Whenever I talk about the merits of this or that camera, I rarely get very interested in the number of pixels, frame rate, or other detailed stuff. What I get hung up on are what I consider to be the basics, the aspects that makes a camera a device to do photography with, rather than some lump of consumer electronics. And one of these basic features is the viewfinder. The photo below was taken without a viewfinder. And therefore it was pure luck that it worked out.

Massed cormorants over Lake Lugano

This photo was taken with my Lumix LX1. I was walking along the Lugano lakefront last week, and I noticed a large flock of birds in the far distance. As I watched, they came closer, and I realised I had an opportunity for an interesting shot. So I quickly pulled out the Lumix and switched it on, and tried to compose using the LCD. Unfortunately, it was impossible to see the birds on the screen! Whilst perfectly clear to the naked eye, the screen just did not have the resolution to show them. Any camera prior to digital age, and indeed any DSLR, would have no problem with this. A cardboard throwaway film point & shoot would cope fine. But an expensive high end compact digital with no optical (or even electronic) viewfinder ? Forget it. The photo is quite pleasing to me, at least. But there were other better shots I lost whilst I was coming to terms with the fact that I was going to have to point & hope. I've frequently been frustrated by the LX1's lack of an optical viewfinder, but this is the first time it has really gone from difficult to impossible to use. It really takes away much of the pleasure and satisfaction in photography. So, the LX1, by my criteria, is an interesting lump of consumer electronics, but it is not a camera.

Over at DPReview, Bob Kaune attempted a joke.... The responses are pretty hilarious (unintentionally), especially the most earnest ones. Just goes to show how far removed from photography most contributors to these forums actually are. It also demonstrates that the ongoing difficulty people have with detecting irony on the internet hasn't improved. Then again maybe DPreview is populated in main by the bizarre geek programmer type who appear to think it is cool to be autistic.

Well, I'm back in more than one way. Back from vacation. Back from house moving. Back on-line. Back in Ticino, and incidentally back in a job worth getting out of bed for in the morning. To celebrate, here is a picture from last week, taken at one of my favourite locations, valle Verzasca, which is once again just down the road...

For the next four weeks, service is going to be a bit limited here. First, I'm going to be travelling in Spain & Portugal for two weeks, then I will be moving house to Lugano. So, probably no photo uploads, and little if any blog activity. I'm sure the world will keep turning, regardless...

In the last couple of days, two widely conflicting opinions have been published on the Leica zoom lens which ships with the new Panasonic Lumix L1 camera. Vincent Luc, writing in Réponses Photo, is disappointed with it. Not that it is bad, but he finds that the sharpness and contrast are simply not up to the expectations associated with Leica. He does, however, add that there might be some scope for improving matters in post-processing. Now, Vincent Luc is no idiot, and the review is well considered and comprehensive, nothing like the recyled PR and datasheets that most web sites pass off as "reviews". One website which certainly does not fit that in category, however, is The Luminous Landscape. Michael Reichmann, in his L1 review, has a radically different view:

"Having taken many hundreds of frames with this lens during my week in Iceland I can tell you that this is one first-rate optic. No formal tests are needed to let me know that this lens is sharp, contrasty, and quite free of any serious aberrations – at least those visible without conducting a formal test suite".

Going back to the post processing issue, it is interesting to pick up on a recent post by Colin Jago, discussion in this case the sharpness in general of Olympus E-1 images (let's just imagine that the E-1 has the fully compatible Leica zoom attached). He observes:

"(...) one of the things that you always have to bear in mind is that you only have 5 megapixels to play with. Further, these are quite soft megapixels (the anti-aliasing filter). Whilst I think that properly sharpened native resolution prints from the E1 can be fantastic, (...)".

So what is everybody actually talking about here ? First, whilst I suspect that the Vincent Luc's results are based on JPGs, I'm sure Michael's and Colin's are based on RAW. The almost diametrically opposed opinions of the lens sharpness and contrast are striking. But... is Michael talking about the results as seen (and maybe optimised) in Adobe Lightroom?

Both Colin and Vincent Luc talk about recovering sharpness lost by the anti-aliasing filter, and this where I really start to lose the plot. An AA filter is a low pass filter, usually with an abrut cutoff. It is designed to prevent the sensor from recording high frequencies which it cannot unambiguously resolve. I don't want to go into a long discussion on filtering here, but in this type of setup essentially any data blocked by the filter is gone and no amount of post-processing can bring it back. Frequencies near the cutoff frequency will be attenuated. In photography terms, this translates as an irrecoverable loss of fine detail, or more accurately, a limit on the level of fine detail that can be captured. This is obviously extremely simplistic, and people could - and do - drone on for hours about it.

Sharpening in software can give a percerption of a more detailed image, by subtle enhancement of the actual detail. But doesn't make the lens sharper or more contrasty.

The approach of evaluating the camera-lens pair using DxO's system seems to be the only consistent way to review digital systems. But when the reviewer is looking at photographic output, as the three I quote here are, then the software plays an equally important part, and should be explicitly declared.

>Perhaps we should start to talk about lenses in a different way, saying for example that on camera X, processing with software Y, lens Z does not limit resolution or inhibit contrast. Then maybe it becomes easier to understand how two highly competent reviewers can draw such different conclusions.


So, is the Leica lens a dog or a gem?