Nikon 1 V3 Press Releases

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

The Long Version: First of all, there's no way to separate my reaction to the Nikon 1 V3 press release without also responding to the camera that inspired it. I haven't handled the N1V3, and have no special knowledge about it, but I do know the Nikon 1 V1. It's impossible to be impartial.

The product images, as with my Canon G1X2 Press Release review, are adapted from the official images which anyone can download from Nikon's press site. Interestingly, the press releases on Nikon's Canadian and American sites are very different, so I'm going to be picking bits from each.

To begin, let's look at the headlines.

USA: The world's fastest*1 continuous shooting rate with AF tracking, performance with tracking of moving subjects that exceeds that of digital SLR cameras, and capable of full-scale operation.

Canada: Create with Uncompromising Speed and Image Quality: Nikon 1 V3 Provides a Compact, Versatile Feature Set for Capturing Stunning Images and HD Videos. …the Nikon 1 V3 is the ideal companion camera for the DSLR shooter looking to pack light and move fast.

Is it true that Canadians are friendlier and more polite than Americans?*1 The USA release hits the obligatory "World's Fastest" claim right off the bat, and stakes its position that the 1V3 is superior to an SLR, while the Canadians are simply looking for some companionship. I can't puzzle out exactly what 'capable of full-scale operation' means, but it seems to be trying to counterbalance the USAian Bigger is Better perception against the Compact, Versatile marketing message that sells these cameras elsewhere in the world. The Canadian press release calls the V3 compact four times, while the American uses it only once.

USA: …the latest addition to the V series of Nikon 1 advanced cameras with interchangeable lenses that propose new forms of imaging expression.

Canada: …a compact yet powerful addition to the Nikon 1 Advanced Camera with Interchangeable Lens System.

Again we see the Canadians throttling down the exceptionalism, as we tend to do. If you're an American buyer, the 1V3 stands to fundamentally change both art and technology, while in Canada it's just yet another camera. A good camera, to be sure, but the understated Canadians are not even going to claim that it's the latest model in the line, which clearly – if, invariably, temporarily – it is. But the one thing that both cultures can agree on is that Nikon uses a terribly awkward way to refer to what actual real people call "mirrorless cameras". Nikon being Nikon, the word "mirror" never appears in either press release.

Canada: a blazing fast Hybrid AF system and the world’s fastest continuous shooting frame rate1 at 20 frames-per-second (fps) with full autofocus (AF) – a speed that outpaces even professional DSLR cameras.

Okay, that's pretty impressive, and now we know where the Canadians put their better-than-SLR claim. Of course the N1V1 was also on par with – or faster than – the top SLRs of the time, but was crippled by a mandatory last-shot image review that locked out the shutter. The lesson here is to never underestimate Nikon's ability to screw things up, including fundamental things that they've gotten right in dozens of cameras before now.

Nikon is very quiet about the shot buffer depth of the 1V3. The Canadian release never mentions it, but the Americans say 40 shots over two seconds, without specifying file format, or 50 shots using the mechanical shutter at its limit of 6fps. For comparison, the old Nikon D4 can do about 100 raw images (or 200 jpegs) at 10fps with tracking AF, while a stock F5 from 1996 could do 7.4fps for 36 shots.

USA: 105 densely packed focus points positioned over a broad range of the frame ensure precise acquisition of moving subjects.

Densely packed over a broad range? Seriously? How is that even possible? Either somebody ate some bad jumbo shrimp for lunch or this is Nikon's way of conceding that the CX sensor format is really small. But I will give the PR teams a lot of credit for not adding up the 171 CDAF points with the 105 PDAF points to claim 276 total AF locations. It seems that, even with them being densely packed over a broad area, there's a lot of overlap in the actual point positions.

USA: …the world's fastest*1 high-speed continuous shooting rate with AF tracking … as well as the world's shortest*3 shooting time lag ensures fast and precise focusing…

This is interesting*2 for what it doesn't say: the claim for World's Fastest Autofocus is nearly mandatory for a press release these days, but this one skirts the subject with a couple of claims that are related but not quite the same thing. That seems too carefully done to be irrelevant, but I can't decide what it might actually mean. Nevertheless, I keep looking askance at this phrase, and am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Canada: “…” said Gregory Flasch, National Advertising and Communications Manager at Nikon Canada. “With an incredible feature set, a newly-crafted ergonomic design, and the elite high-speed performance…”

It's thoughtful of the people in Nikon Canada's marketing department to include a quotation from their boss about the new camera, because otherwise we might not know from the outset what tone the upcoming advertisements would take. Spoiler alert: they like it.

The N1V3 seems to have picked up some styling cues from the Canon EOS M. I admit that I like the look of the new Nikon, both when it's stripped down or when it has the optional/bundled EVF and grip attached. The N1V1 won no prizes for its appearance, while N1V2 was cripplingly unphotogenic, so any improvement here is a good thing. As for the actual quality of the new ergonomics and elite performance, I can only say that I'm looking forward to trying it out – before putting it back down and walking away from it forever.

USA: What's more, the Nikon 1 V3 offers an operational system that users of digital SLRs will find familiar.

Just remember this bit for a few moments, and consider that at its launch price the 1V3 costs as much as a really good SLR, meaning that it will mostly appeal to people who already have excellent SLRs.

USA: The Nikon 1 V3 is equipped with a main command dial on the back of the camera and a sub-command dial on the front…

On the front of the camera is the Nikon Df Memorial Vertical Dial, while the back has a more conventional horizontal dial. There's also a third, uncounted consumer-standard dial around the four-way controller, which has an Exposure Compensation button on it. Seeing that button was when I first heard my own photographic death knell tolling for this camera.

USA: …allows users of digital SLR cameras to apply and adjust settings such as shutter speed in a familiar manner.

Such as shutter speed, but not such as exposure compensation. That's the opposite of awesome. In fact, that's the same bad design that ensures that the Ricoh GR stomps all over the usability of the Coolpix A, which was another camera that Nikon intended to be familiar to its SLR users. Once again Nikon gets the fundamentals wrong. As far as SLR-like operation, or even general usability goes, this is a massive screw-up on it.

I simply will not consider buying a camera that doesn't give direct and immediate access to two variables at once, which I typically set to aperture value and exposure compensation. And while this should be a simple thing to rectify with a firmware update, Nikon is as willing to fix problems with its existing cameras as Sony is likely to release a complete lens collection before losing interest and moving on. The N1V1 remains a usability disaster two generations later, and D600 users might have some experiences to add here, as well.

If this camera was made by Ricoh or Fujifilm then I'd have complete faith that an error like this would be fixed. But Nikon is a camera company, not a photographic company, and I'm sure they've already wiped the N1V3 from the corporate resources and moved on to the next model in their relentless parade of V1.0 products that passes for innovation.

Canada: An additional function button is added with the optional GR-N1010 grip, a lightweight option that provides steadier handling, as well as an additional shutter button and sub-command dial that will be familiar to DSLR shooters.

Love that product name. GR-N1010. Like poetry.

It remains to be seen if the secondary sub-command dial that will be familiar to DSLR shooters will add to or over-ride the Df Memorial Vertical Dial that's also on the front of the camera; it also remains to be seen if the Df Dial can even be reached with the grip in place. But the grip does offer the intriguing possibility of having two shutter buttons on top of the camera, which seems like something of a first.

USA: the first Nikon 1 camera to be equipped with a virtual horizon function … and is capable of detecting not only roll (camera tilt to the left or right), but also pitch (camera tilt forward or back), a capability previously limited to high-end digital SLR cameras.

Nikon, frankly, assumes that its audience has its collective head up its collective ass. The Olympus E-PL2, Sony NEX6, Panasonic GX1, Canon G15, Ricoh GRDIV, and others all had this feature long before Nikon broke it out of their high-end SLR bracket. But in truth Nikon has a long history of only caring about what Canon is doing*3 in the same product tier, where a dual-axis level remains limited to the 7D and above, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Canada: Another innovative addition to the Nikon 1 Series is the V3’s new tilting, touch-panel 3-inch LCD monitor that allows photographers to compose brilliant images and HD videos from various new angles.

Don't worry, I'll refrain from listing other cameras that have a 3" tilting touch screen. Life simply isn't long enough. But there is some novelty in putting a row of hard buttons on the tilting LCD panel, which is interesting and may border on being innovative. Whether this is a good idea or not remains to be seen, but it may provide some benefit when the camera is on a tripod. Not that this camera is really meant to be used on a tripod, since that blocks access to the little battery and Micro-SD card slot.

Did I forget to mention that the blazing-fast N1V3 is the first Nikon interchangeable-lens camera to use Micro SD cards? That must be because the press releases skip that little innovation, too.

I'm also wondering how long it will be before specifying that a camera records 'HD Video' becomes the camera-equivalent of a motel specifying that they have 'Color TV'. It might have been impressive once, but it already sounds dated, and will soon be a superseded expectation.

Canada: The Nikon 1 V3 also empowers users to unleash their creativity, with fun and unique shooting options for all levels of photographer.

Every camera these days comes with built-in creativity as a standard feature. The American press release doesn't make this specific claim, but it's probably because they're all still busy creating new forms of imaging expression.

USA: The 0.48-inch, approximately 2359k-dot color TFT LCD viewfinder with frame coverage of approximately 100% supports diopter control and brightness adjustment. It ensures a broad field of view equal to that of digital SLR cameras…

They don't specify which DSLR the viewfinder is equivalent to, so I'm hoping that it isn't the D3000. The dots and size of the GR-N1010 are essentially the same as the EVF on the Fujifilm X-E2, which is no slouch. While Canon's EVF-DC1 for the G1X2 doesn't specify its screen size, the dot count is about the same and it even sells for almost the same premium as the N1V3 kit with the lens, viewfinder, and grip. Something tells me that the G1X2 and N1V3 is going to be an interesting competition to watch; a battle of the slow-selling and overpriced Titans.

USA: …adoption of the same rounded eyepiece used with the cameras such as the D4, Df, and D800, the DF-N1000 supports full-scale shooting capabilities.

That's an amazing bit of name-dropping, and highlights that the round eyepiece has always been reserved for the cameras that Nikon considers "Professional", such as the D300. No doubt the forums will find that significant, but what intrigues me is that they mention the D4 here, not the D4s, which was announced on February 24 and is already shipping. That suggests that the N1V3 release was written before then, and despite the nearly three-week wait until the V3 announcement, nobody went back and updated it.

They probably assumed, almost entirely correctly, that nobody was likely to notice or care.

And I still have no idea what 'full-scale shooting capabilities' actually means.

*1 When compared to Americans who reside in the same time zone as the Canadians that they are being compared to, possibly; compared to just about anyone else in the world, not so much.

*2 "Interesting" being a relative term and compared only among press releases for similar products as of March 14, 2014.

*3 With the recent exception of Nikon becoming dimly aware of Fujifilm, resulting in the Df, from which Nikon will almost certainly take the wrong lesson. 

last updated 15 mar 2014

1 Nikon 10-30mm

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It comes standard.

The Long Version: The 10-30mm lens is what came with my deeply-discounted Nikon V1, so I've owned it longer than any other but it remains my least-used lens. It's a fairly typical standard kit zoom, dim with lots of distortion, and given that I'm not particularly impressed by the Nikon 24-70/2.8 on my D800, the 10-30 doesn't really stand much of a chance.

But when I tested my V1 and 10-30 at its widest end against my Ricoh GRD4 the Nikon won. That made me very sad, but it wasn't even a close call. Still, my use for the 10-30 standard lens is almost invariably documentary and record shots, which just a few tourist shots from days when I was using the V1 as my main point-and-shoot. It has never been my choice for creative moments, where it has always lost out to the 30-110 or 18.5mm prime.

last updated 27 july 2013

Nikon FT-1 Mount Adapter

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's the best there is.

The Long Version: I have to be fair to the FT1 lens mount adapter, since it does accomplish the task of letting F-mount lenses attach to the Nikon 1-series cameras. It provides metering and camera-based aperture control, and allows static centre-point autofocus with AF-S lenses. In Nikon's world of restricted interoperability and reduced feature sets that's really all it can be expected to do, its $270 MSRP notwithstanding. (Dealers, as usual, may sell for less.)

The main problem with the FT-1 is that even the best F-mount lenses don't really shine on the noisy CX sensors. While workable, putting a big lens on the small body is awkward, and it's made worse by the low weight limits on the 1-system lens mounts. But when used with enough compassion and forgiveness my little V1 and FT1 can produce decent results, which should be familiar territory for the fans of these little cameras.

My personal experience with the FT1 adapter has been that it doesn't really solve much of a problem. The Nikon V1 is a camera that I use for its non-photographic strengths: being small, light, and quiet, it goes to places and gets used at times when my D800 wouldn't be an option. Putting an FX or DX lens on the V1 removes its 'small and light' attributes, leaving only quietness as its main attraction, with just a limited increase in its actual photographic value.

The FT1 is a small adapter, about the size of the 10-30 or 18.5mm lenses, and it has a tripod mount that supersedes the cameras' own when a "heavy" lens is attached. And that's pretty much all of them: any lens that's over 380 grams needs to be supported when it's on the camera lest it damage the mount. This is a pretty low limit; the 85/1.8G is pushing it, and the 60/2.8G is over. But for a little perspective, my CX lens trinity – 10-30, 30-110, and 18.5/1.8 – total up to just 360 grams. It's easy to feel like Hercules when everything around you is sized for Newton.

It feels quite natural to handle the combination by the lens when there's something bigger, like the 105VR, attached. But I have to admit that I haven't always strictly followed the 'handle-by-the-lens' requirement with smaller lenses like the 60/2.8G or 50/1.4G, and have had no ill effects to date. Nikon also advises that we don't fog our lenses by breathing on them – apparently it can damage the coatings – so I suspect that their product advisories are being written by liability lawyers rather than real-world practicality experts. As always, participate in this world at your own risk.

The tripod foot on the FT1 sits flush to the camera, so any quick-release plate that projects behind the mount will need to be attached after the adapter is on the camera. Nifty.

Nikon's AF-S lenses will autofocus on the FT1 adapter, using only the central AF point and without any tracking or CAF abilities. I've been using it with the 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, and 105/2.8VR, and the results have been pretty good. The autofocus from those three isn't quite as quick as with the native CX lenses, including in low light, which surprised me given the brighter apertures of the real Nikon lenses over the f/dark 1-series zooms.

Optical issues like distortion, corner sharpness, and vignetting are basically non-existent on the lilliputian CX sensor. I'm tempted to make a snide "only using the best part of the lens" joke, but that's just leftover bitterness from my Olympus days talking.

Nikon is working very hard to forget about the whole "AF-D" lens era, and hopes you are too, but they do make some concession to motorless lenses. Not only do they graciously permit magnified viewing on the LCD, but they even include the familiar triangle-and-dot rangefinder focusing cues on the LCD screen. This is actually much more useful on the V1 than it is on an SLR, with results that are accurate enough that I won't always use the magnified view. There's something to be said for extensive depth of field.

Manual focus and older "AF" lenses on the FT1 retain the ability to zoom in on the LCD for focus assist, but lose the rangefinder because it relies on the D-is-for-Distance chip in the lens.

One attraction of the FT1 adapter is to 'get more reach' from long lenses. To try this out I used the same lens on both the V1 and the D800, cropped the D800 frame to match the V1, and then compared the results. After a couple of rounds with the 500/4 and 105VR I will say that the D800 pulls slightly more out of a similarly cropped frame, despite putting only 4.8 megapickles on the target. (Compare crops: D800, downsampled from 1500x1000 pixels, and V1, downsampled from 2150x1500 pixels; the focus point is the left eye and bridge of his nose.)

If long-lens work was what I really wanted to do with my time – it isn't – I'd be buying a Pro DX camera like the D7100 instead of any Nikon 1. That would put almost as many pixels on the subject and provide massive usability improvements over a CX camera with the FT1 adapter.

While it's hardly a comprehensive or exhaustive comparison, I've also checked to see if there's any optical benefit in choosing an adapted F-mount lens over a native CX one. I put the Nikon 60/2.8G, which has a very good reputation, up against the 30-110 lens at 60mm. While the $600 prime macro lens did resolve a bit more detail than the $250 kit zoom, there wasn't a significant difference. This suggests that the lens isn't the limiting factor where sharpness is concerned – *cough* noisy pixel-dense sensor *cough* – so I'm not going to bother using the FT1 when there's a native lens that can do the job.

'Equivalence' sucks. That's the theory that says that the noise and depth of field from a wide-open 50/1.4 lens on a CX camera at iso100 will look about the same as a 135mm lens on an FX camera at f/4 and iso800. Looking at it that way there's no reason to use the semi-little 50/1.4+FT1+V1 setup when I could use the bigger 105VR+D800 combination, crop down for a bit more reach, and still stomp all over the V1's image quality. When I'm under-lensed my own experience tells me that using the D800 and cropping away 85% of its pixels still gives better image quality than switching the same FX lens onto the FT1-V1.

Yup, that sucks.

But that's not to say that there's no reason to use bigger lenses on the FT1. Despite their operational limitations, it does give options that the diminutive catalog of petite CX lenses lacks. Fast primes are an obvious choice, but not the only one. The small sensor is a great equalizer, so even the modest 18-55 turns in good results; this ubiquitous lens has a useful 50-150mm-ish range, and it isn't too big for the camera. Stepping up to an f/2.8 DX standard zoom keeps the great range but adds a modest ability to drop out the background, and could be an effective PJ/wedding lens. And even if the results aren't better than a heavily cropped file from a contemporary SLR, using different tools and playing with unconventional options often helps the creative process.

Anyone who uses a V1, or any CX "Nikon 1" camera, does it despite plenty of very good reasons not to. Image quality was never very high on the list of positives for the system, but the point of it is that there are times when an SLR isn't a practical, or even possible, option. Using FX or DX lenses does mostly take away its advantage of smaller size, but it remains more discreet than an SLR and keeps the advantage of silence.

I'm not about to run out and buy more lenses just to use on the adapter, but the FT1 is worth considering if there's already a CX camera and AF-S lenses in the house. I don't use it very often in either my casual day-to-day camera-carrying or my dedicated photography sessions, but it was vital in catching family photos across the winter holidays. It works no miracles, but it's not a bad thing to have just the same.

Finally, a ranting aside:

The broader problem is that Nikon's efforts to cripple the 1-system as a photographic tool extends to its attitudes toward non-Nikon lens adapters. The V1 can't magnify the viewfinder for focus confirmation, shoot in anything but manual mode, or meter the exposure. Let me repeat that last point: with a generic lens adapter the V1 is completely unwilling to meter or even preview exposure before the shot is taken. I bought an adapter for my Zeiss M-mount lenses, which match the camera perfectly, but using them is essentially unworkable in practice.

Does Nikon think that they already offer everything anyone could want, and that they can be a photographer's complete universe? Did they miss the years of Panasonic, Olympus, and even latecomer Sony selling thousands of cameras to people who want to use decades' worth of older lenses from other systems? Or have they intentionally hobbled the 1-series to drive sales of their own ill-suited lenses at the expense of their customers?

As with many of Nikon's actions, they could be motivated by hubris, incompetence or malice: it's so hard to tell.

last updated 21 apr 2013

Victorinox Explorer

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: We can't all want Swiss Champs.

The Long Version: I tried to use the Explorer, I really did. I've been reviewing a different Swiss Army Knife each month, which gives me a reason for a little variety in what I carry. But the Explorer is a thick four-layer knife, and it's just too bulky for me to like. I ended up carrying it in my backpack instead of in my pocket, and unsurprisingly, it saw very little use.

The Explorer is remarkable for adding a really excellent in-line Philips screwdriver and a magnifying glass to the foundational SAK toolset. Large blade, small blade, scissors, can and bottle openers, corkscrew, awl, and hook – no nail file, but otherwise it's a very complete kit. The Explorer really is an iconic Swiss Army Knife.

But aside from the magnifying glass, it doesn't have any core capabilities that the two-layer Compact doesn't have, and it even lacks a few tricks. Yes, the Explorer's dedicated openers and screwdriver do work better than the combo tool, but I carry a SAK for contingencies, not in place of a proper toolkit.

The screwdriver really defines the Explorer for me. The Victorinox in-line Philips is vastly more useful than the backside driver, and it even has a ninety degree detent position, so it can beat the T-handle configuration for both power and ergonomics. Its asymmetric handle still isn't as nice as a proper screwdriver, but it really is usable for more than the quick turns that the backside driver or combo tool are good for.

Those who like the bigger tools – anyone who aspires to a Swiss Champ – will be very happy with it. Having it kept my "I Own A Swiss Army Knife" checkbox ticked for more than a decade; I even bought two other large knives simply because that's the form factor that I always expected a SAK to have. Bought, but not carried, just like the Explorer.

Even though I prefer the single and two-layer knives for everyday carry, It's still good to have the Explorer for the times when I need more than my Tinker but not something as heavy as a pliers-based multitool.

last updated 13 apr 2013

Lee Reamsnyder on the Panasonic G5

Lee Reamsnyder, longtime friend of thewsreviews and author of the best storage product review that I've ever read, joins us with his thoughts after spending a long weekend with the Panasonic G5.

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It isn't groundbreaking anymore.

Lee writes: In 2008, we were introduced to the first camera in what would become a swell little format, the groundbreaking Panasonic G1. It finally delivered on the promise of significantly smaller cameras and lenses matched with still-large sensors. It proved that electronic viewfinders (EVFs) were viable in a serious camera. It took great pictures.

No one talked about it.

Although the G1 came first, the internet hype machine didn't power up until the next year, which saw a perfect storm in the close releases of the smaller GF1, the sexier Olympus PEN, the more capable GH1, and the small but scrappy Panasonic 20mm/1.7 lens. When the system started to gel and the hyperbolic “we-love-photography-again!” reviews came out, the relatively plain G1 was history.

Aside from the revolutionary bits, the G1 got an awful lot right for the first time out: the grip is comfortable, the autofocus was fast and accurate, the magnified viewfinder has the same effective size as a full-frame DSLR, the rear LCD has the moves, the menu system shows an organization and clarity that is agonizingly rare these days, and it nails the switches-around-dials idea for quick access to major controls.

After 4 years with a G1, all I want is two tweaks:

1. Swap the Menu and Quick Menu buttons. The Quick Menu with all the shooting settings, not the configuration bank, should be the one that's quickly available under thumb.
2. Replace the too-clever tricky toggly main dial with a more obvious switch or a button-plus-dial method to control exposure compensation.

Basically: steal some control paradigms from Canon and keep up with evolving sensor tech. Boom, the next camera would be perfect…

…which is why I've found the actual evolution of the G-series so frustrating. The G2 stapled on a video mode and little else. The G3 upped the megapickles but lost the hand grip, the eye sensor that automatically switched between the rear LCD and the EVF, and like half of the buttons and dials.

Which brings us to the G5: it restores the eye sensor and a bunch of buttons, sports yet another body and grip design, and adds some niceties that I'll discuss shortly.

I'm in the market for a new digital system camera, and I'm fond of the G1, so I wanted to see where the G-series has ended up. After a long weekend with the G5 via the always great Lensrentals, I'm conflicted.

Plug, gratis

I can't really comment on autofocus performance, the great slayer of pretenders to the mirrorless throne. Though Panny's cameras have always set the standard on this front, I don't own lenses that would reflect any improvements. The AF motor in the 20/1.7 is satisfactory – no one would call it swift. I'm surprised the 7–14/4 comes with autofocus at all. Perhaps my 45/2.8 macro languorously hunted a smidge faster than normal? There's nothing I can pin on the camera.

Speaking of pins, there's a new 'pinpoint' autofocus that zooms in to a highly magnified portion of the frame to show you exactly where the camera is focusing, a clever idea that's still not as useful for critical work as true focus peaking. Seriously Panny: you have a video division. Call them, maybe?

One feature that I went in expecting to ignore but warmed to is the touch screen. The swivel screen is still one of the stand-outs of the G# line, and the touch features don't ruin it. Don't be suckered by the "touch" part. It's pressure-, not capacitive-,  sensitive, so don't expect graceful swipes or pinch-zooming like on a smartphone.

You can, however, prod the screen to indicate where you want to focus. Although Panny's multizone "just focus for me" setting is pretty smart, I can't understate how cathartic it is to just jab the sucker when it's not locking on the right spot. "No, focus HERE!" *poke*

Also, you can get quick(ish) access to two more custom functions via the touch screen, bringing the total number of customizable "buttons" to 5. Not too shabby.

Not that impressed, but not barking at the shutter either

One excellent candidate for quick access is the new electronic shutter. The mechanical shutter has a good, not-too-loud *fwip*, but the electronic one (after you turn off the autofocus bloops) is silent. Not muffled. Not quieter. Silent. If you work in any sound-sensitive environment – theaters, nurseries, churches, librarian fetish websites – this might be your camera.

Zoom zoom zoom…

Another feature I'm mixed on is the zoom lever, new on this model. I don't own any power zoom lenses (though the compact 14-42 is tempting); however, you can configure the G5's zoom lever to control exposure compensation as a pseudo second dial. I'd have liked this _much_ more if it also disabled the toggling between aperture and exposure compensation on the primary dial. As Matthew mentioned in his GH1 review, you can still accidentally switch between major functions at random times even while turning the dial, even though with the G5 you basically have two dedicated controls. So stupid. I've missed enough shots to main dial surprises with the G1 that this still rankles, even though I infrequently take pictures in a hurry.

The electronic viewfinder remains excellent even if it's mostly unchanged from the G1. If you're manufacturing cameras and don't need to pay for the precision hunk of glass for a prism, I don't know why you wouldn't provide a really, really, ridiculously magnified EVF. Glowers at the significantly smaller unit in the OMD. What is this? A viewfinder for ants?

Another carryover from the G1 is the conservative meter; I dial in +2/3 compensation in almost any situation where I'm not worried about shutter speed or blowing highlights. After going through several hundred underexposed shots in Lightroom, I can confirm that the G5's RAW files are quite forgiving of big exposure corrections.

Mom's Attic

A "nature" photo, for me

IQ is pretty darn good, even as you crank up the ISO. With the G1, I used ISO 100–400 with abandon, 800 with a good (over)exposure, and 1600 for snapshots. Improvements to Lightroom gave me another stop(ish) of acceptable noise if dynamic range wasn't a concern. I'd say the G5 adds another stop, maybe two, of usable range for me, which seems about right compared to the best APS-C cameras. It's not a D800, but the G5's sensor is no longer getting smoked in the noise department by my overachieving Canon S100. Since my other camera is a film rangefinder that's usually loaded with 400 film exposed at 250, the improved sensitivity is liberating.

Or, at least it should be. But something about the G5 left me cold. It might be the body gestalt. Although it's marginally heavier and smaller than the G1, it feels more hollow, empty. The magnesium front plate doesn't compensate for the rest of the cheap plastic shell and mushy buttons. The new grips – hand and thumb – feel plenty comfortable, but I didn't find myself reaching for it as much I thought I might.

Put another way: with my Ikon and S100, in idle moments I often find myself twiddling with the dials. I like the indulgent tick-tick-ticking of spinning the aperture ring on my 35/2 or twirling the ribbed lens wheel on the S100. I also know that with either of those cameras I could quickly reset if a photo opportunity arose; at this point I could probably set and focus my Ikon blindfolded. I can't imagine myself doing the same with the G5. These things shouldn't matter, but, well, yeah, they do! Particularly for an expensive hobby.

I've heard the GX1 is better when it comes to the intangibles, but you'd be losing the very useful swivel screen and the built-in EVF. The G5 remains the more practical and flexible choice.

During my rental period, I welcomed the excuse to give my much-adored Micro Four-Thirds lenses some exercise with a more modern partner. But I doubt I'll buy a G5 for myself. I honestly don't know what I want. The GH2 might be right, but it's also aging and its replacement has a larger, all-new body. Maybe I'll try the GX1. Maybe the grass is greener with Olympus or Fuji these days.

Fly away

It's an exciting time to be a digital photographer. It's also a frustrating time to be in the middle of the market. Big iron DSLRs have overwhelming firepower for those that need extreme resolution or speed. For everyone else, 'serious' compact cameras are getting so much better so quickly that it's almost scary. Here's the puzzle for everything in between: I think anything that can't offer ultimate size or ultimate IQ must offer a premium experience to be worth using. Although the G5 can use those excellent M4/3 lenses, the camera itself doesn't get my photographic juices flowing.

And I think that's where I left it: the G5 checks a lot of boxes but it does so without a lot of pizazz, like an above-average PowerPoint from the accounting department. For the size, image quality, features, and lens selection I would totally recommend it to friends looking to get into an interchangeable lens system, definitely before I would recommend any crop-sensor DSLR. Compared to the Olympus OMD or the GH series, it's totally a bargain. It appeals to that side of me that reads Consumer Reports. It's just fine.

The G5 is a perfectly acceptable photographic appliance, but it's in an era where 'perfectly acceptable' might not be enough.

last updated 22 mar 2013

Nikon 1 V1, Part 3

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Adequate verging on sufficient.

The Long Version: Welcome to the third instalment of my overly-long-running review of the obsolete Nikon 1 V1. Part one was mostly getting the negatives out of the way, while part two took a sunnier view on things. Now it's finally time to look at the image quality of the camera that I've nicknamed "that stupid f'cking little piece of sh't". But don't read too much into that – I give affectionate nicknames to many of my cameras.

The first thing you need to know about image quality is that the V1 really wants to have a shutter speed of 1/30s, and won't increase its iso sensitivity to go faster than that. This is fine for the 10-30mm, and almost acceptable with good technique with the 30-110mm, as they both have in-lens image stabilization. The unstabilized 10mm f/2.8 should also be good with this – I don't own it to test – but the camera isn't clever enough to boost its minimun shutter speed with the 18.5mm, which is a 50mm-equivalent.

Let me tell you, 1/30 at 50mm isn't nearly fast enough to avoid camera shake with this lightweight little LCD-based camera. And this isn't just a 'low light' thing – I've run into its limitations on a cloudy day. This camera can't be trusted to do its own thing, and needs to be actively managed.

I'm generally happy with the V1 up to about iso800, which looks a little like iso6400 on my D800, but iso400 and under does create a significantly better file. I've printed the Rubbermaid photo above, taken at iso1000, as an 18x12, and it shows noise and artifacts under critical examination. Especially for higher iso settings, the modest per-pixel image quality makes low-DPI prints and uprezzing more difficult than usual. Yes, plenty of people make big prints from low-resolution cameras, but noise and noise removal – even with raw files – will make marginal prints from the V1 break up and look digital in a bad way.

On the other hand, the shipping container photo below, at a functionally identical iso900, passed scrutiny that's much more incisive than mine at the same size. Content matters tremendously, and it's overly simplistic to set an absolute limit on what will and won't be satisfactory ahead of time. My lesson from this is to use the shutter speed and aperture that the camera and photo requires, respectively, and let the iso sort itself out. Yes, this sometimes leads to disappointment, but I'd rather have a noisy photo than a blurry one, or worse, no photo at all.

But for web-sized images or snapshots none of this really matters. Properly managed, with the camera forced to use a sensible shutter speed and a reasonable iso setting, the V1's image quality is actually pretty decent. Coupled with its small lenses the V1 is a great camera for wandering around the city with, and I wouldn't feel foolish carrying it as my only camera for any multi-day trip that doesn't have photography as its primary goal.

The V1 lacks the modern nicety of having lens distortion correction built into the camera, and all of the lenses would benefit from it. Fortunately both Lightroom and DxO Optics, the two programs I use, support most of the 1's lenses. I'm just waiting for the 18.5mm lens to be supported, and when that finally catches up then I'll never hesitate to use it.

As a three-lens kit the V1 with the 10-30, 30-110, and fast normal 18.5mm prime makes for a flexible combination. Of the three the 30-110 is my favourite, and it seems to be a bit better than the 10-30, but really all of them are about as good as the camera. That's not a ringing endorsement, it's true, but this isn't an inherently exciting system.

Even at 'only' 10 megapickles, the V1's pixel density would make for a 74Mpx full-frame sensor, so designing appropriately small and inexpensive lenses is a major accomplishment. I've rounded out my lens options by adding the FT-1 adapter to my kit, and can't say that even the best F-mount lenses really blow me away on the V1, either. More on that in yet another review instalment, but for now the short version is that the 1-system lenses are fine.

When compared to recent cameras its image quality offers few surprises. It's generally better than smaller compact cameras that cost about the same amount of money as the 1V1's fire-sale prices, and not as good as larger-sensored cameras that cost more. And despite all of my griping, it actually compares quite favourably to older cameras that I've used extensively, such as the Olympus E-3 or Panasonic GH1, which remain some of the better 4/3 sensors out there.

The V1's image quality is good enough for pretty much everything that I usually do, so I know I'll have generally decent results from it, but it's tough being the little brother to a D800. The V1 is the camera that I carry when I'm carrying something else, whether it's a bigger camera that will benefit from the V1's small size and zoom lenses, or my audio kit that benefits from its silence.

So despite being deeply flawed as a photo-taking device, the reality is that the V1 makes an excellent sidekick, and there isn't a camera out there that would be a better match for my needs. Yes, that's a little sad in many ways, but that's just the way it is some times.

last updated 18 feb 2013

Olympus 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II

M.Zuiko MSC 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II zoom (photo Olympus)

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Here we go again...

The Long Version: You're looking at the Mark II version of Olympus' only long native µ4:3rds zoom lens of any description. You can look over at Olympus' older 4:3rds mount lenses and note Olympus has at least three to choose from; the SG 70-300mm 1:4-5.6, the HG 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 and the SHG 90-250mm 1:2.8. Unfortunately, not so much choice with µ4:3rds.

In the beginning all µ4:3rds Olympus zooms stopped at 150mm (14-150mm 1:4-5.6 and 40-150mm 1:4-5.6). It wasn't until the original 75-300mm was released 31 August 2010 that Olympus had a "real" zoom that gave the Pen user a long focal length that at least matched the 4:3rds reach. The problem with the original 75-300mm was the initial MSRP of $900, for what was perceived by many (including me) as small and optically slow, especially at 300mm. I for one even refused to consider buying the lens because of the cost, its slow speed (especially when compared to the 50-200mm for just $200 more) and the unforgivable lack of weather sealing, especially for a lens that cost that much.

Original M.Zuiko MSC 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 zoom (photo Olympus)

At the time of the original zoom's release I was greatly unimpressed, so much that I even refused to go to a nearby camera store and even try it out.

Time passed and it would appear that the original 75-300mm languished on many a store shelf. Panasonic released it's own long zoom, the Lumix 100-300mm 1:4-5.6 zoom. The Panasonic zoom was interesting in that it was a half to two-thirds of a stop faster at both ends. Depending on who's review you read, it would appear that the Zuiko might have an edge in overall image quality, but then the Panasonic was good enough and was (and continues to be) offered for a mere $500, $400 less than the Olympus equivalent. A large majority have voted with their pocketbooks and purchased the Panasonic, while a very few, such as Torontowide, have embraced the 75-300mm and created quite good work with it. Yet here we are, 2+ years after its initial release, with the second version close to the Panasonic 100-300mm in price. Things that make you go "hmmm".

I actually need at least a 200mm native µ4:3rds lens, and the 75-300mm II is at least inexpensive enough to pull me into a camera store to try it out. Even though the optical speed is still the same slow values as before, the release of the Olympus E-M5 with excellent image quality all the way to ISO 3200 takes some of the sting out of the slowness of the zoom. Granted I would love to purchase a native µ4:3rds equivalent to the 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5, I can live with a zoom that's one stop down from that.

Here's one for anyone who's listening in Olympus' marketing department: I would have paid $900 for the Mark I if it had been 1:4-5.6, it had come with a lens hood, and if it had been weather sealed. In fact, if they'd kept the price for the Mark II as the same for the Mark I and added weather sealing (and a lens hood) it would have drawn my credit card out of my wallet. I swear it appears form the outside that the Olympus lens engineering group and the body engineering group don't talk to one another. The E-M5 was released a year ago January 2012, which means that this new release could have been the third weather sealed lens to go with the E-M5, along with the 12-50mm and the 60mm macro. It isn't the amount of money I object to spending, it's the value for money spent. The older 75-300mm just didn't have a high enough value for the asking price, while the Mark II just barely based on the printed specifications...

I will probably try out the Mark II when it arrives on local camera store shelves, but I will not pre-order one. I'll put it on my E-M5 body and see how it performs. If its IQ is reasonable, especially at 200mm and beyond, then I'll more than likely purchase a copy. If anything, all Olympus has done is convince me to give the Mark II a try, something I never did with the Mark I.

Update 2 February

Call me fickle. I went to my local camera shop, the one that has the Mark I in black. They pulled it out and handed it to me to look at, and I have to admit it was very well built and of very high physical quality. Every seam was tight, and with the barrel fully extended to 300mm there was no play in the inner barrel. I almost broke down and and purchased it right there except someone had left a scratch (a rather noticeable divot, actually) on the front element. I guess the universe really doesn't want me to own this lens.

last updated 2 feb 2013

Nikon 1 V1, Part 1

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Unquestionably the best camera of 2009.

The Long Version: The Nikon 1 V1 is a deeply flawed camera, and those flaws start with its name. The "Nikon 1" appellation is very difficult to search for, the "CX" format name has no traction, and the whole thing just sounds dumb. Nikon already makes three distinctly different operational tiers of SLRs, in two different sensor formats, and didn't feel the need for anything more than model names to identify them. The "1" in 'Nikon 1' is superflous and self-aggrandizing, and is probably an underlying reason why Nikon's small-sensor mirrorless format was so ruthlessly mocked by the camera intelligentsia.

Let's be clear: Nikon had it coming. From the marketing exhortation to "set your creative freedom free" to their offended "but we've been working on this for four years" stance, it's clear that they had no warning of the animosity that their 116-square-millimetre sensor and Sigma SD1-esque launch price would provoke. It was as if every camera-blogger and forum dweller had turned into Ken Rockwell, convinced of the indisputable rightness of their opinions based on something they read on the internet. I have to admit that I joined in briefly, decided that it was an evolutionary dead end, and then – like the rest of us Serious Camera People – forgot all about the system. Now, a year later, its price has dropped through the floor.

I have been mocked and derided for buying a V1, but I was shooting 4/3 sensors before they were cool. My photography has occasionally benefited from an antagonistic attitude, so the V1 suits this approach perfectly. But of course, not all of the initial scorn that the V1 faced was unwarranted. Far from it.

The V1 camera itself feels like it was designed by three different people who weren't on speaking terms. There are flashes of real brilliance here, which just makes its failings all the more frustrating.

The green 'power' light on the top of the camera is dark when the LCD is on – it's redundant, and thinking to turn it off is an elegant design touch. It's lit when the EVF is active, which is a great reminder that the camera is ready and drawing power. Yet even when the display button has been used to turn off the LCD there's no way to defeat the eye-sensor and keep the EVF active, so the EVF is always dark for a second when the camera is first brought up for use. Frustrating.

The camera's exposure compensation has a range of three stops in each direction, but there's no automatic exposure bracketing function. The camera is almost frighteningly fast to shoot, but there's no way to turn off the image review, or even to extend its duration should someone actually want to use that feature. This cripples the cameras' vaunted focusing speed and tracking. The Auto White Balance can be tuned to provide subtle colour refinement, but Active D-Lighting can only be turned on or off, with no level control. Only whole stops are available for setting a single iso sensitivity, but the auto-iso mode will use thirds of a stop increments; its ceiling can be set with three different maximum values, although it will never tell you what sensitivity it's actually using. And there aren't even any "Art" effects built in – which is a good thing, but it proves that this camera really did start its development an eon ago.

The appeal of the menu structure, which other reviewers have praised, escapes me. There's no apparent order or logic, settings that are likely to be changed frequently aren't located together, and there's no "my menu" list of recently used items to provide a shortcut. Yet the selection bar changes from yellow to red to warn the user that selecting "yes" after "format" isn't just another trifling choice. I've never seen another camera interface combining such poor execution with such thoughtful attention to detail.

It's absurd that a camera that offers pixel mapping, front and rear IR receivers for the wireless remote, and a built-in intervalometer nonetheless requires a trip into the menu to change the shooting mode. This inconsistency is my main frustration with the camera: if it was universally bad I could just write it off, but so much of it is better than this.

The V1's buttons and controls, few though they are, are still worth mentioning. Exposure compensation is one of the most useful photographic controls, and its button is the right side of the four-way pad – the three-o'clock position. It can be adjusted up or down by pressing the top or bottom of the control ring, or by rotating it like the command dial that it is. Setting a brighter exposure, which is an upwards movement of the on-screen indicator, is accomplished with a clockwise turn: that's rotating the dial "downwards" from the EV Comp button position. Completely counterintuitive.

The exposure compensation on-screen display is another of the V1's many almost-made-it design moments. It cleverly avoids clutter by only putting numbers at zero and at the ends of its range, and displays the currently selected value in white instead of black on the muted grey background. Very clear and easy to understand. But the LCD doesn't preview the effect of the change, and the V1 doesn't have a live histogram, so it's still a matter of guessing the correct setting before being able to see its results.

I'm not even going to discuss the "mode" dial – mine has been neutered by taping it in place. The only thing I really miss is having access to the better controls and options of the dedicated movie mode, and the extra few seconds to unstick the tape is a small price to pay for not accidentally using the Harry Potter or Auto-Cull modes. No, what really bothers me is that none of the three people who designed the V1 could think of a supplemental use for the dedicated "Trash" button when the camera is taking photos.

But I wouldn't take the time and effort to be this annoyed by the Nikon V1's faults if I didn't like the camera. In just a few weeks I've gone from essentially impulse-buying the deeply-discounted camera and standard zoom to owning a three-lens kit, an FT1 adapter for my full-sized lenses, and Richard Franiec's custom V1 grip. Clearly, despite its foibles and flaws, there's something very appealing about the Nikon V1 and the CX format.

After my first few weeks with the V1 I still can't decide if it's a good camera or not. It certainly has its frustrations; some of them go away when I'm using it, and others don't. There are a lot of good things going on with this camera, but I'm needing to learn how to use it in ways that I haven't faced with the many others that I own.

I have some very solid – although inevitably personal and subjective – reasons why this is exactly the right camera for what I do. I take a longer look at those, and possibly even discuss image quality, in part two.

last updated 11 dec 2012

Canon Powershot G15

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Warranty honoured – crisis averted.

Counter Opinion: I had a scare a couple of weeks ago – my Canon S100 stopped working, leaving me without a decent compact camera in the middle of a vacation. I immediately started an emergency round of camera-shopping, and thought a lot about what I had learned in over eighteen months of carrying and using a compact camera every day. While I wasn't too fond of Canon at the time, the Canon G15 was simply too good to ignore.

The G15 – pronounced G-one-five in honour of the G-one-x – is a smaller camera than the G11/12 was, mostly because it has lost the flip-out LCD screen. While I do like that the camera is now almost slim enough to put in a pocket, I really hate that the flippy screen is gone.

Let's be honest: Canon's G1x experiment has been a failure. It's big, clunky, and slow; the improved image quality has proven insufficient to overcome its limitations and price. But it has a flip-out screen. Removing the flippy screen from the G15 feels churlish – the marketing equivalent of Canon taking their ball and sulking home. We've already seen Canon intentionally stripping away features to create a cheaper counterpart for their entry-level SLRs, but doing it to their once-premium compact camera is just plain mean.

But there's a practical and objectively sensible reason to resent the removal of the flippy screen from the G-One-Five as well: this camera is legitimately good at 'macro' photography. (Which, incidentally, is a huge shortcoming with the G-One-X.) Canon's G-series has long been known for their touching-the-lens focusing ability, but the reproduction ratios on earlier models would quickly fall off as the focal length gets longer. Shooting close-ups at wide angles is great for special effects, with wildly exaggerated perspective and proportions, but a more realistic look needed close-up filters on an adapter.

The G15 mostly solves this problem, keeping a good close-focusing ability through most of its zoom range. This makes for photos of small subjects with a much more realistic sense of proportion, and lets them be taken from a more reasonable working distance. A flip-out screen would make the G15 an automatic purchase for anyone who does tabletop small-product photography, but instead I'm left with the prospect of recommending the Nikon P7700. A Coolpix. I can't believe the world has come to this.

Aside from that one huge and glaringly massive shortcoming, there's a lot to like about the G15. It's not actually all that much bigger than the S110, and it doesn't have a touch screen, which is enough of a reason to pick it over its smaller cousin all on its own. Interestingly, the G15 also lacks antennas for GPS and WiFi, so the short list of features that will appear with the next model is pretty clear.

The G15 retains the lousy optical viewfinder that has graced every G-series camera since the sequence began, which remains slightly better than nothing even as it's one of the last cameras that includes one at all. Canon isn't winning a lot of innovation awards recently, but there's a lot to be said for reassuring predictability.

The other signature of the G-series, and larger advanced compact cameras that follow its lead, is ample exterior controls. These are useful and appreciated, although dedicating a button to changing the metering mode seems like an odd choice. And for the life of me I can't figure out why nobody – not Canon, Fuji, or Nikon – has thought to put a stronger detent under the "0" position on their exposure compensation dials. Sadly, the G15 remains a compact camera to be looked at and worked around rather than a photographic tool that can be used seamlessly and reflexively.

One positive trait about the G15 that really stands out is its speed. It's not going to replace an SLR, but there's a definite snappiness to it that my S100 lacks. The lens is also a huge improvement over the status quo: even it its full extension it's a relatively bright f/2.8, but it still escapes the need for a lens cap that hobbles its bright-lensed competitors from Panasonic and Olympus. This keeps the G15 in the realm of one-handed pocket cameras, which is why I would consider it as a worthy replacement for my S100.

The other reason why I'd stay with Canon for a pocketable camera is its "Safety Shift" over-exposure protection. It's one of those little things that barely merits a mention elsewhere, but coupled with the built-in neutral density filter, it opened up a whole new range of long exposure photography options for me. Since I don't expect a pocket camera to be able to do high-quality work, and the G15 is no exception, it might as well be fun.

But my flirting with the G15 came to nothing. Canon decided that my faulty S100 was covered under warranty, so I won't be needing a new point-and-shoot after all. With my pocketable camera needs covered for the foreseeable future I've found myself thinking about the Panasonic GX1 – about the same size as the G15, and the body is actually cheaper, but with substantially better image quality. Maybe there is going to be a new daily-carry camera in my future after all.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 12 nov 2012

Canon S100: Lens Error Update

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Poop happens.

The Long Version: Of course I wanted to think that it would never happen to me. One hundred and seventy-five days after I bought my little S100 compact camera Canon put up a notice that some may "encounter a lens error caused by a disconnected part inside the camera". (Here's the full announcement for both Americans and Canadians.) After 296 days of owning this camera, it was my turn.

With 4823 photos to its credit, my S100 became the first camera I've ever owned to actually stop working.

But at least it didn't fail on a Saturday afternoon, half-way through the trip to New York City that marked my two-year wedding anniversary, leaving me without a decent small camera as the city prepared for hurricane Sandy and using my iPhone to take photos to document my travails as I travelled home by bus, right? But of course that was exactly what happened, and I wasn't overly impressed by the experience.

In almost three hundred days of use my S100 has picked up a few battle scars. The silver finish on the flash housing is wearing away from being put in and out of its case – and the occasional pocket – although I don't think I've ever actually used the flash to take a photo. The white duct tape that covers the self-timer lamp is showing its age, but the white reflector tape on the side of the camera, which both increases my night-time safety and smooths over a badly set screw, still looks pretty good. I can only imagine that these adhesives are going to give the Canon Service techs fits.

My time with my S100 has taught me two things. One is that I really do enjoy having a good-quality small camera that can be used with one hand – sorry, Fuji. The other is that the combination of a tiny sensor with a compromised zoom lens means that I won't be printing anything sizeable from its files. Knowing those two things is liberating – it really means that I'm looking for controls and design, not Seriousness Of Purpose. I have enough of that elsewhere in my life.

My biggest complaint about the S100 is its f/5.9 aperture at the long end of its lens range. Somewhat perversely, my favourite thing about the camera is how easily it does long exposures without needing me to fuss with its exposure settings. I keep my long exposure setting saved as my program preset – ND filter on, two-second self timer, fifteen second exposure, minus one-third EV, zoom in slightly – although I wish it had additional 'custom' mode dial positions so that I could program in different options as well. The new Canon S110 improves on none of that. I'll have more to say about the Canon G15 in a few days, but the short version is that it's what I'll be looking at if my S100 needs to be replaced.

The service advisory makes it clear that this repair is covered even after the camera is out of warranty, as long as they don't discover some reason why it shouldn't be. And indeed they fixed at no charge – but tell that to the $14.25 that I gave to Canada Post. When I sent my Panasonic GH1 in for warranty service, which was also for a known manufacturing fault, they had the decency to cover shipping. And no, they didn't actually fix the problem, but nobody's perfect.

If my enthusiasm for the S100 helped persuade anyone to purchase one, and the first and second digits of the camera’s serial number are any number from "29" through "41", I'm sorry. But the good news is that there still aren't really any cameras that are better than the S100 for anything close to the same price or size. Even with its faults, I'm pretty sure I would have ended up with one anyway.

last updated 10 nov 2012

Canon Powershot S110

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: The S100 was the series apex so far.

Counter Opinion: Today I met the Canon Powershot S110 for the first time. I own and really enjoy the S100 – my full S100 review is here – so I'll jump straight to my executive summary: assuming the slower f/2.0~5.9 lens can be tolerated then the S110 remains an excellent choice despite its modest differences, and even fewer improvements, from the S100.

Feel free to stop reading now if you like, but as always, I do have some subjective opinions as well.

First, the paper changes: A Wi-Fi antenna replaces the built-in GPS. The geo-tagging feature is one that I've left enabled on my S100, but fewer than 600 out of my 4300 photos show any location data, and I know some of it is wildly incorrect. On the other hand, wifi connectivity is something that I had with my eye-fi SD card, but I stopped using it because its power draw was unsustainable with the little NB-5L battery that the S100 and S110 both use. I'll call that change between the models a draw, pending word on how well Canon's engineers have handled the power management problem, but for now I'd keep that card reader handy. (Having a second battery is just good hygiene.)

The touch screen is well done. I like that it's a consistent and natural interface that lets menu items be selected directly through the screen as well as with buttons, while the menu structure and options still remain essentially unchanged across the past decade. That's a huge plus. The touch-to-focus feature was fun the first time, but by the fifth time it was frustrating: every time I picked the camera up I would change the focus zone. That would be the second thing I'd want to disable if I ever bought this camera – right after the sounds, but before the AF Assist lamp – but that's not an option. The touch-screen and touch-to-focus appears to be a mandatory feature.

I also suspect that the autofocus is just a smidge faster than it is on the S100, but I can't prove it; unfortunately I haven't been able to test the S110 in low light, where the S100 tends to embarrass itself.

Physical changes: People must have really loved the handling of the S90 and S95, because the finger grip that Canon added to the S100 is gone again with the S110. The black version at least has a grippy finish, but the new-for-2012 white option is slick paint. Counteracting that is a better thumb rest, but it shouldn't be an either/or choice. Richard Franiec is going to love this camera.

Another ergonomic problem that must have plagued the S100 was the easy-to-find power button, because it has been moved slightly and made smaller. The back panel functions have remained the same, but the domed buttons of the S100 have been replaced by flat buttons that are harder to find by feel. The S110's profile is also slightly boxier than the 90/95/100, and it has had the jimping ridges along the ring control and mode dial replaced with some industrial-style knurling. This provides something of a stylistic tie-in to the Canon G1x, which is an odd choice considering its sales success. Or lack thereof. Overall, I have to say that the S110 avoids the slightly luxurious feel of the S100.

My two biggest complaints about my S100 haven't been resolved. The ring control is still laggy – the camera isn't able to 'stack' commands, so if it can't call up the on-screen indicator for what the ring controls, then turning it has no effect. The other problem is the f/5.9 aperture at the telephoto end of its lens range. With those two hanging over it the S110 remains a camera to be anticipated and compensated for, and no matter how good it is, it doesn't overcome being a point-and-shoot.

And the world changes: Canon pulled off a cute trick with the S100: they snuck in an extra generation that Olympus and Panasonic didn't have an answer to. That newness made the S100 better than the XZ1 and LX5, and its smallness ensured that it appealed strongly to a market all on its own. Today the Olympus XZ2 remains big, Panasonic has gone the wrong direction with the LX7, and Nikon – never a serious competitor with its compacts – has chosen this moment to G7-ify its P310 and remove its raw mode. The G15 and X10 are both much bigger cameras, and don't really play in the same space as the S-series.

The only real competition that I see in the pocketable high-IQ category is the unreleased Fuji XF1. I've been able to use one and was impressed, and it's certainly an upcoming camera to watch for, although it will be hard to justify its launch price. Finally, there's also the Sony RX100, but calling that 'competition' to the S110 is being kind – it's in its own class as far as both quality and cost is concerned, even though it's only slightly larger than the S110. If the price isn't an issue, then the RX100 is an easy call; if it is an issue, then the S110 is also an easy call. That's not a bad way to solve a dilemma.

I can't say that the S110 is the best on the market any more, but if you can't find an S100, it's not a bad substitute.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 5 oct 2012

Youtube Product Reviews

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: Hey, internets.

The Long Version: Here's something I don't understand: the Youtubed single-take video review. I've been shopping for a new pocketknife recently, and these things are the dominant form of experiential information about it. Let me tell you, most of them are just plain bad, and many of them are much worse than that.

Coughing, bumping the camera, um, let's see, dropping things, focus hunting or locked on the wrong thing; um, background noise, hiss and wind noise; shaky camera, um, I don't know if you guys can see this; helmet-POV, hand-on-each-side demonstrations, um, webcam, hey youtube; missed framing, drifting auto exposure, fidgeting; dumb catchphrases, um, random backgrounds; bad video and worse lighting; scantily researched, improvised, self-indulgent and rambling presentations.

Seriously, I've seen considerably higher production values – and better scripting – from some very average efforts at amateur porn.

Writing a good review is hard work: look at just how rarely I accomplish it despite my many attempts. Taking photos is also an acquired skill, and one that most casual reviewers lack. That's usually okay, since the goal is description, not art, and a still photo can be puzzled out or skipped over as the viewer prefers. But when people take a video camera out to the garage because they think that it's easier than acquiring and/or combining those two other skills, bad things happen.

Making a good video is a lot of really hard work, which is why I don't do it. I can't say that I won't ever create a video review – they have their place and can draw a lot of attention – I absolutely promise that it won't be recorded with my cellphone.

last updated 24 sep 2012

Lowepro Stealth Reporter D200

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Just because it's good doesn't mean I'll like it.

The Long Version: When I first started out I had a couple of Lowepro bags. I mean, we've all been there, right? But then we move on. So it was with a certain sense of shock that I realized that a Lowepro "Stealth Reporter D200 AW" was the perfect travel bag for a recent bus trip to New York City.

Lowepro overwhelmingly makes ugly black nylon camera buckets. Fetishistically complicated, too heavily padded, and adorned with flaps, zippers, and clasps, they're exactly what every beginning photographer thinks they need. Lacking the soul of a Domke or the class of a Billingham, Lowepro is the Nike of the camera bag world: ubiquitous in the stores, heavily promoted, but outside of paid endorsements it's never seen with people who really know what they're doing. For those in the know, that oval logo with its orange accent is the photographic equivalent of wearing track pants while eating microwaved pizza.

But you know, sometimes they actually make pretty decent bags.

Take my travelling companion, the "Stealth Reporter". Aside from the brutal `90's flashback name – an italics "stealth" is even embroidered onto the back panel, in black thread on black nylon, as if that makes it okay – there's not all that much to complain about. The padding is dense but thin, so it doesn't take up most of the bag's capacity, and the buckles and zippers aren't tremendously objectionable. The bag doesn't really hide any nasty surprises: it's quite honest about them.

My biggest complaint about the nylon camera bucket school of bag design is solidly represented by the D200: it never gets any smaller. The 'stealth' even has plastic stiffeners between its layers of fabric that serve no purpose except to force the bag into its particular shape. When it's stuffed full it can't flex to accomodate its contents, and when it's nearly empty it isn't any more agreeable to carry. Stiffly padded nylon bags, no matter who they're made by, will always be my second choice when I could use a Billingham or Domke bag instead.

The Stealth Reporter D200 is a working bag that's designed for travel with a moderate amount of gear. It has a strap to fit over luggage trolleys, a rear external slash pocket, and a rear internal pocket that can fit paper folded in half – think E-Tickets – with a zippered sub-compartment that fits a passport. This is really important for a travel bag: along with its SLR-friendly capacity, it's a big part of why I swallowed my pride and took the Stealth to New York.

The front of the bag has two external organizer pockets, including one that's lined to protect gadget screens, a front slash pocket, and space between the nylon shell and the padded bucket that's also equipped with with an inner divider. All of these are full-height and quite narrow, so they're not for storing gear, but can hold thin or flat items like a travel hard drive or maybe a few sticks of gum. Forget about finding small items in a hurry – while on my trip it actually took me about twenty minutes to go through the bag thoroughly enough to accept that I'd left my wallet at home.

The front exterior slash pocket also has two small pockets near its top that are sized to fit a standard-sized DSLR battery in each. Very clever, but it violates a fundamental photographic rule: never make two things the same size. If Lowepro had made these pockets slightly different sizes, then perhaps I could have fit a battery in one and done something outrageous with the other, like carry a pack of mints as well as a tube of chapstick. Apparently that's not something that Lowepro expects "photojournalists and news photographers" to do.

The inside of the nylon and foam camera-bucket compartment is unsurprising and in need of a refresh. It has a standard velcro-and-dividers approach, but unlike newer bags that are completely lined with the soft loopy fabric, the Stealth Reporter D200 has specific strips of it that restrict where the dividers can be placed. My Kata 3N1-22 – which I used to think had a dumb name – has the same flaw but has since been updated. Perhaps Lowepro will make a Pro Stealth Reporter that fixes this in the future.

I went to New York with the bag in its stock configuration, which let me carry the D800 with a grip attached down the middle, a mid-size prime on each side, and accessories and non-camera necessities in the other two lens-sized compartments. Another option is to have two big cameras and two skinny lenses stored separately; keeping a lens on a camera is possible, but I'm rarely a fan of carrying gear this way.

An unusual feature of the bag is a weatherproofed pass-through zipper built into the lid. Some people want this to be for easy access to the camera, but with the D200 you can forget about birthing anything larger than a mid-sized lens through it. With reasonable expectations it actually turns out to be rather useful, as it bypasses the zippers and clips that keep everything bolted down the rest of the time. But designing a bag with an extra zipper to provide a convenient way to bypass its other buckles and zippers is an excellent example of solving the wrong problem.

Like almost all of its siblings, the Stealth Reporter is very well built; something tells me that Lowepro bags and cockroaches will be the ones locked in a battle for supremacy after a nuclear war. This one also has a rain cover sewn into a special compartment in the bottom if the bag, Lowepro-style; I immediately cut it free, Kata-style, to reduce the bag's bulk and give me a little bit of space for soft things like hats or really small jackets.

There is one feature of the Stealth Reporter that I initially scoffed at – hard to imagine, I know – but actually turned out to be quite useful. It includes a small nylon toiletries bag that has a zipper along three sides, and even has a clear business-card holder on the front. (There's another of those on the outside of the D200 as well.) This is where I put all of the little odds and ends: phone charger, extra film, batteries, and so on. Essentially, anything small that would have happily gone in the front pockets of a Domke or a Billingham can go into this pouch that only took up one of the four available lens slots.

By having all of the bits and pieces collected in the toiletries bag it was easy for my to take the entire pouch out through the lids' pass-through zipper, retrieve what I needed, and then slip the rest away again. This pouch even adds orange trim around its edges, making it easier to find inside the Reporter's relentlessly grey-on-grey nylon interior. And because it's carried inside the bag, this small concession to usability and styling doesn't detract from the bag's Stealthiness.

The bag also includes a massive nylon memory card wallet that can hold a dozen compact flash cards. It's very impressive, and has a little loop that lets it be tethered to either of the bags' two keyfob leashes, as well as a simple velcro belt loop that lets it attach to any of the six lash points on the outside of the bag. I can see this being very useful for people who don't like cards that are higher than 4GB capacity in this era of 75MB raw files. Unfortunately it's not quite big enough to also hold a portable hard drive, but one could be tucked into a couple of the front slash pockets easily enough.

The Reporter can carry a substantial amount of gear, but despite its size the D200 is a pretty small bag. Two cameras with two small lenses or flashes, or one camera with a big lens or two. The height of the bag means that smaller lenses can be stacked with other items, which was very handy for travel, but like all bags it's easier to work out of when it's not stuffed to the gills.

As a travel and working bag, the Stealth Reporter is excellent if you happen to like this kind of thing. It solves some very specific problems better than my other bags: it holds two big SLRs, like the D800 and F5 pictured above, can fit a bunch of lenses, and securely carries travel documents. Make no mistake – the Lowepro Stealth Reporter is a high-quality product and exceptionally good at its job.

Lowepro makes very clever bags, and they make dozens of them. Each one is conceived for a certain use or niche (rhymes with quiche) with all kinds of little tweaks and bits that pull the bags away from general-purpose and toward specialization. Whether their designs are widely copied, like the Slingshot, or blatant copies, like their Pro Messenger series, these aren't versatile bags that will become cherished classics.

Notwithstanding all of the Stealth's many strengths, I'm not a fan of the Lowepro's aesthetics, dislike its design objectives, and don't agree with its stiffly-padded worldview. But it did what I wanted and, since I bought it at a clearance sale, it cost what I was willing to pay. The last time I bought a camera bag with expediency and budget as my main considerations I ended up with the Lowepro Micro Trekker, which I hated after just a few hundred miles, so compared to that the Stealth Reporter and I are off to a great start.

If only they had picked a different name.

last updated 29 june 2012