Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

More Hi-Res Digital SLR Cameras – Canon’s 10D and Fuji’s S2 Pro Readers may recall that just one year ago, we looked at the first of the “affordable” DSLRs – the Canon D30, offering six megapixel resolution and an impressive raft of features. Now there are even more contenders for your cash (or plastic!) – and not so much of it, either. L ast year, we were able to get our hands on just one digital SLR (DSLR) camera. We knew that a new Fuji and a new Nikon were just around the corner but Canon came to the party. And we were impressed with their D30. It offered six megapixel resolution and a huge range of user features. The main drawback, at least as far as we were concerned, was the price: by the time you bought the camera and a couple of lenses, there wouldn’t be much change out of ten big ones. That’s a pretty serious investment for most people. Well, things have changed a bit in the last twelve months. Prices down, features up! Just as the “happy snap” or point-nshoot end of the digital camera market has made some pretty amazing moves in the past year (prices plummeting, features and quality soaring) the “pro” end has had its share of movement, too. Maybe not quite with the same ferocity but certainly enough to make us sit up and take notice. We’ve been able to test-drive a couple of “prosumer” DSLRs over the past couple of weeks. They’re not at the highest end of the pro market, although we understand that plenty of pros are waiting in line. Nor are they the type of camera that Mr or Mrs Citizen would be likely to buy to capture family holidays or baby pictures. But they are exactly the type of camera that a keen amateur photographer would buy – the type of photographer who probably has a top-of-the-line 35mm camera body or six, a good selection of lenses and possibly even does their own film processing (gad, do people actually still do that?). And we know from your letters and emails that there are many keen amateur photographers amongst SILICON CHIP readers. Yes, we are predominantly an electronics magazine but our readers have a range of interests! They are also the type of camera that many professional photographers would buy – particularly news and sports photographers and, say, wed- ding and PR photographers. The reason these people would buy one of these cameras can be summed up in one word: convenience. They also happen to be the type of camera that a photographer for an electronics magazine would buy! We have to be honest: much of the reason for this article has been in the evaluation of high resolution digital cameras suitable for the type of work you see in SILICON CHIP. But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. The photos in SILICON CHIP We hope you’ve noticed that over the last few years, there has been significant improvement in the photographs that appear in SILICON CHIP. Of course, the biggest factor is that they are now all in colour – but comparing them with earlier photos, they are significantly clearer; contrast is better, and so on. We’ve learned a lot about image processing over the years! But they are still done the traditional (film) way. Incidentally, we’re often asked why By Ross Tester 16  Silicon Chip www.siliconchip.com.au magazines such as ours use positive transparency film rather than (the much cheaper) negative film you’d use for most photography. The reason is that it is usually possible to get a much better result from a positive transparency than a negative. In addition, it’s a lot easier to judge the quality of a “trannie” than a negative. Until now, we have had to buy film (which incidentally is getting very expensive – over ten dollars a roll for the type of transparency film we use). A typical issue of SILICON CHIP might require three, four or five rolls of film. We shoot the vast majority of pics in our own mini studio. Because the film has to be stored under refrigeration, we have to remember to get the film out several hours before use and let it gradually warm up to room temperature. It sounds silly but that delay can be extremely frustrating. After the “shoot”, we have to get the film developed – also approaching ten dollars a roll. And there’s either a courier or someone dropping them in and picking them up – the nearest E-6 (transparency) processing lab is about 30 minutes away. www.siliconchip.com.au Then, assuming we have got the pics we want in one take (which fortunately is almost always) we have to select the transparencies we require and scan them using a dedicated film scanner. We used to send the film away to have this done (adding another three days to the process) but for the past few years have had our own 35mm transparency scanner. Then it’s a matter of processing the image files – sizing, cropping, colour correcting, sharpening, removing dust marks and finally converting them from RGB to CMYK format, ready for placing in the magazine page layout. We use Adobe Photoshop, which has become pretty much the industry standard. All this takes time – and with deadlines approaching, that’s often time we cannot afford. The digital way. . . With a digital camera, almost all of the steps, except the Photoshop treatment, are eliminated. Most importantly, if we want a photo instantly, or if we need a re-shoot, we can have it. We still shoot much the same way but have the advantage of knowing instantly that we have the shot we want. It is even possible to have the camera “wired in” to a computer in the photo studio so that the pics go immediately onto the network. Worst-case is that we download them from the camera following the “shoot” using either USB (or the much faster Firewire) immediately after shooting. There is even a RAW plug-in for Photoshop if we want it (although software supplied with the cameras also converts the RAW format). By the way, to obtain the very best results, a photographer will shoot in RAW format. As its name suggests, this is exactly what the sensor in the camera sees, no processing, no sharpening, no lossy JPG conversion . . . While most DSLR cameras are capable of doing a fairly good job at this, it is basically a “one size fits all” process. Using a RAW image and doing all the processing yourself in Photoshop means you get to choose what you want for that particular shot. So we can go from shoot straight to Photoshop. (Even well set-up digital photos still need processing). Apart November 2003  17 from the cost of shooting on film and the time taken, it’s not easy to see why digital photography is so attractive to publishers. Multiply that by a few thousand photographers spread over newspapers, magazines, etc – and you’re getting some real economies – both in dollars and time. That’s our side of the market. Digitals have become the choice of many other pro and semi-pro photographers for similar reasons. Wedding photographers love ’em! DSLR vs SLR cost Quality DSLR cameras cost more – significantly more – than SLR cameras. This has become more so in recent times as SLR cameras have become much cheaper – due, at least in part, to the increasing popularity of digitals. That’s not to say DSLRs haven’t come down in price – they have, significantly – but the price of SLRs appears to be dropping faster. The industry now says that digital cameras are well outselling film cameras. Quality of image I’m probably going to get hung, drawn and quartered for saying this but in general, the picture quality you get from an SLR camera doesn’t have a great deal to do with the camera itself. It’s much more about the quality of the lens you hang off the camera. (OK, the type of film plays a significant role too – but film is an expendable which you can change at will). The camera itself, by and large, does not have a huge influence on picture quality – it just gives you more control, more features. The results I get from my three trusty (but 40-year-old) Minolta SRT-101s are every bit as good as I have achieved with any 21st century film camera. But with a DSLR, the quality of the image depends on two factors: the quality of the lens but just as importantly – and often more so – on the quality, or “resolution”, of the image-capturing device in the camera. It is (usually) not possible to get as good a result (even with the same lens) on a camera with a 1 megapixel resolution as it is with a 3 or 6 megapixel resolution. The higher the resolution, the more information the camera captures. For the average “happy snap” camera user this doesn’t really matter. It’s amazing what some people will accept when they take the shot themselves because they are remembering what the scene was actually like rather than their blurred photos – we’ve all seen those proudly-shown-around holiday pics where it’s sometimes possible to recognise a landmark, or a person, or whatever. For a pro, poor quality is simply not an option. Either he/she won’t get paid for the job, it will have to be done again (if that is possible – eg, weddings!) or he/she will have his/her head bitten off – or worse – by an unhappy boss. Therefore, pros demand high quality. Perfection, even. Keen amateur photographers are similar. They are not satisfied unless the picture they take is as close to perfect as they can manage. And they are prepared to pay a premium for that, too. Back to the DSLRs A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to trial Canon’s new 10D. Like the D30, it was a six megapixel CMOS sensor model (actually 6.3 million effective pixels) but Canon have managed to make quite a few improvements in the 10D, which could be regarded as an “economy” model. More on the Canon shortly. Then the opportunity also arose to play with a Fuji S2 Pro for a couple of weeks. It has the somewhat more traditional CCD sensor (although it is anything but traditional, as we shall see shortly). We still haven’t had a chance to play with the Nikon D100 – but it and the Fuji S2-Pro are based on the same platform and take the same (Nikkor mount) lenses. Super CCD III However, there is a major difference between the two – one which has been at least somewhat controversial. Both the Nikon and Fuji have a six megapixel sensor (6.1 million effective for Nikon; 6.17 million for Fuji) – but Fuji claim that their camera gives twelve megapixel results. Is that possible, or just PR puffery? It turns out that there is more to it than a copywriter’s whim. If you are at all experienced with digital image processing, particularly via software, you would probably be aware of interpolation – where an image size is effectively increased by “manufacturing” image information from the contents of the two pixels adjacent. That’s the usual way a picture size is increased from a given file size. Depending on the algorithms used, such interpolation can be quite good (within reason!). But Fuji’s interpolation (they call it processing) is very good. How? By using what they call a “third generation super CCD” or a “Super CCD III”. In almost all image sensors, the pixels are square (OK, to be more accurate, they are usually rectangular). But in the Fuji Super CCD, the pixels are hexagonal. So instead of each pixel having just four edges on which the If you’ve ever wondered why there is such a difference between digital cameras, these three image sensors from Canon might explain why. Just compare the sizes! The one on the left is from a typical “happy snap” (ie, consumer) digital, with a resolution of about two megapixels. The middle one is the one actually used in the 10D and D-30 and is not far off being 35mm film-sized. The huge one on the right is from one of Canon’s high-end professional models, with greater than 12 megapixel resolution. 18  Silicon Chip www.siliconchip.com.au interpolation can work, it has eight edges. Therefore, while the pixels are effectively very similar in size, the captured image contains as much information as if they were half the size (twice the resolution). That’s the good news. The bad news is that at highest resolution you’re only going to store one image on a 64MB card. That not only takes time to download, it also takes some time to save inside the camera. At highest resolution, that can be the best part of 20 seconds between shots – an intolerably long time for a sports or news photographer. Needless to say, you can select the image size you want and so reduce this to much more manageable periods. Look and feel There is not too much between the Canon 10D, at 790g, and the Fuji S2 Pro, at 760g. Size is fairly comparable: Canon is 150 x 107 x 75 mm while the Fuji is 142 x 131 x 80 mm. Side-by-side, the Canon appears to be significantly smaller (that 24mm is the big difference). How a camera feels in your hands is very much a personal thing: I could live with either! The Fuji has been criticised by some as feeling a little bit “plasticy” – after all, it does have a plastic body. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. On the other hand, the Canon 10D has a rubberised grip (metal body), making it at least feel as though you have a better grip on it yourself. Lenses Most DSLRs come as a “body kit” – that is, they include things like batteries, cables and software but not lenses. You can easily spend as much money on a lens – and then some – as you can on the camera body. Even semipro photographers would need at least two or three lenses as an absolute minimum. Some would need many more! The Canon 10D takes most of the range of Canon EF lens-mount lenses, while the Fuji takes all of the Nikkor AF-D range, including the latest AF-S type (professional) models. With lenses, to a large degree, that old adage most certainly applies: “you gets what you pays for”. Better lenses cost more dollars. However, if you are looking to save a few bob, there is a huge range of suitable after-market lenses, many of www.siliconchip.com.au which give an excellent account of themselves (in fact, the review Fuji had a very nice 24-70 Sigma 1:2.8 on it). Before we move away from lenses, it’s important to note that there is a difference between the focal length of lenses on a DSLR to those on an SLR. To get an idea of the focal length in “35mm” terms, you need to multiply the DSLR lens length by 1.5 – so that Sigma lens I just mentioned would be the equivalent of a 36-105mm lens on a 35mm SLR. This actually becomes quite important in wide-angle lenses. 28mm or 35mm is considered a good general 35mm SLR wide-angle lens but when used on a DSLR, these become 42mm and 53mm respectively – hardly what you would call wide angle! Software Software (or more properly firmware) drives the cameras. That’s fixed and to our knowledge, cannot be user-upgraded. As software is being developed and improved all the time, it is quite possible that you might be able to get a manufacturer firmware upgrade in the future. The other software that you need is that required to first transfer, view and then process in your computer. Both cameras come with a CD full of software offering a variety of functions. And there is a huge range of third-party software and plug-ins for your existing software out there. Sensitivity If you’re used to film photography, you would be used to film speed or ISO. A low film speed (eg, 25) requires a lot more light to activate the chemicals in the film and record an image than does a high film speed (eg, 400). The trade-off is that, by and large, faster film speeds tend to have more “grain”. Digital photography is no different – except that instead of film, we are talking about the sensor’s ability to react to light. The big difference between film and digital is that you can adjust the ISO of the sensor for various light conditions. The Fuji can be set anywhere from ISO 100 to 1600; the Canon from ISO 100 to 3200. The digital trade-off for these very fast ISOs is not too different to grain in film. In this case it’s noise: at the higher levels, noise can become evi- dent in the image, most particularly in the dark sections. It’s somewhat akin to “snow” on a TV image. Reports I have read suggest that the Canon has marginally lower noise than the Fuji at high ISO settings – I could not confirm this. Storage Here, I believe, is where the Fuji has an edge over its opposition. It can handle both Compact Flash (Type 1 and II, including Microdrive) and/or SmartMedia (up to 128Mb). The Canon can only handle Compact Flash. The number of shots you can store depends on two things: the size of the images you want to store and the size of the media you want to store on. Like most in-the-field film photographers who have a few (dozen?) spare rolls of film in the camera case, digital photographers tend to have a few spare media cards – or a notebook computer with a big hard disk to download the day’s shoot onto. Both cameras can also handle an IBM Microdrive (up to 2GB) which can store an awful lot of shots, even at 4MB each! Changing storage media is only a few seconds’ work. Batteries The Canon uses a rechargeable Lithium-Ion battery with a CR2025 Lithium battery for date/time backup. Fuji, in their wisdom, have elected for a dual supply system: four AA rechargeable cells to drive the camera proper (NiMH recommended) and two 3V lithium cells to operate the flash. One big advantage that the Canon has is the option of a separate handgrip – which doubles as a second battery compartment. The Fuji camera doesn’t have this option. But it will operate with dead (or no) lithium cells, albeit without flash, so the fact that it uses readily-available (and cheap!) AAs could get you out of trouble in the wilds of Africa (or a Saturday night wedding, assuming you’d be using external flash). Lag In many digital cameras, especially those with auto focus, there is some lag between the time you press the shutter release and the time the shot is actually taken. I have one such digital which takes more than a second – many’s the time I have the back of November 2003  19 Fuji’s new “consumer” 6MP DSLR Here’s a new digital SLR model recently announced by Fuji Japan/ USA that is positioned about half way between the happy snap digitals and the S2 Pro we have looked at in this issue. The Fuji S7000 sports a similar six megapixel/ twelve megapixel image capture of the S2 but has a fixed f2.8-f8 lens. It can also shoot movies: up to 14 minutes of 340 x 240 pixels using a 512MB xD picture card. The big news on this one, though, is the price: Hanimex, the Fuji distributors in Australia, have just announced a recommended retail of $1399.00 inc gst. Given the price differentials of someone’s head, or someone who has ducked out of shot, etc. Where a camera has auto focus, some of this time is obviously taken by the auto-focus mechanism doing its thing. But there can be even more delay and it can be really annoying. With both the Fuji S2 Pro and the Canon 10D there is a small time lag while the auto focus sets but it is usually so short it’s hardly noticeable. And the time lag from auto-focus to shooting is virtually non-existent. The auto focus, by the way, is a dream to use on both cameras. Once the bane of all camera users (film and digital) the auto focus is quick and it is precise. It is multi-zonal with a wide range of options – and if you don’t like it, you can always shoot manually. LCD review Like most digitals, DSLRs these days have an LCD screen to review your shot. This is certainly the case with both the Canon and the Fuji – although to my mind the Fuji was better. It’s a bit brighter, especially good for outdoor (bright light) shots. What the LCDs on DSLRs do NOT give you (unlike most happy snaps) is an image preview. This is because 20  Silicon Chip less than the rrp. For instance, we’ve seen the Canon advertised for as low as $3500. And we’ve seen it available on-line in Australia for as low as $2455 and the Fuji $2788 (no, that’s not US dollars!). Would you want to take the risk and buy on line? Fifteen hundred-ish big ones makes for a lot of to-ing and froing! However, bear in mind that you may run into warranty problems when buying from on-line or overseas. Buying retail, the price basically depends on how much the seller wants your business and how much they are prepared to sweeten the deal. OK, which one is best? other cameras, this compares well with the US price of $US799.00. The S7000 is scheduled for release this month. For more information, visit www.fujifilm.com the way the DSLR works: it has a flipup mirror, just like a standard SLR, which is “in the way” of the CCD until you press the shutter release. The LCD can also give you a lot of information about the shot you have taken (including a histogram); indeed, about all the shots on the storage medium. It is also the display for the various camera user functions. Getting the pictures out Taking great pics is one thing – but how do you get them back out again? There are several ways to do this. You can remove the storage medium and slip it into an adaptor on your PC. You can download them “in situ” via the USB port (or much faster firewire port on the Fuji). Or in the studio, you can download them “on the fly” to a suitable computer (you’re already tethered to a studio flash via a sync cable so it’s not a big hardship). Pricing Both cameras are fairly similar in price. Both have a recommended retail – the Canon 10D is $3999 and the Fuji S2 Pro around $4200 (though a price reduction was imminent at time of going to press) – and both have a “street price” which can be anything up to several hundred dollars or so Either. Neither. Both. I could not choose between them as far as operability is concerned, nor for image quality. Both achieved superb results, both in our studio and out wandering the streets shooting anything that took my fancy! I have interspersed a few digital pics in SILICON CHIP over the last month or two and I defy anyone to tell me which ones they were. The Fuji S2 Pro has the potential for higher quality shots with its superior CCD; to my eyes I couldn’t pick any difference, even to the point of enlargement where the pictures began to break up. The Canon 10D, with its CMOS sensor has reportedly lower noise at high ISOs. Again, I couldn’t pick it. A “pro” friend has a Canon 10D and loves it. I don’t know anyone who owns the Fuji S2. And let’s not forget that I still haven’t played with the Nikon 100D, nor Kodak’s 14-megapixel DCS Pro14n, nor several other high-res DSLRs on the market. To some extent, buying a digital camera of this type would be swayed by (a) personal preferences (like the old Holden/Ford thing); (b) the type of lenses you might already own; and of course (c) what sort of deal you can do. I don’t own any Nikon or Canon lenses (and my [many – sob!] Minolta lenses are too old to cut it on Minolta’s digitals), so it’s a whole new ball game for me. I don’t have any cross to bear for either Fuji or Canon. . . so I guess it all depends on the dollars. But one thing’s for sure: we’re going digital. Will my Minoltas ever forgive me? SC www.siliconchip.com.au