WTF Consumer Reports?

I'm a fan of consumer reports. I buy their magazine. I subscribe to their website. Indeed, I read almost everything they produce.

That said, what the hell is up with their ratings of digital cameras? In the category of "SLR-like" cameras, in which goes all mirrorless models, the Panasonic GH3 tops the list. Alright. They specifically mention that GH3's exemplary video quality as a determining factor in putting it at the top. I can't much argue with that.

But the G5 comes in second? And the GH2 third? Both above the Olympus E-M5? Wha?

But wait! It gets weirder!

Just below the E-M5 is the Nikon J1! Seriously. A camera that has failed in the market and isn't taken seriously by any pros or enthusiasts as in their top ten.

All of these cameras are far above the likes of the Sony NEX-7, A77, and NEX-6.

It gets super-strange near the bottom of the list, where we find the awful Pentax Q cameras in similar standing as the Fuji X-E1, and the X Pro 1 is in last place. Last place?! The X Pro 1 had a lot of problems, some of which significant, but in no fucking universe is it in last place!

The SLR category isn't any less strange. The Canon 60D is in first place, followed by... the Olympus E-5. I have a hard time forming coherent sentences to describe my reaction to this.

The advanced point-&-shoot category has its fair share of bizarreness. Considering that the Panasonic FZ200 is the top camera, you would assume that this category only includes cameras with small sensors. You would be wrong! Drop down the list and you will find both the Sony RX100 and the Fuji X100. Two seminal cameras... squarely in the middle of the pack.

This absolutely does not affect my views of their other reviews. There are few magazines whose viewpoints I so rarely take with a grain of salt. This camera comparison, though, is so out in left field as to defy analysis or description.

Ignore it.

Panasonic Shines, Nikon Shits The Bed

We have two pretty big DxOMarks to discuss: the Panasonic GH3 and the Nikon 1 J3. I'd like to first talk about the Nikon because, ya' know, bad news first and all that. Basically, the 1 cameras started off pretty poor. They were expensive, with meager optics, and image quality that was closer to compact P&S cameras than 4/3. Worse still, the Sony RX100 came out and so soundly defeated the poor Nikon that it essentially obviated the latter's existence entirely.

It's been over a year since the 1 cameras released, and we are now on the third generation of them. And much like the early trajectory of Micro 4/3, instead of progressing, Nikon actually appears to be regressing with their little "toy" cameras. The Nikon J1 scored 56 on DxOMark (ten points behind the Sony RX100), and the more expensive V1 scored a 54. The J2, released six months later, scored a 54. The new J3, released six months after that, has no scored a 52. The $800 V2 scored an utterly pathetic 50.

I feel the need to again express the perspective from which I lampoon companies and use words like "pathetic." I am very, completely, keenly aware that any camera, in the right situation, produces good images and am certainly a follower of the assertion that the best camera is the one that you have with you. That said, all products that are for sale do not exist as standalone tools that are judged on their own merits alone. They are also judged based on the other options in the marketplace.

Thus, when one company sells a product that targets a similar market as another company's product, but under-performs that other company's product in every way, they are rightfully worthy of mockery. This company is saying to customers "give us your hard-earned money for this product." Thus, if the product turns out to be inferior to other products, it is an infuriating thing. It's as though the company tricked the customer into buying something that she could have bought more cheaply or better made elsewhere.

That said, let's move on. The Nikon 1 was a mess from the beginning. It was cowardly product meant to avoid competition with Nikon's APS-C cameras, which themselves are crippled and meant to avoid competition with Nikon's FF gear. It is an large, integrated system of products that aren't as good as they could be.

I close this part of the article with a reiteration: only a maniac would buy the Nikon 1 at full price.

Now, for the good news. Panasonic's GH3, like the Nikon, has its fair share of compromises obviously meant to allow Panasonic to sell more expensive video-oriented gear. It also have a detail that has grown to increasingly annoy me: slow flash sync. Most prothusiast cameras have a flash sync in the neighborhood of 1/250th sec. Mirrorless cameras seem to have ditched this entirely in favor of 1/160th, sometimes even lower. Olympus is the sole company producing a mirrorless camera with the hallowed 1/250th sync with the E-M5.

That is but a single aspect of the camera that is annoying, and there are others, but by and large, the camera is a success. It is an undeniable evolution of the GH2, even though it lacks the multi-aspect sensor. It manages to combine video and photo in a way that is truly unique in the market. If Panasonic had not decided to price the camera so high, it would be the camera to own for Micro 4/3 and perhaps the entire mirrorless market.

So how is this good news? Because, DxOMark has confirmed that the sensor in the GH3 performs just as well as the very good sensor in the E-M5. There are very minor differences, and most of them likely fall into the realm of statistically insignificant, so the two cameras are, for all intents and purposes, the same.

I'm very happy with this result. Most people who had been following the GH3 or handled it, as I have, pretty much expected these numbers. There are no surprises, which is both a good and a bad thing.

The biggest problem facing the GH3 remains its price. Camera stores are pricing it past the Fuji X Pro 1, and even at MSRP it is more expensive than the E-M5, X-E1, Sony NEX-7 and 6, and more than twice the price of the GH2, which remains its biggest competitor and is still quasi-available. I own a GH2 and have zero motivation to pay such a massive premium for the upgrade. The GH3's price is, like the X-Series lenses, untenable.

I see this as part of Panasonic's problem, and the reason why the entire company is in the financial toilet (the company's stock is trading at the same level as it did in 1985). Panasonic is like Sony in the belief that it can still charge the premiums that it demanded back in the 80's and 90's based on its mere status as being made in Japan. Sorry guys. We here in the US are well disabused of such a notion compliments of when your products put all of us out of business thirty years ago. You better learn the same lesson but quick, else you'll end up in the same place as Zenith.

Fuji's First Kit Zoom Is A Home Run

Fuji released along with the XE-1 a new kit zoom, which by nothing more than the virtue of an f/2.8 max aperture. The real question was of course whether the lens would measure up in other metrics, and compliments of a new review and Photozone, we can finally know.

It's very good. Not excellent, but it holds up well in comparison to other kit zooms. The resolution is fantastic, but the distortion at the wide end is significant. Again, it's as though the one thing that other camera companies have taken away from Micro 4/3 is that it is totally acceptable to produce a lens with sky-high distortion since it can be corrected in software. No. That is lazy lens design.

Similarly, the vignetting is pretty high, being well over 1-EV at f/2.8. This isn't a deal-breaker, especially with the Fuji sensor's low shadow noise, allowing the edges to be easily brought up in post. And considering the excellent resolution characteristics, only a fool would reject the lens.

My only criticism is that the lens is only a good deal if you buy it in the kit. As a stand-alone lens, it is still good for the price, $600, but not great. In the kit, it only costs $400, which is a great deal indeed.

The World Has Changed: The Metabones Image Reducer

Changing the world.

I spend most of my time on this site complaining about the intransigence of the camera companies. They grew so fat and dumb on their old business model that they were dead-set against any sort of change.

Obviously, that change has been coming whether they wanted it or not. The compact market has been destroyed by cell phones; a few groundbreaking cameras have altered the landscape; and now smaller companies are stepping in to fill the gap left by the arrogance of the larger companies.

One of the (many) things about 4/3 and Micro 4/3 that has always pissed me off was the prices they tried to charge for their good lenses. Don't get me wrong, 4/3 has some of the best cheap lenses available, but the instant they try to make pro-thusiast lenses, that greed took over — the very same greed we see at Canon and Nikon.

Look at Panasonic's laughably-priced X lenses. One of the advantages of small sensors is that it is easier and cheaper to design optics for them. $1,300 and $1,500 were money grabs. And while many lens fanatics were aware of this, there wasn't anything motivating the discussion. No product that made people think about lenses in a different light, no pun intended.

All that changes now.

Metabones has released for the Sony NEX system what's called an image reducer. Basically, you put a full frame lens on this adapter and the element in the adapter squeezes all of the light from the full frame lens down into a smaller image circle that perfectly fits the smaller NEX sensor. Obviously, this makes the image brighter while also taking all of the light from that larger image circle that provides the rich bokeh and shallow depth of field.

If you are someone who regularly works with FF lenses on smaller sensors, be they APS-C or 4/3, this means that you no longer have to worry about crop factor. That is fucking incredible.

For those who are simply curious about lenses and lens design, this provides the motivation we needed to criticize companies' lenses on some sort of even ground. No longer will Panasonic be able to claim that their 12-35mm lens is just like Canon's 24-70mm lens, since we can now attach them to the same camera and see that Panasonic is full of shit.

For comparison's sake, let's take Canon's lenses. The 12-35mm Panasonic X has a constant aperture of f/2.8. Now let's look at what Canon has for the same, $1,300 price. Ok. They have nothing. But they do have a 24-70mm f/4.0 for $1,500. That's close enough.

With a 4/3-specific adapter (which Metabones is not yet making but probably will), that gives the Canon lens the same field of view but gives it an aperture of f/2.0! For $200 more than the Panny lens, the canon lens provides a full stop more light. And remember, everything Canon makes is overpriced because they are milking people who bought into their system, so Panasonic's price is really outside the realm of reason.

Or what about the Panasonic 35-100mm? That means we need to find a Canon lens that is 70-200mm. Well, that's only Canon's most popular focal range, like, evah, so we have quite a selection. For $2,000 we can have one with a constant aperture of f/1.4. If we are willing to ditch IS, we can have that lens for $1,500. $1,349 will net us a constant aperture of f/2.0. All of these lenses will be far brighter, possibly sharper, and undoubtedly have lower distortion than Panasonic's lenses.

I recommend going to Nikon's site, or Sigma and Tamron if you really want to save some money. Make your own comparisons. Take their FF lenses and simply double the brightness. F/4 becomes f/2. F/2 becomes f/1. To be fair, Panasonic's lenses are smaller than the Canon lenses, but when a $500 Canon zoom transforms from a mediocre f/3.5-5.6 to an excellent f/1.75-2.8, I don't care. Only a lunatic would care. Moreover, Olympus Zuiko glass has no excuse. Oly's top-pro lenses are quite large, meaning that in every way, they are competing with the FF lenses in this example.

This is going to be a seismic event, it's just not apparent yet. That is the reason why this technology — something that seems so obvious — has taken until now to be implemented. Camera companies didn't want this technology to exist. They liked having people trapped in their systems, unable to move between cameras and lenses. They liked that the entire thing was a confusing train wreck of standards and crop factors.

No longer.

Fuji Is Looking Increasingly Attractive

I recently posted about my disillusionment with Sony. I have been one of Sony's biggest boosters for the last two years. Sony essentially obivated every other sensor company on the planet with the release of their new sensors starting in 2009. They up and ripped the mirrorless market from Micro 4/3 in a six-month time frame with the release of the mega-successful NEX-5 and then 5n.¹ Then they did the same thing to the high-end P&S market with the one-two punch of the RX100 then the RX1.

But for each of these glimmering points of innovation, they have been average-to-poor in other areas. Obviously, from an enthusiast's perspective, their lack of work in lenses has been depressing. Both Canon and Nikon have refused to produce APS-C lenses of quality, even after they both released promising pro-thusiast cameras in the form of the EOS 7D and the D7000. Sony seemed content in following the same path.

But where Cankon have massive extant systems, Sony's lens system is small. The aftermarket is equally anemic. One could almost understand this inaction, seeing as despite Sony's best efforts,² they have made little headway in the SLR market against the entrenched duopoly. But they made immediate and significant headway into the pro-thusiast market with the NEX series, especially with the NEX-7.

And yet, we have one lens. one. The Zeiss 24mm. Yes, there are rumors that Zeiss has three more lenses in the pipes, but I will believe that when I see it, and I will also believe that they are indeed worth it when I see it. Zeiss lenses have a tendency to be overpriced for their performance, and combined with Sony's equal penchant to try and trade on their "brand," I do not expect amazing performance for the price. I will not be surprised if they are good -- after all, both companies know what they are doing -- but I don't expect it.

If the three Zeiss lenses are good, I will bite my tongue. The NEX-7 will finally get the lenses that it deserves... a year and a half after it was released. This will fix the material problem, but it doesn't fix the philosophical problem that the actions evinced; it appears that Sony is infected with some of the same germs that currently surge through the corpus of Cankon.

It is that slow speed and pathological desire to only sell lenses of real quality for ultra-premiums prices to the pro market, and thus refusal to make anything for the entry and enthusiast market that may take away from those sales, that makes me seek out another company.³ I think that I see that company in Fuji.

Obviously, the X Pro 1 had many faults, as did the X100 before it. The X10 was laughable in my opinion. But what is important is that Fuji is noticeably evolving with every generation. The X100 had many problems, and the X100S is a big upgrade in many ways. Compare this to the "upgrades" that Cankon produces, where they grind out the same fucking camera year after year.

Even among their disparate models, and not just direct successors, we see fast evolution. The X Pro 1 was released with fixes from the X100, then the X-E1 was released with fixes from the X Pro 1, now the X100S is released with big fixes from all of the previous models. This degree of every year, significant changes is the type of business model that Apple uses. It's the type that I want to see.

The photographic business had grown accustomed to releasing a product and then being able to milk that product for profit for years. In the world of solid-state technology, that no longer works. Iterations and development need to be annual and significant. Moreover, as this happens, prices for everything are going to come down. What was once the high-end will become mid-range, and what was once mid-range will be inside cell phones. Fighting this is not only suicidal from a business perspective, it is infuriating from a consumer perspective because the idiocy of large companies can hold back exciting innovation.

Fuji seems more interested in doing than any other company, and this was only apparent with the announcement of the X100S. Even if it still has tons of problems, it is progress -- progress worth rewarding. 

I am waiting to see what Olympus' next release is, since they've only had one camera since they switched over to Sony sensors: the E-M5. It, along with the stellar 75mm lens, was enough to keep my invested in m4/3, and if the follow-up to the E-M5 is a significant development, it may be worthy of genuine excitement.

Still, as it stands, Fuji needs to be recognized as the only company continually progressing in every way.

-----------------------

1: Obviously, Micro 4/3 continues to do very well in Japan, but nowhere else. In both Europe and North America, the NEX 5 and 5n are far-and-away the most popular mirrorless cameras.

2: Really, it hasn't been Sony's best effort. Sony still thinks they have some super-valuable brand for which people will pay extra, and as such, when they could undercut the market and really make some sales, they charge a premium and shoot themselves in the foot.

3: This is a pathology that is in every camera company to a degree. They grow so fat on the profits of professional photographers that they are cripplingly terrified of selling anything good to lower markets. Why do you think Olympus refuses to translate any of their good, Zuiko lenses over to Micro 4/3? Greed and stupidity.

Sony RX1 Gets DxOMark Review: Blows The Doors Off Competition

If you wanted more evidence that the RX1 is the supercamera du jour, look no further than DxOMark. The RX1 has just landed itself in 4th place among all cameras. The only cameras to beat it are the triumvirate from Nikon: the D800, D800E, and D600. Considering all of these cameras are sporting Sony sensors, it's not surprising that they are separated by scores that essentially fall within the margin of error.

As is usually the case, Sony's processing is inferior to Nikon, meaning that the Nikon cameras squeak out victories in all metrics, especially in the ISO score, which is usually where processing has the largest effect. Honestly, though, the differences are going to be mostly academic.

As I said, the price for this camera is not unreasonable. It's not a deal by any measure, but for an excellent lens attached to a world-beating sensor with leaf shutter, $2,800 still makes it a tempting purchase. It is a unique camera. Sony's camera division should be proud of this.

The Slow Motion Disappointment That Is Sony

I let it be known that I am incredibly disappointed with the rumor that Sony is working on a full-frame mirrorless camera system. For a camera geek, this may seem like an odd thing to do, what with "the next big thing" perpetually on my mind. And perhaps if the previous big thing had actually arrived, I indeed would be excited. Only it didn't.

Sony has absolutely delivered a few big things, the RX1 and RX100 chief among them, but their SLR and NEX systems have utterly stagnated. They have been nothing but promise for nearly a year and a half, and Sony's own projections show nothing for at least the next year. No good lenses. No good accessories. Just promise.

What worries me is that Sony is run by idiots. Their camera division appears to be run by some pretty smart people, but the company itself is run by idiots. The RX100 and especially the RX1 sold like hotcakes while also maintaining a pretty healthy profit margin -- something Sony was, at one time in the distant past, accustomed to. Money like that is prone to drive executives off of the very track that earned them the money in the first place.

So instead of concentrating on their systems, Sony will veer off into super-expensive hardware aimed at high-end enthusiasts and professionals -- all sporting the Sony premium price, of course. Look at the increasingly uncompetitive A99. It is a camera that is competitive at the $2,000 price point, but Sony is selling it for $2,800. Sony did the same thing with the A900, which was a significant enough of a disappointment to cause Sony to make the A850, which didn't sell well even with the market-beating sub-$2,000 price. If they had released the A850 from the get-go, they may have been able to build up some momentum. But they didn't. They released an underperforming camera for three-thousand freaking dollars.

That is the problem. Sony's leadership still thinks that the Sony name can command a premium. It can't. The Sony name is dead. It has been long surpassed by the likes of Samsung, Apple, and even boutique brands. As they have done with the A900 and now the A99, Sony's executives seem to think that releasing prosumer-oriented gear with a price premium is the sweet spot for them. Further evidence of this systemic hubris can be found in the prices for the accessories of the RX1; to wit, they are in-fucking-sane. This is stupid.

The A99 will fail. If they try to do the same thing with a premium, full-frame mirrorless system, it will fail as well. The RX1/100 were huge successes because they were unique. Yet another mirrorless system or yet another SLR is not a unique proposition. Hell, Sony's lens system is is so far behind Cankon as to be alarming. They haven't even yet matched the competition, much less found a way to out-innovate them!

I had hopes that Sony would be the company to push the market toward a state of sustained innovation and development -- the company that would shake the thrones of Canon and Nikon. But no. Given its first taste of success, Sony devolved. Maybe a full-on bankruptcy will humble them enough.

While this has been something of a despondent, pissy article, I still have hope. Perhaps Sony has some massive system in the wings, with a tight integration of full-frame, APS-C, and mirrorless cameras. I doubt it, but the possibility is there. As it stands, we have Olympus looking pretty good, and Fuji is an increasing force to be reckoned with. The competition is there is ways that it hasn't been years. So if Sony fails, so be it. We'll all just move on to someone else.