Are you as excited about the latest HD SLRs as I am? Then check out my news feed on the new PDN HD SLR Workshops page. I’ll be writing three or four segments a month covering new HD SLR cameras and lenses, video accessories, and shooting techniques. Hopefully, I’ll have room to squeeze in a few user profiles and videos too!

How objective are the camera tests you read in magazines and on web sites? That usually depends on the design of the tests, the accuracy of the test data, and the ability of the editor or lab assistant to interpret the test data. This last fact causes the most problems, especially when “expert” evaluators have little background in color science, optics, lighting, imaging processing, or even as working photographers. (A dead giveaway? If a magazine or web site fails to post biographic information on its editors and writers, it’s likely they want to hide a lack of experience or schooling.) For a time, these reviewers get by with a mix of writing skills and blarney, relying heavily on the old adage: a one-eyed man can always lead the blind!!

Of course, objectivity can also suffer when spineless magazine editors “adjust” product reviews to placate advertisers who threaten to pull the $$ plug if anything bad is written about their products. That’s a more likely scenario these days among print publications facing rising costs and dwindling ad revenue, but even websites that claim to have “higher Ethics” than their magazine competitors bow to financial pressure behind the scenes.

For more commentary on this topic, listen to the November 22, 2008 McNamara Report segment on Inside Digital Photo (slide to the 22min 30sec mark for that segment);

Savvy photographers usually catch on to both scenarios sooner or later, and search elsewhere for their information or check several sources before making a purchasing decision. For those reasons I think the new DxOMark.com website will be a useful tool and a hit among serious photographers. On this site you’ll find in-depth analysis and test data derived from the RAW files produced by nearly every major digital SLR, as well as a few popular compacts and new medium format models. Data includes color accuracy, noise and dynamic range at a variety of ISOs, true ISO sensitivity, low-light ISO performance, and an umbrella DxOMark Sensor rating. There are several interactive tools and graphs that make side-by-side comparisons between a variety of cameras easier than ever. Plus, if you’re a student of digital photography, you will find the library of articles located in the Technology section invaluable resources.

By now you’ve probably heard of DxO, a French company behind the DxOMark.com site that’s known for its popular DxO Optics Pro software. This software is sold with specific support for the camera and lens combinations you own, and performs a variety of complex image processing functions on a DSLR’s RAW file, including distortion correction, noise reduction, exposure optimization, and dust removal. However, you may not be familiar with DxO Analyzer 3.0 test software since it’s not sold to the general public or directly to photographers. Instead, DxO Analyzer 3.0 software and DxO-designed test targets are used by several US-based and International photo magazines, as well as a number of online photo sites, to provide camera and lens test data that is later interpreted by reviewers. Nearly every camera manufacturer also uses DxO Analyzer at some point during the product development cycle to help fine tune image quality.

I can personally vouch for the usefulness of data provided by DxO Analyzer 3.0, as it was part of the test equipment I certified for use in the Popular Photography test lab while I was the magazine’s Executive Technology Editor. In that lab, I used it to help determine lens distortion, chromatic aberration, and light falloff. It was also used to test camera noise levels at a wide variety of ISOs and gray-scale levels. The software’s “Blur rating” is used by a variety of competitors to determine lens sharpness (although it’s not an accurate tool for that use). On the other hand, the Blur Rating is still used in the Pop Photo Lab to determine the efficiency of the image stabilization systems built into a lens or camera body. DxO Analyzer 3.0 could also be used to determine the color accuracy, base ISO, and dynamic range of a camera, but this information either never made its way into Pop test report charts or was provided by other test methods.

While DxOMark.com provides a universal, and extremely useful, tool for comparing the data culled from the RAW files of the most popular DSLRs and medium format cameras, as well as in depth information about camera sensors, it shouldn’t be viewed as the final word. That’s because there is more to a camera than RAW file test data, (including metering and AF performance, handling, and several other parameters) and even RAW camera data is open to interpretation–not only to reviewers trying to determine which camera offers the most for the money, but to different RAW converter algorithms used to develop the data.

If there is a weakness to the data provided on DxOMark.com, it revolves around the “special sauce” that individual manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon claim they include in their RAW conversion software to get the most out of their respective camera’s RAW capture. My extensive experience with RAW conversion utilities has shown that all RAW converters are not created equal–and if DxO Analyzer 3.0 doesn’t access all of Nikon’s “special sauce” it may help to explain why the Dynamic Range rating for the Nikon D90 at DxOmark.com is just slightly higher than the Dynamic Range rating for the Nikon D3 (12.5 vs 12.3, see screen grab below). My experience shooting with both cameras refutes that finding, while I agree with the overall DxOMark Sensor Ratings given for both cameras (the D90: 72.6, the D3: 80.6).

The older full-frame Canon EOS 5D also has a lower Dynamic Range rating than the new EOS 50D with its APS-sized sensor, but that difference could be explained by the advances in sensor technology over a two-year span. Fortunately, controversial ratings such as these are few and far between on this site, and I’d wager that there are far fewer conflicts of logic to be found in the pages of DxOMark.com than there are in the pages of many “venerable” magazines and web sites. Take some time to read the articles and white papers on the site in order to understand the rating system, and I think you’ll find the new DxOMark.com website to be an invaluable tool when it comes to choosing your next digital camera. Now if only the same folks behind DxOMark.com could do the same for printers, scanners, projectors, HDTVs, and memory cards, we’d all be in agreement. Right….

Every two years the giant Photokina Trade Show takes place in Cologne, Germany. Imagine a trade show where European picture frame manufacturers fill up a floor larger than a football field, consumer electronics (TVs, home theater, etc) has its own building, and where it usually takes several days just to figure out where the bath rooms are located–and you’ll get an idea of how huge the Photokina show is. I’ve attended this show since the late 1990′s, and usually come back with more than enough new material to write about as well as interesting photos of the show, city, and night life.

Photo of bridge across the Rhine and the DOM Cathedral taken from the Photokina Show side of the river in 2006. Camera: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 in night scenery mode. 4 sec at f/4.

On the other hand, I also returned with a wicked cold, the flu, and overall exhaustion from the travel (September weather in Cologne is typically blah!). Last time I went, I had to wonder if the show was worth the hassle, given the fact that I already had been given sneak peeks at nearly every product of importance introduced at the show, and the information on those I hadn’t seen was available on the internet within 24 hours. That was even before the dollar took a nose dive against the EURO and hotel prices skyrocketed to over $500 a day (within 5 miles of the show.)

The 21.1MP Full-frame Canon EOS 5D Mark II with unique 1080i HD movie recording mode gets my award for top intro at Photokina 2008. But I saw it the week before, so why travel to Germany?

This year, given that my expenses weren’t being covered by a major publication or news organization, I decided to miss the show. Looks like I made the right choice, too. By the time Photokina kicked off on the 23rd of September, I’d been briefed on 90% of the hot products that debuted at the show. The only real surprises were the Leica S2, a super-expensive medium-format digital Hassalblads, and a few Foveon-based cameras by Sigma. Of course, I have to admit that I missed some of the great parties, unusual exhibitions, and lack of inhibitions displayed by fellow journalists during afterhour beer hall visits), but I also didn’t have to put up with lousy weather, crushing crowds, transportation delays, and questionable ingredients in the sausages being sold on corners. If I wanted those, I could have hopped on a train to NYC!
So Scott Shepard and I decided to cover the news and new products from show from the comfort of our own turf in an extended version of the McNamara Report that aired during Photokina:

To listen to the Sept. 27 segment of the McNamara Report on Inside Digital Photo click on the play button;

After the show, while everyone who did go was recovering from jet lag, colds, and exhaustion after the show, I was feeling fine for a change. Now I’m wondering if I can do the same thing during that other GIANT nightmare of a show called CES in January. Wait! I like going to that show!

Hear my analysis on Inside Digital Photo’s August 23, 2008 Radio Program (slide forward to the 11:20 min mark to get straight to the report on this topic):

It happened again, just when most photographers had been lulled into thinking we had seen the last new RAW file format. But noooo! Nikon surprised us by giving birth to a new one called .NRW that’s found exclusively in the high-level COOLPIX P6000 (This hot $500 compact boasts a 13.5MP CCD, 28-112mm f/2.7-5.9 stabilized zoom lens, built-in GPS, and up to ISO 6400.) Unfortunately, the Nikon engineers forgot something when they created this new RAW format—and it’s called Mac compatibility! Guess we should have seen that coming with a file extension called .NRW (Nikon Raw Windows).
So while photographers with PC’s running Microsoft Vista (and nothing prior to Vista) will be able to open and adjust .NRW files, the rest of the world is out of luck—unless popular RAW workflow programs like Apple’s Aperture, Adobe RAW converter, and Adobe’s Lightroom come to the rescue as they have in the past.

I really don’t expect the development teams at Apple to fret over this new format. After all, few professional photographers–the core base of Aperture users–will be rushing out to get the P6000. And with the plugin architecture of Aperture I would expect a third party (perhaps even Microsoft? Nah!) to develop a plugin that could convert .NRW files into something Aperture and other Mac-based imaging programs could handle.

Funny thing about the Coolpix P6000 though. It has some incredible features and advanced technologies that are being overlooked by the vast majority of the press reports I’ve seen due to the controversy of the Windows RAW format.  For a compact camera, it offers a great deal, including a dedicated hotshoe that works with Nikon’s advanced flash system, a sharper LCD monitor than just about any other camera in its class, and built in GPS for tagging photos by location.

To listen to this topic discussed on the Inside Digital Photo show, Aug. 9, 2008, click the play button:

High-end color calibration and profiling tools used to cost a pretty penny and required a learning curve that few photographers had time to deal with. But new calibration and profiling tools such as the X-Rite Colormunki Photo ($449 street) and DataColor’s Spyder3Studio ($600 street) are available for less than a quality 13×19-inch printer or 24-inch monitor. These tools can create profiles for monitors, printers, and digital projectors, they’re portable, easier to use than ever, and will pay for themselves in ink and paper savings in no time–especially if you make a lot of prints. But which is the best choice for your work flow and color demands?

I would recommend the X-Rite Colormunki Photo if you plan to make lots of printer and paper profiles, grab spot colors, and only have a few computers to calibrate. It’s faster at profiling prints (you can slide it across several patches in a single move-see photo below), slightly more accurate on monitor profiles, and portable enough for making quick spot color readings. Otherwise, its limited license (which allows for loading on only 3 computers) is a pain, especially for any pro photographer who has a home computer, laptop, and more than one computer in his or her studio. 

On the other hand, I gotta hand it to Datacolor: The metal case for the Spyder3Studio is Sweet! Plus this system includes two color measurement devices, one for monitor and projector calibration and profiling, and one for creating printer profiles. Both of the Spyder devices are colorimeters, even though the print device is called a spectro-colorimeter in the literature. It includes easy-to-use setup instructions and calibration programs that work on an unlimited number of Mac and PCs. Print profiling takes longer to achieve with the Spyder3Suite than the Colormunki, and results were nearly as accurate. However, it’s not as easy to use the print measuring device on spot colors (or fabrics) as it is with the Colormunki.