Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm Wide Zoom Lens

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: I love lens names like "M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6".

The Long Version: Bill has already spent some time with the Olympus 9-18mm lens for Micro Four Thirds, and came away with mixed opinions. So when a friend of mine offered me a chance to borrow his copy, I couldn't resist – so this marks the first time on Thewsreviews that two different people have reviewed something that we don't actually own.

And a note for Four Thirds users about the product photos used in this review: the softness and blur that you see is not a defect. It's an optical quality called "shallow depth of field" that can happen when using a lens with a wide aperture on a large sensor. There's no need to remember all that, though, since the term "shallow depth of field" and "Olympus 9-18mm lens" will never again be used in the same sentence.

My first impression of the M.Zuiko 9-18 is that there's a lot of plastic involved. I've previously owned the godlike SHG Olympus 7-14, and currently have the well-built Panasonic of the same focal length. But moving to the little Olympus 9-18 is another step down in terms of feel and handling, and that's an impression that's hard to shake when it comes time to start taking photos.

And speaking of shaking when taking photos, there's a distinct wobble in the 9-18's lens barrel. It's not floppy, but when I shake my wrist I could feel the movement. I could usually tell when it was extended to its longest physical length, at 9mm, versus when it was at its shortest length at 18mm. With practice I might be able to distinguish the intermediate focal lengths as well, but I didn't have that much time with the lens.

A lot has been made of the collapsable lens design. This does make it smaller in storage, but bigger in use; personally I don't think that the tradeoff in the fit and finish of the lens is worth it. The resulting small size also something of a trick – or perhaps an illusion – because the Olympus lens is actually larger than the Panasonic 7-14 when it's in use, especially when the hood is included.

It's also worth noting that the lens hood that's on my test lens is "optional" in the sense that it's not included and costs extra, not optional in the sense that it's a take-it-or-leave-it thing that doesn't really matter either way. While flare is remarkably well controlled even with the sun in the frame, I was happy to have it for the extra shading and physical protection that it provides. For people with variable-aspect Panasonic sensors, it's good to know that the hood doesn't vignette even when the camera's set to a 16:9 ratio.

When people talk about the optical quality of the micro 9-18, they usually start by saying how small it is. That's not a good sign.

But perhaps I expect less from my Micro Four Thirds cameras than Bill does, as I tend to use my GH1 more for snapshots and casual photography, leaving the IQ-critical tasks to my other cameras. As a result the sharpness, flare resistance, and aberration suppression of the 9-18 was perfectly serviceable for me. Not stellar, but solid. I can't really say that I took any "wow" photos in the four-day weekend that I had it for, but wide angles are notoriously hit-or-miss to begin with.

What I did see in from the lens didn't leave me burning to spend a lot more time with it. It's essentially a 'kit lens' in ultra-wide form, and the slow 4-5.6 aperture isn't an endearing characteristic. That's usually justified in exchange for smaller size and lower cost, but the Olympus achieves only mixed success with that compromise.

My huge stumbling block was the amount of distortion at the wide end of the 9-18's range. Wide lenses on little cameras are a natural choice for cities and interiors, making this very objectionable. And while it could be user error, I consistently found the distortion more pronounced on the right side of the frame. I needed to minimize the appearance of the barrel distortion by composing at jaunty angles, which was fun for the weekend, but not something I would want to see in every photo of a far-off city.

What makes the poor distortion correction even worse is that the 9-18mm is a really useful focal range. At 9mm it's wide enough to create some very powerful perpective exaggeration, while 18mm is a standard slightly-wide lens that provides a very natural point of view. I would be happy with having only this range for a day's walk, while I'd want to carry the 20mm along with the 7-14 to give me the same flexibility.

The Olympus 9-18 remains a difficult lens to recommend. It's not as expensive as the Panasonic 7-14, but a well-known New York camera store currently lists the Olympus at $700 and the Panasonic for under $900. Frankly, that should be too small a difference to be significant when deciding on a lens that will provide years of service. So it comes down to practical considerations of the focal length range and optical quality.

In most respects the Panasonic 7-14 lens is better than the Olympus 9-18. Better built, brighter, better corrected: as a specialized ultra-wide it wins without question, but that's not the only consideration.

The Olympus has a range that can stand on its own as a general purpose wide-standard zoom lens, perhaps replacing a 14-42, especially if it's paired with a long zoom or the bright Olympus 45/1.8 prime. I wouldn't buy it as an ultra-wide, but rather as a short zoom with the occasional extra-wide option when it would suit the subject and the photograph. But even for that more modest goal, the price to performance ratio is a tough sell. I want to like this M. Zuiko lens more than I do, so like Bill, I remain conflicted.

last updated 24 mar 2012

Green Clean Wet and Dry Sensor Swabs

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's not nearly as scary the second time.

The Long Version: Green Clean is the European brand that makes a number of useful products for photographers. My favourite so far has been the Wet/Dry lens wipes, which really do work better than the one-step alternatives that I use, and they also make an innovative vacuum system that's powered by canisters of compressed gas.

I had mixed results with my vacuum, but Adam Marelli reports good success when spending time in dustier conditions than anything I've ever faced. In general, when given a choice between believing me and some other authority, my money's on the other guy – although in this case the different cameras we use, one with and one without an integrated anti-dust system on the sensor, might also account for the different experience.

But the Green Clean vacuum system is only half of the Green Clean Sensor Kit, so for this review I've been testing out the wet/dry sensor swabs. Like the wet/dry lens tissues that I really like, these are packaged together in their own envelopes which makes them very convenient to use. Essentially these are tissue swabs on disposable spatulas, and there's no separate fluid or bits needed.

I have to confess that the first time I tried these sensor swabs I did a pretty bad job with it. Relieved to be free of the fussiness of the Visible Dust fluid and swab system, I may have been over-enthusiastic with the wet Green Clean swab. Okay, I'll admit that I scrubbed like I was cleaning the bathtub, and unsurprisingly the dry swab just wasn't able to cope with the aftermath. The results were bad, and I should have known better. On the bright side, it was a learning experience, and my D700 and I were both okay after a little extra work.

But the snag is that it's tough to test a sensor cleaner on a clean sensor, so that little user-error episode did derail writing this review for a couple of months. But eventually I was able to redo the test, and took a little more care, with much better results. I've never quite managed to have my sensor completely spot-free when I really go hunting for them, but this brought me as close as I've ever been with remarkably little fuss.

Sensor cleaning is something to be avoided as much as possible and done well when necessary. The Green Clean system is simple and works well: the self-contained twin envelope makes it perfect for travelling, and the results are as good as anything I've tried at home. It's certainly something that I would throw in the bag for a road trip, which isn't something I can say for the other 'wet cleaning' methods that I've tried. I'm convinced.


The Green Clean products used in this review have been provided at no cost by the North American distributor for evaluation. However, anything that isn't consumed in the product testing is returned, and there is no financial relationship or incentive involved. But as always, the usual `thewsreviews disclaimer still applies.

last updated 17 mar 2012

Olympus M.Zuiko MSC Digital ED 9-18mm µFourThirds Zoom Lens

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2* out of 5
Yeah, but: A conflicted lens and a conflicted review.

The Long Version: Over a three week period, from mid-May to early June of 2011, I was given the opportunity by B&H Camera to test the Olympus M.Zuiko (MZ) 9-18mm µFourThirds lens on my Olympus E-P2 body. I used the lens to photograph my corner of the world in Orlando, Florida. All of my testing was done under available light, most of it out-of-doors. It was an opportunity to not only experience the MZ 9-18mm, but to compare it to the original Zuiko Digital (ZD) 9-18mm for regular Four Thirds which I own. So be warned that this is an “experiential” review, devoid of any technical testing what-so-ever.

Overview
Released in the first quarter of 2010, the M.Zuiko version is the second 9-18mm 1:4-5.6 zoom that Olympus has released, and the third µFour-Thirds lens after the 14-42mm and 17mm kit lenses. The first was the ZD regular Four Thirds lens a full year before that. To appreciate the difference a year can make, let’s perform a brief comparison of the two designs.

Design comparison between the two versions

While it appears at first glance there’s little to differentiate the two, a closer inspection reveals important differences. The ZD 9-18mm is built with 13 elements in 9 groups, of which three are of special glass. The MZ 9-18 is built with 12 elements in 8 groups, of which five are of special glass. Note that the diagram of the µFour Thirds shows the lens in its collapsed, or stowed, position. When extended to its operational length, the µFour Thirds version is a long as the original version, although noticeably smaller in diameter. Of greater significance is how the lenses operate.

The ZD 9-18mm is a ‘fixed’ non-expanding lens in which the front element moves in concert with the other lens groups for focusing. If you look directly at the front of the ZD you’ll notice a narrow gap between the section where the front element is mounted and the outer edge of the lens barrel where you would attach a screw-on filter. This allows the front element to freely move while focusing. In contrast the MZ version’s front element is a solid part of the outer barrel; only the central element moves for focusing. It’s this design that contributes to the MZ’s ability to focus quickly and silently (more on that later).

What the diagrams can’t convey are the major differences in the two lenses overall size and weight. The original 9-18mm has an 80mm diameter (requiring 72mm filters) and weighs 280g. The µFour Thirds version has a 57mm diameter (requiring 55mm filters) and weighs 155g. Those differences in size and weight are profound when mounted on a µFour Thirds body such as the E-P2. Whether retracted or extended for use, the µFour Thirds MZ lens truly belongs on a µFour Thirds body such as the E-P2. The original 9-18mm lens, with its required adapter, does not.

Operations
My first exposure to the Olympus collapsing lens design was with the MZ 14-42mm Mk 1 kit lens. It came as part of the E-P2 bundle. The purpose of the collapsible design was to create a package that was easily transportable. I won’t say pocketable, because unless you’re wearing a large coat with large pockets, the E-P2 with kit lens won’t fit into any kind of regular pocket I’m aware of.

The µFour Thirds 9-18mm is a collapsible design like the M.Zuiko 14-42mm Mk 1 kit lens. What is interesting is that the M.Zuiko 9-18mm lens, both collapsed and extended for use, has the same lengths as the M.Zuiko 14-42mm Mk 1 kit lens in its collapsed and extended modes. If you’re comfortable with the kit zoom you’ll have no issue with the MZ 9-18mm.

A less-pleasant aspect of the MZ Mk 1 kit lens is its inexpensive construction. You know when you’re opening and closing that lens; you hear it clicking and can feel it as it moves from stowed to operational position. And once deployed, various elements of the 14-42 are, shall we say, not quite mechanically tight.

Not so with the MZ 9-18mm. It extends and collapses with silent smoothness. I could barely feel the lens barrel as it moved across the mechanical switch. Unlike the kit zoom, there was no flexure of the zoom ring whatsoever. From the time I put the lens on the E-P2 until I took it off to send it back to B&H, the operation of the zoom mechanism was smooth as silk and for all practical purposes totally silent.

Focusing
There are two aspects to focusing with this lens; speed and silence. Among the alphabet soup of letters on the MZ barrel there are three new letters to designate new capabilities for this lens compared with all other Olympus lenses: MSC. MSC, or Movie and Still Compatible, is the latest µFour Thirds lens designed specifically for both video and still photography.

As I mentioned earlier the MZ 9-18mm has a different internal focusing design from it’s regular Four Thirds ancestor. That design allows for quick and silent focusing operation. While it was mounted on my E-P2 it was the fastest focusing lens, faster than any of the µFour Thirds lenses I’ve used to date.

It was also the absolute quietest. For testing purposes I used am EMA-1 external microphone adapter with the ME51S dual electret condenser stereo microphone plugged directly into the adapter. The microphone sat directly above the lens. I put the E-P2 into video with autofocus, and swung the camera back and forth a number of times from a near object to infinity. On playback of the recorded video I could not hear the lens focusing at all. My copy was totally silent. All my other lenses make a mess of the sound being recorded with the video.

General Photography
You can find all sorts of charts and learned opinions about the optical quality of the lens all over the web. The question is, does it really matter? How does the lens behave under standard operating conditions, especially when compared to the first version?

One of my first acts with the purchase of my E-P2 was to purchase the Olympus Four Thirds to µFour Thirds adapter, the MMF-1. I used the adapter to test my regular lenses on the E-P2 body, specifically the 9-18mm. While the autofocus operation of the lens wasn’t ideal, I couldn’t fault its image quality. With the MMF-1, the ZD 9-18mm was as well behaved optically on the E-P2 as it was on my E-3.

I can’t say that about the M.Zuiko version. Both lenses are slow, with a maximum aperture of f/4 at 9mm. As a consequence I tend to shoot the regular Four Thirds lens wide open as much as possible. If I do stop down it’s usually to f/5.6, at which point the lens become a constant aperture zoom for all practical purposes.

When I tried to use the M.Zuiko version in the same fashion as the regular version, I found center sharpness of the MZ version was indistinguishable from the original, but  I was disappointed in the noticeable corner softness of the MZ lens, especially when close focusing. My original version was much sharper. Stopping down to f/5.6 helped, but I didn’t achieve the same level of sharpness with the MZ version until I'd stopped down about a stop and two-thirds to f/7.1. Those differences tended to minimize as the lens was used for regular distance photography (outside architecture and landscapes). The corner issues began to show up when shooting interiors wide open, such as small to medium sized rooms, or something down close like flowers. Then I could see the difference.

With either lens wide open there is some vignetting, more so with the MZ than the ZD versions. But considering you can add vignetting to your photos during post processing with applications such as Adobe’s Lightroom, I find concerns about lens vignetting somewhat amusing. It might be there but for all practical purposes it’s irrelevant.

Barrel and pincushioning are complex on this lens. While I can certainly find situations to point them out, I don’t find it particularly noticeable. When I do there’s Lightroom to fall back on to clean it up.

Chromatic aberration, if it does show up, only shows up around the edges under extreme light contrast. Once again, if it is noticeable it can be cleaned up in post.

All of these comments presume you shoot raw and post process. For those who want SOOC images, just realize your mileage will vary, and you should probably borrow a copy and see if you can live with its JPEG output.

Recommendation
This lens is best suited for videographers who want to use this lens for creating movies with the Pens and who feel they need a zoom lens that zooms to 9mm. Its totally silent operation is a boon to those particular videographers.

For still photographers, the best group this lens would serve are those who again need 9mm in a zoom lens and place a premium on light weight for travel and/or outdoor hiking, or for those photographers in settings where they wish to be as discrete as reasonable. This lens’ small size and silent operation are a great help in those areas.

For my own personal use I’m not so sure. The question you’re probably thinking is “Bill, would you buy this lens?” And my answer is “No.” I won’t buy it due to its higher than expected cost, especially for a lens that is heavily composed of plastic. Its overall quality is certainly head and shoulders above the 14-42mm kit lens, but it didn't have far to stretch. I’m not interested in paying more for the M.Zuiko version than I did for the Zuiko Digital, especially when the M.Zuiko is considerably smaller and lighter (using less materials in manufacture). Add to that my dissatisfaction with the M.Zuiko’s image quality under certain conditions, conditions in which the original is a stellar performer, and I find I’m not inclined to spend the money. You can argue my sample copy might have had mechanical issues with regards to image quality in the corners under those peculiar circumstances, but that doesn’t answer my criticism with regards to size-vs-price.

What would be the "ideal" price be for this lens? Probably around $400, not the $600 or more I’ve seen it advertised for. For what you can spend on the MZ 9-18mm you can pick up two faster Panasonic pancakes, or Olympus’ lovely 45mm with plenty of change to spare. If you’re intent on spending that much on the 9-18mm you should at least consider two alternatives, the Olympus 12mm 1:2 or the Panasonic 7-14mm 1:4. They both cost more, but these are lenses that are worth the investment. In my opinion, the M.Zuiko 9-18mm at its current price point, not so much.

Apologia
This review has been a long time coming. It was originally destined for another µFourThirds enthusiast site. That site owner set up a sweet deal where I would get equipment on loan from B&H for 30 days, enough time to use it and then review it. The MZ 9-18mm was to be the first of many µFourThirds lenses. I thought I'd hit the big time.

But as I got to know the lens I realized I couldn't give it a sweeping recommendation like I originally thought I would. Just as I've written, I had the original FourThirds 9-18mm lens and found it to be a sweet little performer. I expected no less from the µFourThirds version. But for me it didn't turn out that way.

That left me in a real ethical quandary. How could I pan an expensive piece of kit that was given to me? I'm sure a lot of other reviewers don't have this problem, but being very new to this I had no idea what to do. As a consequence it took quite a while for me to write it before sending it to the site owner who'd originally commissioned it. In the end the site owner allowed me to publish the review here. And before you ask, it's an excellent site, and they're not pushing for rosy reviews on gear. It's just me with the hangups.

This is the first and last piece of free kit I'll ever review. Every other review of gear on this blog (or my own) has been and will be bought and paid for by me. Normally I pepper my reviews with sample photographs taken with the item under review. This time, if you want to see the results of what I shot, you can follow the link to my Flickr set and judge for yourself: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wbeebe/sets/72157626668272915/

* It is now a qualified 2 (think of baseball). I relented somewhat based on the conversation in the comments and thinking about it for a while. Even though it's been raised from a 1, I still won't rush right out and buy a copy.

last updated 8 march 2012

Samsung NX11 and 18-55II Lens (First Impressions)

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: This has a high chance of RTFM errors.

The Long Version: The Samsung NX11 is not exactly cutting edge anymore, but I was able to spend a little time with one recently. It came with the 18-55 II lens, and I have to admit that it's my first time working with a standard zoom with that particular pair of focal lengths. What can I say? I lead a sheltered life.

My first impression of the NX11 is that it's a nicely built little camera, with a solid and nicely sculpted hand grip. The pedestal for the shutter button looks awkward but feels perfect, and the right-side strap lug is slightly recessed into the body. Cameras from makers with dozens of designs haven't exhibited that level of thoughtfulness. There's a distinct camera-ness to the NX11 – something that I don't see in a lot of the mirrorless cameras from other makers whose names start with an "S" – that I find reassuring in such an untested brand.

The NX11 keeps the SLR-esque design that sets it apart from the Panasonic GF series, Olympus Pens, Sony NEX, Pentax Q, or Nikon 1's. It has a flash-equipped fairing for its EVF that also houses a hot shoe, which is TTL-compatible with Samsung's own flash system. It uses an eye-sensor to toggle between the EVF and LCD, but I had to learn not to look through the top of my glasses to be able to trigger it. Otherwise switching between the LCD and EVF needs a trip to the menu. I'm not sure why they weren't able to assign this function to one of the sixteen buttons on the outside of the camera – the one marked "DISP" would have been my pick – or add another one specifically for the purpose, but I suppose they have their reasons. Not having enough input from actual photographers or sufficient design testing is a reason, isn't it?

The overall size of the camera is about the same as the Panasonic GH1 that I own, and without a measuring tape or an internet flame war to guide me, I'd say that the sensors look pretty close as well. The Samsung is a 14.6 megapixel camera – it's quite proud of that – while the GH1 has twelve pickles. The result is a pair of sensors that are pretty much equivalent, although the generational difference does give an advantage to the Samsung at high-iso settings. It's not a huge difference, but I'd be a little happier using the NX11 at iso3200 than I would with the older Panasonic.

I've been known to take photos in parking garages even when I'm not trying out a loaner camera, so it was a natural place to take the Samsung. The NX11 goes up to iso3200, and does it fairly well. The photos above are heavily cropped (but still not 100%), one from a JPG straight out of the camera, and the other from the raw file that has had auto-levels and auto-WB in Lightroom. I don't find the noise in the raw photo all that objectionable, and vastly prefer it to the noise reduction that the camera applies. This can be minimized in the camera set-up, but the best choice is just to shoot raw when image quality is the priority.

Focusing in the dark is a slightly different matter. Comparing the NX11 and GH1 at a 28mm-e, the Samsung at f/3.5 and the Panasonic at f/4 widest apertures, the GH1 could lock focus in scenes where the NX11 struggled or failed completely. This takes a pretty low light level, on the order of a 60-watt bulb on the far side of the living room, but the AF targets had plenty of contrast. For fun I tried my c.1999 Nikon F100 with an ancient 35-70/2.8 lens, and it had no problem at all in conditions that sent both mirrorless cameras running away screaming. Even my 2003 Olympus E-1 with its 50mm f/2 macro lens did a little better than the mirrorless cameras, but took much longer to do it.

The NX11 has (optional) distortion correction for its jpeg files, which is effective if something of an under-achiever. Normally I'm quite picky about this, but people who are using a good-enough camera for jpegs will be well served by it. For comparison I tried the 18-55 lens on the Sony NEX-5, and the distortion changes visible on its LCD when zooming in and out on a fluorescent light fixture looked like a seagull flapping its wings.

For those who want to work harder at post-processing, Lightroom/ACR includes profiles for the 18-55II lens which remove more of the distortion. For this class of camera and lens, 'fix it in post' isn't an unreasonable solution. I also have to admit that the 18-55 lens performs better than I expected it to. It's nicely balanced and suits the camera, and while the whole package isn't exactly petite, it's smaller-enough that I would prefer it to a Rebel or similarly-sized camera.

Product photography is where I usually put cameras through their paces, and I learned a few things about the NX11 when I decided to do a Kleen Kanteen family portrait. That's where I fell over the NX11's exposure control. Being able to override the camera meter is essential for creative control, and a huge advantage for LCD/EVF cameras is that they can show exactly what the photo will look like. Not so much with the Samsung. Changing the exposure compensation doesn't alter the brightness of the pre-capture display, which is bad but tolerable, but the live histogram also doesn't change as the exposure compensation is adjusted. (UPDATED 4 oct: I've since been able to work with another NX11, and it performed properly, with both the display brightness and histogram responding to the exposure control. I'm not sure what the difference between the two was, but it's good to know that there's a fix.)

Colour reproduction and general image quality are quite good with the NX11. I didn't have enough time to spend with the camera to reach any solid conclusions, and there are much better sources to draw those from anyway, but I was satisfied with what the little Samsung could do. I would happily use it in the same way that I use my GH1 if I were to buy the NX11, which I won't, if Samsung had the same range of lenses available for it, which they don't. It's good at being the camera that it is, and that all I can really ask of it.

And penultimately, I do have to extend a note of compassion to Samsung. There's a tremendous shortage of letters and numbers for camera companies to choose from when naming products, especially when they want to convey the aura of modernity wrapped in fashionable shades of plastic. The letters "i", as in "iFunction," and "d", like in "DRIM processor" are particularly in demand. So I suppose it's inevitable that Sony and Samsung have picked very similar names for their new systems, names that just happen to sound reminiscent of the word "next". NeXT, of course, was the company that took over Apple Computer and installed Steve Jobs as its CEO, making it synonymous with revolutionary consumer electronics.

Naming snark aside, I have no doubt that someone who is committed to an NX11 can learn its quirks and navigate its limitations, which is always needed with any camera. I personally don't find it compelling, but that's also true for the EOS system and it appears to be doing quite well without me. As a former owner of an uncommon camera format, I wouldn't endorse buying into the NX system in the hope that it will eventually add the things that will make it right. If it's right for right now, then that's great and it will serve its owner well. There's no such thing as a universal camera, and there's no requirement to only own one at a time.

With my usual exceptional timing, the NX11 is discontinued and about to be replaced by the NX200 and (surely) another camera that shares the NX11's form factor. When spending time with it I wasn't looking at it as a buy/don't buy decision, but rather trying to learn a bit about the camera and system before I meet the NX200 and its siblings. Overall I like what I've seen, but there are a few issues that Samsung needs to improve before the camera is ready to be taken completely seriously. Hopefully the system will continue to grow and mature, and eventually break double-digits for the lens lineup. I can't see them rivalling the two big brands that make up the majority of the mirrorless camera market, but then people used to say that about Olympus SLRs as well.

Time will tell. Until then, there's no point in worrying or arguing about it. The NX11 is a decent machine and not a bad deal while it lasts.


The camera used for this review is an evaluation sample that I was able to borrow for a week; I had access to it because my day job has me standing around in a camera store. Samsung has no idea that I exist, and probably wouldn't care if they did.

last updated 4 oct 2011

Samsung WB210 Touch-Screen Camera

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's still a compact camera.

The Long Version: The Samsung WB210 is a remarkable camera, and probably one of the ones that will influence the market long after it's gone. While phones with cameras have been decimating sales of simple point-and-shoot cameras for a couple of years, the WB210 is the first one to jump the other direction and take the user interface from a phone. That also makes it the first one with a touch-screen to rethink the list-and-category structure of the typical camera's control menu and replace it with an icon-based system. Looking most like the "Apps" on a smart-phone, Samsung will tell you that it's the UI from their Galaxy line of Android devices, although some might dispute the fundamental origin.

The result is a touch-screen camera that's fundamentally different from the rest of the pack, and more usable than most. While there are still some interface issues that need to be thought through more carefully, that's also true of cameras that have had generations to mature. For a first effort I suppose I shouldn't complain too much, so I won't.

The biggest benefit of the icon-based design is that the little boxes can be moved around. There are three screens of them, accessed by swiping from side to side, and they can be dragged into any order or grouping to best suit the owner. Since most people will only use a fraction of what the camera can do, but will have a few features that they frequently use, this is a massive improvement over anything else that I've seen.

Also remarkable is the deproliferation of scene modes. Some, like Night Shot, give direct control over the relevant options – slow-sync flash, wide or narrow aperture, timer – instead of the silliness of having separate modes for night landscapes, night portraits, or 'starry sky' photos. Others, such as the Smart Filter or surprisingly entertaining Magic Frame will provide a preview of the options along the bottom of the screen, and it's easy to swipe through the different choices. The mass-foolishness of the scene modes on my TS3 is one of my lingering frustrations with that camera, so the WB210 is a welcome relief.

After a couple of hours with the Samsung I learned to put the important "mode" icons on the right side instead of the top row, which makes it much easier to use the camera with only one hand. Naturally, the camera's shooting controls and menus are all on the left side of the touch screen. This is where I have to remind myself that I wasn't going to complain too much about the little design issues that hamper usability, and to be honest working with two hands isn't that difficult – even though it's not typically necessary with the more convoluted non-touchscreen compact cameras. You win some, you lose some.

The playback screen also shows a bit of the inconsistency that usually afflicts touch-screen cameras. The photos can be swiped through from one to the next, but the Android-approved pinch-zoom trick doesn't work. Instead, the usual method of using the zoom toggle will magnify the images or back out into a thumbnail view. Those thumbnails can be brought up full-screen by tapping them, which is the same result as using the zoom toggle, but further taps won't continue to magnify them. Instead, tapping most of the photo will show/hide the control icons, as it does in capture mode, while tapping either side will go to the next/previous photo in the sequence. When the photo is magnified the control icons are always shown, and tapping the edges of the screen is interpreted as a feeble attempt at a swipe, which in this mode will only scroll around the image.

Suffice to say that there are some aspects of the WB210's interface that could still be cleaned up and made more elegant. It would also be nice to be able to go into playback mode without needing to wait for the flash to recharge, but that might be asking too much.

Changing the shooting modes is done by pressing the stealthy "home" button on the camera's lower-right corner instead of the colourful icon on the top-left of the screen. That little bit of eye-candy is really hard to ignore, and even after days with the camera I'd still tap it by mistake – the UI designer's mistake, not mine –  which simply brings up a short description of the current mode. That was never what I wanted it to do.

Another big part of the learning curve was to remember which icons are touchable and which aren't. The ones on the left side are good, with the already-mentioned exception of the prominent multi-coloured "mode" icon at the top, which really looks like it should do something useful but doesn't. Instead the active icons are indicated by the subtle translucent-black button-shape around them. The icons on the right are just for information, and touching them does nothing – except that tapping any non-button part of the screen clears everything off of the display, which is nice. Tap again to bring them back.

I really missed having easy access to exposure compensation, as it's buried under the 'menu' icon on the bottom left of the screen. I find working with touch screens to be somewhat awkward – I've never owned a smartphone with one – and would prefer to keep a dedicated button for important controls. An EV toggle that could be tapped up or down would be great; while that's something I'd love to see on most compact cameras, the WB210's touch-screen makes it particularly difficult to adjust.

There are a couple of other things to know about the WB210. One is that it takes micro-SD cards, which seems foolish for such a big camera. Fortunately I had one in my phone that I could use to evaluate the camera before I had to give it back. Casio cameras also uses those little tiny cards, and I'm really not sure why. It took years of ostracization before Sony and Olympus finally standardized on SD cards, so having to face yet another oddball format just leaves me feeling exasperated.

The other quirk is that the battery charges while it's inside the camera, using the cable that connects from USB to the camera's HDMI port. While the camera does include an adapter, it can be charged from any USB source, including the computer that it transfers its photos to. Since there's only the one cable, that's the most convenient option, but make sure that the computer will still supply power when it's shut down. Samsung isn't the only one who does this, but it's just one more way that this camera declares that it's for casual rather than extended use.

Since there's no separate charger, there's really no reason to bother buying a second battery. Just plug the camera in whenever possible and hope it has enough power to last as long as it needs to. Did I mention that the WB210 takes its interface from a smartphone?

WB210 extreme telephoto, 288mm-e

I did something foolish for this review. Because I didn't get the chance to live with the loaner Samsung camera for an extended period of time, I actually took matched photos to see how its image quality compares to a completely different contemporary point-and-shoot. It's an unscientific comparison, of course, and after a few tries I completely gave up. Comparing compact cameras for image quality feels like choosing between a mason's or carpenter's hammer to hit my hand with. Either one sucks; what's important is the features. Chisel or claw, long zoom or waterproof: pick the right one based on the obvious differences and then just learn how to swing it. Sure, I'll skip getting hit by the big waffle-headed framing hammer if I have a choice, but the idea of picking a "best" is just wrong thinking.

(For those who care more than I do, I've put some comparisons online: crops from the TS3/WB210 as shot, TS3/WB210 with auto tone and white balance; TS3/WB210/GH1 crops plus the full scene.)

WB210 at its 21mm-e special setting

Since I've already digressed into the idea that reviewing compact cameras is like hitting myself with hammers, this seems like a good time to go into more depth about the WB210's ultra-wide 21mm lens setting. It isn't part of the normal zoom range, and turns the camera into a fixed-focal-length machine with surprisingly little geometric distortion. This is a supremely cool idea, and would be the big reason why I'd buy one of these cameras for myself. The problem is that the mode has essentially no controls available. Things that are simple – or at least possible – in "program" mode just aren't permitted. Multi-area auto focus, fill-flash, exposure compensation, viewfinder grid overlay: all forbidden. The wide setting only allows the centre focus point and as-metered photos, with the added bonus of having the flash revert to its default "auto" setting every time the Super Wide Shot mode is selected. The flash actually does a pretty good job, but when I've turned it off, I expect it to stay that way.

It's also worth noting that, like almost all cameras on the market, selecting different aspect ratios does nothing but crop the image in-camera. So while an image that fills the WB210's abnormally wide screen may feel more satisfying, the stockier 4:3 image is actually 'wider' with a larger diagonal field of view.

The WB210 isn't exactly a macro monster; Canon compacts are still the best I've seen for that. But it's not bad, either, and handles itself fairly well. (See larger images straight from the WB210 and TS3.) As always it pays to learn the tricks of the camera: while the "close-up shot" mode only allows the centre focus point to work, the automatic "easy shot" has multi-area focus and will automatically switch into macro mode for close-ups. Handy. In fact, the Easy Shot mode is surprisingly useful, and even has the ability to recognize and automatically increase the exposure for scenes with a lot of white in them. It will also spot scenes with other dominant colours – blue sky, green grass – and react accordingly. Well, at least it will react, I can't swear that it's decisions are appropriate. There's only so much I can learn in a few days.

I have to say that I was impressed with the metering from the WB210. The photo is of a white sign on a concrete wall with the top and bottom in mid-day shadow, and I took it with no exposure compensation in the camera's Program mode. No tiny digital sensor is going to capture that dynamic range, and the whole point was to abuse the poor little Samsung. The sunlit concrete is essentially a mid-tone, and I fully expected the large shadow areas to make the camera overexpose and wipe out the sign. The WB210 didn't fall for my trap, sensibly dropping the shadow tones and preserving a comfortable little smidgen of room on the right side of the histogram. Impressive, especially for a $250 camera that spends so much of its energy on a nifty long lens and a touch screen with an innovative UI.

While Lightroom shows that just a bit of the blacks are actually clipped, it's not worth being too optimistic about recovering any of that shadowed area. It's still a jpeg from a compact camera, and it didn't react well to my attempts to persuade it to behave differently.

The lens on the WB210 is remarkable for its span but not quite as impressive in the specifics. Sharpness is decent across the zoom range, including the telephoto end – not "tack sharp", of course, but sharp enough for a hammer. My complaint is that it shows moderate to serious pincushion distortion at pretty much every focal length. This might not matter for a lot of people, but I really do take photos of brick walls for fun. The "exit" photo is taken at about a 50mm equivalent (9mm actual), which should be fairly well behaved, but isn't. While geometric distortion is a something that many lenses really suffer from, even when they're officially high-end – the Samsung EX1, to keep it in the family, or the Canon G-series cameras as well as their "L"-series standard zooms – I was disappointed to see that there's no part of the WB210's zoom range that I could use for photos that depend on accurate geometry.

But the fact is that I'm not the WB210's intended owner; it's a do-everything travel zoom that's quite happy just being the family snapshot machine. The interface makes it particularly suited to people who don't otherwise like compact cameras, find them too fussy and complicated, or think that they're generally incomprehensible. Granted, all of those also apply to me, but some opinions about point-and-shoot cameras transcend experience levels in exactly the way that expectations don't.

To try the Samsung in its natural environment, I took it for a field trip and put it through its paces at a kids' soccer tournament. It did okay, with reasonable auto-focus and shutter lag, but capturing moments that included a soccer ball was more a matter of luck than skill. Spotting my step-niece-in-law on the LCD wasn't too difficult, even in strong sun, but the sad reality is that any long-zoom camera without an eye-level viewfinder is difficult to aim. For comparison I also had my old Panasonic FZ18 out for the day, and while its autofocus lagged behind the Samsung, its design is still an advantage if its larger size is an option.

There are some features of the WB210 that I really like. The range of the lens is great, and the single-focal-length setting is decent enough that I'm almost willing to forgive the fact that the digital zoom can't be disabled when in the "Program" mode. The whole category of compact cameras with long zoom ranges is a great idea, and the WB210 combines a modest price and decent performance with a few really neat tricks.The interface is an improvement over the standard compact camera, and an excellent rethinking of the typical design. Granted, I have a fairly dim view of how most compact cameras work, and the WB210 could really use a couple of extra buttons, but it's still a solid effort. While I can't say that I'll buy one, it does some things that I really wish my TS3 could do.

If I was coming from a cell phone or a short-zoom compact I'd probably be very impressed by the WB210, especially if I was already familiar with an iPhone or its Samsung equivalent, the Galaxy S II. I've waited a long time to find a camera that's better-enough than Penny's iPhone for her to use, and this little Samsung could finally be it. If nothing else, it has made me pay attention to this new brand and look forward to seeing what they come up with next.


The camera used for this review is an evaluation sample that I was able to borrow for a week; I had access to it simply because I work part-time in a camera store. To say that Samsung didn't solicit my opinion would be a massive understatement.

last updated 12 sept 2011

Green Clean Hi Tech Air and Vacuum Power

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Until then, Mogwai waits.

The Long Version: I was recently given a few new toys to play with. In an earlier review I tested the Green Clean lens wipes, and soon I'll take a look at a wet sensor cleaning system; now we're splitting the difference with their general dust-removal tool. Green Clean "Hi Tech Air and Vacuum Power" canisters cleverly use the Venturi effect to drive a vacuum cleaner with compressed gas; although it's no more intuitive than a propane-powered refrigerator, it really does work. While it has lots of potential uses, these cans are included in their sensor cleaning boxed kits.

The Green Clean vacuum has a real advantage over an air blower – they'll escort dust from the premises without introducing any new contaminants. It's reasonably powerful, being able to pick up grains of table salt, but it still needs to be fairly precisely targeted. This has obvious limitations, but then again there must be a reason why we don't just use our household vacuum cleaners on the insides of our SLRs.

Suction is through a flexible tube with an (optional) rigid attachment, and the air is drawn through a cylinder with a filter at the top and a collection chamber below. The filter is easily cleaned by taking it off of the nozzle and gently blowing through it – human-powered – which I needed to do after I went after some little dust bunnies. The bunnies lost, but on pain of marital discord I won't be sharing that particular video.

Alas, there's still no panacea for sensor dust: often the dirt is simply too stubborn to respond to subtle persuasion. My D700 had sat unused for most of the summer, and uncleaned since last year, so it was the obvious target for a little love. The Green Clean vacuum did take some fluff off of the sensor, but I was discouraged to see that it left most of the little specks behind. Perhaps that's because it's ragweed season, and pollen particles are sticky; perhaps it's because the self-cleaning sensors that most current cameras have will already knock off the debris that's willing to be moved. I'm not such a hard-core reviewer that I'll intentionally re-dirty my sensor, so instead I'm waiting for nature take its course.

In the winter static replaces pollen as the main dust culprit. Look for an update then – but ultimately nothing beats a wet cleaning with swabs for degunking. That's unfortunate, because I really wish a non-contact method would be enough, but it does give me a subject for another review or two. Life's a barter system.

The gas canisters for the Green Clean vacuum have a threaded nozzle that I haven't seen before. It stands to reason that these cylinders are at least somewhat standardized, but I haven't found the right search terms and haven't brought one of the cans to a hardware store to show the helpful salespeople. Being able to source generic replacement cans might be cheaper than the original, but probably not; it would certainly help any travelling photographer to be able to find them locally in case the TSA doesn't have a good sense of humour. While the evidence isn't conclusive on that last point, I won't be packing these the next time that I fly.

The hazard warnings on the back of the can are pretty unambiguous. The propellant in these cans is R-134a, aka tetrafluoroethane, which – to damn with faint praise – seems to be somewhat less eco-apocalyptic than most aerosols. Like fabric softener, it's not something to rejoice in, and the less it's used the better. Even for those of us who don't think that we're massively screwing up the environment, "use only in well-ventilated areas" really should be synonymous with "use sparingly". I'm not convinced that the brand name is well suited to this particular product, to say the least.

So the problem that I have with the Green Clean vacuum is deciding when it's worth using it. It's not cheap, either financially or ecologically, so what it cleans needs to be pretty important. As a sensor cleaner it won't cause more problems and it's great on the easy stuff, but like all non-contact methods it won't remove dirt that's welded on. That happened to be most of the specks that were on my D700 and GH1 sensors, but other cameras, environments, and seasons could be very different. Regardless, I'd never skip straight to the wet cleaning without exhausting all non-invasive options first.

For mundane jobs that merely need 'pretty good' results I'll keep using my Rocket Blower. Blower bulbs are handy little things, but when I try to clean my camera sensors with one I invariably end up with what an economist would call a negative improvement. For the times when I need non-negotiable dust removal from a small and delicate area, whether it's sensor cleaning or when I'm scanning the family Kodachrome archive, the Green Clean vacuum would certainly help. I can't yet say for sure that I'll spend my own money to buy one, but I can guarantee that some day I'll be stressed out in the middle of a sensor cleaning session and really wish that I had a little vacuum cleaner handy. What can I say? C'est la vie.


Added: New York-based photographer Adam Marelli has reviewed the Green Clean vacuum under much more actively dusty conditions than I've ever faced. He also sneaks in a quick look at the sensor swabs, which is still on my to-do list. More here: Adam Marelli Photo.


The Green Clean products used in this review have been provided at no cost by the North American distributor for evaluation. However, anything that isn't consumed in the product testing is returned, and there is no financial relationship or incentive involved. But as always, the usual `thewsreviews disclaimer still applies.

last updated 31 aug 2011

Green Clean Lens Cleaner

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Sometimes reusable isn't better.

The Long Version: I'm hardly an influential and famous reviewer, so when the North American distributor of the European "Green Clean" brand offered to let me try out some products that are just arriving on this continent, I couldn't skip the chance. This is the first review of three; over the next week or so I'll also be looking at their sensor swabs and a neat dust-removal method. But first up is their Green Clean Lens Cleaner.

There's a huge range of accepted methods for lens cleaning. Some photographers are meticulous to the point of wearing cotton gloves, while others will just wipe a visibly soiled lens on the back of their tie. (I exaggerate, of course – when was the last time a photographer wore a tie?) I admit that I fall somewhere toward the casual side of the spectrum; I usually just breathe on the lens to fog it and then give it a wipe with a handy micro-fibre cloth. Following Keith's review, I did pick up some Zeiss pre-moistened lens wipes. They've served me well, but when they're fresh I found that they would leave streaks that would still need to be removed with a dry cloth, possibly introducing new problems and negating the scratch-preventing benefit of the disposable wipe. The Green Clean Lens Cleaner solves that problem by combining a disposable wet and dry soft tissue in each packet.

To give it a bit of a test I took my Nikon 35mm f/2D lens and liberally flicked water drops all over the front element. As this hack job of a before-and-after photo shows, the Green Clean wipes weren't challenged by this at all; I also cleaned my eyeglasses at the same time, which is a great way to discover streaking. No problem.

I hadn't really expected such a simple task to stump the lens wipes, so I had another nefarious plan in progress. I took a glass of warm water and added sea salt until it was decidedly unpleasant to taste, and then did a number on three budget UV filters that I had lying around. They are Hoyas in 55 and 95mm, and a non-name "Topaz" filter in 82mm. Here's what they looked like after I was done spritzing them:

Of course, if your filter or front element has this much salt-water sprayed on it then your camera probably has bigger problems than a lens wipe can solve, but no matter: I wanted a torture test. I set these filters out to dry and harden under the gentle breeze of the air conditioner for a few days, and then tried my different cleaning methods on each one.

For the 55mm I used my typical huff-and-hanky cleaning method, and I wasn't at all surprised to see that it left a lot of the salt behind. Perhaps this is better than nothing, but probably not better enough to make any substantial difference. These before-and-after photos are actually quite flattering: all I really managed to do was average the salt out and send a perfectly good microfiber cloth off to the washing machine before its time.

I used a Zeiss wipe on the 82mm filter. The alcohol-moistened tissue did a good job of removing the salt, to the point where the filter looked mostly clean. However, a closer inspection and a different angle shows a lot of streaking and salt residue left behind.

see larger

The results from a single Zeiss wipe might have been enough to keep shooting without visible smudging of the photos, but I'd really want a second cleaning with another Zeiss wipe before I'd trust that filter with any important images. Since my year-old wipes can still leave streaks even when the lens isn't salt-encrusted, a third step to polish the lens with a microfiber cloth would probably also be needed.

The photo above is the before-and-after for the 95mm filter, which I cleaned with the Green Clean wet and dry wipes. The process is absolutely simple: open and wipe with the wet cloth, discard; open and wipe with the dry cloth, discard. For those who belong to the "You'll shoot your eye out!" school of lens scratch prevention, having a clean single-use tissue for each step is a tremendous coup.

see larger

The drying step makes a huge difference to the result: no streaking and no residual salt. In fact, I used the same wet and dry wipes to clean the residue from both of the other filters, with equally good results even though the 'dry' one was pretty damp by the end of it. I was prepared to be forgiving if the Green Clean couldn't handle this challenge, but I was impressed.

I'm going to continue using one of my ever-present microfiber cloths for light routine cleaning of my eyeglasses, camera lenses, and watches. My remaining stock of Zeiss tissues will spend the rest of their days cleaning the screen on my phone and serving as impromptu wet-naps. But for getting rid of smudges, oils, or any sort of residue from my optics, I'll definitely be buying a box of the Green Clean wet/dry wipes as soon as they hit the market.


This review introduces the "Review Sample" tag to mark that this isn't a product that the reviewer has personally purchased. The Green Clean products used in this review have been provided at no cost by the North American distributor for evaluation. However, anything that isn't consumed in the product testing is returned, and there is no financial relationship or incentive involved. But as always, the usual `thewsreviews disclaimer still applies.

last updated 22 aug 2011