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.

Sigma Offers Try Before You Buy Program

Do you remember a number of years back, when Cinderella Man came out in theaters and wasn't doing very well? A large theater chain had such confidence in the movie that they offered viewers the ability to pay after viewing it, and would only have to pay if they liked it. The decision was made out of confidence, certainly, but also confusion. Why the hell wasn't the audience connecting with an excellent movie?

Poor Sigma finds itself in a similar situation. As esoteric camera equipment abounds, Sigma's perenial also-ran, the Foveon cameras, seem to be forgotten. And that's a bad thing! Are the Foveon cameras perfect, all-arounders? No. Not even close. They are slow, deliberate, and provide image quality that cannot be found anywhere else. They are utterly unique image-making tools. If you want to stand out, you should be using these cameras, and yet so few people are.

Sigma is obviously desperate to get photogs to take their Foveon cameras more seriously. They are offering a try-before-you-buy plan, where they will charge $999 to your credit card of choice and completely refund it if you send it back. Obviously, they're betting that you won't send it back because you love it so much, and for many photogs, that might happen.

I don't have the time to use my Sigma recently, since its ISO performance isn't terribly good. I can't take many shots indoors, and food photography requires studio lights. But in high-light and tripod scenarios, I love the Sigma. LOVE it.

My primary cameras are a Panasonic GX1, Canon EOS 50D, and Nokia 1020, but none of them offer what the Sigma has. I wouldn't trade them, but the mere fact that I would consider it should tell you something.

Go try it. You won't regret it.

Go Sigma, Go Sigma, Go! New Sigma 50mm Art Lens Destroys All Comers

Well, maybe not all comers. The already-legendary Zeiss Otus stands tall. But considering that the Sigma costs one-quarter the cost of the Zeiss, who cares? Fuck the Zeiss, I'm buying Sigma.

Also, the Sigma has autofocus. Beat that, Zeiss.

Read the review at SLRGear for a detailed analysis of the image quality and check out the Lenstip review for a more digestible analysis of its resolution and distortion. Lenstip is important because all distortion analysis is done on RAW files, meaning that in-camera corrections aren't possible (I'm looking at you, Panasonic and Olympus.)

Sigma just keeps hitting home runs. It's amazing. Combined with companies like Blackmagic, Fuji, and even Sony to a degree, Sigma is fracturing the foundations of the contemporary camera industry. They are producing exceptional — exceptional — products for prices far below the competition. They are also producing unique products in the form of their Foveon cameras.

Sigma deserves praise and recognition for what they are doing. And unlike Fuji's first attempts with the X-system, they also deserve sales. Lots of sales. Seriously, if you don't already own all of Sigma's new Art lenses, there's something wrong with your medula ob-lon-gata. That's a Waterboy reference, son. Try to keep up with the jokes.

As a bonus, if you consider yourself a videographer, be excited. Attach the new Sigma to the Speedbooster from Metabones and you will have an f/1.2, top-pro, 50mm lens with which to shoot buttery-dreamy scenes. If you shoot video or photo, it doesn't matter; buy this lens.

Similarly, if you consider yourself a true photography enthusiast, you need to own at least one Foveon camera. Their images aren't just good or bad, they are different. Fundamentally different. How many Canons or Nikons fulfill that?

I lampooned the Panasonic 42.5mm lens with it came out as overpriced. Yet again, Sigma has produced a piece of glass that is top-pro. It's true full frame, with image characteristics that exceed everything except a $4,000 piece of kit from one of the most famous lens companies on Earth. Companies like Panasonic, Canon, and Nikon should hold their heads low in shame.

This is one of the greatest lenses ever made. Congrats Sigma on your great work.

Sigma Continues Its Trend of Upending The Camera Market

The very first test images from Sigma's new 50mm f/1.4 Art lens have hit the pipes. It is amazing. It's only competition is the Zeiss Otus that wowed the world two months ago.

 These shots are all wide open, so we don't know how it does stopped down yet, but it doesn't matter. To my eye, it's not quite up to the Otus, but the differences are so small as to make no real difference, especially considering that the Otus costs $4,000 while the Sigma only costs $1,500 and the Sigma has autofocus.

The important thing is that the Sigma blows the Sony/Zeiss and the Nikon out of the water and back into more water. It is amazing. Bravo Sigma for again showing other companies how it's done.

This is a great time to point out the review of the Nikon 58mm lens at Lenstip. You can always spot a good review website when they really let harsh words fly when they are called for. Most websites are terrified of pissing off the companies that buy advertising space, meaning that bad products rarely get the reviews they deserve.

The Nikon 58mm is an overpriced piece of crap, and their review says it all.

Perhaps I am naive but I admit when Zeiss announced their Otus 1.4/55 and Nikon – the Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G I though we were going to deal with two lenses which were a match for each other. It seems, though, that only Zeiss was serious about it and Nikon was joking all along, trying to sell you a rough piece of trash for a lot of money under a cover of a storied Nikon legacy. I really don’t intend to torture the tested Nikkor any longer because it is not worth the time and trouble.

This is why Oly and Panasonic piss me off so much. This is their fantasty! This is their goal! They want to be able to have such control over their closed system that they can charge comically huge prices for garbage and pad their profits on the backs of those who bought their cameras. It's bad enough that we have two companies doing this (Canon's included). The last thing we need is two more.

Sigma's New DP Quattro Impresses Impressively

Sigma is a company that has made one major mistake: the initial pricing of the SD1. Aside from that, they have been doing nothing but great things. Their Art lines of lenses is superior and cheaper to alternatives from other companies. Their 18-35mm is the only must-have lens for APS-C SLR cameras. And their Foveon sensors are beloved by those who don't mind how cripplingly slow they are. I like Sigma.

While I made fun of their SD1, I wanted it. I couldn't bring myself to buy it, even at its not-entirely-unreasonable $2,000 price, but I did want it.  The color and detail of low-ISO Foveon shots is amazing. Unparalleled. Eye-popping. And other such words as well.

Likewise, I wanted their DP1, DP2, and DP3 Merrill cameras, which I actually consider steals at their prices of $899. They are Medium Format-quality landscape cameras that fit in your pocket. Just amazing.

As with the SD1, though, they were special-purpose cameras with many concessions in design. I have limited funds and have to make decisions based on how often and widely I will use my purchase. A camera that is slow as a snail and essentially useless over ISO-600 isn't high on my priority list... although how I wanted it to be.

The new DP Quattro apparently goes some way toward alleviating the issues. Well, color me excited.

In case you don't know, Foveon sensors don't work with the standard array of red, green, and blue sensor sites as in most cameras. Instead, there is a red layer, a blue layer, and a green layer of sensors all stacked on top of one another. As such, each pixel that is recorded in the final picture contains red, green, and blue data.

Previously, the Foveon sensor used a full array of red, green, and blue on each layer. According to Sigma, this was one of the reasons for the slow speed of the cameras; there was a butt-ton of data to be processed. To me, the solution to this is a better processor, but I digress. Sigma's solution involves redesigning the sensor and making only the topmost blue layer a full array.

According to Sigma, this results in no loss of image quality. I have to admit, I'm not sure how that's possible, since data is being chucked away, but I will await judgment. I tend to believe them since a lie like that would kick them in the ass.

They have also put it in one of the coolest-looking cameras that I've seen in a long time. Not since the Fuji X100 has a camera been so eye-catching and different. I cannot wait to wrap my hands around one. That's because this camera is different. It looks like the future of imaging. Unlike so many others... apparently... I do not get a thrill out of holding a digital camera that looks like an old camera. I don't need some nebulous romance based on the past to be attached to my cameras. I want a tool that produces images. I get a thrill out of holding the newest, best, most advanced image-producing tool that the industry has. I want something that dares to be different so I can see what I can do with it. I know what I can do with an SLR or yet-another-mirrorless camera! I want to discover what I can do with something new. I get that thrill from this.

Good show, Sigma. Good show.

fō-tō-gră-fē's Product of the Year

Every other website does a product of the year, so we may as well do the same thing.

Most other websites are either picking cameras or picking multiple products, but in my opinion, there is only one thing out there that deserves recognition: the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.

Many other websites are choosing the Olympus E-M1 or the Sony A7/A7R. This is nonsense. I've grown too tired of companies producing amazing cameras and then doing shit to support them, or, worse still, doing shit and then trying to charge ridiculous amounts for it. After Sony pulled that with the NEX-7, I swore: never again.

No matter how good the E-M1, GX7, or A7R currently are or will be in future iterations, they are still the products of traditional camera market thinking. They all want to develop a system from which they can squeeze money. They all want to be the next Canon and Nikon in the same way that every damned cell phone company wants to be the next Apple.

Never once in their product meetings does anyone ask "how can we make the best product for the lowest price?" Not once. They start by asking "how can we charge the amount of money that we want to charge." Sigma did this to wide-spread derision with the original, $10,000 price for the SD1.

Sigma learned its lesson hard, though, and came back stronger and smarter for it. The 18-35mm lens is top-pro quality glass for only $800. And as any good photog will tell you, it's more about the lens than the camera.

There has been much discussion this year as to whether it is truly worth it for many people, even pros, to use full frame gear. The lenses are more expensive and larger, the sensors are more expensive, and the files are larger. It becomes increasingly hard when cameras such as the Fuji X-trans sensor and the Nikon D7100 perform amazingly, even at low light.

This is a good discussion to be having, and one that the camera companies do not want us to be having. Camera companies spend all of their time thinking about how they can talk you into buying something more expensive. They do not think about making what you already have better. As such, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Panasonic would have never released the 18-35mm lens. They would have kept that design a closely-guarded secret and only sold it for an incredibly-high price if they even sold it at all.

That's why the Sigma is our product of the year. It changes the paradigm. None of the cameras or lenses released by the major companies changes they paradigm. They may be very good products, but they all toe the industry line. If you own an APS-C camera, you need to own the Sigma.

Since I'm focusing... ahem... so much on lenses, I would like to mention some others that deserve attention. SLR Magic and Voitlander continue to produce some amazing lenses for amazing prices. Zeiss wowed the world (at least partially because I think everyone assumed that Zeiss forgot how to make good lenses) with its mind-blowing Otus 55mm f/1.4. I would like to choose one of these lenses, but in this day and age, autofocus is a necessity to consider a product an award-winner. Niche markets may be fine with manual-focus, but an award does not go to a niche product.

So with that said, this will probably be the last post of the year. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and may all your photos be in focus and exposed correctly.

Another Example of How Panasonic and Olympus Are Full of Crap

Panasonic and Olympus are both idiotic companies. They are also frustrating as all get-out, most expecially Olympus. Panasonic is frustrating because both their cameras and lenses have problems. Olympus is frustrating because their cameras are very good, but their lenses have problems.

Both Panny and Oly have either announced or released wide-angle zooms in the past year. Panny released their 12-35mm last year, and Oly is releasing their 12-40mm later this year. Both of them are slow in the world of high-end glass. I find this ridiculous because their sensors are very small. Making bright lenses should be easy. They are not doing this because of greed.

The Sigma 18-35mm exposed in stark illumination the absurdity at work. It is designed to operate on a larger sensor, costs $200 less, is over a stop brighter, is sharper, more even, and has significantly lower distortion. It makes a laughing stock of Oly and Panny's lenses.

The Sigma lens should have come out years ago, but, as always, the lens companies didn't want to release it. They make so much money from herding their chattle into their closed systems that the idea of giving them a good price for good equipment probably caused physical illness. Thankfully, the Sigma has finally let the cat out of the bag.

But I'll express my love for the Sigma in another post. For now, let's focus on how Olympus and Panasonic suck.

A common reprise from PanOly, and from their fans, is that the lenses are slower because size was a consideration. First off, that's total horse shit because no one who truly cares about photography would ever give up a stop of light for anything. It increases the artistic boundaries of the lens by an order of magnitude... ya' know, if art was measured in the decimal system.

Also horseshit is that the Micro 4/3 sensor is quite a bit smaller than APS-C — 25% smaller to be exact. That means that any lens that is designed for APS-C can be reduced by 25% to find the equivalent lens size for the 4/3 sensor. Obviously, this only applies to the optics. The conversion isn't entirely applicable since motors and whatnot don't scale linearly.

So let's compare lenses, shall we. The Sigma is 78mm wide and 121mm long. Reduced by 25%, we have a lens that is 58.5mm wide and 90.75mm long. It's also a stonking-heavy lens at 810g. And while the weight comparison isn't as accurate, let's apply the 25% to it as well to get a hypothetical lens that weight 607.5g.

The Panasonic lens is 67.6mm wide and 96mm when extended. I used the extended length because the Sigma is an internal focusing lens and has a set length. As such, the hypothetical Sigma lens is SMALLER, he typed in ironic bold & capital letters, than the Panasonic lens. It's a boatload heavier, though; the Panny only weighs 305g.

The Olympus is 70mm wide and between 84-94mm long (I can't find a measure of its extended length). Again, the Oly is larger.

This is not meant to be an absolute, irrefutable, scientific study. It is meant to illustrate that when Oly and Panny say they had to take size into consideration with their lens designs, they are lying. They are lying because they want more of your money for less of their product. In Oly's case specifically, they have this fantasy that their SLR Zuiko line will somehow come back to life and as such, they cannot compete with it.

It really makes me wonder how the hell Olympus managed to release the 75mm f/1.8. Was no one watching that lens designer when he accidentally green-lit a great lens?

Regardless... Olympus is better than Panny. Their upcoming 12-40mm will sell for $999, which would have been great if not for the release of the Sigma. In this, they have already shown more sense than Panasonic did with the $1300 price for their 12-35mm. Granted, they've gone and named their new lenses "Pro," which I'm sure has caused many a pro to chuckle at Olympus' presumptuousness.

I'm a fan of primes. I think most non-journalists and non-wedding photogs are fans of primes. That said, I can't deny the ease of having a zoom lens on me. I would like a zoom lens that doesn't limit me. The Sigma did that in a big way. I would like one for my 4/3 cameras, as well. But both me, and the few other 4/3 shooters who I know, the instant we remove our 25mm f/1.4 or 75mm f/1.8, we regret it.

Indeed, my GF1 has spent nearly its entire life with the 25mm f/1.4 on it. It's a compact camera that gives me wonderfully artistic capabilities. The 12-35mm Panasonic forced me to work very hard to ensure that my shots didn't appear to be from a very good P&S. The zoom didn't liberate my artistic vision, it restricted it. That is something that I could not tolerate.

So again — I know that I reiterate this like some sort of broken recording of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn — I will not buy any of these new lenses from Panasonic or Olympus. In fact, I'm not sure who would.

Actually, that's a very good question, and I mean it sincerely. If you are a serious photog and you own these lenses, why did you buy them and why do you continue to use them? Are you not at least a little upset that they appear to be artificially limited?

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Is a Fantastic Deal

I failed to write about this because I've been busy, but I wanted to point out that I must happily eat my words. I said that Sigma would try to charge an arm and a leg for their new 18-35mm. I based this on the fact that they tried to charge, oh right, ten-thousand dollars for the SD-1 when it was first announced. Well, it appears that they learned from their mistake. Sigma announced the price of the new 18-35mm f/1.8 and it is a scant $799. This is called being competitive. If only Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic would hear the news.

Not only that, the lens is excellent. I'm talking truly excellent. This is a world-class lens for a wonderful price and you should have it in your kit like yesterday. If you are one of the weirdos who actually bought a Sigma SD-1, then it's a no-brainer. You need this lens.

Two reviews are out, SLRGear and Lenstip. Both are unequivocale in their praise. SLRGear even goes so far as to say that if you are even remotely interested in this lens, pre-order it now lest you will have to wait months to actually get one. From the review:

SPECIAL NOTE: As you'll see below, this is an incredible lens at an amazing price vs. the competition. We believe it will be severely backordered.

Damn. That is some high praise. For me, this is especially exciting because it finally puts a top piece of glass on Pentax for a decent price. Pentax's cameras are great, but their lens selection sucks. This lens alone makes Pentax cameras a viable option. Which is great. I love Pentax cameras. My first camera was a Pentax K1000.

Long story short, if you have a Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Sony, or Pentax APS-C camera, and you don't already have a lens like this, buy this lens. This is borderline top-pro glass. Top-pro glass for only $799.

The New Sigma f/1.8 Zoom Is The First Lens of The Post-Speed Booster Era

I said that the world had changed after Metabones announced their Speed Booster image-reducing lens adapter. To recap, what the Speed Booster does is take all of the light gathered by a full-frame lens and squeeze it down into an image circle that just fits an APS-C sensor. This does two things, first it eliminates the need for crop factor. Since the APS-C sensor is no longer taking only a small, center crop of the FF lens' image, it's no longer acting like a zoom. A 50mm full-frame lens no longer equals a 75mm APS-C lens. The final image is the same.

Second, it makes the image brighter. An f/2.8 full-frame lens increases in brightness to f/1.8 when all of that light is focused on the smaller APS-C sensor. It's wonderful.

There was nothing stopping lens companies from doing this. Canon, Nikon, et al., they could have made their FF lenses brighter on APS-C cameras with relatively small alterations to their FF lens optics. They did not do this because of greed.

Canon, Nikon, Sony: all of the camera companies make more money by restricting freedom. If they give you flexibility in how you manage your hardware, they limit their ability to squeeze money from your pockets. As such, it has taken them this long to simply take larger, FF lenses and squeeze them onto the APS-C sensor.

Indeed, even companies that exist solely as a discount alternative to system lenses, such as Sigma, display this greed.

Sigma is the first to respond, though. They have released an f/1.8 constant aperture zoom lens for APS-C sensors. It has an 18-35mm range, which equate to 27-52.5mm on full-frame, give or take a milimeter.

Usually, designing a lens and bringing it to market can take a long time — one to two years. I don't think that was the case with this lens. I suspect that they basically took an extant optical design and simply installed a Speedbooster-like optical element at the back of the lens.

Sigma does not have a FF lens with those specs, but they do have a discontinued lens that is 28-70mm f/2.8. That lens would equal around an 18-44mm f/1.8 on the Speed  Booster.

Moreover, if we analyze the measurements of the lens, we find similarly corroborating evidence. The 28-70mm Sigma lens weighs 18oz. The new 18-35mm lens weighs 28.6 oz. (If nothing else, the sheer weight and size of the lens confirms FF optics)

The Metabones Speed Booster with AF support weighs 7oz, giving the 28-70mm a weight of 25oz. Not exact, but close.

Similarly, the 28-70mm is 2.91" in diameter. Very close to the 18-35mm's 3.1". The length of the 28-70mm with the Metabones adapter attached is 4.43". Decently close to the 4.8" of the new 18-35mm, but not definitive.

All things considered, I think that this lens was a relatively quick rejiggering of an optical design they already had. When Sigma says that the design was difficult, I think they are lying. They are lying because they want to justify the very high price they are undoubtedly going to ask for it. Remember, this is the same company that tried to sell the SD-1 for $10,000.

Sigma SD1 Drops Price By More Than Two Thirds

In a move that absolutely no one expected, the hilariously overpriced Sigma SD1 has had its first price drop.

The camera started off life at $8,000, dropped to around $7,000 before launch, and has, I'm sure, sold no more than five across the entire planet. Sigma's CEO tries to save face by saying that manufacturing issues forced them to price the camera as high as they did. This is, of course, total nonsense.

If your company has a product that exceeds manufacturing expectations to the degree that this camera supposedly did, you don't increase the price to the point where no sane person would buy it, you either eat the loss or you don't make the product. Those are the only two choices that make good business sense.

Eating the loss allows you to ramp up production until costs drop, you then make up the loss on later profits. Not making the product at all allows you to continue developing the product in preparation for the day with it can be made. Pricing the product into the stratosphere maximizes your loss.

No, Sigma's pricing decisions was based on wishful thinking. They hoped that people would buy the marketing and actually think that this camera was the equivalent of a medium format camera. I'd call it arrogance if it hadn't been so foolish.

At its new price, the camera is a much more feasible tool. Obviously, enthusiast photographers who will want to do a wide variety of things with their camera need not apply. The lack of video and bottom-of-the-class ISO performance limits the camera's versatility. But for two groups of people, the camera is not un-tempting.

Studio photographers have been dealing with moire ever since the inception of digital cameras. It's an unavoidable consequence of the Bayer array. The Foveon sensor is immune to this effect. 100% immune. As digital cameras, especially those aimed at pros, are increasingly including light anti-aliasing filters, or no filter at all, the moire effect is maximized.

For most people, it's not much of an issue, but for anyone who has ever done shots in a studio with lots of fabric, the pain of moire is well-known. For them, the SD1, especially at its current cost, could make a lot of sense.

The other group that may want to look at this camera are landscape photogs. At base ISO, the performance of the Foveon sensor is very good. It falls off a cliff after ISO640, but that's irrelevant. Colors are rich and varied, and, most importantly, transitions into shadow are exquisite. As long as you aren't a resolution whore, the new Foveon sensor is a good choice. Sigma claims a resolution equivalent of 30MP. I've found it closer to 24-25MP, but I still think that is enough for most landscape applications.

The SD1 is not the camera for me, but it can be the camera for others. Its new price stops me from laughing in their face and instead makes me take their product quite seriously indeed. I think that it still needs work and refinement. It needs details that other, cheaper cameras have. It also needs much better workflow. That is something that companies who have never dealt with the pro market don't realize is important. Workflow can literally make or break a system.

I wish Sigma the best of luck, and I hope that the inevitable SD2 fixes all of the issues with this camera and truly brings Foveon into the mainstream.

First Review of The Sigma SD1 Posted, Still Garnering WTF's

It's one hell of a... something.

Photography Blog is the first out of the gate with the Sigma SD1, one of the most infamous cameras coming out of the pipes. A brief history, the SD1 uses a different kind of sensor from all other cameras. Most cameras have a red, green, and blue sub-pixel situated next to each other, all three of which are later interpolated into full-color pixels based on data from surrounding pixels.

The SD-1 has a red, green, and blue sub-pixel layered on top of one another. Thus, each pixel in the final image is a full-color pixel. This has a not-undeniable advantage of increased sharpness, since there is no interpolation to blur edges.

That said, the sensor seems to be at a distinct disadvantage in other ways, noise being foremost among them. Oddly, this new version of their sensor has low highlight dynamic range, according to the reviewer, which runs counter to the older sensor found in the DP2 which performed very well in highlight DR and only fell down in the shadow areas.

The single biggest problem with the sensor is that at sensitivities above ISO800, an odd color cast of greens and purples appears over the entire image. This was true of the old DP1 and 2, and it appears that they have been unable to eliminate the issue. Color saturation in general fell off of a cliff after ISO800, and that appears to be found equally on this larger sensor. Basically, color is more important than sharpness. That means that anything above ISO800 is useless.

This is very unfortunate. I wanted to like this camera. There are so many things about its concept that is appealing. Firstly, the file sizes are smaller for this camera than others. For someone who takes lots of pictures, file sizes are a major concern. It requires buckets of computing power to process the RAW files, and they start stretching into the gigabytes after a very short time.

With every pixel being made to display at maximum sharpness, photos are smaller and of superb quality. While I very much want a Sony NEX-7, the 24MP RAW files are not things to which I look forward. And if the Comparometer at Imaging Resource is any indication, the level of detail captured by 24MP appears to be identical to the amount captured by the Sigma. Granted, the RAW files from the Sigma can get pretty big, but the JPEGs never exceed 10MB.

Secondly, it's different! There are so few cameras out there that are truly different. The vast majority of them are using the same concepts, the same technologies, the same layouts, the same everything. This camera dares to be different. That's a great thing and is does present a certain value proposition.

That said, Sigma is balls-to-the-wall insane to charge as much as they are for this camera. I will make a bet with Sigma. I will give them $100 if they sell more than double-digits in any given market. I would honestly be surprised if they sold more than one hundred of these cameras in the entire world. Eight thousand dollars nears the Pentax 645D and it outperforms this camera in every conceivable way. No sane working or enthusiast photographer would ever buy this camera.

And as an aside, the review of the SD1 at Photography Blog almost destroys my confidence in the website entirely. This camera is a disaster. It does not meet its competitors in features, in performance, or in lens selection, yet they still give it four stars. Importantly, all of their test photographs seem to be designed to present as best an impression of this camera as possible.

There are no sample photos above ISO800, they don't mention the saturation issue, and the only images to exceed ISO800 are the "test" images, which are helpfully in almost entirely black & white, thus hiding the horrible saturation problem. Even here, though, one can see the blacks being clipped into oblivion and the total loss of color in the golden metal arms of the pocket watch.

They try their best to compare this to the "disappointing" ISO performance of the Nikon D3X, which exceeds comedy and enters a flat-out lie. The D3X is the number-4 camera of all time at DxOMark's website as regards ISO performance. They extol the virtues of the camera's weather-sealing, then try to rationalize the camera by calling it a "studio camera." Why would a studio camera need weather sealing? They also willfully ignore that the new Sony NEX-7 costs one-eighth as much but captures similar levels of detail, or that the Pentax 645D achieves significantly higher detail and is a true studio camera. This mealy-mouthed review conjures up every point it can in defense of the camera and actively hides points against it. It is a terrible review.