Chatting with a freind earlier this evening, I realised that I may have confused things slightly when talking about high ISO levels in my post explaining why not all megapixels are equal.

Higher ISO film has traditionally been used to take photographs at a higher speed or in poor lighting conditions (it’s not always possible, or desirable, to use a flash) although high ISO films typically introduce grain into an image. Similarly, using a higher ISO setting on a digital camera can help in the same situations – albeit at the expense of introducing digital noise. That situation is changing as modern DSLRs such as the Nikon D3 are reported to take acceptable images at very high ISO levels (e.g. ISO 6400 – that’s six stops faster than standard daylight film used by most of us a few years back and four stops faster than the film that many consumers would have used for “action” shots).

For those of us who can’t afford a D3, it’s worth noting that squeezing more and more megapixels onto a tiny sensor will increase digital noise. For the reasons I described in my original post (the type of sensor, the technical differences between pixels and photosites, the firmware and software supporting the imaging chip and even the size of the pixels) the only real answer is a larger sensor, which is why a full frame DSLR will produce appreciably better low-light images than a digital compact camera or a cameraphone and why my Canon Ixus 70 produces terrible night-time shots on its high ISO setting.

I suppose it was enevitable but photographic film products are slowly slipping away. I’d still like a Hasselblad Xpan II, but they are rare (and expensive) – and even if I did get one, I’m not sure that I’d use it (when I bought a DSLR, I kept my film body but it’s been sitting in the kit bag ever since). Over the last few years, we’ve seen film companies struggle, whilst the likes of Nikon and Canon announce record profits. I hope that film doesn’t die completely (there is something magical about developing photographic film with chemicals and producing prints) but film products will inevitably become expensive and niche.

Digital photography has many advantages but one of my main frustrations has been the lack of dynamic range that the current crop of cameras can capture. Whilst negative film has around 12 stops of latitude, and slide film has around 4.5 stops, digital cameras can be even more restrictive at times and, in order to capture shadow detail, burnt out highlights become apparant although, just as when shooting slides, using neutral density filters can help (a lot).

Then there is the issue of noise. With film we could push film a couple of stops beyond it’s intended levels and correct it at the processing stage – there was a corresponding increase in grain and some colour shift too but it helped to grab images in low-light situations or when there was fast-moving action. Try that on most digital cameras and you’ll see a lot of noise (the digital equivalent of grain but far less attractive) although this is starting to change and the latest digital cameras are reaching new levels with perfectly usable photos at high ISO levels and some reports of being able to shoot handheld at twilight and still capture a good image.

Meanwhile, the digital camera manufacturers have induced a state of megapixel madness. Consumers now know to look at the number of megapixels that a camera has but it seems that not all megapixels are equal – the images on my 7Mpel compact camera are fine for snapshots, but no-where near as good as the ones that my 6Mpel DSLR produces. It’s all down to the technology in use like the type of sensor (CCD or CMOS), the technical differences between picture elements (pixels) and photosites, the firmware and software supporting the imaging chip and even the size of the pixels. Even after all of this, the quality of the lens through which the light must travel to reach the sensor is still a major factor (ditto for filters).

A new DSLR is not an option for me (I have a 4-year old Nikon D70 that will last me for a while longer – at least until Nikon release an FX-format prosumer SLR) so, for the time being at least, I’ll be continuing to use a tripod and long exposures in low light and hopefully this summer I’ll have a go at creating high dynamic range (HDR) images (one image from multiple exposures) to increase the dynamic range.

I’ve just got home to find that Amazon has delivered my new toy – a Canon Digital Ixus 70. Whilst I still take the majority of my photos on my Nikon D70, carrying a body and a couple of lenses (as well as the paraphernalia that going anywhere with two small children involves) is sometimes a bit of a bind – it would be nice to have a good camera that I can slip in a pocket and take anywhere. Perhaps a mobile phone camera would fit the bill, but most of them have pretty poor lenses (necessarily so in a device that size) and when Vodafone
wanted over £300 for me to upgrade to the Nokia N95, I decided that I’d be better off buying a separate camera.

I’ve always liked Canon’s Ixus range of compact cameras – even when they used film – and the Digital Ixus 70 looks great to me. Basically it’s a 7.1MP camera with a nice large screen (and a viewfinder for when the sun makes using the screen impractical) for just over £120. I’ll probably struggle a bit at first with camera shake (as I’m used to holding a nice weighty body and lens) but I have a couple of overseas trips coming up and it will save me a lot of space in my suitcase.

One thing that’s good to see is that Windows Vista recognised and supported the camera without any intervention from me. Less helpful was the fact that Canon only includes a 32MB SD card in the box so I’ve ordered a 2GB Sandisk Extreme III which will provide fast (133x or 20MB/sec) read and write times. That’s coming from Play.com and is unlikely to be with me before I fly out to Prague on Sunday so, until that arrives, I picked up a cheap SD card from Tesco (1GB for just under a tenner) which can then be used as a spare.

When I switched my photography to a digital format I had too much invested in Nikon lenses to change manufacturers; however I do know that many professionals using DSLRs today have Canon equipment to make the most of a full-frame image sensor (and I bought my best Nikkor lens from a pro who made the switch to Canon). For years, Nikon has told us that their DX format is all we need (and the focal lengths of our lenses have grown by around 150% as a result) but this has a cost in the higher signal to noise ratio. It seems that, finally, Nikon has recognised this with their new “FX” format D3 (which can also use DX lenses, although it shuts down part of the image sensor to do so). At the wrong side of £3000 it’s too much for me but I like the sound of features like a self-cleaning sensor, dual CF-card slots, LiveView and virtual horizon adjustment. I also like the sound of a 12 megapixel sensor, 51 point autofocus, 3″ LCD and larger viewfinder (something I can only experience by shooting some rolls of film in my old F90x) although I’d like to see low ISO settings too (when shooting landscapes I find ISO 200 too restrictive and would like the option for slow-speeds in the ISO 25-100 range) and the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III already meets (or even exceeds) most of the D3 specifications (admittedly with a £6000 price tag). I had hoped that a prosumer FX format model would follow the D3 but it seems not – the new D300 is DX only. Regardless, I’d better get saving to replace my D70, which is still a fantastic camera but not quite in the same league – maybe by the time my piggy bank is full there will be a prosumer model with an FX sensor.

Rob Galbraith has a full review of the D3 at digital photography insights.

A few years back, I heard UK-based photographer, Nick Meers speak in general terms about landscape photography saying that in order to capture that special image you need to be passionate – and you can’t come back tomorrow! If you don’t make that image now, then you don’t have the passion… even if you do want to get to supper and don’t want to get the tripod out again!

Unfortunately, I find it hard to reconcile that passion with the demands of a young family, so my photography takes a back seat these days and it seems to me that much of the images I create are distinctly mediocre. Some of that mediocrity can be enhanced post-capture but that’s a time consuming process – and anyway, it’s much better to get it right first time.

But is digital editing is really that bad? After all, with traditional (non-digital) methods, photographers have always used filters and darkroom techniques to enhance their images.

Even the viewfinder acts as a censor, selecting just the part of the overall scene that the photographer wants to appear in the final image. The trouble is that I find that the 3:2 aspect ratio used for 35mm film and by many digital cameras often doesn’t seem “right”. Some photographers (e.g. Charlie Waite) specialise in square images whilst others go for a letterbox format – something that I’ve always been attracted to – largely under the influence of one of my favourite photographers, Australia’s Peter Lik. It’s a pleasing format for the eye because it’s how people see. Consequently it is often used for wide-angle landscapes (and so works well in places with a wide field of view) but it not exclusively a wide angle format and can work well for compressed images with a telephoto lens.

Lik (alond with other notable landscape photographers like David Noton uses expensive 6×17 panoramic format cameras with swing lenses but until recently there was an (almost) affordable way to take panoramic images using multiple frames on standard 35mm film – Hassleblad’s X System. Unfortunately Hassleblad withdrew their excellent XPan II camera from sale last year. I’d wanted one for a while but could never justify the expense (at least not once I purchased a digital camera).

In the end, it was digital photography that killed off the XPan – I’d love for Hassleblad to make a digital XPan but the reality is that image sensors come in a particular size and there would be technical hurdles to overcome that would make the product too expensive. Anyway, single images can be stiched together post-capture and now that the quality of digital image sensors has caught up with (and even surpased) film, it’s hard to deride the convenience and low cost of digital photography.

I’m torn – should I save up for a second-hand XPan, buy a digital body with a higher-quality image sensor (so I can crop a decent quality panoramic photo from a single frame), or take separate images and stitch them together?