Canon powershot pro1 review

Macro Focus

The Pro1 has two macro modes; there is normal macro focus
which allows you to zoom across the entire zoom range but indicates the
best range where optimum frame coverage can be obtained. Our best result
in this mode (closest frame coverage) was around 58 mm equiv. The second
macro mode can only be activated from the camera menu and puts the camera
into a special ‘Super Macro’ mode in which you can not change the zoom
which is locked at 28 mm equiv. Unfortunately I didn’t really feel that
any of these various macro modes delivered what we could called true macro
performance without the trade off of strong lens distortion or softness.

The macro tests below are using our new macro focus test
chart and measurement system; each line on the grid is 10 mm, taken at
shortest subject distance in each macro mode.

* Only at 2272 x 1704 resolution

White Balance

The Pro1 delivered what has become ‘the expected standard’
from all digital cameras, good outdoor performance, pretty poor indoor
incandescent and fluorescent auto white balance. It’s more than a little
disappointing with each new generation of camera to see no advances in
automatic white balance, especially from companies who are quite happy
to push more megapixels as a selling point. Come on Canon, HP can do it…

Overall Image Quality / Specific Issues

There’s no doubt that Canon worked hard to produce a lens
which could deliver an image to that tiny high resolution CCD with good
resolution. This shows in the images which are detailed and sharp and
exhibit a level of detail several steps above what we’re used to seeing
from the previous five megapixel generation. Our biggest disappoint about
the lens was the noticeable lens shading at both wide angle and telephoto,
shooting at or near to maximum aperture it is likely this would be visible
in everyday shots.

Canon are also consistent with their image processing,
the «DiGiC» processor delivering vivid, sharp images which are
both faithful to the original scene and also appealing to viewers. Canon
also always seem to do a good job with tonal balance, maintaining good
dynamic range (shadow and highlight detail) with a natural ‘film like’
appearance to the image (no nasty video camera like clipping or unreal
blacks).

The only place the Pro1 trips up is perhaps noise from
ISO 100 upwards. A couple of years ago when Canon explained the thinking
behind DiGiC they made it very clear that they weren’t going to do any
noise reduction other than dark frame for long exposures. The concept
being that if you keep noise as low as possible at the input stage you
don’t need to apply potentially destructive noise reduction, to date this
has pretty much paid off, however with the advent of the eight megapixel
sensor we’re down to much smaller photosites and thus higher noise levels,
and it shows.

Vignetting / Lens Shading

The Pro1’s lens does exhibit lens shading at wide angle
and telephoto (maximum aperture) and it is likely that at maximum aperture
this shading would be visible in everyday shots. While things improve
if you stop the lens down at least one corner of the image remains affected.
This was a disappointing result and we had noticed it in a few of our
‘everyday shots’, I can only presume it’s a consequence of the Pro1’s
compact lens design.

Our vignetting measurement is made by taking the average
luminance value of the darkest corner of the image and comparing it to
the average luminance at the center of the image, any difference greater
than 15% may be visible in everyday shots.

Compared to… five 8mp’s

On this page we will examine the feature / specification
differences between the five current eight megapixel prosumer digital
cameras as well as some results from our testing / our experiences with
the cameras. On the next page you will find our standard studio comparison.

Primary specification / feature differences

From a specification / features point of view all of the cameras
provide a very good range of photographic control and features. If we were to
pick out one or two cameras I would probably put the Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2,
Nikon Coolpix 8700 and Sony DSC-F828 at the top. I’m also a big believer in
the significant advantages of mechanically linked zoom rings and the DiMAGE
A2 and DSC-F828 are the only two cameras here which offer that.

Performance differences

One camera appears to shine through from a performance point
of view and that’s the Sony DSC-F828 which was almost always responsive to use
and delivers a more ‘real time’ photography experience. The Olympus C-8080 Wide
Zoom also performed very well, its sub one second startup time is a real eye
opener.

Image quality differences

Compared to… five 8mp’s and a D-SLR

Resolution Comparison

Shots here are of the PIMA/ISO 12233 standard resolution test
chart (more of which are available in our comparison
database). This resolution chart allows us to measure the actual performance
of the lens and sensor system. It measures the ability of the camera to resolve
lines at gradually higher resolutions and enables us to provide a definitive
value for comparison purposes. Values on the chart are 1/100th lines
per picture height. So a value of 8 equates to 800 lines per picture height.

Studio light, cameras set to auto, all settings factory
default. Exposure compensation +0.7 EV for all cameras (to compensate for
the white background). Click on the camera name below the crops to download
the full resolution chart (large JPEG’s).

Measurable findings (three measurements taken for each camera)

* Moiré is visible, + Chart maximum, # Jagged diagonals

Definition of terms

* Nyquist frequency defined as the highest spatial frequency
where the CCD can still faithfully record
image detail. Beyond the Nyquist frequency aliasing occurs.

In joint first place come the Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom and
Canon PowerShot Pro1 delivering a mighty impressive 1700 — 1750 LPH (almost in both
directions), visually the C-8080 may just have the edge over the Pro1 (the Olympus
has the best lens here). In second place the Sony DSC-F828 which although measuring
slightly lower resolution in all practicality would be just as sharp and detailed
as the Canon and Olympus. In third place the Nikon Coolpix 8700, it’s older
lens clearly not capable of delivering quite enough resolution back to the sensor
to achieve the best result here. In last place and as we had expected the Konica
Minolta A2 whose lens and image processing let it down, especially for vertical
resolution where the resolution chart picked up a lot of moire artifacts and
limited resolution.

Canon FL 135/3.5

Технические характеристики:

• Фокусное расстояние — 135 мм.
• Максимальная диафрагма — 3,5.
• Минимальная диафрагма — 22.
• Количество линз/групп — 4/3.
• Минимальная дистанция фокусировки — 1,5м.
• Количество лепестков диафрагмы —8.
• Байонетное крепление оптики — FL.
• Крепление для насадок и фильтров резьба — 48 мм.
• Тип просветление — однослойное.
• Рабочий отрезок — 41,9 мм.
• Фактический вес — 434 грамм.

Эргономика и конструктив:

Несомненным достоинством объектива можно считать его компактные размеры и не большой вес. Если по размерам сравнивать Canon FL с советским Юпитер-37А то у Ю-37А незначительный выигрыш, но только у Canon реализована прыгалка диафрагмы!

Кольцо установки диафрагмы вынесено на переднюю часть объектива (привет Zuiko OM). Переключается ступенями, но без промежуточных значений. В добавок объектив может похвастаться Репетиром диафрагмы, при использовании объектива через переходник на беззеркальных камерах нет необходимости разбирать объектив и фиксировать положения рычага.

Диафрагма состоит из восьми матовых черненных скругленных лепестков. На прикрытых значениях образуется восьмиугольник, но на диафрагмах 4.0-5.6 отчетливых углов нет, поэтому точечный свет в зоне нерезкости проявляется в форме вполне приемлемых кружком.

Широкое кольцо фокусировки прорезинено, даже влажные пальцы не скользят. От бесконечности до минимальной дистанции фокусировки нужно сделать Чуть более пол оборота. Ход геликоида немного туговат и избыточно вязкий. Сказывается сложная конструкция геликоида, состоящая из трех частей, две из них подвижны и имеют свою отдельную резьбу (подобный механизм у Юпитер-37А). Смотрите статью с переделкой canon FL 135/3.5.

Просветление оптики однослойное, но вполне не плохое. Сносно справляется с контровым светом — без фанатизма, прямой жесткий свет все же съест контраст и детализацию. Бленда рекомендуется, но бленду с резьбовым креплением 48мм нужно еще поискать.

Байонетное крепление FL не позволяет установить объектив при помощи переходника на цифровые зеркальные фотокамеры Canon-EOS Nikon Pentax Sony (Olympus исключение) с сохранением фокусировки на бесконечности. Для чего объектив Canon FL 135/3.5 необходимо переделывать, юстировать и менять хвост.

Художественные качества:

На открытой диафрагме объектив резкий, но немного хроматит. Хроматические аберрации в виде фиолетовой каймы формируется вокруг белых объектов, а так же можно наблюдать кайму вокруг веток деревьев (и подобного) при контровом свете по краю изображения.

Помимо того картинка достаточно контрастная. Что не удивительно, оптическая схема Sonnar. Я бы сказал что она такая же как и у Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135/3.5 и Юпитер-37А, но все же задняя последняя линза не двуяковыпуклая а вогнуто-выпуклая — мениск. Что заметно отличает картинку, в частности БОКЕ отличается. Теперь картинка не имеет плавного перехода из ГРИП в зону нерезкости, а с явным переходом. По мнению разработчиков Canon, так правильно. Собственно Canon Co. построила всю оптическую иерархию вокруг правильной — резкой, контрастной, без явных недостатков картинки.

Однослойное просветление вносит незначительную лепту в искажения цветов. Все вполне естественно но блекло. Как писалось выше, прямой контровый жесткий свет не желателен.

Вывод:

Canon FL 135/3.5 классический представитель Sonnar-овской братии, но с чертами Canon. Резкая, контрастная, без искажений, с небольшими хроматическими аберрациями (ХА) картинка — очень «правильная» картинка, возможно кому то покажется что суховата. Объектив достаточно компактен и легок, переделывается на Nikon. На наших просторах не плохая альтернатива Юпитеру-37А за те же деньги (или даже доступнее).

Overall conclusion

The PowerShot Pro1 is a camera designed to be familiar
to current Canon owners, easy enough to use for first time buyers and
yet still provide a semiprofessional feel and feature set. Canon has borrowed
from its professional lens line to put an L quality label on the lens
system to indicate that this is a new lens and it has been designed to
fulfill the high resolution requirements of an eight megapixel CCD. In
use the Canon felt slightly slower than I was expecting, certainly not
much faster than the G5 and I didn’t see any marked improvement in speed
overall from that camera.

Overall image quality was good, that L lens proving it
can deliver the resolution and that Canon’s reliable DiGiC image processor
can turn out a quality image with good tonal and color balance and no
noticeable artifacts. We had two areas of disappointment from an image
quality stance, firstly the lens exhibited noticeable lens shading especially
at wide angle and/or maximum aperture, secondly noise levels were high
enough to be seen at ISO 100 and progressively worse at higher sensitivities.
This is clearly a trait of the eight megapixel sensor and while we commend
Canon for taking a ‘purist’ approach to image processing these levels
of noise really should have been tamed with an (optional?) noise reduction
feature.

The Pro1 left me feeling neither hot nor cold, the camera
delivered as much resolution as we had expected with on the whole good
image quality but didn’t really perform as we would hope ‘across the board’.
I didn’t see any major improvements in performance and ‘usage feel’ and
was left slightly disappointed by noise levels at higher sensitivities
and the potential lens shading. That said there’s little doubt that the
Pro1 can deliver great images when used carefully and should certainly
be in the top three on your shopping list if you’re considering an eight
megapixel prosumer digital camera.

Recommended

(‘Recommended’ is our second highest rating, a camera has to be good
to get this far!)

Digital SLR footnote: If you’re considering an eight megapixel
prosumer digital camera you should also not rule out a sub-$1000 digital SLR
while initially more expensive (certainly if you want to achieve the 28 — 200
mm zoom range) these cameras offer higher quality image processing, cleaner
images (virtually noise free up to ISO 1600), faster performance, more flexibility
and for all intents and purposes (even large prints) as much resolution. On
the downside they’re not an ‘all in one’ solution and they’re likely to be larger
and need you to buy and carry at least a second lens. By sub-$1000 (at the time
of publication of this review) we’re talking about the Nikon
D70 and Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel).

So which one should I buy? A question I
get asked several times a day, and I wouldn’t like to say. In a new addition
to my reviews (after the amount of feedback I normally get) I’ve added
a link to a specific forum in which you can discuss the review or ask
me specific questions which I’ve not answered in these pages.

Canon PowerShot Pro1 specifications