I had a quick idea I wanted to jot down, and I haven’t found anything on it. I feel like someone out there must have thought up something similar already, or it’s already in the works at some black lab of a sensor company or something.

The idea I have is an image sensor that measures light intensity based on time-to-saturate – the time it takes for a particular photowell (representing a pixel) to saturate to its maximum capacity. The concept I’ve come up with has some interesting theoretical advantages in dynamic range over conventional photon-counting designs used today.

Imaging today – photon counting

First, a layman’s overview of how the conventional photon-counting design works in today’s sensors:

The sensor is a light sensitive device, and whenever photons come into contact with it, they are absorbed and a proportional number of photoelectrons are “knocked out” by the photon energy and collected in a photowell. From this photowell, a voltage measurement is taken, and this ultimately translates to a brightness value in the resulting image. In essence: Image brightness ∝ voltage reading ∝ electrons collected ∝ photons collected.

When taking an image, there is a set exposure duration, often referred to as a “shutter speed” in photography terms. This defines the time when a sensor is exposed to and detecting light – the exposure starts, light hits the sensors, exposure stops, and then we count the photons.

A limiting factor in this design is the photowell capacity. The number of electrons that can be stored in a well is finite, and once the photowell capacity is saturated, any additional electrons are not collected and hence the photons they correlate to are not counted. On the flipside, there is also a noise floor, where enough electrons must be gathered to produce a signal that is discernible from the random signal variation due to various forms of dark (thermal), electronics (read), and shot (photon) noise.

These two attributes lead to a problem of dynamic range – in scenes where light intensity differs greatly between the darkest and brightest areas, the sensor is simply unable to measure the full range of brightnesses and must cap measurements above and/or below a certain threshold.  This leads to the “blown highlights” and “crushed shadows” attribute often found in photos of large dynamic range scenes.

Time-to-saturate

The idea behind a time-to-saturate sensor is fairly simple. What we aim to measure in an image is light intensity – the flux of photons per time per area. The area is cancelled out of the equation by the photosite corresponding to a pixel being a certain area, so the measure we are really after is photons per time, for each pixel.

With photon counting, we fix a shutter speed (time duration), and then count the number of photons (via voltage measurement of photoelectrons) captured in that span, and use both to derive the intensity:

Intensity = photons / time = photons recorded / shutter speed

In time-to-saturate, the photon count is fixed at the capacity of the photowell, and the variable we measure is the time it takes for an individual well to saturate fully to the capacity.

Intensity = photons / time = max photon capacity / time-to-reach max-photon-capacity

How would the system work exactly? With a time-to-saturate sensor, we use as long a shutter speed as needed to fully saturate all photowells (in a conventional sensor, this is the minimum shutter speed to generate an all-white (max brightness) image). At the moment a photowell reaches capacity, it records a timestamp which will indicate how long it took to reach capacity. Once the exposure is finished, we are then left with a two-dimensional array of saturation times, rather than photon counts. Rather than recording 100k photons at one photosite, and 50k photons at a neighboring photosite where light was half as intense, the readings we get from this sensor would be along the lines of 1 millisecond time-to-saturate for the first photosite, and 2 millisecond time-to-saturate for the second, half-intensity photosite.

Key Advantages

There are two key advantages in our ability to take light intensity readings, both ultimately advancing dynamic range:

• There is virtually no limitation to the range of highlights we can capture, unlike the limitation imposed by the photowell capacity with photon-counting sensors. In our example, if there was a third photosite which had double the intensity of the first 100k photosite, and was exposed to 200k photons, it would only end up recording 100k photons since this is the capacity of the photosite, and thus both pixels would record the same white (max brightness) value, even though the 200k photosite pixel clearly represents a brighter area in the scene than the 100k photosite. A time-to-saturate measurement, by contrast, would simply produce a shorter time measurement: the 200k photosite saturates in 0.5 milliseconds, which we can compare to the 1 millisecond measurement for the first photosite and clearly conclude that the 200k photosite is twice as bright.
• Noise levels are reduced to the level of a maximally-saturated photowell. In a photon-counting sensor, any photosite that does not record a max white value by definition recorded a fewer number of photons, and thus produces a sub-optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Photon or “shot” noise has a standard deviation of the square root of the signal – thus for 100k photons we have √(100,000) = 316.2 photons of standard deviation, and a SNR of N/√(N) = √(N) = 316.2. For 50k photons, however, we have an SNR of √(50,000) = 223.6. In contrast, all photosites in a time-to-saturate sensor reach the max well capacity, and will thus all have the max SNR. This ensures that all photosites record values well above the noise floor, and additionally reduces photon noise for all pixels to the level of a maximally saturated photosite (the 100k photon, 316.2 SNR in this example).

In theory, such a sensor would have an infinite dynamic range – the brightest intensities are simply recorded as short time-to-saturate durations, and enough samples are recorded from the darkest areas to place the measurement well above the noise floor.  This would have huge implications for large dynamic range photography and imaging in general, to be able to record the entire dynamic range of a scene in a single exposure, without having to resort to processing tricks like selective shadow/highlight adjustment or high dynamic range (HDR) blending.

Potential Feasibility Issues

I’m not aware of any sources that have thought of this idea before, but if there are then there must be some large feasibility (or perhaps cost) issues that have prevented its development thus far. The few issues that I can imagine, none of which seem like dealbreakers and none of which would place performance any worse than that of photon-counting methods, in theory:

• Timing accuracy/precision of photowell saturation. While photon-counting relies on accurate and precise voltage readings from the photowells, a time-to-saturate sensor would need good accuracy and precision in recording time when a photowell reaches saturation. How precise does the time need to be, to equal the theoretical precision of today’s cameras? Taking the contemporary example of a 100k photon capacity photowell, hooked up to a sensor/imaging pipeline with a 14-bit analog-to-digital converter (found on most high-end cameras today), we would need to quantize measurable photon counts into 2^14 = 16,384 steps. 100,000 / 16,384 = ~6 photons, which is the precision we need to be able to measure time-to-saturation by. Most high-end cameras today operate with a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 second (125 microseconds) – a 100k photowell that fully saturates in this time (this is the maximum light intensity the photon-counting sensor is able to record, under any settings) is thus 100,000 photons/125 microseconds = 800,000,000 (0.8 billion) photons / second.  Finally, we use this intensity along with our 6 photon steps to arrive at 6 photons / (0.8 billion photons/second) = 7.6 nanoseconds. This is the precision with which a time-to-saturate sensor needs to record time by. Of course, depending on the application the numbers can vary – with fewer bits per pixel, we would need less precision (an 8-bit jpeg in this example would need just ~0.5 microseconds of precision), with lower photowell capacity we would need greater precision, and with a larger minimum exposure time we would need less precision.
• To take advantage of the greater dynamic range capabilities of a time-to-saturate sensor, the exposure duration must be longer than a conventional photon-counting sensor, to capture more light. For static scenes, this is unlikely to be an issue, but for dynamic scenes (e.g. moving subjects), the exposure duration can only be stretched so far before issues such as motion blur or camera shake blur are introduced. At worst, however, the exposure can simply stop after a defined maximum exposure time – at this point any photowells which have not reached capacity simply output a voltage reading like in a conventional sensor – this reading is then used to extrapolate a time-to-saturate which can then be compared with the other photosites. In the worst case, the maximum exposure time is the same as the exposure time in a conventional photon-counting sensor, and would produce an noise level and at least the same dynamic range, if not a greater dynamic range captured in the highlights. For any exposure duration exceeding that of the conventional sensor however, noise levels will be reduced and a greater dynamic range in the shadow regions will be achieved as well.

What do you think?  Any potential pitfalls or feasibility issues I might have missed? I’m especially interested if anyone has come across a source with similar ideas before. Feel free to post links in the comments!

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.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC - currently one of only two f/2.8 midrange zoom lenses on the market, and the only one under a grand ($650 to be exact)

When it comes to midrange lenses, there’s a few different approaches. Of course, a lot of people start at the low end with an 18-55mm kit or so, but eventually most people graduate and there are pretty much two ways to go:

1. A small range, high-quality, high-aperture zoom.
2. A large range ultrazoom with (usually) lower quality and smaller aperture

One of the advantages where ultrazooms seemed to gain the leg-up on large aperture zooms was in the image stabilization department, where nearly every single ultrazoom lens does, but up until recently only one large aperture crop lens (Canon’s $1000+ 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) did.

That left just one (very expensive) option for Canon users, and Nikon users completely out in the cold (they pay $1300 for a 17-55 f/2.8 without VR). Third party manufacturers, have as always had cheaper alternatives, such as Sigma’s 18-50mm f/2.8 and Tokina’s 16-50mm f/2.8, but all of these lacked any sort of stabilization as well.

Now finally, Tamron has gone ahead and introduced their VC stabilization to their flagship crop standard zoom, the 17-50mm f/2.8 (or rather, Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]), which finally delivers a large aperture, image-stabilized standard zoom for an affordable price ($650 currently).

It’s only knock is that it doesn’t yet have the fast USM or SWM-based autofocus of the Canon or Nikon models, although it’s a feature I’ve long-regarded as over-rated for standard zooms for most people’s actions.

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: 1920×1080x24fps = 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.

Digital cameras don’t come out all that often, so this may be a quarterly guide.  This also may not reflect the very cutting edge – it takes a little while for reviews for the newest cameras to come in, and it’s impossible to really assess the cameras until they do.

All prices based on the lowest of amazon.com or bhphotovideo.com

Have you got a use case/need that isn’t covered here?  Feel free to post it in the comments, and I’ll keep it in mind for future guides.  And if you think differently about any of the cameras, feel free to share that too!

General advice:

To give you all an idea of the perspective these recommendations are written from, here’s a few guidelines I mostly go by:

Features trump image quality: With modern cameras, image quality differences are mostly a consideration of the past.  Almost every camera released today has megapixel resolution far in excess of what’s needed (or even usable) for most applications, and in most daylight scenarios there is practically zero difference between cameras, especially among the top tier of manufacturers.  The main differentiator in your photographic experience and capability, then, is what features you’ll have to work with – being able to take a wide shot with a 28mm wide-angle lens, or having a fast 4fps continuous shooting mode for action shots, for instance, is going to go a long way towards getting you the photographs you want compared to minute differences in image quality or resolution.

Price/performance: The recommendations for different categories will mostly recommend the camera with the best value proposition – a lot of these are often written in the format of: Best budget camera under $200, best midrange camera under $300, best premium camera under $500, etc. While oftentimes, yes it’s true that Camera Xa has a slightly bigger LCD screen than Camera Xb and is therefore better, and the $50 premium still puts it under the $300 budget, as a knowledgeable consumer you wouldn’t want to spend that much more on a mostly cosmetic difference, and as an informed friend you would do best by recommending Camera Xb to your friend.

Simple Ultracompact

For many people, cameras are just cameras, and all they need is something that, for lack of a less-hackneyed phrase, they can “point and shoot”.  They’re not interested in photography and don’t need nor want full manual controls, and rarely would use and can make do without a huge zoom range.  They’ll take snaps while they’re out at social events or just randomly at home or in their room, but that’s about it.  For this group there’s the simple ultracompact – a basic camera that has a few useful features (possibly wide-angle lenses for indoor group photos and image stabilization for low-light situations) but otherwise just provides good overall quality and a small formfactor that can be slipped just about anywhere.

Simple Ultracompact, midrange: Canon SD960

A plethora of Canon, Panasonic, and Fujifilm cameras rule the roost in the ultracompact category, all roaming around the $300 range.  For a little less than $300, Canon’s SD960 puts together the best combination of image quality and features, with a 28mm wide-angle, image stabilization, and even 1280×720 (720p) video capability.

• 12MP resolution
• 28-112mm (4x) zoom range
• f/2.8-5.8 aperture
• 1280×720, 30fps video (720p)
• Image stabilization
• 145g (5.1oz)
• 99.1 x 53.3 x 22.9 mm (3.9 x 2.1 x 0.9 in)
• 200 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $281 on Amazon

Simple Ultracompact, budget: Panasonic FS15

If you’re looking for cheap and portable, the Panasonic FS15 is the most capable camera around.  For the most part the FS15 is your typical point-and-shoot ultracompact – it’s 0.9″ thin and 4.1oz light, so you can definitely take it just about anywhere.  The most prominent features is the 29mm wide-angle lens, allowing you to get a much wider view for sweeping landscapes or cramped indoor group photos.  The FS15 also features an image stabilization system, which helps greatly to reduce camera shake blur in low-light situations.  You’ll be hard-pressed to find either of these features on an ultracompact this small or a budget camera this cheap, much less both, which is what makes the FS15 by far the most capable camera in its class.

• 12MP resolution
• 29-145mm (5x) zoom range
• f/3.3-5.9 aperture
• 840×480, 30fps video
• Image stabilization
• 115g (4.1oz)
• 96.5 x 53.3 x 22.9mm (3.8 x 2.1 x 0.9 in)
• 330 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $188 on Amazon

Workhorse Compact

While simple ultracompacts make great cameras for casual snapshots, they don’t quite meet the needs of avid picture takers.  While a casual user might go to a party and want to take three or four photos with her friends the whole night, and might not care about quality so long as they’re passable for Facebook, the avid user is someone who’s going on a family trip to Yosemite and doesn’t exactly aspire to be the next Ansel Adams, but definitely wants to take hundreds of pictures to document and remember the whole trip.  The workhorse compact is the ideal camera for these users – good, versatile cameras with the capability to handle a large number of common situations from daylight to low-light and cramped interiors to outdoor graduations from a distance, while still retaining fairly simple functionality and a smaller formfactor.

Workhorse Compact, midrange: Panasonic ZS1, Panasonic ZS3

The Panasonic ZS1 and ZS3 are the latest in a line of compact ultrazoom cameras from Panasonic – both feature big 25-300mm (12x) zoom lenses that provide versatility for long-range photography and a very wide short range that’s especially useful for landscapes or interiors (the 25mm lens is in fact significantly wider than the kit lenses that come with most DSLRs).  The ZS3 features 1280×720 HD video capture and a higher resolution screen compared to the ZS1 –  the first might be a worthwhile feature if you’re interested in taking video as well, although for now it comes at a hefty price premium.

• 10MP resolution
• 25-300mm (12x) zoom range
• f/3.3-4.9 aperture
• ZS3: 1280×720, 30fps video (720p); ZS1: 848×480, 30fps video
• Image stabilization
• 206g (7.3oz)
• 104.1 x 61.0 x 33.0 mm (4.1 x 2.4 x 1.3 in)
• ZS3: 300 shots battery life (CIPA); ZS1: 320 shots
• ZS3: $399 on Amazon; ZS1: $260 on Amazon

Workhorse Compact, budget: Panasonic TZ4

The Panasonic TZ4 is the previous model in Panasonic’s series of ultrazoom compacts.  While the newer ZS series cameras provide wider lenses and slightly better high ISO performance, the TZ4 is nothing to scoff at – no other camera outside the TZ/ZS series provides a 10x zoom in as small of a package as the TZ4, and certainly not for the sub-$200 price of the TZ4.

• 8MP resolution
• 28-280mm (10x) zoom range
• f/3.3-4.9 aperture
• 840×480, 30fps video
• Image stabilization
• 208g (7.3oz)
• 104.1 x 58.4 x 35.6 mm (4.1 x 2.3 x 1.4 in)
• 330 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $190 on B&H

High-Performance Compact

Most users who are highly interested in photography – both in terms of having a high degree of control and producing the best images possible – are most likely to be interested in a full-fledged DSLR camera, but there does exist a niche market of high-performance compacts for the same user group.  Some might not be quite ready yet to take the plunge into the world of DSLRs, and others may not be interested in the size and micromanagement required of using a DSLR system.  Another common form of user in this group is the actual DSLR user looking for a second “social” camera that can be a bit more automated and definitely more pocketable, while still retaining the highest quality and a great amount of user control.  It should be noted that these cameras aren’t really the easiest to use or most versatile; in many cases they’re actually very specialized and limited in use, and require a strong technical proficiency to get the most out of the images, but in the right situation and in the right hands, these can be far more capable than your typical compact camera.

High-Performance Compact, premium: Sigma DP1

The Sigma DP1 is perhaps the epitome of the high-performance compact category.  It’s an extremely limited camera – it’s only got a fixed 28mm lens (no zooming at all), which makes it ideally suited for landscapes or interior photos, but leaves it absolutely useless for things like sports or other long-range events and doesn’t provide the working versatility useful for travel or portraiture.  Despite this, it’s close to a photographer’s absolute dream in a camera: it packs an extremely large 276mm² sensor that enables it to achieve much better noise performance, a very large dynamic range, and provides the option for shallower depth of field compared to nearly every other camera this side of a DSLR.  It also features a RAW mode and a hotshoe for use with external flashes, as well as fully manual exposure controls.  Sigma also makes the DP2, which is the same camera paired with a 41mm f/2.8 lens – even more specialized for low-light photography and perhaps a bit better for portraiture, but in a bit of a no man’s land in terms of focal length: a very difficult range to capture landscapes or interior photos, and still not anywhere near close enough for long-range photography.

• 4.6MP resolution
• 28mm (1x) zoom range
• f/4.0 aperture
• 320×240, 30fps video
• No Image stabilization
• 250g (8.8oz)
• 114.3 x 58.4 x 50.8 mm (4.5 x 2.3 x 2.0 in)
• 250 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $444 on Amazon

Simple Full-size

For some casual snapshooters, size is really no object.  In terms of usage, these users might use a camera very similarly to how they’d use a simple ultracompact – snapping a photo or two at social events or taking casual photos around the house or room.  In contrast to a simple ultracompact, a simple full-size camera doesn’t have portability as its main concern – you probably won’t be able to stuff it in your jeans pocket, and it might even require its own bag – but has a larger formfactor which often allows for better overall image quality.

Simple Full-size, premium: Canon Rebel XS with 18-55 IS lens

The Rebel XS is Canon’s entry-level DSLR offering.  While it’s got all the manual controls for more advanced users, like all DSLRs it has an automatic mode that reduces controls to the level of point and shoot.  In its price range, Rebel XS features the top image quality, and unlike some other entry-level models features an 18-55 kit lens with an image stabilization system to help steady low-light images.

• 10MP resolution
• 29-88mm (3x) zoom range
• f/3.5-5.6 aperture
• No video
• Image stabilization
• 450g (15.9oz) – not including lens
• 127.0 x 96.5 x 61.0 mm (5.0 x 3.8 x 2.4 in) – not including lens
• 500 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $540 on B&H

Workhorse Full-size

For many in the “avid photographer” user profile mentioned in the workhorse compact camera description, the growing interest in photography can often reach a point where taking pictures and documenting an event becomes the primary interest rather than the event itself.  As an example, rather than searching cool or fun places to visit on your next vacation, you might deliberately search for photogenic locales that will make for great photo trips.  For these users, coming away with good images supercedes the enjoyment of traveling or participating in the event itself, and thus the hassle of carrying and managing photo equipment becomes secondary to being able to capture the best images.  For these users, a workhorse full-size camera that can handle a variety of scenes and perform under even the most difficult conditions, and sacrifices no capability for size considerations, is ideal

Workhorse Full-size, premium: Nikon D5000 with 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR lenses

The Nikon D5000 is a midrange DSLR that is a bit lighter on features compared to some higher-end models (mostly in lens compatibility and fast-action capability) but packs the same sensor internals as some of Nikon’s premium sports cameras.  It’ll provide by far the best image quality in its price range, especially when a high-ISO mode is required (fast action and low-light).  The D5000 is also one of very few DSLRs currently to feature a video mode.  The 18-55 VR and 55-200 lens combo will require some lens swapping when switching between short and long-range subjects, but together will provide an extremely versatile range that can cover just about anything.  Both also feature IS systems (Nikon calls it VR) to help cut down on camera shake.  If you don’t require a long range lens, a kit with only the 18-55 VR runs for $773.

• 12MP resolution
• 18-55 lens: 27-83mm (3x) zoom range; 55-200 lens: 83-300mm (3.6x) zoom
• f/3.5-5.6 aperture
• 1280×720, 24fps (720p) video
• Image stabilization
• 560g (19.8oz) – not including lens
• 127.0 x 104.1 x 78.7 mm  (5.0 x 4.1 x 3.1 in) - not including lens
• 510 shots battery life (CIPA)
• $1000 on B&H; $773 on Amazon (18-55 lens only kit)

Workhouse Full-size, midrange: Panasonic FZ28

The market for the big, hulking ultrazooms of yesteryear have somewhat evaporated in the budget and midrange categories – for the majority of consumers, the advantages of having a portable formfactor like the Panasonic TZ/ZS series cameras is so enormous that no amount of expanded features or capability would sway them towards a larger camera.  Nonetheless, there are certain advantages to larger cameras like the FZ28: even bigger “megazoom” lenses, better ergonomics (there’s much more camera to hold onto), and manual controls that often aren’t found on compact ultrazooms for marketing reasons.  While the traditional ultrazoom cameras like Canon’s S (now SX) and Sony’s H (now HX) series still exist, they’ve somewhat transitioned into a premium niche market – Panasonic’s FZ28 is just about the only one of these to be found for a reasonable sub-$300 price.