Rapid weight loss...

Back from sunny Malta, I've been thinking...

I am struck by the recent rapid growth in the availability of "good things in small packages". Hot on the heels of Four-Thirds - itself a move in the small direction - Olympus and Panasonic have forged ahead with Micro Four-Thirds, and Sigma and Leica have gone down the large-sensor-small-body route to give big camera performance in a smaller body. Even "ordinary" high-end digital compacts with small sensors such as the G-11, D-Lux 4 et al offer a "power to weight" ratio that would have been unthinkable just 24 months ago. The photographer no longer needs to carry a large "pro-spec" camera everywhere to guarantee a decent image.

History repeats itself, of course. The digital size/quality ratio improvement is just following the same trajectory as that of film many years ago.

But why?

What drives the urge to miniaturise? Is there truly a demand, or is it a vanity development on behalf of the manufacturers? Portability is a very strong argument, of course, and something that I have written about in the past. The smaller, lighter and more compact your camera the more likely you are to have it with you when you need it. That's a simple equation. But I think that there are other forces - dark forces - at work.

Ever since 9/11, passenger air travel has become a trial of patience and a challenge to the traveller's ingenuity. Ever tighter security restrictions have not just reduced the amount of hand baggage but altered it's very composition. Changes in airline pricing structure, encouraging hand-baggage only by imposing a premium on hold baggage has squeezed from the other direction. The travelling photographer wanting to cover all eventualities on a long weekend city break has to fit everything he needs in a bag measuring 56x45x25 centimetres. Being slightly oversized is not an option, unless you want to run the risk of having your bag taken off you at the departures gate and shoved in the hold - don't even try to argue with the gate staff...

All this is old news for the Leica M and LTM user, of course. They have long enjoyed the advantages of a high quality, compact camera system. With the advent of digital, the need to pack multiple rolls of film has been largely circumvented (only to be replaced by the necessary chargers, spare batteries, spare memory cards and a backup storage device, of course...).

All you need? Not quite - yet...


I recently travelled to Malta for a long weekend. Beyond the clothes on my back, everything else, including three cameras, fitted in a Tamrac photo backpack. I recommend the type with the built-in laptop compartment, by the way - it's great for "flatpack" items such as shirts and trousers. Once "in theatre", everything "domestic" can be unpacked and left in your hotel, and your "luggage" becomes an ideal daypack while exploring. I'll do the same when I go to Budapest later this year. I couldn't have dreamed of doing that a few years ago, when I carried a big SLR with matching lenses - that WAS my hand-baggage. I might have fitted a spare pair of socks in the bag besides, but only if I used them as lens pouches. But the encouragement to travel light is powerful, and now we have the high quality compact camera equipment to match.

Compactness is no substitute for planning ahead though - don't for a moment think it is. I have never forgotten traveling all the way to Hawaii and finding myself with no more than a 135mm lens while trying to shoot a pod of whales from a catamaran. I did the best I could, but I was "outgunned" by those who had lugged something a little longer. Not a single decent shot that day, because I hadn't planned. Lesson learned. Now I think about what to take, and squeeze in a longer lens if absolutely necessary.

For the most part though, a decent kit these days takes up little more room than a pair of shoes (alright, I have large feet) and takes far better pictures.

So there we have it. Darwinian evolution is at work. The days of the bulky (D)SLR for travel snaps are numbered, thanks to the cold hand of Al Qaeda. Think of that the next time you heft your camera to your eye...

Bill

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.
- More imagery at: Lightmancer

D-Lux 4 and Beyond....

I'll start this blog with a review. Please don't think that this is going to just be another review microsite - oh no... I intend to cover a range of subjects in future, that will all have one thing in common - they interest me. But I have been meaning to publish my thoughts on this for some time, and there is no time like the present.

--o-0-o--

I have had a Leica D-Lux 4 since Christmas (2008) and very happy with it I am too. It follows both the Panasonic FX-1 and FX-2 as my carry-around digital and improves significantly on both in terms of image quality and handling. Since I have large hands I have added the Leica Grip to the base of my D-Lux - something you cannot do with the Panasonic FX-3 and a boon to handling. Combined with a simple wrist-strap (in my case an old Olympus one) it enables secure and stable one-handed operation.

D-Lux 4 with Leica Grip:

Now, I am not an accessoriser by nature, or just for the sake of it - I seldom wear a tie these days. But the ability of the D-Lux 4 to take an an adaptor ring on the front, which in turn allows the mounting of tele- and wideangle converters adds to it's flexibility. The trade off of having a wider, faster (24-60mm f2.0) lens than it's predecessors is that it runs out of reach at the top end. so far I have got around this by the simple expedient of carrying another camera - in my case a Canon G7 with the RAW hack. This has some advantages - not least being a general backup - but there are times when I would like to just carry one camera, one lens and work in a simple and uncluttered manner.

My first buy was an adaptor. The Pandabase LA-PLX3 to be exact.


This is a well-made, black anodised tube, with a 46mm female thread on one (the camera) end and a 52mm female thread on the other. It is provided with a robust 52mm snap-cap and a cap-keeper thread. I quickly dispensed with that last - I hate such things and would rather buy a new cap than have it flap around when I am trying to shoot. It is fitted to the D-Lux-4 by removing the black ring on the front around the lens then screwing it to the threads thus revealed.

Once fitted, the Pandabase adaptor is secure and solid, and provides a decent grip for two-handed shooting. In fact, this setup together with the grip makes the D-Lux 4 feel much more like a larger and more substantial camera. The adaptor alone provides other benefits too - it protects the lens once extended from accidental knocks, and at the 60mm end acts as an effective lens shade. I have added to the front a 52mm sky filter for added protection from dust and grimy fingers.


When not in use the Pandabase adaptor, together with a 46mm snap-cap forms a suitable home for my Leitz SBOOI 50mm viewfinder. This viewfinder approximates the field of view of the 60mm lens very well, and is a real boon to anyone who wants to use the camera at full-tele in bright sunny conditions, or simply not rely on the rear display to compose.

So. As already mentioned, the one real drawback of the D-Lux 4 is that it runs out of steam at the tele- end. There are a number of "teleconverters" available through eBay and the like, so I decided to spend the princely sum of nineteen pounds to get hold of one.


The Fujiyama 2.5x Teleconverter is a substantial item, weighing roughly as much as the D-Lux alone. It comes with a rear screw cap,a front push-on cap and a faux suede pouch. It appears well-made and mounts readily to the front of the Pandabase adaptor, adding significantly to the bulk and heft of the camera. By it's nature it is totally useless at the wideangle end, vignetting to the point of providing an interesting circular image.


It is clearly designed only to be used at 60mm, giving, in theory, a 150mm tele equivalent.


Where the wheels come off the wagon is in the results that this combination delivers. Welcome to my "test rose" in my back garden. I'd like to tell you that I have grown it specifically for this purpose but I would be lying like a cheap Swiss watch if I did. Suffice to say that it kept still long enough to be a subject for this test. I altered the camera to subject difference to keep the bloom approximately the same size in each image. No Photoshop changes have been made.

Without teleconverter:

With teleconverter:

100% crop without teleconverter:

100% crop with teleconverter:


Now, I freely admit that I am not a professional reviewer, but I think the results speak for themselves. In a simple test (I have only reproduced one set of results here, for the sake of space and brevity) - believe me the results were consistent - the Fujiyama degrades the image noticably. Apart from a touch of fuzziness there is a colour shift that may or may not show up on your monitor, but is clearly present.

Conclusion - reluctantly - is that, in very simple terms, you gets what you pays for. If you put a £19.00 adaptor on the front of a £600.00 camera you will get £19.00 worth of results. In other words, avoid. There may well be better teleconverters out there - in fact I dont doubt that there are - but this is a lemon of the first order, not even fit for use in a jug of cheap sangria. I'll continue to use the Pandabase adaptor - a simple, elegant and effective add-on that earns it's keep- but for now at least if I want more reach I'll continue to carry a second body.

Bill

--o-0-o--

Notes:

This review has been updated on the 11th June with new test shots.

All images shot on D-Lux 4 with add-on equipment as specified.

No D-Lux 4s were harmed in the making of this review.

To see larger versions of all these images and others please visit: Review Images

All images are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any form without permission.