Sushicam

Click HERE for today’s photos.

Could the megapixel race finally be over?

Let’s hope so.

Here’s the headline: “Canon releases a new camera with lower resolution and better image quality.”

While this seems a bit counterintuitive, it does make sense.  You see, cramming ever more and more pixels onto the same sized image sensor is NOT the way to improve image quality.

In my view Canon did a VERY smart thing in reducing the pixel count with the G11.  And to make the news even better, they upped the sensor size, so you get a double whammy effect that results in larger photo sites, meaning a higher signal to noise ratio and lower overall noise.

I don’t want a super high resolution 100 megapixel image that is so noisy it looks like it was taken during a snowstorm.  I’d much rather have a sub-10 megapixel image from the same sized or larger sensor as that will dramatically improve final image quality.  Sigma, with their 4.7 megapixel Foveon sensors in their DP1 and DP2 cameras have proved this.  Granted Foveon sensor technology is something entirely different from CMOC and CCD, but the fact remains that the 4.7 megapixel resolution images have the sharpness, clarity, and detail of 10-12 megapixel images shot using CCD or CMOS technology.

The only thing that really puzzles me is why Canon decided to grace the new S90 with an f2.0 lens, whilst only giving the G11 a widest aperture of f2.8?  I am sure anyone who knows anything about taking pictures would have easily traded the 140mm zoom on the long end of the G11 for the 105mm on the long end of the S90 if it meant they could get an f2.0 aperture on the wide end.

S90: f/2.0-4.9 28-105mm (35mm equiv)

G11: f/2.8-4.5 28-140mm (35mm equiv)

In its defense, the G11 does have a very useful articulated LCD screen, although it is (marginally) smaller than that on the S90, AND on the long end of things, the G11 has the S90 beaten both on aperture, as well as reach.

It seems funny, but I think the biggest threat to Canons new G11 is their very own S90.  The again, maybe not, since they seem to be marketed towards slightly different groups.  The S90, being very pocketable is a “take it with you everywhere” camera that is sure to be popular with everyone.  But the G11, while still compact, is certainly not something that you will want to stuff in your front pants pocket, not unless you want to make people think you are happy to see then anyways…  The G11 seems geared toward the same crowd as the G10, those serious about their pictures, and after an all-around best-fit camera to fit as many photographic situations as possible.

I also see that they left HD video out of both of them, further ensuring a solid upgrade path for those that buy into the current lineup.    So neither the S90 not the G11 are perfect cameras.

Smart.  Very smart.

And in truth, I don’t think it is in any manufacturers best interest to produce the ‘perfect” camera.  After all, their goal as a manufacturer is to make money.  If they made a perfect camera then why would people fork over more of their hard earned (or inherited, or ill-gotten, or whatever type) money for a new model?

Businesses are IN business to DO business.  Period.

That’s why we see such incremental product updates most of the time.  It cuts down on R&D and manufacturing costs while maximizing the mount of units being sold, and this translates directly into profit.

It is a fine line though, and I am sure Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and everyone else I watching each other like hawks to make sure than no one manufacturer gets too far ahead of the curve and upsets the balance.   I can just see the CEOs of all the big camera companies getting together once every year to decide what features to release on the public, how much to charge, and what features should be reserved for future product updates.

Following is a brief summary of my thoughts on some digital camera manufacturers.  Basically, I attempted to describe each companies philosophy when it comes to making cameras:

Canon: Full frame is where it’s at, ergonomics are for pansies.

Nikon:  Full frame is overrated (oops, that was last years line…) “Full frame is where it’s at, and oh by the way, our ergonomics wipe the floor with Canon.

Olympus: Damnit, 4/3rds IS full frame!  (if you can accept the logic that the original Pen was a full frame camera this may make sense, otherwise, it’s a bunch of rubbish…), and lets make some really good glass, but lets also make the mistake to price it outside of most peoples ability to afford.

Panasonic:  Yes, we really do make cameras, not just electric shavers and flat panel TVs.

Leica: Screw sustainable business models!  We’re making rangefinders and medium format digital cameras that nobody can afford.  But just to hedge out bets we’ll partner with Panasonic and place one of our fabled red dots on a few of their models which will allow us to instantly charge $400-$600 more for the exact same camera.

Pentax:  It’s all about the glass.  (And they are absolutely right)

Sigma:  No, really, it really IS a 14.7 megapixel sensor!    (all the other makers roll their eyes)

Kodak:  Someone has to sell cameras to the people who bought Yugos

Mamiya:  Isn’t that Italian?

Casio:  Someone has to sell cameras to people who are ready to step up from Kodak.

Ricoh:  Yes, yes, I know this shot looks like it was taken during a snowstorm, but look at just how sharp that palm tree is!  Ricoh should sell their cameras with a disclaimer: “Use Only In Direct Sunlight”

Hasselblad:  Let’s make our equipment even more expensive than Leica.  That way we can feel exclusive and justify our high prices.  Never mind that our digital backs cost more than a mid-sized SUV.

Fujifilm: We’ll take a Nikon mount and put one of our bodies and sensors on it and instantly charge $400-$600 LESS than the comparable Nikon.

Epson:  Epson?  I thought they only made printers?

Contax: R.I.P.

Sony:  A little late to the DSLR game, but since buying up Konica/Minolta they have really come into their own.  Now if only they could increase their focus speed, and decrease their high ISO image noise.  They have been making solid point and shoot cameras for years.

HP: I thought they just made printers and computers?

No camera is perfect.  I know because I seem to have tried darn near all of them.  But it certainly is an interesting time to be alive with the steady progression of technological advances creeping ever closer to the end-goal of what had been developed in the film world years ago, but with the added bonuses of better high ISO image quality, huge storage capacity for pictures (can you even imagine changing your memory card after just 24 shots?), and immediate image/histogram review.
Click HERE for today’s photos.

Click HERE for todays photos.

The recent solar eclipse was quite the sight to see here in Japan.  It was cloudy near Tokyo during the event, but thank to the power of the internet I was able to view it live via streaming video.   It did get spooky-dark during the eclipse, and it made me wonder about what people used to think way back in history when things like that would happen.

Were they scared?  Excited?  Did they care?

I have no idea, but what I do know for sure is that many thousands of years ago people were really about the same as people today.  They just lacked the scientific level of knowledge to help explain all of those inexplicable things that they experienced in their daily lives.  The rise and fall of the tides, solar (and lunar) eclipses, the changing of the seasons, and why Wayne Newton was such a popular entertainer.  Yes, the list of things not explainable was long, and varied.

And as people generally like to understand their world (or at least feel like they understand it) a group of enterprising individuals came up with a solution.

Religion.

All of a sudden there was a cause and a reason for everything.  Nothing was random, and everything happened according t some grand plan.  But these people who created the gods and such had ulterior motives.  Yes, they did hand the general public an explination for all of the worlds unknowns, but they also used it as a manner to control those same people.

And they did it in a very interesting manner…

By making people feel important.

We were no longer insiginificant.  By George, we had an all knowing , all seeing individual (or group, depending on the local gospel) that took a vested interest in every little thing we do.

We mattered.  We were important.

The only catch was you had to be careful no to stray from the “rules”, otherwise instead of things being wonderful, you were slated to endure an eternal procession of misery and pain (like attending a Wayne Newton concert) .

Pretty clever actually.  Tell somebody that the reason behind everything is “X”.  With “X” being whatever religion developed in each region of the world.  People feel satisfied that they now “understand” things, and life can continue on, just so long as you continue to “believe” in something that nobody can prove.  (And they call those that believe in extra terrestrial life/intelligence nuts…)

I do have to give the Pope credit though.  He did state his believe that intelligent life on other panets is a possibility, even if he did add a disclaimer to the statement by saying that it will all have been part of Gods plan.

Personally I would like to think that there is intelligent life in the Universe, but before I have proof  cannot believe it as fact.  But I do sincerely hope that there is something else out there, becasue if that were true then there would be at least one intelligent planet in this vast cosmos.

But here we are in the 21′st(!) century, all smug in the satisfaction that we “understand”, that we somehow know better than those ignorant boobs from the past.  But I would argue that we are, in general,  are even more naive than our ancestors.   In our predecessors defense, they did not have the scientific method to help explain things to them, so they had no choice but to accept the only explination being offerd.

But we have started (and just barely started, there is so much more to learn) down the path of science, and have been able to explain so many of those past mysteries, using the scientific method, that we now know that many (if not all) of our prior “beliefs” were flat out wrong.

For example: Without a shadow of a doubt, we all now understand why solar eclipses happen.  We also understand why the seasons change, and why Wayne Newton is so painful to listen to (he is the Anti-Christ).

But so many of us still choose to be blinded by religion, and fail to accept the fact that we don’t matter.  The only rules are those that we and the society we live in place on us.  This is why things that seem so abhorent to some (like killing a girl that was raped  in order to save the “honor” of the family) are accepted as normal in other cultures.  But even then, many of these cultural differences are the result of divergent religous paths conflicting on basic ideological levels.

I can understand the siren song of religion, I just don’t buy it.   It would be nice to be able to accept a simplified explination for things, to feel important, and to be given some level of comfort that when my time on this earth is done it will not really be the end for me.

I hope you are not thinking that I am diametrically opposed to religion, as this is not the case.  Most religions have a very positive message, and if parts of this message are followed, the result can be a more harmonious existance.    It’s just that I for one have not yet bought the explinations for things that religion provides.

There are a few things that, if religion were able to explain them, I may become a believer.  Here is my top-ten list:

1. why are the wicked not punished in the here and now instead of some afterlife where nobody really knows if it happens or not?

2. Why do bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people?  Isn’t there supposed to be some kind of justice if there is an all powerful being orchestrating this silly show?

3. Why do so many people chose Adjustable Rate Mortgages?

4. Why is it that is you don’t believe in the same invisible person as me, you are “wrong”?  Isn’t religion supposed to be all about tolerance?

5. Where does that other sock go when you put it in the dryer?

6.Why doesn’t The Vattican publicly release ALL of the gospels?

7. Why is Wayne Newton so popular?  (See question 1: Maybe we are ALL already in hell)

8. How do Jehovahs Whitnesses ALWAYS know when I am at home?  (Even here in Japan!)

9. Why do whales and snakes have vestigial leg bones?

10. Why are top-ten lists so polular?

—–

In other, less contoversial, news:  I recently bought an Olumpus E-P1.  It’s a micro 4/3rds mount camera, and as far as I can tell so far, goin got be a HUGE hit for olympus.

Click HERE for todays photos, all of them were taken with the E-P1 in 6×6 mode with the “pin hole” art filter.  Other than converting from Raw to jpeg, no post-processing work was done on my part, these are straight out of the camera.

The kit lenses (14-42mm, and 35mm f2.8 pancake) are great, but what makes this camera really exciting is the fact that it accepts darn near any other type of lens.  This is possible because the register distance, from the lens mount to the sensor plane is very short, thus you can use an adapter ring of the appropriate thickness to make up the difference for other makers lenses.

I’ve been shooting with it for about two weeks now, and while it is not perfect, it is one solid piece of equipment.  The only real gripe I have is the fact that there is a 2x crop factor on all lenses used, so finding a nice fgast normal or wide anle lens is a challenge.  My wonder normal zuiko 50mm f1.2 ends up “looking” like a 100mm f1.2.

It’s also got the best high-iso image quality I have seen from a 4/3rds camera.  Its good enough in fact that this has become my default street shoting camera, and my beloved Leica M8 will soon be hitting the auction block.  I like the M8, but I can’t justify keeping such an expensive camera if I won’t be using it.

Here is a quick list of the Pro’s and Con’s of the E-P1 after my brief experience with it:

Pro’s:

• Very compact build, yet still very solid
• Great high ISO image quality
• Very compact 17mm f2.8 pancake lens (35mm equivelant) , but I am really waiting for the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake
• Kit zoom lens is tack sharp, and has a cool collapsing design to make it much smaller when closed
• Built-in art filters and aspect ratios are fun
• Nice array of external controls, easy to adjust exposure on the fly
• I can use many different makes/types of  lenses on it

Con’s

• 2X crop factor (ouch!)
• no built-in flash or viewfinder
• low frame rate when using some of the art filters (especially my favorite, the pin hole)
• auto-focus could be faster

So while it’s not perfect, it’s certainly close enough to make me a very happy shooter.   All cameras are a compromise between cost, size, weight, speed, etc…

With the E-P1, Olympus seems to have boiled that conflicting equation down to a very pallatable mix.