tl;dr: Fujifilm’s EXR sensor is extraordinary, mostly for its dynamic range. If you’re after the best non-DSLR image quality around, your choices start at the Fuji F200EXR, F70EXR, S200EXR, and end there.

Fujifilm has long been a leader in revolutionary sensor technology, particularly at the smaller scale sensor market where the majority of manufacturers have long been content pumping out traditional, vanilla CCD sensors with square grid-based Bayer Filter Arrays.

In September of 2008, announced plans for their latest sensor: the Super CCD EXR, which combines the unique color filter array (CFA) and pixel binning features of various previous sensors into a single “switchable” sensor that can be optimized in one of several areas (which are typically mutually exclusive when designing a sensor): high resolution, high dynamic range, and low noise.

High resolution

High resolution mode is the default mode, which utilizes the full set of photosites on the sensor and produces an image with a corresponding pixel on each photosite – nothing too special here, though Fuji claims the diagonal layout of photosites (as opposed to simple square grid) helps to improve resolution.

High sensitivity

A comparison of a typical Bayer CFA (left) and the CFA on Fujifilm's new EXR sensor (right)

The second mode of operation for the EXR sensor is a high-sensitivity mode which Fuji calls “Pixel Fusion Technology”, which is fancy marketspeak for pixel-binning (combining reading from adjacent pixels together to produce a better signal). With the EXR’s pair-based CFA layout, Fujifilm claims that interpolation (and thus color resolution) will be more accurate because the binned pixels are closer together (e.g. the pair blue pixels are pretty much in the same location, while they’re separated by two pixel lengths in a standard square-grid Bayer array. I don’t know that I buy this argument particularly well – it’s true that same-color pixel values will be more accurate since they’re closer, but you can’t get something for nothing: for example, the average distance from red-to-blue is going to be increased, which lowers accuracy for interpolating blue values at red pixels.

Regardless of whether their CFA and photosite layout nets them better interpolation, the key element here is the combination of pixel readings to generate a stronger signal, thus decreasing the proportion of noise. Using microlenses to patch up the fill factor (area of the sensor which is actually responsive to light) and various optimizations to lower read noise will get the high sensitivity mode EXR sensor closer to the noise level of a natively lower resolution sensor.

Wide Dynamic Range

A diagram detailing the two exposures captured by the EXR sensor when operating in large dynamic range mode

The third mode of operation for the EXR sensor uses variable photosite sensitivity to greatly extend dynamic range.  The concept is taken from some of Fuji’s older generation SuperCCD SR sensors – at a given pixel location there are in fact two photosites, one operating at a lower sensitivity and one operating at a higher sensitivity. This essentially produces two images for any particular shot, one at low sensitivity that is underexposed (capturing highlight detail, such as a bright sky), and one at high sensitivity that is overexposed (capturing shadow detail, such as a shaded building face). These images are combined, much like HDR combination is done, to create a single image which captures a much larger dynamic range than a single exposure could.

Edit: dpreview seems to report that the EXR sensor actually achieves this by operating one image at a shorter exposure time (shutter speed) than the other, rather than actually varying the sensitivity. If so this would be even better, as you’d have lower noise due to operating both sets of photosites at the same lower sensitivity.

As with pixel binning for greater sensitivity, the pixel count in the resulting image will have to halve as well.

There are some notable improvements compared to Fuji’s older SR sensors. For starters, the low and high sensitivity photosites are now of equal size, which Fuji claims will allow for a greater dynamic range extension (the SR sensors consisted of mostly “regular” photosites with tiny “low sensitivity” photosites sandwiched in). Furthermore, based on most of the image samples that can be found, the recombination method used for EXR is a bit closer to HDR blending, which doesn’t map values linearly on the same tone curve – this produces a punchier photo with better contrast that still looks natural upon viewing (due to the way human vision judges brightness in relative terms rather than absolute), even if its not quite pixel-accurate. This seems to address one of the complaints about Fuji’s older SR sensors, which provided a large dynamic range but ended up squashing it linearly to the same 12-bit RAWs or 8-bit JPEG images that all other cameras provide – the results were images that did have more highlight detail but looked “flat” and lacked contrast (because that 0.5-1 stop of highlight detail at the top is squashed into a small 250-255 pixel value range).

The EXR sensor has a big advantage over conventional HDR as well (i.e. taking multiple exposures and blending them): it captures an extended range image in a single instance, making it usable for moving subjects (HDR sports photos, yay!).

The Results

The first EXR sensor, the Fujifilm F200EXR, debuted in February 2009, and was followed up not long afterwards by the S200EXR bridge camera and the ultracompact ultrazoom F70EXR, giving us a chance to see some hard results.

Imaging-resource, as always, has perhaps the most comprehensive test bed of images, and samples from their express review of the F200EXR can be found here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F200EXR/F200EXRA7.HTM

Their site isn’t the most comparison-friendly however (though you can give their comparator a shot) so I’ll link to dcresource’s reviews of the F200EXR and F70EXR as well and reference these.

The first thing to note is that Fujifilm hasn’t lost a step in the noise race – in both the standard high resolution (no binning) and high sensitivity (binning, lower resolution) modes, the EXR sensor simply wipes the floor with every camera on the market this side of a full-fledged DSLR.  In the F200EXR review there is a side-by-side comparison (search for the text “Again, things look great through ISO 400″ – it’s right above this) between the 6MP high-sensitivity mode image, and a 12MP high-resolution mode image that is downsized to 6MP – essentially doing the same as pixel binning but off-camera, and digitally, rather than in-camera and analog.  The result is a slightly crisper image but noticeably more noise, though the effect isn’t dramatic.

What’s interesting is that the side-by-side comparison in the F70EXR review shows that the high-resolution mode, downsized to the same resolution as the high-sensitivity mode, actually produces better results – the same amount of noise but much crisper detail. This seems to punch a hole in the effectiveness of the EXR’s in-camera pixel-binning: if the digital data (full of rounding errors, and compressed to 8-bit jpeg) can be averaged and produce more effective results than binning the analog data (the raw readings from the sensor), then we can surmise that having more accurate data on the location of brightness values (i.e. more pixels) helps us produce more accurate images overall than having slightly more accuracy on the actual brightness values.

Further down on the F200EXR review (search “so the two would be the same (6MP) resolution” – right below this), you’ll see a direct comparison using the camera’s wide dynamic range mode. As opposed to the high sensitivity mode, here we can see real, significant benefits – highlight detail that is hopelessly blown out in the left image is very much visible in the wide dynamic range image. For those of you too lazy to navigate the admittedly long and cumbersome dcresource review pages, here’s a marketing image from Fujifilm that gives you the general idea:

Standard dynamic range (left) and wide dynamic range (right) - probably exaggerated a bit

This image gives you a general idea of the difference, though I wouldn’t take it at face value. The image on the right is probably a fair representation of what you’ll get using the wide DR mode (and you can compare this with shaded interior/sunlit exterior/sky photos you’ve probably taken), but the image on the left has way more contrast (and less DR) than any typical camera would, on its default settings at least.

The Triumph of EXR – Dynamic Range

So is Fuji’s EXR sensor a success? It depends on what you’re after. Many diehard Fujifilm Super CCD fans fell in love with the low-resolution F10/11 and F30/31 ultracompacts, both of which came in at just 6MP and absolutely wiped the floor with the competition in terms of noise performance.  And while subsequent SuperCCD iterations have maintained a clear advantage over competitors in this area (and this newest EXR sensor does to it better than its predecessor), the fact is that the high 12MP or so resolutions found on today’s sensors still compromise noise performance, despite any fancy “Pixel Fusion Technology” that Fujifilm tries to market.

The true triumph of the EXR sensor is in its dynamic range capability, and its separate pixel design (it essentially operates two sensors) works not only better than any of its competitors, but far better than even a natively lower resolution sensor.  While a larger photosite does afford more highlight headroom, halving the pixels (doubling the area) affords at most 1 stop. The EXR’s method, which essentially captures two independent exposures, is in theory capable of capturing dynamic range that is infinitely far apart, though for most scenes they’ll likely need to overlap to avoid gaps in coverage, which based on the settings allowed on current cameras is 3 stops.

According to dpreview’s dynamic range test of the F200EXR, the EXR can deliver nearly 11 EV (stops) of dynamic range.  Not only does that far outclass any compact (or even the bulky SLR-like bridges that use the same small sensors) on the market, but exceeds the dynamic range of DSLRs like the Canon 7D, Nikon D300, et. al, which all range around 8 EV for their jpegs. With a bit of tweaking with RAW files in Adobe Camera Raw, the DSLRs just about manage 10EV.

It’s simply remarkable that jpegs from a camera with a pint-sized sensor can beat out RAW images from the highest-end DSLRs, but that’s what innovative technology can do for you over hammering away with sheer physical size and trying small refinements from there (which is how most of the rest of the sensor industry has been operating for years). I can’t begin to fathom how much the Super CCD would change the landscape of photography if Fujifilm ever scaled up the sensor to DSLR size.

Canon's 7D, which is essentially a 60D with fancy marketing and a higher price tag

It’s interesting to see how much an effect marketing has on the general photography consumer. Over the past few months, Canon has released a couple of moderate upgrades, one of which has been hailed as revolutionary and game-changing, and the other which was met with a big collective yawn and cries that Canon has fallen behind the cutting edge and is playing catch-up with Nikon. The biggest difference? One camera was given an incremental version number, and the other was given a new model number as the start of a different series.

Take the actual specs of the two cameras, listed as features in relation to their predecessor model:

Camera A:

• 18MP sensor vs. 15MP sensor
• ISO100-12800 vs. ISO100-12800 (unchanged)
• 19pt AF, one f/2.8 cross-type vs. 9pt AF, one f/2.8 cross-type
• 8fps continuous vs. 6.3fps
• 100% frame, 1x magnification viewfinder vs. 95% frame, 0.95x magnification viewfinder
• Wireless flash control onboard vs. wireless flash control with additional accessory
• 1080p (30/25/24fps) video vs. no video

Camera B:

• 16MP sensor vs. 10MP sensor
• ISO50-102,400 vs. ISO50-6400
• 45pt AF, 39 f/2.8 cross-type vs. 45pt AF, 19 f/2.8 cross-type
• 10fps continuous vs. 10fps (unchanged)
• 1080p (30/25/24fps) video vs. no video

The Canon 7D

Camera A, of course, is the new Canon 7D, which is essentially a 60D successor to the 50D, and Canon’s new crop body for sports/action. While it has modest spec improvements over the 60D, there’s very little here that is game-changing – the sensor remains the same size, gets a paltry 20% increase in resolution that is likely to mean nothing with most lenses (the 50D’s 15MP sensor’s Nyquist Frequency (maximum theoretical resolution) already exceeded the resolving power of most Canon lenses – see dpreview’s test on a consumer Canon 18-200 and Canon’s high-end 70-200 2.8).

Improvements have been promised in the ISO department (and if you look at the preliminary sample shots from imaging-resource, there’s a considerable improvement on the 7D over the terrible 50D, which finally brings it to or slightly above D300s levels), but the range stays exactly the same.

AF points have been increased from 9 to 19, which will improve tracking, but the number of fast and accurate f/2.8 cross-type sensors remains exactly the same, at just one (the center point).

The jump to 8fps is a bigger jump than in years past (where the 20D already had 5fps back in 2004), but this like resolution runs into diminishing returns – the jump from 6.3 to 8 helps but doesn’t transform it into a useful sports camera, unlike say the jump from a Rebel’s slow 3.4 to 6.3 (it’s 26% vs. 85%).

Viewfinders are viewfinders – a nice improvement but having a Canon 20D and switching back and forth from its 95%, 0.9x mag viewfinder and my 5D all the time, not one that is going to make or break the shooting experience.

The two game-changers that the 7D provides are the now-standard video functionality, and wireless flash control (a built-in ST-E2 essentially, powered by the camera’s pop-up flash). Video capability opens up an entirely new realm outside the domain of still photography, and wireless flash capability allows for much more creativity in off-camera lighting straight out of the box, without requiring photographers to buy and carry along a bulky extra master flash or ST-E2 transmitter.

So at the end of the day we have a moderate step up from Canon’s previous 50D, that does sports photography somewhat better than any crop body before it, but still lags far behind not only Canon’s “pro” body (1D now has bigger 1.3x sensor, ISO100k, 45 AF points with 39 cross-types, and similar 10fps), but even the similarly-priced D300s from Nikon (lower ISO6400, but the same 51 AF point system as the D3, and 8fps with battery grip), as well as the now bargain-bin D300 (ignoring lack of video capability).

Despite its greater action capability, it’s still not the all-around do-everything solution that a camera like Nikon’s D700 is – despite having very adequate action capabilities (unlike Canon’s 5D Mark II), it still lacks the full frame sensor, which puts it at depth of field, dynamic range, and ISO noise disadvantages against its larger-sensored relatives.

So at the end of the day, you have a crop camera that gives you moderate sports capability, though it’s still nowhere near as powerful as the professional line, and doesn’t deliver the image quality or lens compatibility of full-frame cameras. Which sounds an awful lot like an xxD series camera, except Canon’s chosen a new single-digit model designation (“7D”) which has Canonite fanboys everywhere at their altar ready to and pony up an additional $500 (+42%) price hike over what a “60D” model would have cost.

Canon 1D Mark IV

The Mark IV is probably a very worthwhile upgrade for Mark III owners, given that camera's shortcomings, but is woefully inadequate when placed alongside Nikon's D3s

Canon’s 1D Mark IV is Canon’s two-and-a-half-years-in-the-making update to their much-maligned Canon 1D Mark III camera. As documented by Rob Galbraith, among others, the 1D3 had developed a reputation for fickle continuous AF tracking, to the point of being unusable by the standards of some.

So among the things promised by the new Mark IV is a completely revamped AF system, now with more than twice as many f/2.8 cross-type sensors (39 vs. 19 previously).

The Mark IV also supports a native ISO up to ISO12800 with a boost up to ISO102400 (we’re now up to 10 stops over ISO100), which gives it a range of 4 stops greater than the Mark III (which went up to ISO3200 native, ISO6400 boost).  For those who shoot in low-light constantly, this is a pretty big game-changer in-and-of-itself, regardless of the actually ISO quality (almost anything will be better than shooting at a native ISO3200 and having to digitally push those images).

The only other changes of note is the same 1080p (30/25/24fps) video mode, and a significant bump in resolution from 10MP to 16MP (60% increase), though the sensor stays the same at a roughly 1.3x crop.

The 1D Mark IV isn’t a monumental leap by any means – if all goes well it will be what the Mark III probably should have been – workable AF without glitches and a large high ISO range for low-light shooting.

However in my opinion, Canon bungled greatly here by again opting for an 1.3x APS-H sensor.  When Nikon’s D3 came out, it exposed one of the biggest knocks against the 1D series, which was its limited flexibility due to the crop factor altering angles of view for full-frame lenses and its larger mirror preventing compatibility with smaller crop lenses.  While it’s a fact that pure sports shooters may not care much for, it prevents the 1D from serving as a general purpose camera for the other big “professional body” market: journalists.  While the D3 can pull double-duty shooting with a 70-200mm or 300mm telephoto one event, and switch over to a all-purpose 24-70mm standard zoom the next, all general purpose lens options for the 1D are extremely awkward. Consider:

• The typical 24-70mm standard zoom provides an angle of view equivalent to 31-91mm. Nowhere near wide enough
• The next widest zoom, Canon’s 17-40mm f/4, provides an extremely short 22-52mm. Not nearly enough versatility.
• And if you want f/2.8, Canon’s 16-35mm f/2.8 gives an even smaller 21-46mm range.

For this exact reason, of course, Canon hopes to upsell you to their $8k 1Ds series, and ideally make you pay more than double ($13k total) for what Nikon neatly fits into a single D3s body for $5k.

Canon diehards will claim, of course, that with the 1D and 1Ds bodies, Canon simply offers the best of both worlds – maximizing range with the 1D and maximizing resolution with the 1Ds. But Nikon has already shown this argument to be utter crap with its D3x and D3(s) tandem. Birders aside, the “crop factor” argument of extending focal length range holds little weight – yes the out-of-camera image appears to be “closer”, but photographers often forget a crop sensor is exactly that – a crop of the full-frame image. The exact same result could be achieved by taking photos with a larger sensor of same pixel density, and manually cropping the images down later. The upshot of crop sensors is that greater pixel density can be achieved while retaining fast shooting speeds (you’re processing less pixels than a larger sensor would), but the vasts majority of users (sports photogs and journalists shooting for newsprint and online) aren’t coming close to utilizing the full resolution capability of their cameras. The downshot of crop sensors are the increased depth of field, higher noise, lower dynamic range, and less margin for framing error, which are all very real effects that show up in everything from poster prints to low-res newsprint and online photos.

The only metric by which the Mark III can hope to compete is with high ISO quality, but with both more pixels and a smaller sensor than not only the Mark III but Nikon’s competing D3s (Mark IV ends up with 3.1MP per cm² vs the D3s’ 1.4MP/cm²), the chances of reaching parity with, much less greatly exceeding, competitors seems slim.

Aside from the numerous advantages associated purely with live view (and could technically be realized with a traditional DSLR – it’s just that forcing live view only is likely to spur much more rapid development), the one key advantage to Micro Four Thirds (and upcoming systems like it, such as Samsung’s NX system) is that the removal of the mirror assembly allows lenses to sit much closer to the image plane, making for much smaller camera bodies and lenses.

The first few of these cameras – the Panasonic G and GH1 – failed completely to live up to the small form factor potential – they were shaped much like traditional SLRs, albeit slightly smaller.

The Panasonic GH1 - one of the first Micro Four Thirds cameras which didn't quite realize the potential of the formfactor

Next, Olympus released a Micro Four Thirds of its own: the E-P1 “Pen” which harked back to Olympus’ historical line of compact film cameras. Unlike the G1, the E-P1 actually began to approach what some would call “compact” – it was just 1.4in thick, though that’s not taking into account the attached lens.

Now Panasonic is jumping in on the bandwagon with their E-P1-esque GF1, which sports a slim compact-like body. The specs are nothing to get excited about, though it does have the a built-in flash that was notably missing from the E-P1. In a puzzling decision though, Panasonic decided not to implement any sensor-based image stabilization, relying on lens-based IS to counter camera shake. Unless they were denied a sensor IS license by Olympus (a possibility), I’d say this is a rather bone-headed decision, since any stabilized lenses will add weight unnecessarily (or in the case of pancake lenses that are pretty much made for this kind of camera, impossible to add in), defeating the entire purpose of Micro Four-Thirds.

The two kit lenses offered with the GF1 are a bit more appealing than the E-P1 package: a standard 14-45mm OIS kit lens and a 20mm f/1.7 pancake prime. The prime still isn’t quite there to portrait range and gets even further away from all-around wide angle utility than Oly’s 17mm f/2.8 pancake, but it does offer a much larger f/1.7 aperture.

A comparison of the new landscape in premium compacts:

Panasonic GF1 size comparison

As expected, the added IS to the Panasonic kit lens makes it much larger (22.6% longer) than the E-P1 setup. Panasonic’s pancake, however, is about the same size as Oly’s 17mm and with its f/1.7 aperture is by far the best in terms of large aperture performance (35mm equivalent of f/3.4)

If you’re in the market for this kind of camera though, the most sensible thing seems to be taking the E-P1 to get yourself sensor-based IS, and combining that with Panny’s 17mm pancake prime. Though you will be losing out on the built-in flash, which is somewhat of a must-have for a camera like this (since again, needing to carry around a huge external flash defeats the size advantage).

Pentax K-x (space white)

Following up on their K-7, Pentax has now come up with an entry-level K-x. While it doesn’t bring anything groundbreaking that wasn’t already seen on the K-7, it packs in many of the features seen on many competitors’ midrange model, and perhaps pending reviews on image quality and disregarding the overall Pentax system upgrade options, is probably the best choice out there currently for the beginning photographer/student.

The big headline features:

• 12.4MP CMOS (different from the K-7 14.6MP sensor, but interestingly also uses CMOS unlike all previous Pentaxes which used CCDs)
• ISO up to 12.8k
• Live-view with face-detect AF
• 720p, 24fps video
• 4.7fps continuous shooting
• $650 MSRP with 18-55 kit lens (and likely to drop further once it gets off pre-order)

A comparison:

Pentax K-x comparison

In a comparison with the $500 entry-level cameras, the K-x blows them away in nearly aspect, and goes toe-to-toe or even exceeds the D5000 and Rebel T1i in every single category, despite being significantly cheaper (especially once the street price drops lower from MSRP)

Interestingly enough, the Pentax K-x will come in a variety of colors, including an ultra-spiffy red (below), the space white shown above, and your ordinary black.

Interestingly enough, Pentax Japan features a site where you can come up with your own custom color scheme, and apparently order it as well, which personally is an insanely appealing prospect.

Pentax K-x (red)

Pentax K-x custom design - design your own!

I think this is a ranking of custom designs that users have created

Pentax K-x press release

Nikon SLR Refresh

Nikon introduced a couple of new SLR updates, the updated D300s and D3s. The D300 is a pretty incremental upgrade to the mid-level D300, offering a modest +1fps improvement in continuous shooting (up to 7fps), and bringing the video capability that’s now standard on every new DSLR.

The bigger story came a few months later, in the form of the D3s. While still not a revolutionary introduction, it is much more than a software refresh. Among the features of note were a video mode (at 24fps!, albeit only at 1280×720 (720p) resolution), 11fps available in a higher-res crop mode (it now crops only 1.2x instead of 1.5x), and an increase in ISO range, up to ISO12.8k natively with a boost to ISO100k. The D3s presumably packs a different sensor, though it still maintains the same 12.1MP resolution.

People have been going goo-gah over the last spec in particular, especially given such a high linear number for ISO (and from here, it’s just four more stops til we get to ISO1.6 MILLION), though it’s really just +1 stop natively and +2 stop boost over the previous D3. And it’s important to note that the simple availability of an ISO capability says nothing about image quality at that level – that would be the same mistake as having the maximum shutter speed expanded from 30 seconds to a minute, and somehow thinking this magically makes photos at 1/500s less blurry. Given that the resolution (and thus pixel pitch) remained the exact same, I certainly wouldn’t expect quality to be any worse than the D3, and quite probably will be a tad better (although I have extreme doubts about the ISO100k mode, which is digitally boosted 3 stops; things have always looked terrible at just +2 stops digitally, even boosting ISO100+2 to 400.)

All in all, about as much as you could expect from Nikon, who seems to do very incremental updates and waits a long time to deliver big, revolutionary refreshes. Here’s hoping we see that D3s sensor in a D700s soon, though 1080p at 24fps would be nice (and completely feasible: 1920x1080x24fps = 49.8MP/s throughput, while we definitely know that the D700 supports 12.1MPx9fps = 108.9MP/s throughput in its continuous shooting mode).

Nikon D3s press release (I don’t know why they keep referring to it as “D3S”, past history and even the logo in the image clearly denote “D3s”)

The Nikon DS3, now with 720p video and ISO up to 12.8K/100K(boost)

Nikon also announced a couple of lens refreshes, with Version II’s of their popular 18-200mm VR ultrazoom and a long-awaited update to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR to optimize it for full-frame (FX) sensors. As Nikon had long trumpeted 1.5x crop DX sensors before their introduction of the full-frame D3 in 2007, they cut corners with their introduction of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR in 2003, building a lens that was technically full-frame but had an abysmal drop-off in performance once you actually got to the corners outside of a 1.5x imaging circle. This wasn’t found out until a bit after the D3 was released, finally giving digital photographers a platform to test the lens’ full frame performance, which resulted in tests like these:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page6.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=17&fullscreen=true&av=3&fl=105&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

The new 70-200 II promises to fix all of these problems with a new optical design and coatings, and promises to throw in a more effective “4-stop” VR system as well. There haven’t been too many authoritative tests yet to show how it performs (if you’ve found any, send me a link!), but presumably they should have no problem building such a lens – Canon has had two 70-200 2.8′s that’ve performed flawlessly on full-frame, and Nikon itself had a great 80-200 2.8 lens prior to the 70-200 VR I.

The one stickler? As if Nikon’s $2019 price on the original 70-200 I wasn’t enough, the 70-200 VR II will now set you back a cool $2400.

Nikon 18-200 II and 70-200 2.8 VR II press release

Have got a big night tonight – will update later, but for now you can munch on the details of the press release and Imaging Resource’s short overview/analysis.

Good product photography - sure looks dainty doesn't it?

For those of you not already in the know, Micro Four-Thirds is a new interchangeable lens system developed by Olympus and Panasonic which is the first mirror-less digital camera system to feature interchangeable lenses.  The removal of the mirror (and associated prism and optical viewfinder) and the exclusive usage of live view for image preview enables a drastic size reduction for both cameras and lenses, and as you can see here, the new Olympus E-P1 is tiny tiny tiny.

How tiny?  The exact specs on the E-P1 are 121 x 70 x 35mm (4.7 x 2.8 x 1.4 in) and 335 g (11.8 oz) – body only, with no batteries – which firmly plants it in compact camera category.  Of course, you’ll need to attach a lens at some point before shooting, which will add some bulk, but as of now the E-P1 indisputably offers the most compact interchangeable lens solution.

The following is a run-down of things you might have already picked up from other news sources or blogs. The real interesting stuff is the size and equivalent aperture/focal length comparison, at Size Comparison.

A rundown of some other specs (and be sure to check more in-depth reviews at imaging-resource and dcresource)

• 12.3MP Four-Thirds sensor, which appears to be based off the same sensor used in the E-620 and E-30.  If that’s the case, I wouldn’t hold out for any revolutionary leaps forward (and Olympus isn’t advertising any either), though the E-30 sensor’s a solid performer given it has 1/4 the area to work with compared to Nikon’s and Canon’s best, and still thoroughly trounces anything coming out of Sony’s factory.
• A standard 3fps continuous shooting, as if you’ll be doing any serious sports shooting with it.
• Sensor-shift image stabilization.  Panasonic left this out of their first G(H)1 Micro Four-Thirds cameras in lieu of lens-based stabilization.  This was more or less a no-brainer for Olympus, which doesn’t have strong development in lens-based IS and lens IS would have completely defeated the purpose of Micro Four-Thirds with its added size, weight, and cost.
• SD format.  How many out there breathing a sigh of relief (or perhaps shedding a tear?) that it isn’t xD exclusive?
• MF-2 adapter for Olympus OM mount lenses.  An interesting option, particularly since the range of Micro Four-Thirds lenses is fairly slim at the moment.
• 1280×720, 30fps video (720p).  As one would expect, video is definitely a feature of the E-P1.  There’s nothing very extraordinary about it – the resolution is middle of the road, though you will get aperture-priority control and stereo sound.  Unfortunately, maximum recording time is limited to 2GB files and/or 7 minutes at 720p resolution.
• Lack of a built-in flash.  Though it’s not quite a dealbreaker given that its high-ISO capabilities will be far superior to that of a normal compact camera, the E-P1 does noticeably omit a built-in flash of any sort.  Olympus wants to sell you their FL-14 flash attachment that essentially does the same thing, and while it is custom-designed to match very well with the E-P1, having to carry another attachment for full-functionality somewhat defeats the purpose of a making a camera as compact as the E-P1.

The E-P1 and ridiculous flash attachment they want you to buy for basic direct flash functionality.

Oly seems to have gone all-out with the retro design, which does look different and not quite as Spartan or industrial as something like the Sigma DP1.

With the E-P1 announcement comes a couple of new lenses designed for the E-P1 in mind: a compact 14-42mm kit lens and a 17mm pancake.

M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6

The new M.Zuiko isn’t so much of a special lens – it’ll provide the equivalent of a pretty much standard 28-84mm equivalent view.  What’s interesting about the Micro Four-Thirds kit lens is that it uses a drastic retractive design that makes it really compact – 43.5mm (1.7in) to be exact.  This compared to the 61mm length of Olympus’ regular Four-Thirds 14-42mm and the 70mm length of a lens like Canon’s 18-55 kit.

M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8

The 17mm f/2.8 pancake is probably the most interesting Micro Four-Thirds lens to come around yet.  The lens is thin – a depth of just 22mm (0.87in), and results in a camera thickness of just 2.3in when attached.  It’s also an f/2.8, which will help with low-light, though I wouldn’t hold out for amazingly shallow depth of field capabilities at this focal length on a 2x crop sensor.  As a first and only Micro Four-Thirds pancake lens, though, I find the 17mm focal to be a bit conservative – it gives a 34mm equivalent in that no-man’s range: it’s not a 50mm equivalent portrait lens, and it isn’t as versatile as a 28mm wide-angle either.  Hopefully Oly or Panasonic remedy this soon.

Amazon has the E-P1 listed at $750 for the body only, $800 for the 14-42 kit, and $900 for the 17mm kit.

Size comparison

Retro-styling aside, the name of the E-P1 game is size.  It is undoubtedly the key point of interest for many consumers, who up to this point have not really had quite a solution like the E-P1 for a high image quality camera which has almost the portability of a compact camera.  We’ll take compare the E-P1 in its two lens kits to several other high-quality compact cameras.

• Canon G10: Not a very compact camera, and it doesn’t produce very high-quality images either, but it’s included for reference’s sake since it seems to be the most popular camera in this class.
• Fujifilm F200EXR: The only true ultracompact in the bunch, the F200EXR and its SuperCCD EXR sensor is about as good as it gets, though it has a variety of tradeoffs and achieves high resolution, noise performance, and dynamic range in different modes.
• Panasonic LX3: The current king of premium compact cameras, due to both an excellent sensor and a superb lens.
• Sigma DP1: A now-aging but still unique large sensor, fixed lens camera using Foveon’s innovative X3 sensor.
• Sigma DP2: A variant on the DP1 which uses the same sensor but features a more mid-range lens.

The following table displays the size of the various cameras, along with 35mm equivalent focal lengths and apertures (for purposes of depth of field).  These equivalent specifications normalize high ISO performance (based on sensor size – this doesn’t take into account differing sensor technologies).

Olympus E-P1 size comparison

We can see here how clearly inferior cameras like the Canon G10 and Fuji F200 are, though to Fuji’s credit, its superior sensor will give it much more of a leg up on the G10 than the simple sensor size implies, and to both their credit, they pack significantly more versatile zoom ranges than any of the other setups on this list.

Panasonic’s LX3 is an interesting camera – while its sensor isn’t that much larger than other compacts such as the G10 or F200, it makes up for it with an impressive lens which packs an f/2-2.8 aperture in real terms.  While the f/9.4-13 range isn’t going to turn any heads, it really isn’t so far off from the f/7-11 range of the E-P1 (or any other Four-Thirds camera) paired with the 14-42 lens, and carries with it the advantage of a much, much more compact size (half the thickness of the E-P1 setup).

The Sigma DP1 and DP2 is where the competition gets a bit more interesting.  Ignoring the intricacies of the Foveon sensor for the moment, we can see that when paired with the 17mm pancake, the E-P1′s 34mm f/5.6 equivalent is sandwiched right between the wider-angle, smaller aperture DP1 and the narrower-angle, larger aperture DP2.  The 17mm pancake really is in a no-man’s land – not really wide enough for landscapes and not really narrow enough for portraits.  Size-wise the E-P1 is nearly the same as the DP1/DP2, though a fair bit larger area-wise.

Of course, the Foveon sensor throws a bit of a wrench into the image quality equation.  Say what you will about the Foveon vs. Bayer debate, but in its present (or more precisely, now three-year old form), the 4.6MP DP1/DP2 sensor simply doesn’t stack up with the 12MP E-P1, from a resolution standpoint and definitely from a noise standpoint.

On top of this, the E-P1 has a number of other advantages over the Sigmas, namely a video mode and the ability to switch lenses (though this somewhat throws the portability comparison out the window).

Of course, there’s really nothing like the E-P1 and 14-42mm, which provides a camera with a full 28-84mm standard range, and weighs in at 3.1 inches thick.  At this size, it’s far beyond the pocketability threshold, though it’s still far smaller than any of the regular DSLR kits out there.

So what’s the verdict on the E-P1?  Olympus and Panasonic have struck on a really innovative system here, but they’ve got a narrow window to capitalize on building the premier high-quality compact system, before Samsung’s NV system rolls around and before Canon/Nikon finally bite the bullet and buy into the mirror-less EVIL system.  The 17mm pancake is a step in the right direction, and really plays to the strength of the Micro Four Thirds format – small bodies with small lenses that bring large sensor image quality just to the very edge of portability.

There’s little to no point in trying to turn a camera like the E-P1 into a full-fledged SLR-like platform – even with the most compact kit lens they could make, the camera is far beyond pocket portability, and at this point if you’ll have to carry a camera bag around it may as well be something full-fledged like a Panasonic G1 or Olympus E-620.

This one caught me by surprise for sure – Pentax just last week announced their new midrange K7, which is their first significant DSLR announcement in over a year.  Just as I started assuming Pentax had all but become a bit player in the increasingly crowded DSLR market (with Sony developing the KM/Alpha system into the #3 brand, and relative newcomers Panasonic and Samsung taking the initiative to forge ahead on the cutting edge digital frontier), they come out with a new flagship midrange camera that, on paper at least, rivals and even beats the Canon and Nikon midranges in quite a few areas.

Pentax K7

Some of the highlights of the K7:

• A new, 14.6MP CMOS sensor “rebuilt from the ground up”.  At the outset, this would seem to be a slightly revised version of the same 14.6MP sensor used on the previous K20D.  We’ll have to see how much improvement “rebuilding” the sensor has (my guess: not much), but this is encouraging news – Pentax sensors (the K20D’s 14MP sensor especially) have always produced excellent quality with regards to high ISO, if a tad conservative on the default in-camera noise reduction setting.  The K20D also seemed to buck the recent Pentax trend of poor JPEG rendering of RAW images (in other cameras, the in-camera JPEGs were significantly inferior to JPEGs rendered using an off-camera converter like Adobe Camera Raw) – maybe it was simply a different rendering approach to their higher-end midrange cameras, or perhaps Pentax just knows how to deal with raw data from the Samsung-developed K20D sensor better than the Sony chips used in all their other cameras.
• HD Video Capture. For sure a killer feature – the K7 beats just about everyone to video in the midrange market segment (though it could very well have company in a few months). Unlike many others, Pentax seems to be doing video right and hasn’t intentionally crippled the functionality: the K7 supports your standard 1280x720p, 30fps HD, features a jack for an external microphone (a cheap, no-duh add-on that’s sorely missing from the lower-end video-capable DSLRs), full aperture control (no word on shutter speed, however).  Brilliantly, the K7 also offers a 1536×1024, 3:2 aspect ratio mode that utilizes the full area of the sensor, instead of wasting ~16% of the frame like every single other camera does shooting 16:9 video – why no one else (even Panasonic) has seized onto this idea completely bewilders me.  Another complementary feature to video capture is the K7′s sensor-based image stabilization system; video has been regarded on most other platforms as nearly useless without a trip(in the pro-looking videos sense) 
• In-camera HDR blending. This is an interesting one, though much more for the snapshooter rather than the serious HDR enthusiast.  The HDR mode exposure brackets multiple images (three, or five shots) and combines them, producing an overall image with far greater dynamic range than a single shot could ever produce.  Jack Howard at the Adorama TechTock blog has produced an extensive post on the K7′s in-camera HDR ability – while it won’t come close to replacing dedicated on-computer HDR processing, it can produce a decent result, which might be good enough for many, and could be useful for those just looking to capture a slightly larger DR, rather than creating a full-on HDR effect.  Unfortunately, and somewhat perplexingly, the HDR mode can only be used to produce regular JPEGs.
• Live-view. The K7 now features contrast-detection AF, and interestingly enough a face detection mode.  And before you know-it-all “pro” photographers laugh, face detection is a genuinely useful feature – while you’re pulling out every trick and technique in your bag to get the correct focus and adjust for exposure, a K7 user in live view mode simply uses face detection to focus lock onto faces and automatically optimize the exposure for portraits.
• Rotational shake-compensating sensor IS. This is a pretty interesting one, though details are a bit muddy on how it’s actually done.  Pentax uses sensor-based image stabilization, which typically involves shifting the sensor laterally to compensate for camera shake.  The sensor-based implementation has the advantage of staying with the camera no matter what lens is used, which is a huge boon since lens-based IS often puts a heavy premium per-lens, and many classes of lens don’t even have an IS version.  However, one of the criticisms of sensor-shift systems thus far is that they’re not as effective, partially due to the fact that they shift only laterally, which in theory corrects only lateral shake – a far more minor factor of blur compared to rotational shake over longer distances.  If this is true, and the new IS system works, we might expect significantly improved performance, especially using telephoto lenses/working over long distances.
• TAV mode. This feature was present on the K20D as well.  It’s a frankly genius adaption to digital technology, and one that I’ve been clamoring for ever since I first picked up a digital camera – TAV mode is an autoexposure program mode (in the vein of Aperture-priority and shutter-priority modes) which allows for manual selection of both aperture and shutter speed – the ISO then floats to whichever sensitivity necessary to produce the exposure.  For anyone shooting low-light on a consistent basis, this is a program mode absolutely made for you (choose the aperture and lowest shutter speed you’re willing to live with, and this program mode will optimize for noise).
• Interval timer. Nikon has had this forever, but it’s a feature sorely lacking on just about all the other systems – a built-in interval timer allows the K7 to do time-lapses all on its own, without requiring some absurd $100 add-on *cough* Canon *cough*.
• 5.2 fps continuous shooting. Pentax finally caters to the sports/action market with its first high-FPS camera – previously the fastest you could get on a Pentax was 3fps on the K20D.  5fps isn’t exactly blazing, especially compared to 6 or 8fps seen on even the midrange Canons and Nikons, but it’s just about the standard minimum you’ll need for faster sports.  Though I wouldn’t run out and dump my Canon system for Pentax just yet – they’re still sorely lacking in the telephoto department without a single 70-200ish f/2.8 lens, much less any of the big tele primes – it’s now an appealing option for casual enthusiasts, with lenses like the Pentax 200mm f/2.8 prime, a very nice 60-250mm f/4, and of course a plethora of options from Sigma and Tamron.
• In-camera leveling.  One of the more unusual features of the K7′s is the ability to rotate and level images in-camera.  This isn’t a cheap software rotation trick, mind you – the sensor, combined with an electronic level, actually rotates up to 2 degrees in either direction to maintain a flat horizon.  This is a pretty huge boon for landscape photographers, who can now level their images with a mathematical precision far greater than just eyeing it with the viewfinder and gridlines.
• Weather-proofing. Like the K20D before it, the K7 offers exceptional weather-proofing, unlike the D90 which has none and the Canon 50D which has it on paper only.  Additionally, even the budget kit lenses (the 18-55 standard range and 50-200 tele) will be weather-sealed.  One of the more interesting specifications is that the K7 is rated down to 14 degrees fahrenheit (-10C), compared to just 32F/0C on virtually every other “weather-sealed” camera on the market, which includes bodies like Canon’s 1D(s) and Nikon’s D3.  This might make it an interesting camera for extreme travel conditions, where even the rugged “pro” bodies experience significant failure rates.

Overall the K7 is an interesting camera – while Nikon has been forging straight ahead in the high performance, blow-you-away image quality department, and Canon seems to have been stumbling around aimlessly, and new #3 Sony continues churning out junk cameras selling on brand recognition alone, it’s nice to see an old name making a comeback, and in a way that blows past the competition, not just catching up to it.  The K7 carries with it a lot of new innovations – not necessarily in the Panasonic/Samsung “we’re building the ultimate digital imaging device, not a camera” train of innovation, but in a more traditional way that fully leverages digital imaging and electronic hardware for photographic purposes.  So you’ll still find a mirror here, and somewhat disappointingly a lack of articulating screen and higher-ISO capability (the K7 caps out at ISO1600, with +2 boost to ISO6400), but also sensible innovations such as in-camera leveling, TAV mode, full-frame video capture, and live view fact detection, that don’t necessarily revolutionize digital imaging as we know it, but provide subtle improvements and aids that optimize traditional photographic technique.

The K7 slots in at $1300 for the body, compared to $1200 for the Canon 50D, $1000 for the Nikon D90, and $1800 for the D300.  It’s not a camera that will really compete with the 50D or D300 on the action front, but for general photography it packs a number of interesting features that simply aren’t found on any other cameras.  If image quality holds to the same level as the K20D, the K7 should be in the same class as the other cameras here (i.e. top of the class among APS-C size sensors) – better than the 50D, and perhaps a little worse than the D90/D300 sensor at the very extreme high-ISO range, with a little more noise reduction post-processing required.  And if video is what you’re looking for, the K7 completely blows away any of the entry-level and midrange cameras (save Panasonic’s GH1) in terms of features and control, though quality remains to be seen.

The one drawback of the K7 may not really be the camera itself, but the Pentax system associated with it.  Pentax has got a lot of interesting and high-quality lenses (though they’re on the pricier end of things), but doesn’t have anywhere near the selection that big systems like Canon and Nikon have, and doesn’t even cover all the basics, which at least Sony’s Alpha and Olympus/Panasonic’s Four Thirds do.  This is becoming a bit less of a problem, however, as third party manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron increase the number of alternatives available.

 

Casio’s compact FS10 records 6MP at 30fps, with a maximum reduced-resolution speed of 1000fps

Press release

I’ve never paid much attention to Casio in the past, admittedly.  While Panasonic was the microwave maker that defied conventions, Casio pretty much made the kind of digital cameras (generic, 3x zoom ultracompacts) that you would expect a watch maker to make.

Casio seems to have poured some serious R&D into high capture rate sensors (and image processors), which first saw the light of day in the groundbreaking EX-F1 ultrazoom, which could capture full-resolution 6MP images at 60fps, and very reduced resolution video at a whopping 1200fps.

Casio now manages to cram that same sensor and processing technology into two itty bitty ultracompacts: the 0.9in FC100 with 37-185mm (5x) lens and the 0.6in (!) FS10 with 38-114mm 3x lens.  Both cameras can take 6MP frames at 30fps.  What’s more, the camera is in effect constantly recording still images at this framerate – at the moment you press the shutter, you not only start taking frames, but 25 frames in the preceding moments are also saved as well, allowing you to in essence go backwards in time to grab a frame that you couldn’t react to in time.  As with the EX-F1, both compacts can also record up to 1000fps in a heavily reduced resolution movie mode, with an electronic shutter providing effective shutter speeds of 1/40,000s.

As surprising as this is coming from Casio, which seemed like a company that didn’t care much for innovation in its early attempts at digital cameras, it’s refreshing and downright exciting to see a manufacturer embrace all the potential of digital electronics for photography purposes.  At the framerates that Casio’s cameras are working at, the entire concept of “timing” could be thrown out the window – simply record continuously while the camera’s on, and look back later to pick out the frame and perfect timing.  Electronic shutters also provide the potential for unimaginably quick exposure times that could never be possible with mechanical shutters, enabling stroboscopic-like freezing of action, without having to actually rely on strobes.

The big obstacle here (aside from memory buffer size and storage space, which should catch up in due time as it seems pixel count is starting to plateau) is coming up with an easy interface to facilitate the still frame selection process from a huge, continuous stream of recorded images.

For now, especially given the limited sensor size, and resolution limits, Casio’s cameras mostly remain mostly confined to technical experimentation rather than real professional use.  But it’s not hard at all to imagine such a system, built into a high-quality, interchangeable lens system, to have a huge impact on photojournalism and sports photography.

Of course, this kind of technology and SLRs are mutually exclusive, since the sensor relies on a constant light feed that an SLR’s mirror diverts to the optical viewfinder.  If Casio were smart, it’d grab its unique sensor technology to blow the professional PJ and sports fields wide-open.  Perhaps Samsung’s NX system, and the recent declaration that the system will be open for licensing to third-party body manufacturers, provides just such an opportunity.

Bajillion-x Megazoom

Olympus' 26x zoom SP-590UZ

An interesting thing about the “Megapixel Wars” is that the public’s fascination with megapixels as a selling point have somewhat waned.  I don’t have particular evidence of this – perhaps it’s just media emphasizing it less, or perhaps even that I’ve become so jaded with the numbers that I’ve mentally blocked it out. And in any case, I’m certain that any such effect that’s been noticed has purely been with the semi-educated consumer – there are still millions of consumers who have no idea how to evaluate cameras aside from megapixel count.

But as the emphasis on megapixels seems to recede, another emphasis over ever-skyrocketing optical zoom ranges mounts.  Back in the old days, ultrazooms hit 10x (something like 38-380mm or 36-360mm equivalent), and inched up to 12x and pretty much stopped there.  About two years ago, Olympus changed the dynamic of this race completely with its groundbreaking SP-550 UZ which packed a whopping 18x (28-504mm) zoom.  Olympus had about a 6-month monopoly on this range, but ever since then, manufacturers have been pushing their lenses to ever stratospheric heights.

A lot of people have decried this extreme push in lens design, which certainly has its drawbacks.  The SP-550′s 18x lens was universally panned for delivering terrible image quality, and no camera since then has really been able to deliver that kind of zoom range in a lens that is up to par with the previous generations’ more conservative 10x or 12x lenses.  Unlike pixel count, however, which past a certain point doesn’t given any usable advantages for most users and applications, a larger zoom range will always add more versatility.

So PMA saw the introduction of no less than 5 such ultrazooms (4 new releases and one North American re-release) having 20x+ zoom ranges.  A quick summary of them:

20x Ultrazooms

So we can see the zoom count is continually creeping up and up, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see an ultrazoom packing 30x in the next 6 months or so.  Depending on whether your glass is half-full or half-empty, I think one interesting aspect is that the zooms are growing in the wide-angle range as well as the telephoto, though perhaps not in equal proportions – if we take a 36-360mm 10x zoom as our baseline, from a few years ago, today’s 26-624mm (4x) cameras are about 27.8% wider on the wide-angle end, and 73% longer on the telephoto end.  This is disproportionately skewed towards the telephoto end, but it’s nice to see these cameras offering a significantly wider angle at all, compared to the earlier days of digital cameras when developing 10x lenses meant keeping the same 36mm starting point and just changing the 108mm telephoto end to a 360mm.

An interesting note is that both Canon’s SX1 and Sony’s HX1 ultrazooms are their first non-SLR cameras to feature a CMOS, rather than CCD sensors.  This isn’t an outright positive – CMOS and CCD are simply different technologies, without one being inherently superior to the other.  Historically, CCD sensors have produced better image quality, although CMOS has an inherent advantage in readout speed and Canon’s CMOS sensors for their DSLRs have beat out every other manufacturers’ CCD sensors in terms of high-ISO noise for a half-decade now.  For what it’s worth, Canon’s SX1 CMOS seems to perform slightly worse than the very similar Canon SX10, which uses the same lens but a CCD sensor, according to a head-to-head Cameralabs comparison.

A bevy of ruggedized cameras

Olympus has been hammering away at this niche market for years now with its mju line of waterproof cameras.  The other big players seem to have finally jumped on the bandwagon, with Canon’s D10, Fujifilm’s Z33, and Panasonic’s TS1.

It’s a bit sad to see another innovative market or feature that Olympus found, targeted, and penetrated first, only to eventually lose that ground to other bigger players who seized on their innovation.  Then again, this is a huge boon for consumers, not only because it offers more selection, but frankly because Canon, Fujifilm, and Panasonic know how to execute and produce quality cameras in a way that Olympus can only dream of.

Fujifilm's ruggedized Z33

Canon introduces the compact ultrazoom SX200 TZ-killer, Panasonic one-ups everyone again with the ZS3/TZ7

Canon SX200 IS

Panasonic has had a long and successful run with its TZ series of ultrazoom cameras.  They first introduced their 10x, 1.6in thick TZ1 in 2006, back when the only 10x+ cameras on the market were huge, bulky ultrazooms like the Canon S3 (3in. thick), Sony H5 (3.6in.), or Panasonic’s own 5.4in. FZ30 behemoth.

The TZ was an ideal blend of versatility and compactness, which more or less made it the ideal travel camera, especially as one of the few cameras (much less ultrazooms) to offer a 28mm wide-angle lens at the time.  Even when Canon and Sony attempted to mount some competition with their own ~2in. ultrazoom releases in the past year, they were still significantly bulkier and lacked the all-important 28mm wide angle end.

Finally, 3 years after the release of the original TZ, Canon appears to have come out with a viable contender in the SX200 IS, a 1.5in compact sporting a 28-336mm (12x) f/3.4-5.3 lens.  It’s also got the ability to record 1280×720, 30fps video (720/30p).

Panasonic ZS3 (aka TZ7)

But like clockwork, Panasonic’s already rolling out the next generation of cameras that, on paper at least, offer more innovative features and better performance. The newest TZ7/ZS3 continues Panosonic’s recent trend of setting 25mm as the new wide-angle standard, featuring a 25-300mm 12x lens at f/3.3-4.9.  The ZS3 also features a 1280×720, 60fps video mode (720/60p) (though with this level of processing throughput, one wonders why 1080p couldn’t be offered), and even allows you to utilize the optical zoom while recording (something which many cameras, Canon SX200 included, surprisingly can’t).  Following the trend of some other high-end Panasonics lately, the ZS3 also seems to be offering an oversized sensor, which allows it to deliver “full-frame” coverage for its lens and offer the same angle of view irrespective of aspect ratio (so you won’t get cropped off images when shooting 16:9 video on a native 4:3 sensor).  The Panasonic ZS3 also offers a 2.3fps burst, and 6fps burst in a 3MP mode, compared to the SX200′s paltry 0.8fps.

Sony, meanwhile, just pumped out its H20 compact ultrazoom, which still tips in at a bulky 1.9in and features the same boring restrictive 38-380mm zoom.  On the other end of the spectrum, Samsung introduced the HZ15, which features a 24-240mm 10x zoom.

Oh, and in case you were wondering about image quality (and the oft-repeated stigma that Panasonics can’t do low-light), here’s a comparison between last generation’s Panasonic TZ5 at ISO1600 and dcresource’s recent review of the Canon SX200 IS at ISO1600.

So for now, it seems, Panasonic still rules the roost as king of compact ultrazooms, and on paper the ZS3 appears to be the perfect camera for anyone looking for maximum versatility and portability in a single package (i.e. travel photographers).