Digicam(g10, LX3) or m 4/3rds or.. a short review

[Dave Tolcher]

For my LF work I moved away from the Linhof / Horseman viewer in favour of a small digisnapper some years ago. This served 2 purposes giving both a previsualisation aid and a 'postcard' record of the location, time of day etc. Over time the quality of the cams has improved and so much more can be got from using one. My progression has been from original IXUS through Leica CLux, then Ricoh GX100 (another flawed gem) to Canon G10. Using a digicam on daylight WB also helps with getting round the eye's in built adjustment for colour temperature should you not be sure quite what the film will do. The crop is small to get to 5x4 from the G10 screen.

Like others I have been searching for something that meets all criteria and I thought the latest micro 4/3rds compact cams may just be very close. I know many use and swear by the Panasonic LX3 but I have no experience of it personally. These comments equally apply to that but for the focal length range and better noise handling. I bought an Olympus EP-1 (before returning it !) and thought I would share my thoughts.

The Canon G10 has astonished me with the quality that can be extracted from the camera, the lens is sharp and pretty even in quality except in the corners at its widest settings. It aligns perfectly to the 5x4 visualistion with a lens breadth from 90mm to 450mm. It comfortably will print A3+ with better than scanned 35mm film quality and approaching DSLR at normal viewing distances. The screen is excellent and could lose the finder IMO. Knobs (especially the exposure compensation) are brilliantly placed and executed. However it has a couple of achilles heels that caused me to look with interest at the latest micro 4/3rds cameras from Olympus and Panasonic.

Firstly the usable DR is restricted by the noise that emerges and the colours tend to muddy and contrast lowered. Nett is manipulation of the files is similar/bit less in scope to what I can do with the scanned 5x4 film. Not bad but sucks compared to any DSLR. Consequence is that exposure has to be precise - OK but not in keeping with the philosophy of the way I use the digicam. I attach a Lee RF75 system to the lensmate adapter to simply control contrast/exposure range but its still restricted.

Second is - well - just noise ! Sky even at base ISO has a mottled appearance from grain. It can be managed out simply but its a pain with a volume of files. I like the slightly gritty texture you get where there is fine detail (it gives the illusion of more detail than is there) but not in block colours, sky or shadows. Even pushing the auto iso up to 200 is a big compromise.

On the scene is the EP-1 and the forthcoming GF1 from Panasonic which hinted at providing a solution to these issues. I was sufficiently interested to plop the money down on an EP-1. I have returned it after a weekend for various reasons but it highlighed some things I hadnt thought about when considering a larger sensor.

1) The G10 has huge DOF even at F2.8 and its sweet spot is Ff2.8/F4. By contrast stopping down to at least F8 was required on the EP-1. Any ISO advantage is rapidly lost to stopping down further.
2) I can get usably sharp pictures from the G10 at 1/6th second. It was more like 1/30th with the EP-1. At least another stop lost once I got used to the EP-1 I suspect.
3) Remarkable how useful some little features are... built in lens cap, +/- exposure adjustment dial, filter holder attachs solidly to the body not the tromboning flimsy lens. The ergonomics of the G10 are just superb and it feels really good in the hand.

Nett is that the G10 is very usable for its intended purpose even restricted to 100asa. It doesnt get in the way of taking pictures at all.

On the Ep-1 - it really wasnt ready for market IMO. The S/AF was OK in use, the C/AF never locked even in sunshine and was not usable (even with firmware upgrade). The file quality was good but I couldnt get a truly sharp image out of the camera. The screen sucked ! just usable but a big step backwards. DR was good, files had a nice quality to them so those things were fine.

Conclusion for me as a LF photographer is that the G10 (and maybe the LX3) are currently as good as it gets for day to day usage as much more than a viewer. The improved noise handling of the G11 may give an extra advantage in those early dawns and late dusks but it isnt essential.

[Joanna Carter]

Now Dave, correct me if I am wrong but, I thought you were using the G10 as a preview aid? And yet you are picking holes in the picture quality as if it were the camera you are going to use for the final picture We use a G10 and would concur that it really is an astounding camera; certainly good enough for non-LF picture taking and well able to to produce previews better than a sheet of Polaroid.

[Dave Tolcher]

Sadly, sometimes its the only picture I get so in that case yes !!

[Joanna Carter]

Sadly, sometimes its the only picture I get so in that case yes !!

Ah, yes. Now I understand

[Emmanuel Bigler]

For my LF work I moved away from

Hello Joanna !
Let me try...

Ze Iou-Quai Elleffe Groupe Sci-Fi Cornère

Autumn, 2018.
Joanna C posts this message to the UK LF Group

For my LF work I moved away from large format film ; too expensive, tired of having to send my 'chromes to Perth, Australia, to the last E-6 lab processing 4x5" slides in the galaxy.
Tired of endless scans of the same chromes, whereas a £50- camphone exhibits 100Mpix as the standard resolution mode.

However, miniaturization of digital cameras does induce some major drawbacks : any time I wish to swich the main control knob from "Program" to "Landscape" or "Sports", I have to go to my beloved local watchmaker, who does the job on his precision workbench with his precision 10x Swiss loupe. And any time I wish to frame, I have to add an expensive Carl Zeiss Surgical Binocular in order to see something on the tiny electronic viewfinder.

Hence I am proposing here a quick review of affordable view cameras of the past, that will serve my purpose of being a precision optical viewfinder, with many advantages:
- a large field of view suitable even for most short-sighted users,
- a 100% no-electricity mode, an absolute must have, since we have now passed the infamous oil-production peak, and that we all have to travel on foot or by bicycle,
- a convenient field notebook, thanks to the availability of Impossible Instant Prints(TM) made in the Netherlands. Imagine : you can write your field notes by hand on the instant print itself instead of painfully typesetting them on a minuscule keyboard and viewing them on a minuscule computer monitor !

This is a short list of view cameras suitable for our purpose, that I have found in a very old archive...
http://www.galerie-photo.com/materiel.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

[dave_whatever]

If all you want to do is preview composition and colour temperature you can easily get away with just the camera on your phone (set to daylight WB), which has the benefit of costing you nothing (assuming you've already got one) and its always in your pocket. G10s and the like are all pretty expensive and heavy in comparison.

Sounds like you want a proper digital camera to shoot with rather than just a compositional aid though. My personal experience of this type of thing if you'll get better results on film if you forego the distraction of the digital and concentrate purely on the film when you're taking a film camera out. OK you might miss some shots in very fleeting light, but the extra thought you'll have to put into it will reap dividends. Similarly I recon if you want to shoot digital landscapes/nature/travel or whatever then just take the digital out on it own. Work in each medium seperately and you'll really get the best out of them instead of trying to hedge your bets and risking sitting in limbo. This is what I've found, I got better landscape shots on film once I ditched carrying around the digital "just in case".

Then it means that instead of being limited to a tiny digital compact you can get any half decent DSLR to take out purely on its own which will trounce any compact in higher-ISO noise, flexibility and quicker operation/usability.

[Dave Tolcher]

Dave, 100% agree. I can(t) understand why people pack DSLR and LF. I used to 'hedge my bets' and ended up frustrated to hell with neither committing to dslr or LF film and you do miss shots. I dont take my DSLR gear out now with the LF gear but on its own it is a great lightweight outfit capable of stunning results up to A2 - I do sometimes take it instead if the weather is very inclement or a lot of walking is involved or a first visit to a location.

The G10 type solution isnt an 'either or' - I use it the same as I used to use the Linhof viewer for looking for compositions and getting the tripod position right with the added bonus of having notes in the exif file to match up with the slide. It doesnt give rise to the above scenario but you *can* get good prints out of it up to A3+ with ease.