With excitement many PowerShot G range users new that the popular Canon PowerShot "GXX" Range could not compete against the new generation large sensor Compact System Cameras (CSC). To make it worse, in many cases the CSC camera were carefully positioned in the high end compact segment. Consumers were thus hoping that Canon will do something to improve sensor technology on the future PowerShot G1X range. From the day Olympus launched their excellent high end compact camera, the XZ1, most high end compacts suffered in terms of sales. The reason is that on the one hand, large sensor compacts like the Olympus E-PM1 was staging an excellent alternative to the high end compact user and on the other hand, top performing optics coming from cameras like the Panasonic LX5 and the Olympus XZ1 completely outperformed the outdated optics used in the PowerShot G11/12.

One need to take a closer look at the fast growing CSC market to better understand what the marketing guys at Canon faced when working on the next G series. For example each time I see a iPhone 4S television add I cannot help to wonder how much longer will the traditional compact camera continue to exist. The Compact System Camera which predominantly use the Micro Four-Third sensor, has become a real force plus it has become a lucrative fast growing segment in the camera industry. We saw Nikon reacting by launching its own small sensor type CSC solution. Nikon had obvious expectations of what this new market could do for the brand. Looking at the pricing and the range Nikon probably thought it is a profitable segment and that image quality are not that critical, hence the new "small" sized sensor. Pentax marketing had a similar opinion of the CSC market. It is only those who had been in this segment long enough that really know how competitive and tough the CSC segment is. I cannot help to think of brands like Samsung, Fuji and Leica when thinking of additional aspects this segment pose to the manufacturer and which needs consideration when planning something new like the upgraded PowerShot G series. Lets have a quick look at the actual sensor sizes and just by how much these sensors differ in size.

We saw how difficult it was for the Four-Thirds sensor to establish itself in the market and how much more difficulty it was for the four-thirds sensor to be recognized as a full grown D-SLR sensor. The Nikon SCS sensor is smaller by a similar margin to the Four-Thirds sensor as what the four-thirds sensor is to the APC sized sensor. One could therefore expect IQ improvements moving from the Nikon CSC sized sensor to the micro four-thirds or to the APC sensor. To help you get a better understanding of what these ratios mean in real life, I like to invite you to read the many reviews in the media that discuss these same aspects in literally tens of CSC related reviews over the last seven years.

The traditional APC sized sensor, the four-thirds sensor and the recent smaller sized Nikon CSC sensor, all fits in-between the new PowerShot G1X sensor and the older PowerShot G12 sensor in terms of physical size. Did Canon plan this to reinforce the impact sensor size has on image quality? Did they think that by doing this they could lift the new G1X into a completely new level in terms of image quality? Personally I do not think that was what Canon intended, I think it is more a case of not using an existing format plus the "new" sensor was most probably already available from Canon's laboratories.

By using the existing APC sized sensor in something like a supercharged G12 could degrade the existing APC sized D-SLR market many believe and on the other hand using the four-thirds or Nikon CSC sensor in the new G1X would add credibility to these sensors, a risk to high to take. Was it really a risk? Looking at the sensor in general like we did to this point, it does provide the reader with one side of the equation only and I realize that. In a way it does also help to put things into perspective, sensor size was always used by the media to argue camera performance and image quality. Think of small DR, noise and so many things that were always linked to the "small" four thirds sensor;-) Just think of it, who will be next to receive the new sensor, will it be the D SLR range….no that is too much…..lets go take pictures...

The concern I have with the new PowerShot G1X is that I do not believe the camera will physically benefit or augment the new sensor. If Canon for example rather stayed with the smaller sized Nikon CSC sensor then it would have given both Nikon and Canon more credibility. This would help Canon to keep the physical size of the PowerShot G1X small plus it would have helped Canon to use and design a really top class lens to round of the new PowerShot G1X package. If Canon then later introduced a real new CSC solution, similar to what Samsung has, then they would have had a large sensor high end compact camera solution plus a new APC sized CSC solution. Most interesting would be the fact that then they would have effectively continued to degrade both the four-thirds and the Nikon CSC sensor sizes plus they would have had a real chance at the CSC market.

We have seen that the market is extremely demanding and that drivers like innovation plus good ideas make or break new camera models and new market segments. Speed is also important and its important that manufacturers do the right thing at the right time. If not, they really risk not being a part of a particular segment. We saw these mistakes happen in the past and some of the players still today pay the price for either being late or making incorrect decisions.

The range finder has a new meaning with what Leica did in the past. In addition companies like Fuji added a different View Finder technology and recently launched the X100 and X10 series. Without saying much, how does the new G1X optical view finder compare to these existing players?

I have no doubt that the new G1X will be a great extra large compact camera and its images will most probably be really good. I cannot help thinking that the dynamic range of these images will be awesome, especially if one take into account the sensor size. At the same time I cannot help thinking about the actual size of this new beast. Would the image quality be that much worse using the CSC sensor from Nikon, would that enable a better lens technology and finally what about the horrible OVF we know from G7 days, did anything changed in later models? Think of the new G1X as a street racer, something with only the driver seat, no trimmings, big powerful motor and much performance….

Guys if the prize tag was less than $400 then I would take some time to think about it, if its anything more I will seriously look for something else……. What type of accessories could one expect, add-on or clip-on wide angle adapters plus zoom adapters, leather bag?

Siegfried

Software Updates

I talked about software updates in one of my previous articles. Also when I believe many software updates are more profit orientated and not always aimed at providing the photographer with improved tools, I can also point out specific cases that resulted in real performance improvements. One such example is Optics Pro 7 from the software company DxO. In parallel to Optics Pro 7, DxO also recently released FilmPack 3. Both software packages are absolutely outstanding.

Why not using Lightroom 3? I tested Lightroom and although I think it is a good option I am a little worried that it will follow the same pattern as what Adobe CS and Elements did. Each year mentioned packages receive updates in the form of new releases. To benefit from these new releases the user is basically forced to upgrade. The reason is the RAW converter in both older versions receive no further updates once the new releases are out. If the user keeps the same camera then all is OK and RAW files will be treated as "normal" in the older versions. If the user upgrade to a new body then working with RAW files in this example becomes a lengthy process.

Here are one of my HDR creations. I used HDR Effect developed by NIK Software to create this Image.

Photoshop Elements use a basic or scaled down version of the full CS version RAW software. Up to Elements V8, the Mac version of Elements were supplied with Bridge and by opening the RAW file in Bridge the Mac user had access to the full CS version RAW converter. That has now changed and from PSE9 onwards Adobe supplies a different looking image organizer with Elements. No need to say I prefer to use Bridge. In addition I use iPhoto to manage my photo collection. Nothing is as quick as iPhoto when working with large image databases.

RAW Converter Advancements

Optics Pro from DxO

The final aspect I briefly like to touch on is the ability of Optics Pro 7 to capture the full dynamic range of the RAW image. Any RAW converter can do that and depending on the user's skill more or less dynamic range can be extracted from a RAW image. What I find outstanding with Optics Pro 7 is the dedicated slider or function that will allow the user to optimize dynamic range in seconds. The results are absolutely outstanding, leaving the user with beautifully balanced images. It is that good that I find myself returning to the more natural "HDR" look plus I hardly ever use my dedicated HDR software. This function was already available in V6, from my initial tests its difficult to say if the HDR function were further improved or not.

I hope you enjoyed this short article talking about software or editing techniques. I hope to find the time to talk more in depth about Optics Pro 7 in the future. My advice is go download the trail version and try it.

Siegfried

What makes people react to a good image or, what should a winning image really look like? One could also say, please give me the guidelines which photographers use to take winning category images. I guess these and more are typical questions almost every photographer or would be photographers think off, especially when sitting back with a good glass of wine. Does experienced photographers ask these questions or does it happen all by itself after years of doing photography? Are these the only questions that will define a winning image?

How many people go read reviews, web articles or visit a forum after buying a new camera? Personally I think the percentage people getting a magazine or reading web based reviews are high. Nothing wrong doing that, the question is, what would you think the perfect image should look like after reading web reviews? When consulting the web one will read things like dynamic range, noise and many more. My experience is web articles cover more technically type aspects related to photography. How important are these technical type questions in helping you take winning images. Surely they are important, I do not think incorrect exposed images will be price winners……

Lets consider one of the most basic rules on our journey becoming real photographers. The first image I see when thinking of composition is the so-called "Rule of Thirds" I think this is the most fundamental and probably the most important guideline in terms of image composition. When I started many years back with my first small 35mm film camera I remember my farther telling me about the rule of thirds. Later somebody told me that the rule of thirds are really an image or copy of how the brain see the world through our human eyes. The human brain does not direct the eyes to the middle of a scene on first contact, no the brain has a pattern it follows when scanning a scene or image. By developing a good understanding of how the brain see an image, we as photographers will increase our winning image hit rate I believe. You can easily test this by developing a habit of showing your best 2 or 3 images after each day out with your camera to your wife or ladies, your best friend. Look at the reactions and listen to the comments, you will learn a lot about both the emotional side of photography plus about your own images.

Thinking about the "Rule of Thirds" the questions is, does the little ship sail away in the above image or is it sinking? The rule of thirds has been talked about and written about much on the web, no need for me to add anything. My advice is, search the web and list the 5 or 6 most important points related to the rule of thirds. Keep them with you and you will quickly get a feel for it. Without going into any in-depth discussion, the following general points will also help you to discover your own set of rules taking that winning image:-

• On landscape images, always build in something interesting into the foreground, this helps create a feel for depth

• Practice to select the right focus point in your images - set your camera to focus on the first half press and to capture exposure when pressing the shutter all the way

• Use leading lines to guide the eye into the image, great example is using a road to lead the eye into the image

• Keep in mind that photography is a form of art, you the artist. Technically correct images are in most cases completely boring

• When shooting a close-up portrait, ask the model to let the head turn a little forward and to the side, this creates a warm intimate or friendly look.

• For portrait work keep a pocket book to note each "working" position so that you can plan the next shoot better

• Plan when going out for a serious job, no planning equals sub standard results

• Take your time, do more than one picture of the same subject

• On portraits its important to wait for the right moment, take care to never wait more than 3 seconds, flirt with your model

• When shooting architecture or buildings avoid taking right from the front - work the image until best view corner views often works best

• Make use of natural framing. Some of the most interesting images use this technique

Each of the above images includes elements of what I discussed. The final point I like to briefly discuss is the term, "Working an Image" Its something I personally only learned more about much later in my photographic hobby career. On a day's outing, I enjoy to return with anything from 300 to 500 images. With digital one can do that and when home I find it fun to sort the images and to keep those I really like. On the other hand if I want to get a specific image then I will really "work the image" until I get what I look for.

Working an image is nothing else than deciding on a subject and then to work that image by considering different angles, heights, focal lengths until you get the best angle, view, background and impact. Buildings are great examples of working an image, landscape images are also great examples and finally I found product images often requires this technique to help create great images. Take a simple example of taking an image of a camera or a motorcar. The most common example is of the photographer standing two or three meters away from the motorcar and to then "snap" the image. Next time force yourself to take at least 50 images of the motorcar before you go, go in deep down, use reflections, zoom in on the badge on the hood, use the sides of the motorcar to get an interesting effect, zoom in on the wheel and many more….. Keep on "working that image" until you find results that make people say wow. Do we really need to shoot wedding images in the local botanical gardens? Have you ever considered doing it in the local supermarket? My son recently did a wedding shoot in water. The results were absolutely amazing. You can see more of his creative work on www.picturebrothers.ch

The problem with travel photography......and a solution from Olympus?

I bought my Olympus XZ1 primarily as a carry everywhere camera, one that is suitable for traveling, hiking, family snapshots and so on. I value its light weight, non-interchangeable but very fast aperture lens, its relatively quick focus and shutter release, superb image quality for what I use it for, and generally excellent handling characteristics (except for that darned lens cap that keeps falling off!). I've had it for over six months now and still feel happy with my choice. In short, it is an excellent camera and if your needs are similar to mine I recommend it highly.

But, no matter how good the camera is, or how good the photographer is, there is still a problem to overcome. Uninteresting light. Often when I am traveling around I see something interesting and deserving of a photograph except the light isn't very good. This often happens when you are not able to wait for the light to improve and you know there is no chance of returning when it improves. I am sure everyone experiences this. You can of course take the photograph anyway and later mess around with post-processing to try to make it more interesting but personally I like to see what I am doing sooner than that. Its not exactly pre-visualisation, more like simultaneous visualisation, seeing the intended outcome in the viewfinder at the time of taking the picture. And Olympus has provided some tools to help me do this in the form of the so-called Art Filters and the electronic viewfinder (VF2).

By the intended outcome I mean something that reflects the sensory and emotional response I have to the subject, the reason I noticed it in the first place and wanted to photograph it and make a record of it. This doesn't require that it is realistic in the sense that it must be a naturalistic image of the subject. Reality for me doesn't mean true to nature, there is no such thing in photography, and it is much more personal than that. All photographs distort the natural world in some way. You think Ansel Adams made pictures that are realistic? Only if you see the world with exaggerated black and white tonality. You could say he used a creative art filter called ‘black and white film’. So beyond these few words I don't think any apology is necessary for actually liking and wanting to use Olympus art filters. They are not a gimmick, they are legitimate creative tools.

I find I use two of them more than the others, namely 'dramatic tone' and 'pinhole'. I sometimes wish that could use them both at the same time! I am sure some people will prefer others but these two seem to suit many subjects. I personally don't like the effect of the 'grainy black and white' filter, it has too much contrast for me, and I prefer to use Aperture or Photoshop for b&w conversions, but I sometimes use this filter to preview what something will look like in b&w but then shoot it in colour.

I recently borrowed a friend’s beach house for a few days. Conditions were less than ideal for photography. I couldn't give it my full attention as I had other people (and two dogs!) to consider and the often the weather resulted in very flat lighting. The following pictures illustrate the difference between a 'straight' photograph and an 'art filter' one. I think you will agree that the filters at least result in more interesting pictures even if you don't like the effect. For me they are a lot of fun and sometimes I get something special from them.

The other potential lighting problem is when there is very little of it. I didn't expect full frame sensor SLR performance from the XZ1, but is it "good enough"? It has a fast f1.8 lens and stabilisation which compensates to some extent for its small sensor size, so how useable is it for nighttime pictures? The answer is very useable. Here is an example. I was walking around the Rocks area in Sydney one evening and came across this mysterious scene. I didn't have much time to respond so I just let the camera take over (ISO 1250, f2.5 1/80th sec). The blue patches are from coloured street lighting, not a camera defect.

Something that is easily overlooked with small sensor cameras is their sheer versatility. As well as their portability they enable photographs to be taken of a large variety of subjects in a very small package. I can shoot landscapes, low light scenes, close ups, portraits all with the one camera. The scenes below were taken on a recent walk. I carried a backpack with camping gear for fifty kilometers over very difficult terrain so a heavy camera was not an option!

To do the same with a system SLR would require as a minimum a standard zoom, a fast prime and a macro lens. Yes, I am very satisfied with the XZ1.

Iain