I use my Olympus C5050 for many commercial purposes, Santa pix at the mall, real estate and just snaps.At 35-105 mm it is a good camera, the .7 tele extender turns it into a 25mm at the wide end and a great camera. The 5mp doesnot bother me. IR focusing assist, the flash is setable to fire studio strobes and not interfere with the light pattern and dual card slots that write from one to the other.
Unfortunately, no longer made.

Larry

A few years back at COMDEX, you told me that the Nikon CP5k would be my next camera, and it was. I waited and compared with everything else on the market before I bought. It served me well for a longer time than I expected with the CP8400 being a little slow to come out. The CP8400 is in almost all ways a better camera, and there is nothing on the market at any price currently, for which I would trade it.

I would love to have the same camera concept with a DX-sized sensor. Amazing what can be done with long exposures, but there are lots of times when I wish I could just crank it up to ISO3200 and still get usable quality.

The SLR production lines at Canon, Nikon and Pentax have been there for nearly half a century. Production of 35mmm cameras paid for them long ago. Production line workers need no retraining to build them. Margins are generous and millions have been spent successfully on marketing to build lust for them, in spite of them being a hundred year old concept with no real improvements since the pentaprism was added in 1949.

The CP8400-level cameras are true 21st century designs, but obviously were intentionally crippled to avoid being competition with dSLRs. None of the reasons given for buying an SLR over one of these is fundamental to the design. Shutter lag should actually be much less, since there is no mirror to swing out of the way and no focal-plane shutter to get moving. There is no reason why the sensor must be so tiny. With both the CP5k and CP8400, I added the battery pack grip, mostly to bulk up the camera so it would be comfortable to use. I would gladly accept a MUCH larger camera. I would also gladly pay $2k for a camera comparable to the D200 in features but in a Coolpix configuration. There is nothing organic to the concept that prohibits it from being produced. It is purely a marketing decision.

With no mirror, one views the image after the camera processes it - a true preview - not a projection on a screen. The time of processing is of no relevance, since it take my shutter timing from the subject itself, not the view in the monitor. One can view from any angle, keeping the camera out of the line of sight which makes for much greater subject comfort. They have liberated my face from having a camera jammed against it.

Yes, they require new technique. For those who dwell in viewfinders, and want to examine every detail clearly before punching the shutter, they are clearly lacking. However, higher resolution monitors are entirely feasible.

For someone who favours rangefinder cameras, the first shot through the CP990 - my first digital camera - was a photographic epiphany. Always being a two eyed shooter, the viewfinder was more of an assurance that the subject was in the frame and well focused. I shoot looking at the subject - not the camera. Timing is everything, and there is no time to spend meditating on the movie the lens is projecting on the focusing screen. Even with SLRs, both eyes were open, and the screen was just in peripheral vision for the most part.

After something approaching a million career shots with SLRs, I have come to the conclusion that I don't really like them much. Even though using them for work, looking back, most of my personal shooting was with rangefinders or view cameras.

At this point all the concentration is on production and sales of dSLRs. Nothing for us in either the Canon or Nikon lineup. Sony had the R1 which had a large sensor, and I understand it is now out of production. While I longed for the sensor and really did give it a lot of consideration, in the end there was just not enough to like about the camera.

The Sigma is a bit difficult to grasp. No zoom, no lens components, no interchange. If a 28mm f-4.0 is your cup of tea, great - but it is the only cup. Odd too, how Sigma has these 10 and 14MP cameras that only produce images the size of 3.34MP and 4.6MP cameras from every other manufacturer. Yeah, three layers - but same number of pixels in the file.

I covered the launch of the Foveon for a Brit magazine, and have never before or since run into so much spin. When it first hit the market, the sensor was announced to be 3.34MP, and only became 10MP a few years later when marketing promoted it. No engineering involved in the change.

Great concept without doubt. They said that every camera company was interested in it and hinted that Kodak had a camera in the works. I asked how the sensor would scale, and that set off a tirade of obfuscation. Years later, it has barely scaled, and the trade has not noticeably embraced it. It is a concept I really would have loved to see develop, but I see far more marketing than engineering progress.

I am happy with 8MP - just space the photosites out on the sensor to give me quality at ISO800 and usability at ISO3200. Given a superb 8MP image, there is really no limit to the size it can be printed.

HI Larry, I knew you'd appreciate this thread because we've always favored the same cameras. I also agree that $2000 wouldn't scare me away from purchasing the quality image maker in the form factor I'm looking for.

I hope the Sigma makes it to market and causes Nikon (and Canon) to compete.

Larry,

I am curious just which Sigma you are referring to. A couple of years ago I field tested the Sigma SD10 and was quite impressed with its performance compared to the 6mpx dSLR's that were current. Not just because the pixel count produced was greater, but because the color quality fidelity to subject was better than anything then on the market, and probably still is in the new SD14. I did find one serious fault though, it produced an unacceptable level of shadow noise with long exposures in low light. Maybe that has been improved in the SD14.

I have heard some talk that the Foveon chip might appear in a compact prosumer configuration with a fixed lens, but have seen no official confirmation of the actual existence of such a camera yet.

Regardless, even though Larry Bolch seems to doubt a three layer chip actually produces the pixel count the Foveon/Sigma's do produce, if I were were not committed by an investment in system lenses, the Sigma SD14 would be very attractive in terms of moderate cost for very high color quality and image resolution. Why few others see the same potential I find puzzling.

Peter Burian is reporting on the Sigma SD14 so it will be interesting to read of his experience with this new camera.

Quote:

I am curious just which Sigma you are referring to.

I covered the initial release of the sensor, prior to the release of the Sigma SD9. The Sigma was mentioned at the time, but the indication was that it was one of many cameras from the majors to follow. At the time, the sensor specification was for a 3.34MP sensor, and that was the one that went into the D9 and the resolution was unchanged for the D10.

Foveon/Sigma a few years later declared it to be a 10MP sensor - 3.34MP x 3 layers = 10MP. The resolution of the Foveon in the D9 and D10 was 2268 x 1512 pixels, compared to the 3888 x 2592 resolution of a 10MP camera. (Canon Rebel Digital XTi for example.)

Quote:
A couple of years ago I field tested the Sigma SD10 and was quite impressed with its performance compared to the 6mpx dSLR's that were current. Not just because the pixel count produced was greater, but because the color quality fidelity to subject was better than anything then on the market, and probably still is in the new SD14. I did find one serious fault though, it produced an unacceptable level of shadow noise with long exposures in low light. Maybe that has been improved in the SD14.

I was very impressed with the technology in theory - very film like in its approach. I was not impressed by the level of spin and obfuscation from the company. It was like interviewing a politician. As a specific question and get a long series of slogans, buzzwords and catch phrases that don't in any way relate to your question. If you repeat the question, the politician snaps back that it was just answered!

If I sound down on the Foveon cameras, it is simply because there was so much promise that has not been fulfilled and I still think the technology holds a whole lot of promise. It should blow the Beyer mosaic sensor out of the water. However, the other companies have managed to get around the inherent weaknesses of the Beyer over the Foveon and daily, our pictures show it.

Quote:
I have heard some talk that the Foveon chip might appear in a compact prosumer configuration with a fixed lens, but have seen no official confirmation of the actual existence of such a camera yet.

That would be the DP1 I mentioned above.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3281

Polaroid also announced a camera with a Foveon sensor a couple of years ago, but I have never seen it advertised for sale.
Polaroid x503

Quote:
Regardless, even though Larry Bolch seems to doubt a three layer chip actually produces the pixel count the Foveon/Sigma's do produce, if I were were not committed by an investment in system lenses, the Sigma SD14 would be very attractive in terms of moderate cost for very high color quality and image resolution. Why few others see the same potential I find puzzling.

A three layer chip should be able to produce whatever resolution current technology makes possible. I know of no reason for a theoretical limit. I would love to have a genuine 8 or 10MP Foveon-based camera that produced the results that theoretically it should.

A Beyer mosaic sensor has a square of four photosites,with each photosite (photo-detector, whatever...) being capped by a filter. Generally a red filter, two green filters and a blue filter for each pixel. Thus information is actually read from four adjacent - but separate - points to create the pixel. This creates an inherent unsharpness compared to film or the Foveon.

The Foveon uses layers, with the three photosites - red, green and blue stacked one on top of the other in a manner similar to film. There is no longer the need to adjust for adjacent readings, so should require a lot less processing.

While there may be 10 million photosites when all three layers are added up, it still only creates 3.34MP, since three photosites - one for each colour channel - are required per pixel.

The Sigma SD14 is not a 14MP camera. It is a 4.5MP camera, with 4.5 million red, 4.5 million green and 4.5 million blue photosites. If Sigma decides to make it output a 14MP file, it will do this through interpolation. The native resolution is 2640 x 1760.

Quote:
Peter Burian is reporting on the Sigma SD14 so it will be interesting to read of his experience with this new camera.

In spite of my reservations on how it it has been implemented, I would really love to see this sensor succeed.

Larry,

I missed the DP-1 largely because I don't pay all that much attention to point and shoots these days - just avoiding spreading myself too thin. From the data it is claimed to be a camera that produces 14 megapixels from the Foveon X3 chip. The picture of the camera however looks suspiciously like just a non-working mock-up.

I also agree with your conclusion, that the Foveon strategy does make a kind of sense especially to anyone who understands the layered structure of color film. And as you point out stacking the sensor sites in layers, rather than arranging them laterally, does provide an inherent image sharpness advantage. Although any matrix capture will be inherently "soft" requiring the application of a sharpening process, something all too few people seem to realize. But I really don't see any serious distinction about how the actual resulting pixel count output is arrived at is different. All sensor sites in any ccd/cmos or Foveon image sensor array only produce light level information for one color. So each site could theoretically result in one pixel, which would then require an interpolation strategy to distribute all three RGB values to each pixel whether they are arranged physically, laterally or stacked in the sensor chip.

As to how Foveon originally presented their technology, at the time I was still attending all the photo trade shows, and got the presentation first hand. At that launch one of the key people involved and made the presentation was an ex-Kodak executive who was about the most colorful personality to ever come out of Kodak, sorry my memory fails me and I don't recall his name, but he came to his demise at Kodak primarily for having an "affair" which in staid Rochester, NY was very much a no-no at the time. I am sure being a Kodak marketing man he was partly responsible for the way the Foveon was presented, but also I am sure there was a policy by the company to play it close to the vest and a reluctance to lay all their cards out on the table face up.

Quote:
with no real improvements since the pentaprism was added in 1949.

You can't really mean that, can you? I think there have been one or two improvements to the SLR that you don't mention
The demand for a high quality compact has always been there, but in the past it has always been a disappointment. There are some pretty good compact digital cameras now, but unfortunately none of them exhibit the smoothness of image and lower noise levels of the APS-C sized sensor. The lenses are not quite as good either, at least not the ones I have tried, and that has been quite a few.
I conclude that the DSLR is really the optimum choice for quality, and probably will be for the forseeable future. But it's not all bad news, because their lighter weight and more compact dimensions are just a couple of the improvements to the design since 1949....

Quote:

Quote:
with no real improvements since the pentaprism was added in 1949.

You can't really mean that, can you? I think there have been one or two improvements to the SLR that you don't mention

The improvements have been very small compared to the first Pentax I bought a long time back. My Nikon F3 has interchangeable screens and a removable prism, but that seems to no longer be available. It was very useful to replace the prism with a chimney finder for macro-work close to the ground. When shooting slides for TV broadcast, I had a screen that clearly showed the safe zone, and a grid screen for architecture. These were handy, but not revolutionary. There have been a few cameras with semi-transparent mirrors.

However, the view through the 1Ds or D2X works just about identically to that first Pentax, other than it is more difficult now to manually focus one. Screens are optimized for slow zoom lenses and lack the focusing aids like microprism grids. While fine manual glass still works, it does not work as easily as with older SLRs.

On the other hand, the first shot with a swing and swivel monitor camera was an epiphany. No longer was there a camera jammed against my face. No longer was there a big cyclops lens intimidating my subjects. The camera became far less obtrusive than even my Leica - which was my "people" camera before the Coolpix. Capture of content was enhanced beyond measure, and could be done hand-held. In the past, I used a remote control on the film SLRs in order to move them out of the line of sight. Same effect, but much more awkward. I do like SLRs for product shots, but they are a very poor choice for decisive moment shooting with people.

Quote:
The demand for a high quality compact has always been there, but in the past it has always been a disappointment. There are some pretty good compact digital cameras now, but unfortunately none of them exhibit the smoothness of image and lower noise levels of the APS-C sized sensor. The lenses are not quite as good either, at least not the ones I have tried, and that has been quite a few.

But that is not an inherent part of the design, that was the maker's choice in order to protect the dSLRs that sell for a better margin. Sony did produce a camera with a APS-sized sensor. The quality of glass is what the maker decides to provide and there is no reason - other than choice by the maker - why top quality glass can not be fitted on a mirrorless camera. In fact, there is no need to build retrofocus lenses to provide true wide angles since there is no mirror box in the way. With the Sony, the lens designers were able to bring the rear element almost in contact with the sensor, providing the optimum angle for the rays of light to enter the sensor.

Quote:
I conclude that the DSLR is really the optimum choice for quality, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. But it's not all bad news, because their lighter weight and more compact dimensions are just a couple of the improvements to the design since 1949....

Most of the improvements in SLRs since 1949 have nothing to do with the single lens reflex form-factor - other than a few cameras with optional screens. The improvements have been more along the lines of sophisticated auto-exposure systems and autofocus, faster and more accurate electronically controlled shutters and that sort of thing - nothing whatever to do with the essence of an SLR. A glance at the late lamented Contax G2 will show you that these features transfer transparently to rangefinder cameras.

It all depends on what you like to use. Quality aside, I have never liked using rangefinders and the SLR (my first was a Pentax Spotmatic)was a revelation with its wonderful clear image framed in superb black. Mind you, if you want the ultimate SLR image I would suggest the Voigtlander Bessamatic - a good one will truly amaze the modern SLR user.

The current Pentax DSLRs (I use the *istDS and the K10D is on order)have the best modern viewfinders - IMHO much better than Nikon or Canon. Personally I don't find a problem with focusing manual focus lenses, but I always used the ground glass anyway and rarely used microprism or split image aids.

As regards compacts, I do always carry a Pentax A20 as a rather nice little visual notebook, and also use a Fuji S7000 for close up work, where I do rather like its macro capability. The screen is excellent indoors, but outdoors it is very difficult to view when the light is bright.

I do like elegance in design, and in this respect pentax have been exemplary. Most SLR systems are indeed developed with one foot firmly in the 1950s, but the Pentax designs are quite another matter. Pick up a Spotmatic or an MZ-3 and both will be instantly familiar. The DSLRs maintain that integrity of design, and I personally find them delightful!

Quote:
Though I use the D200 for studio type work I'm never going to carry a DSLR kit again but still want the highest quality images I can get.

Just curious, why?

I expect that Larry's reasons will be much the same as mine. I too shoot primarily with a Coolpix 8400.

I am not coming from a viewpoint of naivet

Let me add to what Larry has said.

I'm now 58 years old and will never carry a heavy camera and lenses around again. I'm way past that in my life and how I do both photography and my business. But that doesn't mean that I should be deprived of the highest image quality available. Like Larry, I feel the Nikon CoolPix has been the most important advancement in creative photography. The form factor and swivel body (or articulating viewfinder) has made it easier for me to capture images creatively than almost any other advancement in photography.

Though I still use a CoolPix 950, and regularly sell photographs taken with it (yes, two megapixels) from two web sites, the CoolPix 5000 was a turning point for me. When I reviewed it for Shutterbug, I realized that it's form factor and built in 28mm lens perfect suited my style. In fact, the only thing Nikon could have done better was make the lens a little wider. So I eventually evolved to the CoolPix 8400 with it's 24mm lens. And with both the 5000 and 8400, I can't remember ever zooming the built in lens away from the wide angle setting. I was always a wide angle photographer.

Give me a pocket camera with a 24mm (I'll settle for a 28mm) lens that doesn't compromise image quality any day. And don't take away the other advancements that Nikon has built in to their higher end DSLR's, like iTTL flash control and a sensor that doesn't limit print size.

Larry

Quote:
Though I use the D200 for studio type work I'm never going to carry a DSLR kit again but still want the highest quality images I can get.

With a general lack of enthusiasm, I have been considering the D200 as well. The past couple of months have been spent getting a handle on 96-bit HDR imaging, and I notice that the D200 will do a nine-stop autobracket as opposed to the five stops of our cameras. HDR will accommodate more than a 70EV contrast range, and is quite ideal for extremely difficult architectural interiors and the like. With proper exposure, one can grab detail in a cathedral's sunlit stained glass windows all the way to the darkness of the church mouse's nest. Where RAW stumbles, HDR takes over.

A D200 could also be useful for conventional contemplative photography where the lower noise from the larger sensor would be an asset. The stuff I do on medium format now.

It would never be my walkin' 'round camera - for that there is nothing better than the CP8400 today.

An added incentive is that I have a large arsenal of top-notch glass. However, it is all manual for my old workhorse Nikon F3. I understand there are menu settings to tell the camera which lens is mounted - focal length and aperture - for exposure purposes.

My question is, have you ever used manual lenses on yours? I understand that the focusing screens of most digital cameras are now optimized for the popular slow f-2.8 to f-6.3 zoom lenses, and the screens are also optimized for viewing - not focusing, assuming only auto-focus lenses. My lenses are very fast primes and I am wondering if the screen in the D200 would allow easy and accurate enough manual focusing that I might comfortably make use of these.

I may consider the slow, slow f-4.0 12mm to 24mm which covers the equivalent to 18mm to 36mm range, but would rather stick with primes above that range. I expect that camera stores would not be enthusiastic about taking in a bunch of manual glass in trade.

Any experience from you or the rest of the group would be appreciated.

By the way, the WC-E75 wide angle for the CP8400 has a 52mm thread and nicely turns my f-2.0 24mm Nikkor lens into an 18mm! I have not tried shooting with it.

Hi Larry,

I haven't tried manual focus lenses on the D200 yet. I've sold them all except the for the three macro lenses.

Have you looked at the Ricoh GX100 yet?

Quote:
Have you looked at the Ricoh GX100 yet?

There is much to like from the specifications, but 10MP on a 1/1.75" sensor is a worry. It is only the 75% the area of the CP8400 sensor but crams 20% more photosites into it. My only gripe against the CP8400 is the pixel density of the sensor, and the level of noise produced at ISO200 and ISO400. Other 10MP camera reviews - probably with the same sensor - point out that noise reduction is so aggressive that JPEG images almost look posterized. Of course, this one does shoot RAW so I can deal with noise in Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop as I do with the CP8400. No matter how noise is dealt with, there are trade-offs and some loss. The only real solution so far, is a larger sensor with less crowding.

It also lacks an articulated monitor, which is a deal-breaker for me. For people-photography - which is the bulk of my shooting - nothing has made it more effective than being able to move the camera out of the line of sight. The camera becomes totally unobtrusive, and even in full sight, people ignore it. The bendy CP990 was an epiphany, and the CP5k and 8400 took it an order of magnitude beyond.

For contemplative photography, viewing really does not make a significant difference. I am as happy to shoot with a view camera, medium format or dSRL, as with a Coolpix. However, now that I am concentrating upon personal photography for the most part - people-photography - the form-factor of the CP8400 is ideal. Even if I get a D200, it will be used only for contemplative photography, which is a minor part of what I do.

The Ricoh has a range of focal lengths that compares favourably with the CP8400, falling only slightly short. A 19mm rather than an 18mm component and 75mm rather than 85mm. I do on occasion use my 2x and 3x tele components which would be missed, but not a deal-breaker. The fact that it includes RAW is a big plus. It has a nice range of timed long-exposures and an interval timer which has been interesting to use on the 8400 for encapsulating a span of time into a single image. The exposure bracketing range is too short, if I am reading the specifications correctly.

The nine-stop bracket of the D200 is one of the most compelling features to me. I enjoy exploring the outer edges of what is photographically possible, and have been using layers and masks to combine a range of exposures that are way beyond what a camera can handle in a single shot - contrast-wise. Now there is HDR which can handle a range beyond 70EV! I just added a section of HDR images, mostly shot with the CP5k to my site. Many of these were shot under mostly neon light, and are pretty much on the edge of what is possible. http://www.larry-bolch.com/hdr

With no equivalent to the CP8400 on the market, I would certainly recommend looking at the Ricoh to someone looking for a similar camera - assuming positive hands-on reviews. My opinions are based only upon reading the specifications. However, for me, it would seem a small step down in almost all respects. My next camera MUST have a larger sensor for lower noise at higher ISO settings.

It looks like I'm staying with the CoolPix 8400 for at least the next year. I just picked up a second CoolPix 8400 (with under 100 exposures) for next to nothing from a client that can't afford to pay for updates to his web site.

Indeed. I would certainly do the same. Were the CP8400 stolen or otherwise disabled, I certainly would love to have a spare to fall back upon. I did keep my CP5k as a backup, but the difference a generation makes is very evident in the pictures and abilities of the two cameras.