though their sales are increasing. This state of affairs was predicted by me, certainly, but my many, many others long before I started writing. This isn't news. Lots of people knew this was coming.

So instead of changing with the times, Nikon is doubling down, apparently under the assumption that there are hidden islands of camera-buying demographics that their current product line-up somehow doesn't cover. That is the philosophy behind the D750: there are people for whom the D610 is too cheap and the D810 is too expensive.

I do not believe these people exist. There are people who would buy the D810 if it cost as much as the D750, but Nikon isn't doing that. There are people who would buy the D610 if it had more features, but Nikon isn't doing that. Instead, they are making yet another iteration in between the two and charging a premium for it.

Panasonic CM1: Panasonic's last effort in the cell phone space was two years ago with the Eluga. It had a rather cool commercial that was ruined by five solid seconds of branding and stupid slogans. It was a catastrophe that lost Panasonic a bucket of money. It was a nice cell phone, and was one of the first to be water sealed, but they tried selling it for $700.



The phone underperformed almost every other major phone on the market. If they had sold it for $300, they might have stood a chance, but that trademark Japanese Electronics Company arrogance came out in full force and they tried charging over twice that. And today, Sony is making the news because their own smartphone division is losing buckets of money because Sony continues to try to charge a premium for their products without any actual innovation.

Not to be outdone, Panasonic is back at it, with an even more ridiculous phone at an even more ridiculous price. Since Panasonic skipped the 1" sensor altogether with the LX100, they decided to put one in a phone. A very large phone. Actually, it's not really a phone, it's a camera with a phone in it. In fact, Panasonic is even calling it a smart camera. And they're so unsure of this Frankenstein creation that they're only releasing it in France and Germany... for some reason. Oh, and they're charging 900 Euros for it.

Everything is wrong with this stupid creation. First, before I rip it to shreds, understand that I think cell phone imaging is in need of significant innovation. I thought that Sony's QX cameras were a good start, and I own a Nokia 1020, warts and all. The prospects for imaging in our little, pocket-sized supercomputers are limitless. If they had left the CM1 in the oven for a while longer, it may have come out truly desirable, but in its current form, it's like trying to make a very small layer cake instead of just baking a great cupcake.

I could really go for a cupcake right now.

Setting aside my lack of cupcakes, let's look at this cameraphone the three ways available to us: as a camera with a phone; as a phone with a camera; as a hybrid.

As a camera with a phone, it sucks. It's nothing more than a severely limited P&S in a bulky body. This is irritating because I argue that the first company to release a high-powered product with an Android OS will own the future of imaging. They refuse to do this because that would require opening up their system, and none of them want to do this. They all want to be Canon and Nikon, with their walled gardens filled with their chattle, from whom they can suck blood at will. It's the same blind greed that stops companies from releasing cell phones that are truly open.

So basically, this is a bad camera with what will likely be a mediocre phone attached to it.

Looking at it the other way around is just as problematic. This is a terrible phone. It's wide and bulky and will never fit into a jean pocket. It's nearly twice as expensive as an unlocked iPhone or Galaxy S. No one with their sights set on a phone will give this a second look.

But what about the final way? How about looking at as a unique hybrid. This is undobutedly how Panny would like you to see the phone, since it's the only way this could make sense, but a hybrid is supposed to give you the best of both worlds, not the worst. The CM1 isn't compact like a phone nor feature-rich like a camera. It has the bulk of a camera without the features!

Perhaps Panny thinks they can add features in software, but that requires a company that actually knows software, and Panny doesn't know software at all. If they promised that this will be the first in a long line of CM cameras, developers might, might, fill the breach, but that is highly unlikely when they could instead release software for Android or iOS and reach a far wider market.

For the hybrid angle to work, the CM1 would need to offer something very similar to carrying both a phone and a camera, while offering the ease of a unified body. For 900 Euros (about $1,200), I could buy an iPhone (on contract) and a new LX100 and still have money left over! The iPhone fits easily in my pocket, and I'm quite accustomed to carrying a camera around on a strap. Basically, the CM1 is the answer to a problem no one has.

That doesn't mean I think that it's not a shot in the right direction. It is. But Panasonic has proven quite well that they are not a phone company. They are better at making cameras. And make no mistake, a camera with Android is still the future, but it will only be the future when the letters attached to it are S, L, and R.

All of this is unfortunate, since I would likely buy this camera... phone... Camerhone? Cameroon? Phonera? Who cares. I would likely buy this if it wasn't such a mess and for all for an eye-watering price. I've never owned a "normal" phone. I've always owned a strange phone from a faraway land. Back in the day I was importing Nokia N-series phones for their badass cameras. Before that, I was rocking an Ericsson that was originally on Vodafone in Germany. I have a thing for weird phones, so I am perhaps the person most likely to look upon the CM1 fondly, and I still think that it's stupid.

---

And that's that. Another year, come and gone. I'm not seeing the level of competitiveness that I would have hoped for, but even this boring year is way beyond the dreary 2000's, where each year brought nothing in the way of innovation save for more, overpriced Canon and Nikon garbage. That says a lot about the industry where even a bad year is actually pretty good.

It's a good time to take photos.

First GH3 ISO Tests

And there you have it. The first tests of the GH3's ISO performance have hit the interpipes. They are good. I won't say spectacular because, first, they are only JPEGs and not RAW, and two, because even with that considered, they are only what we would expect.



Based on my "seat of the pants" analysis, the camera is a stop better than the GH2 at high-ISO. It also lags the E-M5 slightly. This is an admittedly limited analysis, but from what I'm seeing, I don't think there will be much to criticize. That doesn't mean there won't be anything to criticize.

At the minimum ISO of 200, there is some color banding in the shadow areas. And considering that this camera will be going up against the lower-priced Fuji XE-1, which is two full stops better, this is a point of serious consideration for anyone who's planning on buying into a system. I'd say that the ISO performance is good enough where Sony's APS-C cameras hold no specific advantage and if not for Sony's dedication to innovation, I'd say that m4/3 was the obvious choice.

All that said, the GH3 is a unique camera. No other company is even close to offering what this camera has. Based on these photos, I'd say that if you are only interested in still photography, then Sony or Fuji is the better bet. They simply have a fundamental advantage in the form of their sensors. But if you like shooting both stills and video, the GH3 is looking more and more like the camera for you.

More Info About The GH3 and Micro 4/3 In General

A few interviews with reps for both Oly and Panny have hit the webs and they provide some interesting, if not quite juicy, details.

First, Olympus is retarded. They denied any work on m4/3 versions of their Zuiko glass. Instead, they made some wan gesture toward a converter. I don't think that I can put to words how stupid this is. With Sony, the converter made perfect sense. Their Alpha lenses are a vibrant system, made only more vibrant with the exciting release of their SLT pro-level cameras. 4/3 does not have this advantage/limitation. 4/3 is dead. Drop the dead donkey.

But back to the good stuff, Panasonic. An interview over at EOSHD has given us some very cool bits of data. First, the sensor's readout time on the new GH3 is 100ms. I assume that means that it takes 1/10th of a second from the point the first pixel is read to the last pixel. This seems very slow to me. I don't know what other digital cinema cameras have, but considering what I've seen in rolling shutter tests from the likes of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Sony NEX 7, this read-out time is among the best.

Interestingly, the reason for the low bitrate recording on the GH2 was to keep internal temperatures within Japanese regulations. I suspect that there is some truth to this, but I also suspect that the bigger reason was that Panasonic didn't want to step on the AF100's toes, which was stupid. There is a brief mention in the interview of the AF100, where the rep claims that it was once popular, but now isn't. No. It was never popular. There's a big difference.

That point about temperature, though, is interesting. Temperature in chips has been a point of focus in the computer world for years. People all around the photography community were suddenly introduced to the problem when cameras like the EOD 5D Mark II started overheating like crazy during extended shoots. As pointed out in the interview, one of the reasons is that to get the sensor to read out at an acceptable speed requires powah, and that means heat. This gives me hope that future hacks of the GH3, when combined with  suitable heat sinks, could effectively be overclocked to increase the sensor readout. It's too bad that we are at least a generation away from a global shutter, though, specifically because of these issues.

The only video point that is very disappointing is the 4-2-0 HDMI out. Yes, it's uncompressed, but 4-2-2 is important for pixel-peeping. It's noticeable. Not terribly so, mind you, but enough to be a niggle. It's gonna' make one bad-ass webcam, though.

The GH3 Is a Weird (But Exciting) Camera

The website Discover Mirrorless has posted a video interview of various US Panasonic reps talking about the GH3. This is a peculiar video because these reps actually say things. Companies usually keep their executives and PR people on very short leashes. It's why talking to them is usually totally useless.



This video, while much longer than it needs to be, and the host is just awful, has some useful information. For me, the biggest revelation is that the GH3 does in fact have a multi-aspect sensor. For some reason, it is just disabled in firmware. I don't know if they plan on enabling it in the future. I suspect that they do, because, why not? For many a filmmaker, this is a big deal. The GH2's 1.8x sensor resulted in some pretty serious vignetting when using anamorphic adapters and considering how popular iscorama adapters became for the the GH2, it makes a little sense. It's still very strange, though. Why not just provide the ability in the menu system? This is aimed at pro-thusiasts, and trust me, they understand how to change settings.

Adding to the strangeness is a clean, uncompressed HDMI output, but they won't be advertising that. Wha? Why not? That's a pretty big deal. Instead, they focus on the myriad wireless ways that the camera can connect, which are best for photographic work... even though they admit that wasn't the focus.

Their focus on video over photography is apparent even in what they explicitly say. They mention a focus on video with their new lenses, which leads me to believe that the video performance of them is going to be very good. They're still over-priced! They also talk about how making the argument to move over to the GH3 from existing systems is more difficult when looking purely at photographic applications. This camera was expressly built from the ground-up as a hybrid camera.

One point of severe concern in the video is the stuttering response to the question about low-light ISO performance. I guess we'll see when we see.

Panasonic Pulls Head From Ass

In a recent interview, a Panasonic rep has said that the company will be refocusing on the higher-end. The reason they gave is that the margins are higher. Good course, stupid reason. I'm embedding their press conference, even though it's painfully bad.



I love when companies admit that the past three years have been a disaster, but do it in terms like "well, we could have continued on as before if we wanted to, but it's just so dreary!" No, Panasonic. I don't buy it. You weren't catering to the amateur market, you were catering to the "soccer mom" crowd. There's a big difference. Your margins didn't suck, they didn't exist at all. No one was buying your cameras.

Regardless, I guess, Panasonic is making the right choice. The only people interested in ILC systems are pro-thusiasts. That's why Sony served them their own ass on a platter. Sony delivered compact, mirrorless cameras with exceptional image quality, and control schemes and designs loaded with pro-thusiast touches, all at a low price. That's why the NEX 5 and 5n were huge hits. Neither Panasonic nor Olympus had anything like that. They had crap for cheap, or decent stuff for high prices. Or as with Oly, crap for high prices.

Then, Olympus releases something like Sony (and partially made by Sony), the E-M5, and it's a gigantic hit! Shocker! Only I... and four million other photography enthusiasts knew that would happen. Somehow, the actual camera companies were some of the few who didn't understand that.

The prices of the new X lenses indicate that Panasonic has gotten greedy. Granted, the company has a history of doing this. They think that they will simply be able to start selling in this market and command the massive premiums that other systems have. Sorry guys, you won't. The GH3 is going to be a huge hit. The lenses, I'm not so sure. Especially now with focus peaking, I suspect that many pro-thusiasts will choose other lenses.

This level of stupid arrogance is beginning to drive me insane. It's like cell phone companies producing a flagship, and then pricing it high and expecting to sell iPhone levels (actually, Panasonic did precisely this with the Eluga). No. That doesn't happen. You need legacy, history, and loyalty.

It's the kind of blind greed and abject idiocy that drove Sigma to price their SD1 at over $9,000 at launch. Sigma won't admit anything, but considering that every, single dealer I know, and every dealer network with which I have contact, not a single SD1 was sold leads me to believe that global sales in the first few months were measured in the single digits. The SD1 still doesn't have any reviews on Amazon.

As I said, unless these new X zooms have fantastic video characteristics, I suspect that Panny will be highly disappointed with the sales. The 12-35mm is overpriced, the 35-100mm is very overpriced. Panasonic needs to take a page from Olympus's 75mm playbook and release world-class glass for less than the competition.

Canon Reminds Us That They Suck With The 6D

As everyone else was announcing kick-ass stuff, Canon released the successor(?) to the 7D: the 6D. I argued that Canon should move their high-end DSLR camera range into the APS-H sensor design, for which they already have production lines and engineers from their work with the EOS 1D. Instead, Canon has released the 6D and gone full-frame to compete with the cheaper FF SLR that Sony will announce in the future and the current FF SLR price king, the Nikone D600.

I won't go into details, because the camera really doesn't deserve much coverage. Not because it's bad, but because it's boring as hell. What is bad is the mind-blowing arrogance that is evinced by the camera's existence. Even DPReview looked down upon it. And remember, DPReview is owned by Amazon, which means that it is in their best interests to never talk bad about any camera... which is the reason they so rarely do. From DPReview's preview of the 6D, emphasis mine:

Overall, though, it's difficult to shake the feeling that the EOS 6D simply lacks the 'wow' factor of its main rival. Whereas Nikon seems to have taken the approach of taking away as little as possible from D800 when creating the D600, Canon appears almost to have gone the other way, removing as much as it thinks it can get away with at the price. The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark. It's still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be.

In DPReview's world, that's the equivalent of saying that Canon's mother wears army boots. That is a profound statement. It illustrates how far Canon has fallen.

What's even more striking is how expensive the 6D still is. $2,100 for a stripped down economy camera with a big sensor. If the only thing you care about is the sensor, than perhaps this camera is for you. But even then, this is really damned pricey.

In fact, who the hell is Canon selling this camera to? If you already have a 7D, you will also have an APS-C lens set, meaning that to move up to this will require new lenses. If you're going to enter a new system, anyone in this price range will choose the D600.

Perhaps Canon's 7D market is already filled with FF lens owners who simply attach them to the 7D. But this also sounds unlikely, since anyone with the budget to buy a bunch of $1,000+ lenses won't just have a 7D; they already have a 5D Mark II or III. And even if they didn't, one would imagine working pros really missing all of the pro-level stuff that they paid extra for when they bought the 7D instead of Canon's cheaper APS-C cameras. If they really wanted FF that badly, they would have stumped up the extra cash for the 5D Mark II.

A cheap camera like this is generally used to lure people into a system, and it loses to Nikon and Sony pretty badly. It simply doesn't compete. And if the 5D Mark III's sensor performance is any indication, even the large sensor won't be very good. This camera needs to be a lot cheaper than it is, and it's not because Canon is arrogant.

Panasonic GH3 And Lenses Announced

Lookin' good.

We now have all possible information on the new GH3, and it is everything we thought it would be.

I'm still upset by the 1/160th flash-sync and the max 1/4000th shutter speed, but I'll move on. Afterall, this is a hybrid camera, and by that they mean that video features are really the focus. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, this camera doesn't get any better for video. Well, I mean it could get better, but not by much.

It still includes a pop-up flash, because camera companies think we're all masochists. But other than that, the ergonomics are a massive upgrade. It puts it in the same size range as small SLR cameras, but that's like comparing and armor-clad Ford Focus to a minivan. Yeah, they're similar in size. My only real significant disappointment in the design is the lack of a second SD-Card slot.

The 71.something megabit video codec is exciting for two reasons. First, out of the box, this camera will be capable of broadcast-quality work. Second, the camera will of course be hacked not long after release, meaning that sky-high bit rates are not far off. And considering that the stock GH2 was able to handle some pretty crazy bit rates in stock form, I shudder to think what the GH3 will be able to do.

Sadly, we will have to wait to see what the sensor is capable of in photography. We're not completely without information, though. First, we know that the sensor is not a multi-aspect sensor. I suspect that this was because of the significant vignetting caused by using m4/3 lenses with anamorphic adapters on the GH2's 1.86x crop sensor. By switching to a standard 4/3 sensor size, anamorphic work will be much easier.

Second, with the official announcement now behind us, Phillip Blooms Genesis promo video has been made available for download, so we can see the full bit-rate version. The version embedded is the Vimeo stream, which is running at something like 8Mb. Head over. Download. Enjoy.


Panasonic GH3 launch film: Genesis from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

So what can we glean from the video? One, the video is noticeably superior to any other SLR-styled camera that I've seen. The 5D Mark III is the only other camera that support bit-rates as high as the GH3, and it's video quality lags the GH3 by a wide margin. There's good gradation in the shadows and sky, but not mind-blowing. Dynamic range does indeed appear to be much improved over the GH2, which gives me hope for the photographic tests and the inevitable comparison to the E-M5. Detail is fantastic. Unfortunately, the codec is blocking out some of what will be apparent in final photographs. So in the end, the video tells us more about the codec than about the camera. What it says, though, is promising.

In addition to the camera, Panasonic also dropped two new lenses, and both of them are absolutely drool-inducing. A 42.5mm f/1.2 prime, and a 150mm f/2.8(!) prime. These are both exciting and infuriating. They won't hit the market for eighteen months, and even then, if Panasonic's past is any indication, they won't be readily available because Panny will manufacture five of them. It also pisses me off because this stupid-early announcement is meant to do one thing: beg people to not drop Panasonic in favor of Sony.

Panny knows full well that Sony has kicked them in the proverbial balls over the course of the past year. One would also hope that Panasonic is aware that they borked the hell out of the significant lead they had in the mirrorless market. Sony has dominated the market, the conversation, and the innovation for twelve, solid months. Simply promising lenses nearly two years into the future is fucking pathetic. If the GH3 hadn't been a home run, I would have jumped over to Sony just to spite Panasonic. At least it's not as bad as what Canon released.

The one lens that Panasonic actually announced is the 35-100mm. It's price is even higher than the 12-35mm, at an eyebrow-raising $1,500. I was disappointed with the performance of the 12-35mm, and thought that it's actual price shouldn't have been over $1,000. At $1,500, this lens better be one hell of a performer. These prices also don't bode well for the eventual prices on the 150mm and the 42.5mm. Panasonic is getting greedy, with no reason whatsoever to do so. Still, they are at least not as bad as Sigma with the SD1.

Getting back to the GH3, was it worth the wait? I'd say yes. Assuming that the sensor is solid, it is the best m4/3 camera on the market. In most features, the E-M5 is much less compelling. That said, the E-M5 is much smaller. I see the E-M5 as the true successor to my beloved GF1 and the GH3 is the successor to... the GH1. If I was to choose one, I'd pick the GH3 any day of the week. It's larger and heavier, but it's a tool and was designed as such. The E-M5 was designed with size and style considerations. There's nothing wrong with that, but since I can't afford both cameras, I'm buying the GH3.

Obviously, I'm going to wait for the sensor tests, but if early impressions are correct, I think congratulations are in order to m4/3. I'm staying put.

More Panasonic GH3 Details Leak

A few more deets on the GH3 have dropped and they reveal some things of interest. Most importantly, of course, is the price. It's higher than I would have hoped, but considering the numerous body enhancements, it's not unreasonable. Body-only is $1,299, a not-insignificant $400 more than the GH2 at launch.

Well, what do we get for that extra $400? We get a new sensor, but that's never worth an increase in price. The market is much more competitive than it was when the GH2 released, meaning that for the GH3's value equation to remain the same, it needs to actually be cheaper.

But back to the sensor; it appears to be another multi-aspect sensor as with the GH2, with 17.2Mp resulting in 16.05Mp images. I'm hoping that the sensor at least matches the new Olympus E-M5. It was the first sensor to make m4/3 a legitimate competitor to APS-C and if the GH2 doesn't do the same, it kills itself as a photographic tool. It may still be very useful as a video tool, but it will be camera non grata for those wanting to freeze moments. Regardless of what PR reps and arrogant, online photographers trying to justify their love of Leica say, the sensor matters a lot. If it's not up to snuff, the camera is crap, no matter how good other elements may be.

From the photos, it's obvious that the tactile interface of the camera has received a major overhaul. At the risk of sounding overly effusive, the camera looks fantastic. Everything about it exudes an aura of pro. I'm especially excited about the mechanical scroll wheel on the back of the camera. I'm glad that this feature appears to be picking up steam in the camera world.

The body is beefy as hell; much better than the plastic body of the GH2. This is a significant and welcomed upgrade. It's unfortunate that the camera isn't be called weather sealed. They say it is "dust and splash resistant," whatever the hell that means. Again, comparing it to the E-M5, it had better be the same level of sealing.

Contained within that body is the single most exciting element of the camera: a cooling system. Frequently, that's the biggest reason the frames for holding video hardware are so large; they must accommodate the heat sinks and sometimes even liquid cooling required of high-output digital sensors. I've seen people dismantle cameras to attach heat plates to draw away heat and allow for extended shoots.

The camera is going to have extensive tethering support for everything from laptops to cell phones. Could this camera get any better? Oh? It can? How? A 71-freaking-megabit codec, that's how! We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but the few tid-bits available from those who have handled the camera are already lavishing it with praise. This is from a pure video perspective, mind you, and it's the photographic elements that are of slightly greater interest to me.

Here, there are a couple of disappointing elements to the design. First, the max shutter speed of 1/4000 is annoying, as is the flash sync of only 1/160th. Again, the smaller sensor allows everything associated with the sensor to be cheaper/easier to make. The sensor only drops down to ISO 200, an infuriating practice that seems to be growing more common. I suspect companies are doing this because it allows them to "trick" the sensor into doing something it otherwise wouldn't be able to do. I'm not sure how, but Olympus' wild mis-calibration of the E-M5, with ISO 200 being more like ISO 130, makes me confident that this is on purpose.

All things considered, the GH3 is shaping up to be a fantastic camera. It all hinges on that sensor. If it can match the E-M5's chip, the GH3 will be the m4/3 camera to buy, and will immediately become the video tool of choice for anything below the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. I think I know what I'm asking for from Santa.

First Sony A99/NEX 6 Photos Released

The first test photos of the new NEX 6 and A99 cameras have hit the interwebs. The NEX 6 is very impressive and the A99 is... whelming. First, the good news.

The Fuji X Pro sensor appears to have given Sony the nudge it needed, because the NEX 6 sensor is very impressive. The images taken at the max ISO of 25,600 are usable. They aren't pretty, to be sure, but they are usable for small print or Facebook purposes.  It's still not in the same league as the X Pro 1, but it's a noticeable bump up from the NEX 5n.

The bad news, sorta', is the A99. The ISO performance is about as whelming as possible while not quite being disappointing. This isn't a surprise since the SLT mirror causes quite a hit to both resolution and ISO, and this effect was seen in grand fashion in image comparisons between the A77 and the NEX 7, which use the same sensor.

To be fair, these are all JPEGs, and Sony is notorious for god-awful JPEG processing. I'm sure that these cameras are no different, since even at low-ISO, there is significant detail smudging. Still, I wish that Sony had given us the ability to move the mirror out of the way.

Panasonic GH3 Is Enough To Keep Me Excited

Some details of the new GH3 have leaked out ahead of the full announcement, and considering that the "leak" was taken down then promptly put back up leads me to believe that it was on purpose. It doesn't matter. A very small number of people care about the GH3. This is never going to be Apple-level excitement regardless of how much tricky marketing Panny tries to do.



Basically, we already knew the details that were released. So no new data. What we do have, though, is lots of details and images about the body. Ignoring the hilariously translated text in the video with such winners as "mirrorless" Infinite Possibilities of Expression, and the flat-out wrong 1st Digital Single Lens Mirrorless, the video is good. Lots of action, and many clips that are obviously taken from the camera.

It's hard to tell from what was provided, but the dynamic range appears to be better, as we can see in the shot of the Corvette driving in front of the sun. Similarly, we can tell absolutely that rumors of a global shutter are false, and the rolling shutter "jell-o" effect is pronounced. You can see it in the aforementioned Corvette shot, but most noticeably in the shot of the subway passing by. Interestingly, the camera seems to read the sensor from the bottom-up. I don't know of any other SLR-styled cameras that do this. The lack of the global shutter is a big let-down, since that means we have no chance of seeing it for another generation of GH-series cameras.

That said, everything else about this camera is a big upgrade. The body is pro. The connections are pro. The accessories are pro. This camera has some serious aspirations, and I couldn't be happier. The single-biggest thing for me is the inclusion of focus peaking. That feature, more than anything, made me lust after Sony's cameras. I love buying old lenses off of eBay and seeing what I can do with them, and working with them with simple focus zoom is a nightmare in all but the slowest, most deliberate environments.

I like the E-M5, and I especially like the IBIS. If that camera gets hacked to fix many of the crippling issues with its video output, it could become a serious hybrid tool. But as it stands, the GH3 is the most exciting Micro 4/3 camera out there, and it hasn't even been announced yet.

P.S. There's a rumor floating around that Sony is behind the LVF, screen, and sensor in the GH3. I wouldn't be surprised by this and rather hope that it is true. Panasonic's GH1 sensor was good, but the GH2 was a step down. And every sensor after that has been a big disappointment.

"Sony Can't Get All The Attention!", Says Nikon's D600

Sony is getting all of the attention recently, and rightfully so. The RX1 is groundbreaking, and both the NEX-6 and A99 are incredibly competent cameras that push things further than Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Panasonic have proven willing (capable?) of doing. The only other company out there that is even in the same ballpark as Sony is Fuji.

But that doesn't mean that the others are sitting still. Well, maybe it does, but we have a week's worth of announcements coming up before we find out. Next up: Nikon. Sony shot first, probably because Sony had the best stuff, but that's beside the point. The point is... what is the point? Don't do drugs is the point.

Where am I? The D600! That's where. The new D600 is a cheap, FF camera. It will cost $2,099. And trust me, that price is the most exciting element of the camera. I actually find the rest of it underwhelming. For example, the flash-sync is only 1/200th. That may seem like a small thing, but I see it as representative of a greater philosophy surrounding this camera. The maximum speed is only 1/4000th. That is base-level APS-C camera territory. It can do 5fps, but I don't know if that is some sort of speed priority or not. If not, that's good speed. It is weather-sealed, so it will be a suitable working camera.

The price is decently exciting, I must admit. Nikon jumped to where I think Sony should have already: compete with pro-thusiast APS-C cameras with cheap full-frame. I'm really puzzled about why Nikon didn't drop the camera to $1,999. It would have been only $100, and only $50 of which would be felt by Nikon. That would undoubtedly be made up for by the increased number of customers who react to the psychological barrier of sub-$2,000 pricing. This smacks of a company trying to "fit" a product into their selection of other products.

The other element of this camera's philosophy that is classic Nikon is the intransigence inherent in its genesis. Basically, this is Nikon doubling down on its traditional designs. There are two ways to increase value for a customer: increase product, or decrease price. The former is the domain of driving, innovative companies like Apple. That's not a fundamentally better place than a company that drives down prices — just look at Wal-Mart — but it is the place that evinces life inside a company. Ideally, most companies should be a combination of both, thus remaining competitive in all ways.

Nikon is only doing one. Instead of innovating, they are simply reducing their prices. And as I mentioned with my confusion over the price, they aren't even doing that very well. Nikon abjectly refuses to accept that the market is shifting. We are experiencing a large shift toward cell phones and mirrorless cameras. The market doesn't care that Nikon's system is built around a mirror. Nor will the market accept a half-asses piece of crap meant to fit in with extant products like the Nikon "1", which, by the way, has essentially been confirmed as dead with the release of a single, simple lens by Nikon.

So yes, the Nikon D600 is a pretty good camera. It should be $1,999. It should have some features expected in a camera of its price. It shouldn't be the most innovative camera to come out of Nikon in over half a decade. I don't count the D800 as a Nikon innovation since the sensor was designed and built by Sony.

Will any photog who buys this be happy. I'm 100% sure that they will. Images produced by yesterday's technology are still great images. But this isn't just an issue of images and cameras, it's an issue of technology and market development. Nikon is standing still, stubbornly so, and demanding premiums for the privilege of standing with them. It's one of the things that pisses me off about Leica, which has turned that behavior into an art form. When companies like Fuji, Sony, and to a degree Olympus and Panasonic, are willing to innovate —  to find new ways to implement technology —  not only do I see no reason to stand with Nikon, the arrogance required to claim that I should pisses me off.

As The RX1 Marinates

I'm continuing to think about the RX1 and what it represents.

In the world of pros and enthusiasts, as opposed to consumers, people want three things: a large, tank-like camera, a compact camera that provides similar quality, and a selection of lenses from compact primes all the way up to $10,000 zooms. That's why Nikon and Canon came to conquer the entire freaking world; they offered these three things while no one else did.

With the advent of digital, old camera companies seemed hamstrung by their design and implementation philosophies. Thus we have cameras that have no need for a prism hump having prism humps. This meant that the second thing pro-thusiasts want, size, was not met as well as technology allowed it to be met. Cankon released good SLR cameras, but their compact cameras had sensors the size of insects in them. Thus, yes, they were small, but so was their quality. And now, these companies have large legacy markets that they don't want to cannibalize, so expecting innovation from them is like expecting a man to give birth.

On the other side of the coin, we have camera companies that stumbled into making compact cameras with pro features — cameras like the GF1 — which sold well, but those companies revealed that they had no freaking clue why they sold well. They promptly tried to desperately turn their compact cameras into "transition" cameras for a market that doesn't exist.

I don't know why Sony appears to have understood what no other company has yet to. Lord knows, Sony's corpus is not known for being smart. But here we are, with the only camera company that is releasing exciting stuff being Sony.

With all that considered, let us return to the RX1. It is an odd beast, certainly. It is undeniably pro-oriented, yet carries the Cybershot moniker. It will probably be less versatile than the RX100, though costing over four times the price. It seems to be aiming at Leica, but doesn't offer a viewfinder that's found on Sony cameras that cost 1/3 the price. It has HDMI, a mic input, and high-quality video, with a fixed prime lens. This thing is indeed a Frankenstein.

But don't think about that. Think about the core of what it offers. It offers something that I don't think many pros really thought possible: not just similar quality, but identical quality in a compact body. They are making a large number of concessions for the price in comparison to a tank-like SLR, but I have to admit, having a FF camera in my pocket is a prospect that, even before holding it, seems to outweigh the limitations. That is the reason why, so often, I pick up my GF1 and not my other cameras, even though I know the images aren't as good, and I'm limited to the 20mm f/1.7.

Would I have liked to see an interchangeable lens? There's a part of me that says yes, but the more I let it stew, the less I think that. Again, this represents the inevitable FF mirrorless that is in the offing, but in Sony's market, it just doesn't make sense to invest in a completely new system yet. It's easier to make one-off products, and when those products are the RX1, they are a great way to innovate and keep people excited. Sony needs to focus on the current NEX line, because their lenses are seriously lacking and not in line with the people buying the cameras. Every NEX owner I know is a pro-thusiast with a big camera budget. Every "soccer mom" type that I know either relies on their cell phone or has a Cankon SLR.

Similarly, Sony needs to overhaul their FF lens selection, which has always been a bit behind Canon and Nikon, and this problem is becoming more apparent with updates from Cankon and the release of Fuji's X Pro series. Basically, Sony has a lot of work ahead of them to not only bring synergy to their disparate systems, as they have stated they want to do, but to bring their systems up to par with the competition. For example, Fuji started less than six months ago, and already has three APS-C lenses that are better than everything Sony makes. They have three more coming out this year, all of which will be better than everything Sony makes. And to add to this, they have the sub-$1,000 X-E1 coming out to open up new markets to this lens selection.

The more I ponder it, the better I think the RX1 is. This could very well become a pro-thusiasts number-one. With this released, I want to see the NEX system given the lenses it deserves. I'm talking five or six, $1,000+, pro-level primes. What I don't want to see is this 16-50mm nonsense, with image quality that looks like it's straight out of a cell phone.

I mentioned Fuji, and that's because I see Fuji has the only company that is in the same league as Sony. Olympus' E-M5 and 75mm lens are impressive, but not nearly enough to counteract three years of stagnant, overpriced crap. Only Fuji has groundbreaking stuff out, and coming out. The X-E1 and X Pro 1 are the only cameras that comes to mind when I think about competition for the RX1 (Seriously, guys, WTF with all the X's?). Fuji's lenses are an order of magnitude better than Sony's, but their autofocus is truly terrible. If reports from the NEX-6 are any indication, it appears that Sony has caught up to Olympus in the AF department — that is to say, very good.

So which would you rather have? Good AF, or good lenses? I would always choose the former,  though either one has the prospect of being engineered better. It's a profoundly difficult call. I would have said to choose Fuji, since before this time, their perspective alone was definitively pro-thusiast. But with Sony's release of the RX1, it reveals them to have shifted in the same direction as Fuji. Basically, the consumer market is dying. It will eventually be completely subsumed by the cell phone market.

And we always have Micro 4/3 as a genuine option. Its sensor is the smallest (although I hold out dreams for a 1:1 sensor update), but that provides significant advantages in many applications. Olympus has released two world-class lenses that have held up to scrutiny: the 75mm and the 12mm, and Panasonic is going full-bore into the world of video, which is a similar tack to Sony, which has revealed a strong focus on video capability with the RX1.

Three systems. Fuji is all about photography. Micro 4/3 and Sony are about video and photography. For me, it's a choice between the latter two. I'm awaiting the GH3, as I have been for months, before I make a decision. But as it stands, Sony is really impressing me.

Sony Drops The (RX1, A99, NEX 6) Bomb

The first bits of Sony's camera explosion are hitting the interwebpipes. Steve Huff has sex with the RX1 in his preview, DPReview posts their more measured take on everything, and the camera world in general trembles in the face of true innovation. Bravo, Sony. Bravo.



The Sony may seem overpriced at $2799, and it is, but not by much. I am of course assuming that the lens is stellar. If it's not, then the camera's value plunges off a cliff, but I think it nearly impossible that Sony wouldn't put top-pro-level glass on the front of their new wunderkind.

The pro-oriented details of this camera are fantastic. The leaf shutter is silent and will likely have a flash-sync of 1/2000th (the shutter limit) when released. And here I was pining for a camera that had 1/250th. For anyone who has a standalone microphone, this compact camera comes with a microphone socket. A microphone socket! I hope that the HDMI output is clean. And praise the lord, a mechanical scroll wheel on the back! I can't describe how long I have waited for that.

This is the camera for the enthusiast community. It blows everything else out of the water. It will sell like crazy. Obviously, all of this effusive language must be put into context. The enthusiast community represents a small niche of the larger market. When I say "sell like crazy," crazy means tens of thousands of units.

I must admit, this camera is a bittersweet thing for me. Sony has hitherto been aggressive in both design and price. Nothing about this camera is aggressive in price. In fact, it evinces a degree of arrogance that I find unsettling. The accessories are priced in the sky. I'm talking stupid prices with mark-ups undoubtedly measured in quadruple digits. I thought the $80 lens hood for the Olympus 75mm was batshit stupid, but the Sony has it beat. Its lens hood costs $179, the thumb grip costs  $249, and the optical viewfinder (that simply sticks on the top of the camera), costs a sphincter-clenching $599. Sony is so far out of their fucking minds with those prices that it makes me think them a joke. Time will tell.

Moving away from super-expensive, niche cameras, we find that, from the perspective of the general market, and by association in many ways, the enthusiast market, the NEX-6 is the most interesting camera to be announced.

Firstly, it's yet another camera in the burgeoning NEX line of cameras and fills a price gap between the $600 NEX-5n and the $1,100 NEX-7. Secondly, while the NEX-7 was a great camera, its sensor was beyond the capabilities of every NEX lens. The only one that even came close cost more than the camera itself. While Sony accelerated its lens development, it still takes time to engineer top glass, grow the crystals to make the lenses, ramp up production facilities, and get the lenses to market. It was obvious that Sony needed to fill the gap with a different camera.

The NEX-6 has everything that the 7 has save for the 24Mp sensor, and that's a good thing. This new sensor supposedly is a noticeable step ahead vis-a-vis ISO performance and autofocus, which is really what we want and need out of these APS-C mirrorless cameras. With very few photos being printed, and the pros who will be printing interested in greater cameras, the APS-C market can sit quite pretty in the 15-20Mp range. I think Sony is smart to have the option of the high-res camera on the market, but the NEX-6 is the recipe for success. Good enough for the pros, cheap enough for everyone. I think that it's going to be huge. Millions of units huge.

The A99 is, again, precisely what everyone thought it would be: a full-frame camera with the SLT technology inside. Not Earth-shattering, and perhaps a bit boring after the annoucement of the RX1, but still very important. Sony takes its pro equipment seriously, and we can expect significant development in its lenses as they work to unify their SLT and mirrorless lines. That said, some of the camera's specs are underwhelming, specifically the slow shooting speed. I was expecting 10fps, or more, and instead got 6. The video performance better be world class to justify the price.

These three cameras, and the ongoing work that they represent, again causes me to consider making the jump to Sony. If Olympus hadn't released the world-class (and cheap) 75mm f/1.8, I would have made the jump to Sony and sold my Micro 4/3 gear yesterday. Perhaps that's just me being pissy. We've still got a lot of announcements to go. Micro 4/3, Fuji, Sony, and Nikon are all very tempting systems into which a new user could dive and be very happy and they all have stuff to announce this week. Photokina, bring it on!

Fuji Releases APS-C Compact Rangefinder

Gorgeous!

That's all I can say about this camera. It's bleedin' gorgeous. The optical viewfinder is fantastic and was a novelty I had kinda' hoped would have made it into Micro 4/3's cameras.

Fuji is explicitly stating that this camera is intended for a high-end market, be it professional or enthusiast. They're not releasing final pricing info, likely because they don't know, but they're shooting for the $1,000(US) range. If the body is as well-made as reports indicate, this will undercut the Leica X1 by FIFTY percent. It won't be competition for the M9, what with the integrated lens, but the X1 has certainly been obviated, and Sigma should certain be concerned for the future of their DP-series of cameras. Afterall, the sensor in those is more an experiment than a final product, and they will only undercut the Fuji by a couple of hundred dollars.

That being said, Fuji hasn't exactly been playing in the high-end market lately. Their most expensive camera is less than $400, and the last pro-level camera they made, as far as I know, is the S3 way back in 2005. And, as this review shows, it was far from a stellar performer. Even the EOS 20d outperformed it. The follow-up S5 was a similar story. It was outperformed by everyone, and was like its predecessor, apparently a Nikon body. At least it had the good graces to be cheaper.

With that in mind, Fuji is obviously not messing around. Even if we assume that Fuji is retarded, the raw materials in the camera speak of quality. A fast, prime lens. A bulletproof metal body. A rangefinder that only a few people in the world care about. And the icing on the cake, the largest sensor that Fuji has worked with in nearly half a decade. Combined, those ingredients all but guarantee images that are at least decent.

So, yeah. Gorgeous.

Sigma Announces SD1

Sigma, makers of the DP1 and DP2, have announced a DSLR-bodied camera centered around a Foveon X3 sensor. The sensor is ostensibly the same thing as the DP1 & 2, but the pixel count is higher, so it must be revised. That was the Foveon's smallest concern, frankly. I would have liked to see an untouched pixel count, indicating a focus on high-ISO performance.

Most people in the photo world were unimpressed with the Sigma. I wasn't. I'm a huge fan of what's called per-pixel accuracy. This means that a sharp line is accurately drawn as a sharp line on a photo, without blurring at the line. That's why, even after all this time, I use my old Canon EOS 20d more than newer cameras.


See in the comparison photo (from the amazing review site DPReview), how sharp and defined the pixels are in the Sigma photo. The Olympus is certainly resolving more detail, but not that much more considering the resolution difference.

The technology is certainly not ready for pro-level work, nor is it the best deal for consumers, but for a certain photographer, it was a tempting offer. The greatest risk for the technology was that Sigma wouldn't continue to develop it, but to many people's surprise, they've continued working, and aggressively so. After continued support for that DP1 and 2, this camera is confirmation that Sigma is all in.

I look forward to seeing what they've managed in the ISO department, and also to seeing what the sensor can do when paired with better glass. I'm glad to see that the digital photography market is starting to differentiate away from the old limitations of the film.

Sigma SD1 has a 15.3MP sensor, weather-sealed magnesium alloy body, and no video mode at all (Engadget.com)