We’re still picking up our jaws (and eyeballs) off the floor at Panasonic’s announcement of the many wonders the new Lumix DMC-GH1 has in store for us, but some lucky folks out there on the internet have actually handled the new camera and have a few impressions up for us poor GH1-less souls. The camera has an easy-access video button, to let people record right away without the voodoo associated with recording like on the D90. Panasonic samples the stereo mic at 46Khz for audio recording and along with the Wind Cut function the GH1 gathers what Lets Go Digital calls “impressive” results. Panasonic’s iA functionality for automatic scene detection and face recognition is much improved in this camera, and the new VENUS Engine HD processor (one of two processors in the camera) apparently improves noise on ISO 1600 shots. The camera also has a new sensor which allow sit to shoot in multiple aspect ratios, with a total of 14 megapixels to play with, though the camera is still rated at 12.1 megapixels. We’re looking forward to a review, but things already sound very promising!
Read – DMC-GH1 at Lets Go Digital Read – DMC-GH1 at Digital Photography Review
While we still prefer the Micro Four Thirds approach (we love lens selection, so sue us), Samsung’s conceptual NX Series is still looking pretty boss for those needing a true (or close to true) point-and-shoot frame. Announced here at PMA, this new “hybrid” camera maintains the slim stature of a standard pocket cam, yet includes an APS-C sized image sensor that is traditionally found on DSLRs. In layman’s terms, that means this camera will boast a larger surface area “to gather light and produce higher-quality images than comparable digital camera systems.” In order to keep things thin, the electronic viewfinder (EVF) replaces the DSLR mirror box, but details beyond that are scant. The good news, however, is that Sammy plans to commercialize the NX line and have ’em shipping by the second half of this year. Is the P&S-DSLR gap finally being bridged? Guess we’ll find out (not so) soon enough; per usual, the full release is just after the break.
Update: It looks like the NX-series does have interchangeable lenses — a press shot we just received shows what look to be a couple different zooms.
It appears the folks at Colorfoto.de have erred in our favor. In an article for the Olympus E-620, a seemingly random image has popped up of a currently unknown Pentax digital camera. What makes it especially interesting is the appearance of an EVF / LCD option — which so far the company has not use for any of their models. It also bears a striking resemblance to a DSLR-esque “bridge” camera, which would make it Penny’s first in that category. Looks like we’ve got another reason to anticipate next week’s PMA.
When most of us talk digital cameras, we talk megapixels, ISO, image noise, shot-per-second speed and image processing. We’re tech geeks. But really, none of that stuff matters as much as your camera’s lens.
The lens is, after all, your camera’s eyeball—the image sensor or film can only record what comes in through the lens. It’s what defines the picture’s perspective, clarity and way more.
Lenses are actually a really complicated thing to talk about—if your job was to steer photons through tunnels of stretched glass, people would call you complicated too—so we’re gonna try to keep it to field basics, you should know to get around, rather than dive into the crazy physics and mathematical ratios and stuff.
Lens Terminology Before we get into the basic lens types, you should know the two major numbers you’re looking at you when you talk about lenses: Focal length and aperture.
Focal length is the distance between the optical center of the lens and the point where it focuses the light coming into the lens (when a shot is in focus, that’s the image sensor or film). The diagram above, from Cambridge In Colour shows, very simply, what focal length refers to, and how it affects your pitchas. Here’s another pretty excellent, easy to understand explanation, with pictures showing the results of using different focal lengths on the same shot.
Practically, what you need to know is that focal length measured in millimeters, and that’s where you get, say, an 18-55mm lens, a 400mm telephoto or a 28-560mm lens found in a super-zoom camera. (You probably know this, but when you see “20x zoom lens,” the spec refers to the ratio of the longest focal length to the shortest—so 560 divided by 28.) Basically, the longer the focal length, the more magnified or “zoomed in” your photo can be.
Aperture is the other major spec on a lens, and something you deal with most on DSLRS. The aperture is the hole that actually lets the light into the camera, and you make can make it bigger or smaller. The size of the hole is expressed in terms of F-stops, or as you might see a lot F/2.8 or F2.8 or F8 or F11 or whatever.
The bigger the F number, the smaller the aperture, or hole. The smaller the number, the bigger the hole, which means the more light it lets in. The reason that’s good is that means you can shoot with a faster shutter speed, so you don’t get blurry photos, or when you’re shooting in low light, since more light can get through, which means you’re not forced to choose between shooting dark, blurry things or excessively grainy photos as you crank up the ISO (light sensitivity) to compensate for the lack of light. So, when someone’s talking about a “fast” lens, they’re talking about one with a big aperture, like F/1.8—easy to remember, you can shoot with faster shutter speeds with less light.
With a big aperture, you also have a shallower depth of field—subjects in focus are sharp, but everything around it is soft and blurry. A tighter aperture (higher F-stop number) lets you focus more at once, as you can see in the diagram above combined from Wikipedia. There’s more on depth of field here. Overall, we’re staying on the easy-to-swallow side, but if you’ve really got a hankering for F-stop knowledge, here’s a crazy detailed explanation.
Lens Types Having fun yet? There are a few basic types of lenses, and of course, a whole bunch of specialized ones beyond that, like macro or tilt lenses. But here are the basics.
A normal lens is one with a perspective that looks a lot the perspective of the human eye. With a 35mm or full-frame camera, that’s about a 50mm lens, though it varies depending on the size of the film or image sensor. For instance, this 35mm Nikon lens is for their DX cameras, DX meaning it has a sensor that’s not “full” (equal to 35mm film). When that lens is attached to a DX camera, it’s the equivalent to a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera—making it normal.
A wide-angle lens is, most basically, one with a focal length that’s way shorter than a normal lens (which, again, varies depending on the size of the film or sensor). Wide angles are useful for take wide shots—-panoramas, or just trying to squeeze a huge group of people in a single picture without being 10 light years away. You can also do neato distortion tricks—a fisheye is just a crazy kind of wide-angle lens. Example Image: Ekilby/Flickr
A telephoto lens is one with a really long focal length (like 400mm). Since they’re designed like telescopes, they are physically more compact than their focal lengths, but they can still get pretty damn massive. They’re good for shooting stuff far, far away. Example Image Shiny Things/Flickr
A prime lens is just one with a fixed focal length—you can’t zoom in or out—and typically they produce sharper pictures than all-but-the-priciest zoom lenses. Any of the above lens types can be prime lenses, or zoom, below. This fisheye is a prime lens.
A zoom lens is one you can adjust the focal length on—zoom in and out—so you can shoot a variety of stuff with a single lens. The aperture tends to vary based on the focal length, unless you get a really pricey zoom lens that’s also “fast.”
Lens Brands and Compatibility But, even looking at one company at a time, lenses are complicated and sticky. Take Canon, for instance. They’ve got a million different kinds of lens mounts (where the camera and lens fit together) for their single-lens reflex cameras, depending on how far back in time you go. Currently they’ve got two major kinds of lens mounts: EF (electro-focus because the focusing motor action is built into the lens) and and EF-S. The latter is for their entry-level to mid-range DSLRs only, because it’s made for their smaller (not full-frame, i.e., not 35mm equivalent) image sensors. Standard EF lenses will work on cameras with an EF-S mount, but EF-S lenses won’t work on cameras with a regular EF mount. And before that, there was the FD mount, which totally doesn’t work on DSLRs without an adapter.
Nikon isn’t quite as bad as here—they’ve had the same F-mount for over 40 years, so all their lenses with physically fit on the camera, but with their DSLRs, you’ve gotta watch out for their FX lenses (full-frame lenses like for the D700) vs. their DX lenses (like Canon, meant for their cameras with smaller APS-C sensors). When used on full-frame cameras, DX lenses will block out the corners of the picture since they’re supposed to cover a smaller image area. But overall, with Nikon you have the advantage of being able to use older lenses in a way you can’t with Canon gear. Ken Rockwell has a comprehensive tome about Nikon lenses and types for more.
The High Cost of Optics Okay, great. Here’s a real question: Why are lenses so goddamned expensive? Well, as Steve Heiner, Nikon SLR-division technical marketing manager, told us, “You’re paying for materials and the process of creating the lens,” which, as you might guess, improves image quality. Faster apertures—which require larger glass elements in pro zoom lenses—heavier materials like metal, for durability, and touches like a nano-crystal coating that minimizes reflections for low-light shooting are things that make lenses cost hundreds or thousands or dollars. As a rep from Canon told us, there’s no real getting cheaper over time, like most other mechanical components. Precision optical glass just doesn’t work that way.
Materials are also what separate crummy lenses from good ones, which is why cheap lenses in cellphones suck—they’ve gotta be cheap, really tiny and really light and well, you can’t change physics—and why even cheap DSLR lenses aren’t as good as expensive-as-hell ones. Update: Daniel pointed out this pretty excellent video showing how lenses are made, which shines more light on why they’re so damn pricey:
At the same time, there is a lot of progress in lens tech happening—look at all the ultra wide-angle lenses popping up in point-and-shoots now. Canon says that’s cause you’ve got smaller image sensors (which as we noted above, changes the relation of the focal length), more aspherical lens elements (which are cheaper to make), a new kind of ultra high refractive index aspherical optical glass (uhhhh, don’t ask me) and the miniaturization of mechanical parts like AF motors.
There’s a lot we had to leave out, like chromatic aberration and lens flare, but we hope we gave you a pretty good starting point to learn about lenses. Real camera pros, feel free to leave more in the comments.
Still something you still wanna know? Send any questions about lenses, upskirts, or crazy weird Japanese photographers who swarm cosplayers to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line. Also, thanks to Nikon for the lens diagrams!
Olympus just joined the pre-PMA pileup with the announcement of its E-620 DSLR for entry-level enthusiasts. The E-620 is a mash-up of Olympus’ semi-pro E-30 and entry-level E-520 in a compact body approaching Oly’s own E-420 (the world’s smallest DSLR when launched). The resulting cam brings a 12.3 megapixel Live MOS image sensor with sensor-shift image stabilization, 7-point AF, TruePic III+ image processor, built-in wireless flash controller, and a fully articulating, 2.7-inch tilt-and-swivel live-view LCD. It also features Olympus’ Art Filters which take in-camera image enhancements a bit beyond sepia. Expect the E-620 body to ship in May for about $700; $800 with the 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Front-side front after the break.
Between all the new digital cameras pooped out before the upcoming PMA show and the crazy cameras buried inside cellphones at MWC, it’s a good time to go over why more megapixels isn’t necessarily better.
So, the nutshell explanation of how a digital camera works is that light lands on a sensor, which converts the light into electrical charges. Depending on the kind of camera you’re using, how the light reaches the sensor may seem different—honkin’ digital SLRs house a complicated pentaprism and mirror system that swings out of the way, while the inside of a compact point-and-shoot is mechanically far simpler. At the heart, though, the sensor fundamentals stay the same.
The sensor is where most of the megapixel machismo comes from. When you squeeze the shutter button, the sensor (like film in old-school cameras) is exposed to light for however long you have the exposure time set for. The most common metaphor to talk about how a sensor works is that it’s like an array of buckets (the pixels) that collect light, and the amount collected is turned into an electrical charge, which is converted into data. We talked a bit about the differences between the two major types of sensors, CCD and APS (CMOS) earlier.
Generally, the more pixels packed onto a sensor, the higher the resolution of the images it can produce. (Image resolution is somewhat confusingly also measured in pixels, but the term pixels doesn’t always refer to the exact same thing.) A megapixel is 1 million pixels, so a 12-megapixel photo has a resolution of about 12 million pixels. Sounds like a lot, till you consider gigapixel photos, which have over a billion pixels in them. By comparison, a 30-inch monitor with a 2560×1600 display resolution amounts to a measly four megapixels, and even the best high-definition video currently is around two megapixels, no matter how large the TV.
Obviously, there’s a world of difference between the image quality you’re going to get out each of those. Most of it comes down to the size of the sensor and the pixels. You can fit a much bigger sensor inside of a DSLR than you can inside of a cellphone, which not only means you can fit more pixels on the sensor, you can fit much bigger ones—imagine bigger buckets to catch the light. Sure enough, the sensors inside of DSLRs are huge compared to the ones in compacts as DPReview’s detailed size chart shows. They also explain how to the read the sizes—which actually refer to the size of the tube around the sensor, not the sensor itself. Sensor sizes are referenced against 35mm film as a standard—cameras with sensors equivalent in size to 35mm film are called full-frame, though right now that’s limited to pricey semi-pro level DSLRs.
To get really high-resolution smaller cameras and phones, manufacturers pack as many teeny pixels as tightly as they can onto tiny sensors. The pixels in standard point-and-shoots aren’t the same kind of high-quality pixels found on DSLRs—and generally speaking, bargain bin cameras will offer lower quality pixels than higher-end shooters of the same class—which results crappier color accuracy and usually lower dynamic range too.
The other problem is noise. When you pack in pixels like delicious cows headed for slaughter, you create a lot of heat, which is one of the ways noise is generated—the rainbow colored random grain you see sometimes on digital photos. Noise gets worse as you crank the ISO, amplifying the sensor’s sensitivity to light. In newer point and shoots, it’s really noticeable around a sensitivity of ISO 800, though the D700 and 5D Mark II DSLRs can be jacked up to 3200 ISO and produce acceptable images (we’ve used some on Giz).
So, on a given sensor size, a lower megapixel count with bigger pixels will produce cleaner images—hence the D3 only rocking 12 megapixels. Most cameras mitigate noise with fancy noise reduction algorithms that are getting better all the time—Canon’s 5D Mark II manages to balance delivering 21 megapixels with images about as clean as the D700’s at higher ISOs—but for the most part, we’re happier to see bigger sensors and fewer pixels. One disadvantage of the bigger “buckets” in DSLRs is that you do need more light to fill them up, meaning you might need longer exposure times.
And when it comes to print quality—that old argument for extra megapixels—for most of the shooting the average person does, 6 megapixels is just fine, as David Pogue shows (and Ken Rockwell has more on), since you can make ginormous prints from it, and a clear, noise-free 8×10 looks better than a crappy one when its framed and hung on the wall. As Douglas Sterling told us via email, pros crave the extra detail of ginormous megapixel images, but when it comes down to buying cameras for regular people, just keep in mind that more megapixels isn’t necessarily more better. It’s how good those pixels are that matters.
Something you still wanna know? Send any questions about cameras, obscuras, or Waffle House to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.
We’ve been tracking this one since it first turned our heads back in December, so it only seems fitting to cloes things out and note that it’s now finally in-stock and available direct from Pentax. What’s more, it’s also still listed at $679.95 for the kit that includes both an 18-55mm and a 50-200mm lens, so it looks like that wasn’t a special pre-order price, though that certainly doesn’t make it any less of a bargain. Sold? Then hit up the link below to get your order in, and look for the camera to ship in as little as a day, according to Pentax.
Canon’s Live View implementation may not be a deal-breaker for most DSLR users, but there’s certainly plenty of room for improvement, and a recent Canon patent application suggests that the company could possibly be aiming to do just that. The short of it is that the company seems to have found a way to overcome the inherent problems of employing so-called phase-difference autofocus in Live View, which is caused in part by the physical limitations of the mirror and the AF sensor (hit up the read link for some more background). Canon’s solution, it seems, is to place the phase-difference AF sensor below the image sensor instead of above it, and make use of a semi-transparent mirror that’d allow for simultaneous transfer of light to the image sensor and the AF sensor. The average user would see the changes in the form of three new shooting modes, including a Standard Viewfinder Mode, a Fast AF Live View Mode, and a Full Live View mode, which each shift the position of the mirrors for the task at hand. What’s more, while the patent application doesn’t address it specifically, it would seem that this same method could also bring autofocus to DSLR video or, at the very least, video recorded via Live View.
Look, we fully understand that only a handful of you were willing to force your kid to pay for their own education while you spent that eight grand in savings on the D3x, but for those hardcore enough to do just that, here’s your venting post. This beast of a DSLR has been rumored, teased and taunted for what seems like ages, and now that the 24.5 megapixel shooter is finally making its way out on armored UPS trucks, we’re anxious to see what early adopters are loving / disappointed in. For starters, was it worth the price? If not, why? What could Nikon have tweaked to justify the sticker (if anything)? Get vocal in comments below!
When we recently posted a Vietnam-era Bolex camera with a rifle stock attached, we thought the concept was a little nuts. Then Army Reserve Staff Sgt. and wartime photographer Jeffrey Duran set us straight.
In our original post, we speculated that using a gun stock for shooting a camera seemed like a good way for a photographer to get shot. And we wondered how common these stocks could be. Duran wrote back with a short, informed response, but I was able to twist his arm into telling us a bit more.
Pointing a long lens mounted on a stock is indeed a recipe for getting shot if you’re not careful. In fact in training at Fort McCoy, Wi., I was “shot” by Soldiers on practice missions.
I was not where they expected me to be… i.e. mixed in with the opposition who happened to be shooting at them at the time. Thus, I was “shot” at with blanks during the training even though I was in uniform. They *saw* what they assumed was a rifle in an area where bad guys were shooting at them..
This, of course, is why we train. Even as military media, we need to train in realistic conditions. It was a learning event for both myself and the Soldiers in training.
At Kajaki Dam in Afghanistan, I was there to get some on the ground coverage for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan National Army. The Afghan National Army troops there are “spot on” as the Brits say and the dam has great strategic importance. There are lots of bad guys. I took my Bushhawk stock along for the ride out to Kajaki. The stock is of limited use as in remote regions such as this, the local population has never seen a DSLR so they limited trust when you’re pointing a long lens at them. In operations where we were going patrols or at night with night vision I’d use it a lot. However, when going where the bad guys are, there is little worry as I was with some of the best Soldiers in the world. Okay, so why risk losing your life. Good question. Lemme see if I can figure it out.
Ok. It is an extremely stable platform to shoot pictures with (i.e. that’s why rifles are designed that way). It is very natural and comfortable which results in good images. When using long lenses, holding the camera steady is damn important.
Plus, you can sling the camera stock while walking. This is very important when trying to keep up with Soldiers that are in *much* better shape than you (lost 20 pounds during the tour). Although I’m a Reservist, there’s only one standard… so I have the keep up with Olympic-grade athletes when on Active duty.
Monopods work very well but are a pain in the ass when on the move. You have to open them, then close them when you’re going to roll out. Which happens unexpectedly at times 🙂
Handholding with two hands is about the only way and how most of the world gets it done. I would not advise *any* media in a war zone to use a stock. In my case, I’m a member of the armed forces and I’m with the guys with the guns. We used to joke about it in that the Taliban would wonder if we bought some some secret weapon since we were the only Americans at Kajaki. Either way, the bad guys would shoot at me anyway on any patrols with little regard if I had a camera or a rifle.
My main thing was not to make the local population feel threatened… I have to say that there is something inherently fun about shooting a camera like a rifle. It is really more fun than I should admit. I found myself grinning every time I used the darn thing.
I guess there’s just something obsessive with me and rifle stocks for cameras. I actually designed one in drafting class in high-school but it wasn’t until this last tour that I ponied up the cheese to buy one. It’s just a lot of fun.
– Jeff Duran
or Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran one weekend a month, two weeks a year (unless called to go to far away places and meet new people… and take their picture).
A special thanks to Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran for writing in and sharing his experiences. You can see more of his photos here and here.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
When most of us 
Lenses are actually a really complicated thing to talk about—if your job was to steer photons through tunnels of stretched glass, people would call you complicated too—so we’re gonna try to keep it to field basics, you should know to get around, rather than dive into the crazy physics and mathematical ratios and stuff.
With a big aperture, you also have a shallower depth of field—subjects in focus are sharp, but everything around it is soft and blurry. A tighter aperture (higher F-stop number) lets you focus more at once, as you can see in the diagram above 
A 
A 
Okay, great. Here’s a real question: Why are lenses so goddamned expensive? Well, as Steve Heiner, Nikon SLR-division technical marketing manager, told us, “You’re paying for materials and the process of creating the lens,” which, as you might guess, improves image quality. Faster apertures—which require larger glass elements in pro zoom lenses—heavier materials like metal, for durability, and touches like a nano-crystal coating that minimizes reflections for low-light shooting are things that make lenses cost hundreds or thousands or dollars. As a rep from Canon told us, there’s no real getting cheaper over time, like most other mechanical components. Precision optical glass just doesn’t work that way.
Between all the new 
When we recently posted a 
I took my Bushhawk stock along for the ride out to Kajaki. The stock is of limited use as in remote regions such as this, the local population has never seen a DSLR so they limited trust when you’re pointing a long lens at them. In operations where we were going patrols or at night with night vision I’d use it a lot. However, when going where the bad guys are, there is little worry as I was with some of the best Soldiers in the world.
Okay, so why risk losing your life. Good question. Lemme see if I can figure it out.
I have to say that there is something inherently fun about shooting a camera like a rifle. It is really more fun than I should admit. I found myself grinning every time I used the darn thing.
