Seeing the Light

A Week With the Leica X1

2010-02-26T19:58:00.021-05:00

The camera world, both consumers and manufacturers, have embraced the concept of large sensor compacts. This rapidly growing market, started two years ago by Sigma with their DP series, is where all the buzz is. Panasonic’s G series, Olympus’s Pens, Ricoh's GXR A-12, the Samsung NX and Sony’s as yet unnamed contender have followed. Surely, the big guns of the camera industry, Canon and Nikon, cannot be far behind.

Leica has entered the fray with their X1. Like the Sigmas, but unlike the others, Leica fits their large sensor compact with a fixed lens: a 24mm (36mm in 35mm equivalent) f2.8 Elmarit. With its 12.3MP APS-C sensor, the Leica offers the possibility of creating very high quality images out of a very small package.

The fixed lens can be both a curse and a blessing depending on your preferences. If your style requires a variety of fixed lenses or a zoom, then both the Leica and the Sigmas will be limiting. On the other hand, a photographer might find a single fixed lens liberating in that one constantly looks at the world through a fixed focal length that you can become familiar with and use to best advantage in your photographs.

When the X1 loaner arrived from Leica US, it was not the first time I had handled a Leica camera. Thirty years ago I owned a Leica CL with a 28, 40 and 90 lens. I carried the camera and lenses everywhere, mainly on backpacking and fishing trips. Eventually I sold this kit, much to my regret today. More recently, I bought and still own a Digilux 2, which in my opinion is still one of the best small sensor cameras in existence. So I was not surprised by the exceptional build quality of the X1 when I pulled it out of its box. It is pure Leica in looks, and I can tell you in the week I had it it attracted a fair amount of attention.

Basically I like compact cameras. I have a DSLR--for now. But it will soon be departing. Partly it’s because I hate to lug around a lot of camera equipment, and partly I prefer being more discrete when I am photographing people. I find that the importance of the former vs. the latter has increased as I have aged. After all, a DSLR is large and relatively noisy. Most compacts are quieter and less visually imposing. I found on my recent shoot that, because the X1 is quiet and small, most subjects were not aware that I had taken any photos, even though I had asked permission beforehand.

This is a huge benefit. Most people enjoy being photographed about as much as a visit to the dentist, so making the process as painless as possible is a big plus. It’s also a benefit in street photography, as a smaller, quieter, camera is less intimidating, and less likely to cause concern to the people being photographed.

The X1 is a handsome camera. But rather than rehashing its looks, and the locations and uses of all the buttons and dials on the camera, I encourage the reader to turn to the sites that specialize in providing product details. Good sites include Sean Reid’s reidreviews.com, Steve Huff’s stevehuffphoto.com, Luminous Landscape (@ luminous-landscape.com) and of course dpreview.com.

As a photographer, I noticed the following things about the X1 during my week of use:

-I have only medium sized hands, but still the camera does not have a lot of real estate to put one’s thumb when holding the camera. The manual focus dial is right where the thumb wants to be in order to grip the camera properly. The problem is that the X1’s pretty, rounded, shape eliminates much of the area that might otherwise be available for thumb placement. Consequently, I would recommend that any purchaser of the X1 consider buying the optional grip. Also, Leica: please drop the press-to-release flash or make it positively latched in some way. I would be rich if I had been paid a buck for every time I released the flash as I brought the camera out of my camera bag. One other niggle: the aperture wheel should have stiffer detents. More often than not it was moved when putting it in or pulling it out of a pocket or my camera bag, or even by my wayward thumb trying to find a place to rest.

-The camera’s autofocus speed was not as big a deal as I thought it would be. Perhaps that’s a function of my style. I tend to zone focus if I am working with fast moving subjects on the street, but objectively, the camera is not slow to autofocus in good light. My impression is that it is as fast or faster than any compact I’ve used bar one. The X1 feels faster than the Panasonic LX3 I own, but not as fast as my Panasonic G1. It’s fast enough for those subjects that I consider appropriate for using autofocus. My belief is that each photographer must weigh the importance of autofocus speed in the context of their own requirements.

-For manual focus, the rear LCD provides a magnified view that does a good job helping focus. The LCD would be better if the lens aperture opened up to consistently to provide a shallow depth of field. When it did, focus was achieved with a visual snap. For zone focusing, the scale on the LCD is fine, except for the fact that it is inaccurate in translating meters into feet, and it provided too little detail for distances beyond 2 meters. By the way, I used the metric rather than the English scale for zone focusing, and it seemed accurate. Why Leica could not follow Sigma’s idea of putting the focus scale right on the thumbwheel is unknown, but it would make zone focusing painless, and manual focus easier.

-I used the camera with an external Voigtlander 35mm viewfinder. I prefer holding a camera to my eye, rather than the arms length stretch required when using the LCD for framing. The small AF-locked light right of and below the hot shoe was easily visible while using the viewfinder. This is a sound design decision as it allows the photographer to see when the camera is ready for taking the photograph. Framing was accurate enough for my use as I quickly got used to relating the VF view to what the camera was seeing. If framing was really critical, I used the rear LCD.

-The X1’s LCD has come under criticism as being too coarse. It is, in my opinion, completely acceptable. There are 230,000 pixel displays and there are 230,000 pixel displays. The same pixel count display on the Sigma DP2 is difficult to use for focus due to the large margins between each pixel. When viewing the DP2 screen it feels like you are looking through a black plastic insect screen overlaid on the LCD. The X1 pixels have almost no margin, so the display appears seamless. In addition, when using manual focus, the center of the display is magnified, vastly improving the clarity required for manual focusing. It defies me how someone could see the difference between displays whose pixels are .000015 square inches and .00001 square inches, the average difference in size between the X1’s and the Panasonic GF’s LCD pixels. The display does get washed out in ambient light outdoors, however, even when set to maximum brightness.

-File write times were never an issue while photographing a variety of subjects, including fast moving conditions where capturing a person’s various expressions during a speech was critical to my success. I never had to wait for the camera to write a file, and I was using a middling 2GB card I typically keep as a backup if I have a problem with my fast 16GB cards.

File quality is the most important consideration of any camera, and in this regard the X1 gets high marks. The 24mm Elmarit is a moderate contrast lens, which can make the initial file quality seem soft. In fact, there is plenty of resolution. Judicious use of local contrast enhancement in Photoshop creates pop in the X1’s files without the use of general contrast enhancement. Overall resolution is held back somewhat by what appears to be a fairly strong anti-alias filter. I prefer cameras with weak or even no AA filter to maximize resolution, taking care of moire in post processing.

A moderate contrast lens is excellent as shadow areas are more likely to have useable detail. The mid tones will be richer, and will respond well to local contrast enhancement. Leica’s choice of a moderate contrast lens in the X1 is to be applauded.

Although I mostly develop files as black and white’s, and generally use a black and white workflow, the color photos I developed from the X1 had noticeable chromatic aberration. It was easy enough to correct, but I felt it was significant enough for me to correct in color before conversion to black and white. That way I ensured the color aberration didn’t affect the sharpness of the black and white output.

Also, the 24 Elmarit does tend to softness in the corners. Generally the softening is not noticeable, but it is there. Finally, the lens is fairly resistant to veiling flare: not the best, but certainly not the worst I have seen.

After a few days of use, I knew that familiarity with the X1 had bred respect. During two photo shoots at group meetings midway in the week I had already begun to feel like using the camera was second nature. As I have mentioned before, in the meetings I photographed, the participants were not sure I had been taking photos. The camera’s small dimensions, operational silence (well, almost silence) and the fact I could take photos quickly and without fumbling meant that the people being photographed were not overly sensitized to being models. I think this is a significant strength of the X1. The G series Panasonic’s have a distinct metallic “cluck” when the shutter is released, and in those conditions the participants would have been alerted as shots were taken. The louder sound of a DSLR would have probably been unacceptable.

Much has been written of the comparison between the X1 and the Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm f1.7 lens. The trade off between the better ISO capability of the X1 and the faster GF1 lens has been covered by other reviewers. But I did spend some time trying to get a sense of how the files acted when “stressed”. So I set up an experiment in which I took a series of photos with the X1 at 1600 ISO and f5.6, and the same series with a Panasonic G1 at 640 ISO and f5.6. The series was: 1) correct exposure, 2) underexposed 1 stop, 3) underexposed 2 stops. Then in Lightroom I corrected the underexposed files to zero the exposure. If there had been much difference I would have posted the photos, but to be honest there was little difference. The color noise in the dark areas was almost identical, and in black and white the luminance noise might have favored the X1 slightly. Resolution and contrast were almost identical. So the GF1 user gives up nothing to the X1 user if exposure has to be corrected in software and the GF1 user is able to keep the ISO 1.5 stops less than the X1 user.

You might notice I don’t mention image stabilization, or the lack of image stabilization, in the X1. I did not use Leica’s electronic implementation of image stabilization. I grew up without IS, and the X1’s high ISO performance was such that I didn’t feel I needed it. I guess the reader must decide for themselves if IS is important. For me it is not. If I’m worried about camera shake, I either take a three shot burst or bring my tripod.

Before concluding, I want to raise some questions for Leica regarding the camera’s design.

First, why doesn’t the camera have a small fixed lens vs. a retractable one? My suspicion is that a fixed lens--perhaps even a faster fixed lens--could be kept small enough to allow the camera to fit in a coat pocket. It would also allow the aperture and focus controls to be mounted on the lens, putting them in the most logical place.

Second, why does the camera sensor have an anti-alias filter? Leaving it off would improve apparent resolution with little downside.

Third, even without a fixed lens, why isn’t the manual focus implementation better thought out? A camera with a dedicated viewfinder that allows the photographer to verify focus can get away with a slower autofocus or even just manual focus. High end cameras that lack such a viewfinder should have fast autofocus. Kudos to Panasonic for understanding this and putting an effort into making significant improvements in the speed of contrast detect autofocus. If the camera lacks both the viewfinder and fast autofocus it must have a quick and accurate way to set zone focus. Sigma realized that with their DP series, and installed a focus wheel that has accurate distance calibrations etched on the wheel. If the X1’s wheel had similar etchings, the camera’s utility would be improved measurably.

Finally, why isn’t the X1 designed with more thought to where a photographers thumb can sit on the back of the camera. Even though I eventually got comfortable with the camera's layout, it is not ideal. There are smaller cameras available, including the Leica D-Lux 4, that are easier to hold.

But, where it counts, image quality, the X1 really has no equals. No other compact camera has better high ISO image quality. No other compact has equal simplicity of access to the controls that matter for picture taking. No other compact is as handsome. No other large sensor compact has the red dot. Ultimately, the decision to purchase an X1 vs. another large sensor compact is both a rational and emotional one. One has to ask if a fixed lens and moderate autofocus speed is acceptable for one’s needs. If so, the premium one must pay for the Leica vs. other large sensor compacts can probably be understood in the context of the emotional as well as the monetary value of the Leica nameplate. As time and Ebay have proven, there is a real monetary value to the Leica name. So if the camera’s constraints would not affect your picture taking, and if you buy into the Leica ethos, it’s a remarkably good camera that is a lot of fun to use. It was with a great deal of regret that I had to send the camera back to the kind folks at Leica US after my week with the X1.

The Demands Thought Digital

2009-12-02T11:31:00.002-05:00

Much has been made of Mike Johnston’s call for a “Decisive Moment Digital” camera (see this link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/DMD.shtml for the original article, and here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html for additional discussions), but I would like to see a subset of this camera made: the “Demands Thought Digital”, henceforth the DTD.

What is the DTD? And why is it a subset of the DMD?

The second answer is the easiest: the DTD should have a large sensor and a fast prime.

It should be the “right” size, have a good grip and many of the other attributes of the DMD.

But it is where the DTD diverges from Mike’s vision that is important.

The DTD must have a fixed lens, with a focus ring and an aperture ring. No autofocus, just a well damped manual focus ring with a tab, so that focusing can be done by ”feel”, and zone focusing can be simply set up. In addition, there will be no auto anything, no aperture priority (hence the lens mounted ring), no shutter priority (just a shutter speed dial on the top of the camera), no “intelligent auto” or program modes. Likewise, face recognition and “styles” will not be options for the DTD. ISO will be accessed through a dial on the top of the camera. Exposure can be set using the camera’s spotmeter and a readout in the viewfinder.

As you can imagine, the menu will be short and sweet. In fact, except for reviewing an image, it’s unlikely you’ll need to use the rear LCD for anything (except formatting an SD card) after initially setting up your limited choices.

Let’s assume that the camera has a 12.3 MP APS-C sized sensor with a 1.5 crop factor. Its 28mm f2.0 lens would therefore be the equivalent of 42mm in a 35mm film camera. A boringly normal focal length, so using non-normal perspectives available with shorter or longer lenses to add interest to your photos won’t be possible. You’ll have to zoom with your feet, compose with care, and use your brain to observe light and form to extract the most from your photos. Oh, and occasionally you might have to deal with some moiré in your photos, because the sensor won’t have an anti-aliasing filter. To conserve battery, and to reduce heat build-up, there won’t be any live view. Heat build-up is a serious issue for large sensor compacts, but by eliminating live view and not trying to make a large sensor clock fast enough to provide fast autofocus, heat generation is minimized.

Most important, you will focus through a rangefinder. This will allow you to see outside your framing, and will also require you to visualize the depth of field. You will have to learn the camera, and how it sees, in order to get the best out of it. Think of a digital Canonet G-III 17 (see: http://cameraquest.com/canql17.htm for details).

That means that to take a good photo, you will have to learn the camera and think about your composition, both of which require *effort*. The reward? Well, for most, there may be none. It’s not a camera for everybody. But for those who chose to let go of electronic crutches, and who chose to become a part of the photographic process, it might end up being their favorite camera. Plus, with its manual controls, it would be a great camera for students and amateurs interested in photography who want to, or need to, learn the interrelationship of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. If the DMD has taken many years to emerge, this camera may take decades, in spite of it’s simplicity. Camera companies have moved on to become electronics manufacturers. It’s unlikely a modern camera company will take the risk to pursue a DTD. But I believe that there is a market for the DTD, and a profitable business can be built marketing it.

Thanksgiving Kitchen Discussion

2009-11-26T22:57:00.000-05:00

Madrigal 2009

2009-11-26T12:59:00.000-05:00

The Top 3 Divergent Camera Companies . . . and an Honorable Mention

2009-11-15T15:33:00.008-05:00

I have talked in the past about divergence in the camera industry, that is a willingness by some manufacturers to follow philosophies and therefore product paths that diverge from the mainstream camera makers. These companies do not necessarily pursue an anti-convergent product strategy, where convergence is defined as the trend of companies to combine video and still photo technology in a single camera. Rather, divergence is defined as the willingness of the companies to pursue non-mainstream technologies and/or system packaging and design in their products. In no particular order, here are my Top 3 Divergent Camera Companies.

Sigma Corporation

Sigma stands out for two reasons: the Foveon sensor they use and the DP series of cameras.

The Foveon sensor directly captures all three colors at each photosite, unlike the Bayer sensor which captures either red, blue or green at each photosite, and then mathematically combines the information from adjacent photosites to produce a full light spectrum. A fuller technical discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor .

Regardless of the technicalities, expert observers have picked up on a noticeable difference between the “feel” of a photo taken with a Foveon sensor vs. a Bayer sensor. There is a richness and depth to a Foveon image which seems lacking in an equivalent Bayer image. I have seen this difference myself, and can only say that a Foveon image appears to have more density, or “chewiness” than a Bayer image.

Sigma would have been in the final running for top three honors for the Foveon sensor alone, but what really clinched their placing is that they put the medium size Foveon sensor in a compact camera, becoming a leader in this product segment. For the first time, one could put a camera in one’s pocket which produced images far better than any previous compact could. It was revolutionary 2 years ago, and other manufacturers have now entered this market. But there is no other place to get a compact with the remarkable Foveon sensor, and it’s unlikely that will change soon.

Ricoh

Ricoh is THE compact camera manufacturer in the world. Sure, other companies make compact cameras too (and make lots more as well), but no one is as committed to producing serious compact cameras that are so highly oriented toward easy control by the photographer. Most compacts are heavily weighted toward ease of use as a “point and shoot” camera. Ricoh cameras can do that as well, but what distinguishes them is the straight forward ability for the photographer to access controls for aperture, shutter speed, manual focus and lens focal length, among other things, with ease.

And who wasn’t stunned by Ricoh’s recent announcement of the GXR, In which one doesn’t simply change lenses, but sensor and firmware as well when one wants to change lens focal lengths. Honestly, I felt both wonder and horror at the announcement, mostly weighted toward wonder it’s true, but there is still a part of me that questions the wisdom of the design.

Be that as it may, the design they chose makes sense if your overall objective is to keep a camera compact. A small, optically superior zoom and an APS-C sensor is not the ideal formula for a compact camera. But if they could design the camera to have different sensors for different lenses, the compact requirement can be met. So, I suspect we will see zooms and telephotos packaged with the small sensor, and fast primes and macro lenses packaged with an APS-C sensor.

One can argue the the pluses and minuses of this compact-first philosophy, but "C"for Compact is apparently not only Ricoh’s middle letter, but also their middle name.

Leica

In 1925, Leica made it clear they were diverging from the photographic mainstream with the introduction of the Leica A. By 1975, with the tidal wave of Japanese-made SLR’s overwhelming the 35mm film camera market, Leica was looking decidedly old-fashioned. But the rangefinder way of seeing the subject is still entirely relevant, and indeed an advantage in some circumstances, in the current camera world.

So through many ups and downs, Leica has persisted in making exceptional rangefinder cameras and equally exceptional lenses for those cameras. As such, I believe they are one of the oldest and most persistent of the divergent camera companies.

Leica seemed to be falling victim in the middle of this decade to their legendary reputation for changing at a snail-like pace. But the emergence of the flawed, but still useful, M8, and the improved M8.2, showed that Leica was committed to quality digital as well as 35mm film capture.

But it was 9/9/09 that showed that Leica’s owners and management are pursuing an enlightened and innovative path without compromising their long held core beliefs in quality and taking a long-term view of what makes a good camera.

They simply announced 3 groundbreaking cameras in one day, a 35mm-sized M digital, a medium format SLR, and a large sensor compact. So, while reaffirming in a big way the soundness of Oskar Barnack’s 84 year old vision, they also launched products into segments still desperately in need of innovation.

Leica is still the leader in taking a divergent path.

Honorable Mention: Panasonic

I have to mention Panasonic for their single-minded product development in their serious compacts (like the LX3) and in Micro 4/3rds. They have brought a great deal of innovation to the camera world, have dealt quietly and persistently with their products’ shortcomings (remember when Panasonic was the leader in producing noisy images--it wasn’t that long ago) and recognized that new ideas brought problems that could in reality be an opportunity for improvement. A good example of that is the fact that of all the camera companies in the world, Panasonic has made contrast detection autofocus work almost as well as the phase detection systems common in DSLR’s by importing expertise from their long established video camera group. That is good stuff.

Approaching Nor'Easter, Westminster, VT

2009-11-15T15:31:00.002-05:00

Mill Woods Skateboard Park

2009-11-15T15:30:00.000-05:00

Landscape Workshop

2009-11-15T15:27:00.001-05:00

Many thanks to Patrick Zephyr for his patience, excellent teaching skills and inspirational leadership over the weekend! Patrick's website is here: http://www.patrickzephyrphoto.com/

One Active Couple

2009-10-15T08:59:00.001-04:00

Adirondack Weekend

2009-10-01T10:48:00.002-04:00

Southern Vermont

2009-09-17T14:08:00.001-04:00

Convergence vs. Divergence

2009-09-17T14:00:00.005-04:00

Convergence has become a buzzword in the camera world. The simple definition in this specific case is the convergence of still and video capabilities in one camera. This excellent article by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape fully explains this trend:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml

Convergence has been adapted by the major manufacturers in a big way. Except for the top of the line cameras, both Canon and Nikon are introducing live view and HD video in their DSLR’s as they are upgraded. A Panasonic GH1 is being used for a full length movie. Nikon and Canon DSLR’s have been used for music videos and advertisements. So convergence is already at a point of acceptance. Where it exactly goes is still uncertain, but new and exciting areas will develop in the future.

However, just as important for the camera world is what I choose to call divergence. Divergence is where the camera companies develop camera formats or platforms that increase diversity or differentiation in the camera market.

The digital age has seen extensive contraction in the industry. Minolta, Konica, Contax, Bronica, Polaroid, and Rollei are gone, either absorbed by another company or simply going out of business.

To help vitalize the camera industry, the manufacturers must choose different development paths, to differentiate their products to appeal to various market constituencies. Without this push for platform innovation, rather than innovation inside a platform, the industry will continue to contract.

Fortunately for the photographer, divergence has already started to happen.

Divergence occured first in small sensor cameras. It has started to happen in the medium, full-size and medium format markets.

Sigma stuck their neck out and started the trend toward divergence by introducing two large sensor compacts, the DP! and DP2.

Panasonic and Olympus have introduced their micro 4/3rds cameras

Most important, Leica, with their newly announced products, have reaffirmed their M camera, and have introduced two new products in divergent categories. See theonlinephotographer.com:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/leicas-back.html

All these things are happening at the top of the camera product world. Plenty of products are available in small sensor cameras, but this divergence is happening at the top of the market, which is important.

Why is it important? Because it offers still photographers more choice.

The camera industry has been driven by divergence. From the very start, innovation has been driven by changing camera formats. It's really only been in the past 50 years that one format came to dominate: 35mm.

Digital capture changed that. Small sensors originally ruled due to the limits of the technology and expense of producing large sensors. As volumes increased, prices decreased and the technology was improved. APS-C cameras were introduced. Now full-size 35mm equivalent sensor cameras are reaching prices that were once unimaginable. And sensor sizes continue to increase in in the medium format segment as well.

Photographers have found small, medium, and full size sensors all offer advantages and disadvantages, and each draws differently. Small sensors provide large depth of field and allow for pocket size cameras that produce reasonable quality. APS-C and micro4/3rds cameras provide better quality files than small sensor cameras. Full-size sensors offer better than film quality and the file size to allow large prints. Sensor and camera platform maturity means the manufacturers can tackle the “edges” of the camera market. Examples of “edge” cameras are the Olympus EP-1, Panasonic GF1 and Leica X1. All this can only be good for camera consumers.

This divergence/differentiation which we see now will continue. Samsung has unveiled their APS-C-size sensor compact. Larger sensors WILL become cheaper. Someday there may be a full size sensor compacts like the Leica M that WON’T cost $7000. Someday, not that far away, the small sensor camera markets will be fragmented and reduced by the use of increasingly better camera phones. New products and sensors will be introduced that will render obsolescent what we are just accepting as mainstream. Bring them on!

To the Campground

2009-09-08T14:36:00.002-04:00

Corey Ledet

2009-09-08T14:35:00.002-04:00

Bags and Blouses

2009-09-08T14:34:00.002-04:00

Why Bling May HAVE to be the Thing that Ensures the Future of the DMD

2009-09-08T14:10:00.013-04:00

In a previous rant published on The Online Photagrapher, I hinted at the problems small volume manufacturers face competing in an open market. In that context, Mike Johnston's Decisive Moment Digital will never be cheap. Ever. Cheaper? Yes. But in today’s dollars, a new DMD will never be cheaper than an entry level digital SLR.

Why?

Low production volume. The market for the DMD is small. I’m guessing of course, but I believe the total market for a DMD is no more than 2% of equivalent DSLR sales. The CIPA figures for 2008 indicate sales of approximately 9.7 million DSLRs. That means sales would be a bit less than 200,000 units. In a generous mood I might accept a figure of 500,000 units per year for the first year or so. We might use as an example the Leica/LeitzMinolta/Minolta CL which sold approximately 85,000 units over three years in the mid ’70’s. Given double the world’s population, and a wealthier world population, lets quintuple that figure, at which point we end up with 140,000 per year. So the 200,000 figure seems reasonable. The important point is that the DMD demand is really for people who want a DMD. Many potential buyers will opt for high end compacts such as the Canon G11, the Panasonic LX3 or a superzoom. And others will prefer an entry level DSLR because of it’s better image quality or a clearer upward mobility path for lenses or for simply the prestige value of using an SLR. In sum, the market for the DMD is limited.

Lack of shared components across multiple product platforms. The GF1 shares some components with the G1/GH1(the Olympus shares none, or very few with its siblings), but cramming the same components into a smaller package is more, not less expensive, because a new, smaller, more highly “packed” design is necessary to accommodate the original components and special considerations must be made to effectively remove heat generated by those components. Since the DSLR body is inherently larger, swapping components, or migrating technology down the product line, is easier due to fewer design constraints.

The current manufacturers of DMD type cameras lack high priced and high margin platforms that would otherwise make large contributions to the camera division’s bottom line. Canon and Nikon can rely on higher profits from their upper end DSLRs to cushion the lower margins of their entry level products. Conversely, Olympus and Panasonic must create higher profit margins with the EP-1 and the GF1 than might otherwise be the case if they had a larger portfolio of high margin products. When Olympus and Panasonic fill a niche market, it cannot be done at a lower margin. They cannot pad the product line with a lower margin item simply designed to enhance the overall brand image, the way a Nikon or Canon might be able to do.

So why may “Bling have to be the thing”? Because the bling factor of the retro cool EP-1 and the color kaleidoscope GF-1 may attract a significant percentage of the 110 million buyers of compact cameras (2008 figure from CIPA), or even cellphone photographers, that want to upgrade to a better camera. And if that happens, the production volumes of our DMD’s will be kept up. With that, the costs may eventually come down some, and perhaps the viability of the DMD will be secured. It seems Olympus was wise to this issue, because the #1 feature listed for the EP-1 in their global press release was “A dignified exterior design”, and of course Panasonic has a variety of colors for certain markets. So even if you prefer basic black for your DMD, be happy with those who feel bling is the thing.

Note: after writing this I found a press release from Panasonic that pegs GF1 production at 15,000 units per month, or 180,000 per year.

Sigma Envy

2009-09-08T14:03:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, Mary and I were at the Rhythm and Roots Cajun/Zydeco Festival in Rhode Island for a bit of dancing and music. I took the Sigma DP2 along to take some snaps, with the hope of an occasional decent shot.

My photography was average at best, but I was surprised by the amount of Sigma Envy I basked in throughout the day.

At each stage there were photographers, mostly using Canon DSLR's with the 70-200 zoom in white (that combination is like a badge that says "I'm a serious photographer"). Well, in order to get close I had to get close, real close, and I naturally, but politely, pushed myself past the Canons. Man, did I get stares. Or rather my camera got stares. It's a bit pimped out with the filter barrel and the lens shade, and the hulking, bug-eyed Voightlander VF. Also, the Franiec grip covers the Sigma label, so it's BLACK!

But twice, while standing by the stages, 2 different photographers who were inside the lines (!) asked me to come back with them to get a better shot. One knew it was a Sigma and asked if it was a DP1 or DP2, the other simply asked what kind of camera it was. Both asked to take a look through the VF, and both asked what I thought of it. Although long conversations were difficult because of the volume of the music, both guys made it clear they thought it would be more fun shooting with the Sigma vs. their Canons.

Oddly, I thought if I were getting paid I'd take their 5D's with the 70-200 instead, but that's another story.

The Price of Being Small and Taking Risks

2009-09-08T13:58:00.000-04:00

Mike Johnston, corporate president of The Online Photographer conglomerate, was foolish enough to publish a rant of mine. It's here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/07/the-price-of-being-small-and-taking-risks.html

Rocky Bed

2009-09-01T13:02:00.000-04:00

Goldenrod

2009-09-01T10:25:00.001-04:00

Just Plain Madness

2009-09-01T09:51:00.002-04:00

Weed Fireworks

2009-09-01T09:05:00.001-04:00

Sunrise, Clark 5 East, Pomona College

2009-06-23T09:02:00.004-04:00

I can't decide which version I like better.

Rob, Jake, Zach

2009-06-23T08:59:00.002-04:00

Emily, Zach, Hannah

2009-06-23T08:43:00.004-04:00

ISO 3200

Gate 11, BDL

2009-06-23T08:41:00.002-04:00

Clark 5, Pomona College

2009-06-23T08:38:00.001-04:00

The dimensionality of this photo surprised me, especially the plants at the base of the right-hand wall.

Passing Iris

2009-06-23T08:19:00.005-04:00

Color and B & W: both are fine with me.