In addition the read me lists at least 20 bug fixes, including a preview cache performance issue.

As always the download can be reached form the Help menu inside of Lightroom which will take you directly to the Adobe Lightroom 3.5 Download page.

Adobe has since addressed the issue by posting version 3.4.1. The download, if you don’t have auto updates enabled, can be found at Adobe’s site or by clicking check for updates in Lightroom.

LPA design claims to have received reports from 120-140 customers that their 580EX II flashes, has been damaged within the past 18 months with similar symptoms. The symptom specifically is the inability for the damaged flash to produce controlled bursts. Lacking the ability to control the output, the flash will make a full power discharge all the time, even for TTL pre-flashes.

TLDR, The Brass Tacks

• The potential exists with at least Canon’s 580Ex II and possibly Nissin’s Di866 (I’ve received a report of a Nissin Di866 being fried in a similar manner) flashes that a failure can occur.
• The failure doesn’t appear to be related to heat buildup, so AC-5 soft shields aren’t a problem.
• The failure appears to be strongly related to an electrical arc formed between the flash tube and the flash’s reflector, eventually frying the controller.
• Replacing the fired controller, doesn’t fix the problem, and the flash will die again, even if it’s never used with a PocketWizard.
• LPA Design claims that failures have happened to less than 0.5% of the MiniTT1/FlexTT5 units, and less than 1% of 580EXII flashes connected.

From my interpretation of the LPA design report, the problem lies in the flash and not the PocketWizards.

Moreover, it seems that if your flash exhibits defects that lead to the failure use becomes a consideration. In LPA Design’s tests, the arcing occurred randomly, even in HSS discharges where you would expect to see it in every “pop”.

Finally, it’s entirely likely that as many 580EX II flashes are failing on users who aren’t using PocketWizards at all, but we’re not hearing about it since they either aren’t being used as much or simply are being considered a case of random broken equipment by the users.

A Deeper Analysis

The LPA investigation tracked down the problem to 2 main areas. First, the failure is ultimately noticed when the insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) that controls the actual flow of current to the flash tube dies. Secondly, it appears that the IGBT dies due to repeated arcing between the flash tube and the reflector behind it.

Before I go any further, I want to take a moment to talk about how this stuff all works. The IGBT is used like a switch. It allows the flash’s onboard microprocessor, which run at considerably lower voltages, to accurately and quickly start and stop the flash’s discharge as needed without being fried. The IGBT is designed for this kind of work.

The big picture view is something like this. The camera or Control TL PocketWizard, talks to the flash using a defined set of signals, this is the ETTL protocol. These signals could say things like “set power to 1/2” or “Fire.” The exact meaning of these signals is defined by the protocol, and this is what everyone has to reverse engineer to produce Canon or Nikon compatible flashes.

The diagram below shows a simple example of how this plays out in a flash during a full TTL pre-flash and exposure cycle. The diagram shows time progressing from top to bottom. The first set of arrows (from left to right) represent the TTL commands sent to the flash by the camera. The step wave form under IGBT drive voltage, shows the control voltage applied to the IGBT by the microprocessor (this maxes out usually between 2.5 and 4 volts, and switching several 100 volts). Finally, the curvy lines on the far right, show the flash light output intensity (towards the right) and time (top to bottom).

The camera sends a series of commands to the flash’s microprocessor, as a digital (1s and 0s) signal. These settings tell the flash’s microprocessor what the desired power is and when appropriate instructing the flash to fire. The flash’s microprocessor converts these commands from power levels into how long it should leave let the flash fire.

When instructed to fire, the microprocessor’s changes the voltage on one of its low voltage signal lines, which in turn causes the IGBT to allow current to pass to the flash tube. When the desired amount of flash power has been emitted—unlike dimming a lamp in your house, this is done by changing how long the flash tube is turned on and now by lowering the voltage—the microprocessor stops providing a signal to the IGBT which in turn stops allowing current to flow though the flash tube.

It is important to understand that in the scheme of things, neither the camera nor the PocketWizard has any direct control over the IGBT. The camera or PocketWizard can only tell the flash’s microprocessor what settings it needs, and when to trigger the flash.

In short, this means that it’s possible that these failures would have occurred even if PocketWizard’s never entered the equation.

Further, from my reading of the report, it appears to me that the problem with the failed/fired IGBTs is at least partially directly related to the flash tubes arcing to the reflector, which they shouldn’t be doing. This uncontrolled electrical arc can seriously alter the current levels the IGBT has to deal with or even propagate directly to the IGBT in a way it isn’t designed to deal with.

An electrical arc is like a miniature lightning bolt. Further, its ability to form is directly related to potential (voltage) between the surfaces that is forms between and how well that gap resists the formation (distance and conductivity). For example, an arc may from between two bare wires separated by air (as in a Jacob’s ladder) but insulate the wires and the arc will no longer form.

This brings me back to how a flash works, specifically that the voltage though the flash tube remains fixed and the timing is adjusted. In short, the PocketWizards can’t influence the voltage between the flash tube and the reflector, only the timing between when it turns on and off.

Moreover, it appears the gap between the flash tube and reflector is only at the threshold of spark formation, as, according to the report, it wasn’t seen in every test pulse, even if the power and discharge profile was kept the same. However, variations in alignment between the flash tube and reflector will change these characteristics and are specific to each flash made. Moreover, some flash designs, like the 430Ex II, have a much larger gap between the tube and reflector which makes it very difficult for the spark to form. This last part explains why some models of flashes are less susceptible to this failure than others.

The randomness of the spark means, the more the flash is fired the more likely it is for one that’s one that’s primed for failure to fail. This means, that using high-speed sync—one of the best reasons I’ve found for using the Control TL PocketWizard—raises the chances of failure due to the repeated firing of the flash over a single exposure resulting in more chances for arcing and thus frying the IGBT.

What this means for us as PocketWizard users

The real question to me is how do we, as PocketWizard users, move forward with this information.

My answer the first question, and while I can only speak for myself, is that I’m going to continue to use my Control TL PocketWizards. The potential failure seems to be directly related to the flash head (manufacturing and design tolerances) and not the PocketWizards.

I’ve had my two 580EX IIs in moderate use on my Control TL ‘Wizard’s for more than a year, and even longer using high-speed sync on camera. My feeling is if they were going to fail, they probably already would have; not that it would stop them from failing in the future. Further, since the PocketWizard’s high-speed sync mode isn’t driving the flashes any harder than a Canon EOS 40D would, and that’s what I used for most of their life, I’m not putting any more stress on them now, than I was before the PocketWizards.

That said; let me be clear about one thing, I don’t like the prospect of killing my rather expensive flashes. I’ve read LPA Design’s report, and while they’re the manufacture of PocketWizards, if you ask me, it’s in their best interest to fix any problems that exist or risk hurting the sales of their product. Moreover, their report is incurably detailed and technical to a point where I have a hard time believing they’re just trying to cover their own rears.

One thing to consider, if you are a Canon 580EX II user, who’s had their flash fail and is sending it off for repair, make sure the flash tube and reflector are inspected for damage and replaced if that is the case.

The LPA Design report can be downloaded from here and I’ve mirrored a copy here.

It’s that time again, time for Canon’s spring product announcements. The big, at least for me, announcement is a 200-400mm lens. However, Canon is also bringing to market a 2 new consumer level SLRs and a pair of new low end flashes.

Call this a day late and a dollar short. I’m not big or important enough for Canon to give prior notice to, so my comments are limited to what I can glean after the embargo’s end and the press releases go up.

Overall, Canon has put forward a couple of solid looking entry level cameras, finished replacing their new stabilized super-telephoto primes, and released a pair of low-end flashes, one with some very intriguing features. Moreover, Canon is clearly continuing to treat video support as a first class citizen in their SLRs by adding features that make sense and continuing to refine and improve the way you can use it.

(Press releases and Canon USA product pages for all new products can be found in the “references” section after the end of this article.)

The Rebel T3 (1100D) & Rebel T3i (600D)

Bringing up Canon’s entry-level bodies are the new Rebel T3 and T3i. The T3 brings a 12.3 megapixel sensor sensitive from ISO 100 to ISO 6400, 9-point AF system, and 63-zone metering system to the entry level. Moreover, it will shoot 1280×720 high definition video.

The T3i sits in the next tier above the T3, and below the 60D. The T3i brings the Rebel line an 18-megapixel sensor similar to the 7D, a 9-point AF system, and 63-segment dual-layer metering. Moreover, it has enough buffer space to shoot 34 JPEGs or 11 RAW images at up to 3.7 FPS.

Beyond the normal technical specs, Canon has continued to add features to the Rebel cameras. The new EOS guide function is aimed at novice photographer by explaining the effect changing various settings will do better. The second feature appears to offer more fine-tuned control over the basic shooting modes.

Canon has continued to add features to the Rebel cameras that make it easier for novice photographers to do more than just take snapshots. The new EOS guide function appears to be aimed at explaining the effect changing various settings will have on the images. The second feature appears to offer more fine-tuned control over the basic shooting modes.

Canon is continuing to with video being a first class citizen, with features aimed to be useful to the target markets. The T3i is no exception, with support for Full HD (1920×1080), HD (1280×720), and SD resolutions in selectable frame rates of 24p, 25p, and 30p. In addition, Canon has added a video snapshot mode that’s designed produce a quick—up to 8 seconds—video clip as easy as taking a picture.

All told, a 12.2MP entry level Rebel seems like a good step. It’s refreshing to see that Canon not go and put a crazy high resolution sensor in it. If the sensor in the T3 has any of the design improvements that have made their way into Canon’s other sensors, there’s a good chance that the camera could offer some very good image quality.

However, as a cost cutting measure, they seem to have done everything they could to have reduced the costs. For example, the Rebel XS (1000D) retained a depth-of-field preview button below the lens release, that’s not gone on the T3.

The T3i seems like a different story to me. Yet again, the T3i boots the resolution in the Rebel lines. An increase in resolution can be a good thing, or not, depending on how the camera handles noise. More resolution at this point is something of a downward spiral. Canon would likely have a hard time marketing a new Rebel without increasing the resolution; however, higher resolution sensors require better glass to take advantage of it. Moreover, unless noise is well controlled, the effective resolution doesn’t increase as much as the sensor’s resolution would imply.

The Canon EOS T3 is expected to be available towards the end of March, and will sell in kit form with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II for about $600.

The Canon EOS T3i is expected to be available in March. The body alone is expected to go for about $800. It will also be offered as a kit with the new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II lens, about $900. It will also be offered as a kit with the EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS for about $1100.

Speedlite 270Ex II & Speedlite 320Ex

Canon also announced two new flashes, the Speedlite 270Ex II and 320Ex. The 270Ex II is an upgrade to the current 270Ex. It adds the ability to configure the flash from the camera though the “Speedlite Functions” menu and the ability to be used as an ETTL wireless slave flash. Like it’s predecessor, the flash head can be tilted 90° but cannot be rotated.

The Speedlite 320Ex provides a more feature complete package for an entry-level flash as well as some new features to Canon’s Speedlites. The 320Ex shows Canon’s commitment to video functionality in their SLRs, as it has a powerful continuous LED light for use during continuous shooting in addition to the standard flash tube. Additionally the 320Ex can be used to remotely trigger any Canon camera with a wireless triggering mode.

The 270Ex II doesn’t appear to offer much to me, even as an entry-level flash. Some users may prefer it to the 320 or 430 due to its smaller size, but the limitations on the flash head’s movement and the diminutive power makes its bigger brothers a lot more attractive.

The Speedlite 320Ex on the other hand looks like a very interesting entry-level flash. Video light functionality is unique to a SLR Speedlite, as far as I know, and with the video snapshot functionality in the T3i, the 320Ex would offer users the ability shoot video in much lower light than before.

The Speelite 270Ex II is expected to reach U.S. dealers in April and retail for $170.

The Speedlite 320Ex is expected to reach dealers, again, in April, with a price of $250.

EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM and EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM

Continuing the trend in replacing super-telephoto lenses Canon started last fall, Canon has introduced the final 2 21^st century telephoto lenses. According to Canon, the design philosophy was to increase the optical quality, durability, and reduce the weight. To that end Canon seems to have succeeded at least in reducing weight, the new 500mm f/4L shedding 18% of its weight—from 8.5 pounds to just over 7 pounds—and the 600mm f/4L shedding an impressive 27%–dropping from 11.9 pounds to just over 8.6 pounds.

The lenses carry all the latest Canon L features; the latest IS system, with a new mode-3 which prevents the IS system from engaging until the shutter button is fully depressed. Ring-USM AF motors, for fast accurate AF. Fluorite and super UD lens elements to minimize chromatic aberrations. A 9-bladed circular aperture for smooth bokeh and sub-wavelength coatings to improve contrast and flare resistance, round out the feature set.

Considering that super-telephoto lenses have always tended to be Canon’s strong suit, I don’t expect these to be any different. The weight savings alone on the 600mm f/4 will make it a welcomed upgrade for many bird and wildlife photographers who have to trek gear far or deal with airline carry on restrictions.

In fact, as has been the case recently, the only real apparent downside to the two new super-telephoto primes is the price.

The Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM is expected to ship in May for around $9,500.00.

The Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM is expected to ship in June, for approximately $12,000.00.

EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM

Announced only, with no concrete ship date or price, Canon is fining bringing a lens to market aimed to compete with Nikon’s 200-400mm f/4. The details are sketchy right now, Canon hasn’t said much yet, but it will feature a built in 1.4x teleconverter. A built in teleconverter isn’t unheard of, though it’s quite rare. However, doing this allows the teleconverter to be matched and optimized for a single lens, the result of which will certainly mean better image quality than a generic teleconverter would provide.

To be honest, I’m a bit torn over this lens. I’ve been seriously hoping Canon would release a true successor to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, something with the same range and compact design but with improved image quality and a more modern image stabilizer.

It’s not that a very high quality 200-400 f/4 lens isn’t desirable, rather it’s the tradeoffs in size and weight that are problematic for me. If you look at the images in my Street Walker Pro backpack review, the 100-400 can be carried in a compact backpack, along with a good bit of other glass. That’s not something that’s likely to be possible with the new 200-400. Only time will tell though.

The other question I have is why build in a teleconverter at all? Why not simply make a 200-500 f/4-5.6 with 200-400 held at f/4 and 400-500 slipping to f/5.6? While a fixed aperture lens is nice and all, but having the built in teleconverter means a bulge in the lens barrel is needed so the teleconverter can be removed from the optical path, as well as more moving parts to move it. In addition, the built-in teleconverter also means that it will more than likely have to be manually activated when desired and arrived at but turning the zoom ring.

One thing I don’t even want to speculate on, let alone think about, is price.

LPA Design has begun shipping their MiniTT1 and FlexTT5 ControlTL PocketWizards for Nikon cameras to dealers in Europe and Canada. US versions are expected to follow in 2 weeks and be available on store shelves in mid-December.

Rob Galbraith has an indepth preview of the Nikon ‘Wizards available. I’ve also updated my review with the few applicable notes on the differences between Nikon and Canon versions.

Version 1.35 of PocketWizard Utility now Available

In addition to the release of Nikon compatible hardware, there’s also a new version available for the PocketWizard Utility, which attempts to simplify the UI and adds some much needed functionality.

Version 1.35 of PocketWizard utility adds a number of useful features including:

• Saving and Loading device settings to your computer.
• Streamlining firmware updates by
  • Saving your device configuration automatically
  • Performing a factory reset when the firmware flash is completed automatically
  • Prompting you to restore you configuration, automatically
• Simplified UI by hiding advanced configuration options from the default UI

All of the above changes are welcomed updates if you ask me.

Version 1.35 of the PocketWizard Utility can be downloaded from PocketWizard’s downloads page.

New MiniTT1 and FlexTT5 PocketWizard Beta Firmwares

Firmware version 5.206 for the MiniTT1 and 5.207 for the FlexTT5 brings the following improovments.

• Operation when swapping an AC3 ZoneController onto or off from a MiniTT1 or FlexTT5
• while the radios are powered on and the camera is awake has been improved.
• Improved modeling light sleep behavior with the PowerST4.
• Corrected AC3 operations so that exposures at the shutter speed just above X-sync are
• now proper.
• Improved operation of an AC3 on a transmitter on a 1D Mark IV.
• Added logic for better detection of a flash in the top shoe that is slow to become
• ready (low batteries).
• Remote camera triggering logic has been further improved.
• Improved operation with the 5D Mark II when making fast aperture changes.
• Eliminated banding on the 5D Mark II and 7D for the first HSS exposure.
• Many improvements implemented for operation with the new PocketWizard Utility.

Keep in mind, however, that version 5.206 and 5.207 are beta releases and won’t be avaiable unless you’ve opted into the beta firmware program. They also require version 1.35 of the PocketWizard Utility to download and install.

I’ve been mulling this camera over since it was announced on the 20^th, and I have to say, it’s hard not to get excited about it. The X100 is a near-compact camera that is clearly aimed squarely at the serious photographers.

Actually, the Finepix X100 is, to me, a hairs breath away from being the digital Leica M for those of us that can’t afford a Leica M9.

The design is pure “reto” genius. If there ever were a camera that packaged the sensibilities that made rangefinders attractive into digital body while preserving the functionality, this would be it.

The X100’s design sensibilities are straightforward and follow and in many ways that makes for some strong queues that the X100 is targeting serious photographers.

The X100 disposes of the modern “soft” controls that pull double or triple duty for controlling exposure settings. Instead, they opted for a set of dedicated dials for shutter speed, exposure compensation, and aperture setting. Not only are the exposure controls dedicated; the aperture is controlled by the closest thing to a proper aperture ring I’ve seen on a digital camera.

However, the design goes further than that. One of the first things that makes me think this is could be a serious shot at serious photographers is the lack of a mode dial. When there are only 4 modes, a mode dial isn’t necessary. Instead of a mode dial, the X100 appears to put the control of the modes in the hands of the exposure controls.

To put the camera in Program AE, “auto”, set both the aperture and shutter dials to ‘A’. Setting only the shutter to ‘A’, gets you aperture priority. Likewise, setting the aperture to ‘A’ gets you shutter priority. When neither control is set to ‘A’, you have full manual. Now that’s not to say there won’t be scene modes that are accessible when the camera is set to full auto, but it’s clear from the external UI that those aren’t going to be dominating features.

How does it compare? Other than SLRs, Canon’s S95, or the $7000 Leica M9, there’s no other compact digital camera that exposes the exposure controls quite as well.

The X100 also has what appears to be a large edge-mounted optical viewfinder. Again, a feature that is strongly indicative of being targeted at serious photographers who don’t like using electronic viewfinders if they can avoid it.

More importantly, the viewfinder isn’t your daddy’s optical viewfinder with a few superimposed crop lines and range finder; it actually blends a LCD EVF with an optical viewfinder and the ability to switch between them at will.

How does it compare?

This is no Leica M9. The viewfinder has only 0.5x magnification with, if the 90% coverage reported DPReview is accurate, a focal length of about 26mm. The magnification is comparable to what an SLR user would see using a lens with a similar field of view, but worse than the M9’s 0.68x magnification.

The bizarre decision was to make the optical viewfinder 90% coverage (assuming that’s correct). Less than 100% coverage isn’t abnormal in many SLRs, but it’s very odd when it comes to rangefinders. Not copying that design seems odd, and will certainly turn away some hardcore rangefinder photographers.

The other complaint I have with the X100 is the lens.

The first place is the lens. The X100 has a fixed 23mm (35mm eFoV) f/2 lens. The f/2 is nice; the fixed lens, in my opinion, not so much. Sure, there are people who have no problem with fixed lenses; I am not one of those people. I prefer to make a creative choice about the scene I want to shoot and have a camera that lets me work from there. Not a tool that dictates what I can shoot.

The real interesting question for me though, is how much size and expense would adding a interchangeable lens system really add? My guess is not that much, in either case.

There are still a lot of things that aren’t quite clear, based on the info I’ve been able to find so far, but the camera is still a ways away from release and I’m sure that info will trickle out between now and it’s early 2011 expected availability.

Either way I have high hopes for the X100. Unless the initial reviews show serious problems, I’m very seriously consider picking one up if they are priced in the $500 to $600 range. For a large sensor relatively compact camera with the limitations of the X100 that’s about the only reasonable price point I can come up with. Much more than that, and I think the idea dies before it can get any traction. However, truthfully I’d be willing to spend a lot more if it had interchangeable lenses.

Image courtesy of FUJIFILM Corporation.

EOS 60D: High Low-End, not Low High-End

First up is the impressive as a consumer class camera, but maybe not so much as a replacement for the EOS 50D. What’s gone is the Aluminum/Magnesium body, the 6.3 FPS frame rate, AF micro adjustments, and  compact flash cards.

The new EOS 60D, yep it still looks like a Canon SLR.

Out with the old in with the new. New to the EOS 60D, among other things, is:

• A 63-zone color sensitive meter
• +/- 3 Stops of exposure compensation
• A combination multi-controller and rear dial ripped right from the PowerShot G11
• An articulating high resolution screen and wireless flash control
• In camera image resizing
• Creative image filters (soft focus, grainy B&W, Toy Camera effect, and a tilt-shift effect)

Clearly canon is putting more and more focus on video in their new SLRs, though the lack of video information on the Canon USA product page is a bit of an odd oversight. The EOS 60D has full manual video control, including manual gain control of the audio. It also has in camera editing functionality, which I guess is handy given what appears to be the target market for the EOS 60D.

So while the spec list is fairly impressive, I’m not sure the camera is. Not to me at least. There is one new feature that I really like. The integrated multi-controller and secondary control dial does make for a much better UI design when it comes to using the multi-controller ot select AF points, especially when you have a vertical grip attached to the camera. In fact this has been one of my major peeves with SLR UI design for a long time.

Using the multi-controller to selection AF points is unbeatable fast, however, when you’re using a vertical grip it’s virtually impossible since the multi-controller is now way out of finger’s reach. Nikon got around this on their D300(s) and D700 bodies by adding a second controller to the MB-D10 grip. The combination controller on the EOS 60D appears to solve the issue for Canon, at least on the lower end cameras–the professional bodies are still woefully lacking when it comes to having a properly designed user interface.

The new front top LCD and control buttons on the EOS 60D.

There’s another UI change that isn’t so impressive, however. On the 50D and it’s predecessor, 6 of the most important functions–ISO, drive mode, AF mode, metering mode, white balance, and flash exposure compensation–were controlled by 3 buttons in front of the top LCD. I actually think this is one of the best UI features of any Camera I’ve handled. Need to bump the ISO, push the first button turn the main dial, no need to even take your eye away from the view finder.

The dual mode buttons in conjunction with the two control dials were simple, compact, and intuitive. Never mind at this point well established. The EOS 60D apparently eschews that for a more Rebel–or dare I say it EOS 1 series–style single mode button. The new camera replaces the elegant 3 button solution with 4 (not including the LED button), AF mode, drive mode, ISO, and metering mode. White balance and flash exposure compensation are nowhere to be found. I assume you have to go though a menu for them now.

The EOS 60D is expected to retail (body only) for $1100, and should be available towards the end of September.

New Glass: Go Pro or Go Home

New glass is always a much anticipated event. The months proceeding any of Canon’s major announcement times send the rumor sites into a virtual frenzy theorizing and speculating over every possible lens. One can dream, right?

EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye USM

This is something akin to a replacement for the old EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, even though the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye hasn’t been discontinued. On a full frame sensor the lens has a circular 180° field of view at 8mm. At 15mm, it’s like the current fisheye, a 180° diagonal field of view. On a crop camera, at 8mm you get a full 180° diagonal field of view. Not a bad deal if you use a fisheye.

Estimated list price is $1400, and the lens is expected to be available in January of 2011.

EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

Lets start with what it is. It appears to be an L class replacement for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It’s a slow, variable aperture lens, so it’s not exactly in the same class as the EF 70-200mm f/4Ls (either with or without IS), nor is it as long as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. It is, however, weather sealed.

What this lens really is, at least to me, is an enigma. Canon had a perfectly good, if not slightly soft EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. It was the reasonably priced and it’s been removed from Canon’s website (at least the USA site) which tends to mean that it’s been discontinued. The replacement is apparently this lens. Boy does that leave a gaping hole in Canon’s lineup. There’s the two non-stabilized, mediocre–kit lens–quality 75-300′s at the $200 price point and the non-stabilized EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM at the $500 price point (where the old 70-300 IS lived). If you want a stabilized 70-300mm lens, you jump then to $1400 for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, and then to the new $1500 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.

There are two questions for me. First, why another L telephoto zoom? Canon has 13 telephoto zooms listed on their site now; 1 is an EF-S lens, 3 are the a fore mentioned low end 75-300s/100-300, the final non L lens is the 70-300 DO. Eight, yes, eight of the 13 telephoto zooms are L. Doesn’t that diminish the L branding as a premium when almost all the lenses are L branded?

Second is a matter of the lens’s described focus system.

Lens extension via inner focusing and focus cam plus floating mechanism.

Is it me, or does that sound suspiciously like the front element extends when the lens focuses. Extending front elements tend to be a feature of inexpensive lenses, not premium pro level ones. If that’s the case, this will be one of the first L lenses I can think of that isn’t an internal or rear focusing design.

The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is expected to retail for about $1500 and be available in October of this year.

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM

I so want one of these. The current one is fast both to focus and in gathering light, tack sharp, not terribly heavy, and reasonably sharp when paired with a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter making it pretty flexible. The new one improves the IS system (it’s now good for 4 stops), has 2 fluorite elements to reduce chromatic aberrations, adds the latest in Canon’s coatings to reduce ghosting and flare, and is lighter to boot. Wow! Wow! Wow!

The downside? The price has jumped from about $5000 to $7000.

The lens is expected to be available in December with an est retail price of $7000.

EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM

If the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM was impressive, the bigger badder 400mm brother is simply jaw dropping. Take the same fancy coatings, optics, and stabilizer, make the lens 100mm longer while keeping the f/2.8 aperture and you have the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM. Of course, anybody who owns the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM knows right away you don’t get a 400mm f/2.8 lens with out your back (or your monopod) paying for it. The first generation 400 f/2.8L IS USM weighed in at a back breaking 11.8 pounds. The mark 2, a feather weight 8.5 pounds. WOW! That’s almost 2 pounds lighter than Nikon’s 400mm f/2.8 VR II.

The only real downside to the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM appears to be the price.

The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM is expected to retail for $11,000 and should be available in December.

Extender EF 1.4x III & Extender EF 2x III

This year had seen Nikon introduce a 3rd generation 2x tele-extender, the big deal, an aspherical element to improve image quality by reducing spherical aberrations. We’re now also seening a 3rd generation of extenders from Canon. While the press release and product pages don’t say anything about aspherical elements, they do say this.

These new extenders have been designed to provide faster autofocusing and improved autofocus precision with compatible EF lenses. Each extender includes an anomalous dispersion lens element for reduced chromatic aberration and enhanced optical image quality. Each extender also features a newly developed microcomputer that increases AF precision when the extenders are used with a IS Series II EF super-telephoto lens. Both extenders are equipped with rubber gaskets and seals to enhance weather resistance. A new fluorine anti-smear coating is applied to the front and rear elements of both extenders.

I use my Extender EF 1.4x II enough that if these are as good as they sound, I can certainly see a new 1.4x extender in my future.

The extenders are expected to be available in December of this year, and will cost approximately $500 a piece.

According to Canon this fall is all about the pros, and their product line up really shows it. The EF 8-15mm fisheye provides a useable fisheye for any Canon user, regardless of the camera’s crop factor, that’s a big deal if you ask me. Canon’s previous 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 were arguably as close to optical perfection as you could get for a lens of that class, and I expect the new ones are going to be even better. The new tele-extenders also show promise to stretch those big lenses just that much further while keeping the IQ needed to drive today’s high density digital cameras. Finally, there’s the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, it seems like a bit of an odd duck in the line up, apparently pushing the lower priced entry level lens out of the catalog. That said, it is an L lens, and L lenses generally deliver optical quality commensurate of their price tags.

That just leaves, EOS 60D, certainly it shows promise as a solid upgrade for those Rebel users that are looking for a bit better control and better ergonomics.

* Direct links to the product pages and press released can be found in the related links section below.

Images courtesy of Canon Inc..

The full press release can be read on Canon’s website. What follows are my thoughts on this sensor and what it could mean for photography down the road.

Small Pixels, Big Picture

From the scant details in the press release, we can make a few estimates about the sensor. For starters, the sensor packs 120 million pixels, resulting in a 13,380 x 9,184 image, in a 29.2mm x 20.2mm area. Simple math tells us, that the pixels are approximately 2-microns across.

2um pixels alone aren’t something new, many of the better performing current generation point and shoots have pixels that size, including Canon’s PowerShot G11 and S90. What is unprecedented, however, is the move to make a sensor with that pixel pitch that big.

Since this is an engineering prototype, it’s clear that part of this is Canon demonstrating they have the technology to manufacture a part this big and the capabilities to drive or use it. Lots of pixels, after all, means lots of data that needs to be moved and processed, doing that at almost 10 FPS isn’t anything to laugh at. The real question, or at least a good hypothetical one, is what that means for photographers in a few years.

Why aim for small pixels, aren’t bigger pixels better?

The balance between pixel size and noise is determined by a couple of factors including area, well capacity and quantum efficiency. However, the only factor in resolution is pixel size.

In general, when there is very little signal (light), larger pixels do “better” since they collect more signal and as a result should have less noise. However, when there is a lot of signal, smaller pixels will resolve more detail. This split can be seen in how Canon and Nikon orient their studio and “low light” cameras, studio cameras has more pixels and a limited ISO top end, low light cameras have fewer pixels and a much higher ISO top end.

What this thinking doesn’t consider is that you can make a smaller pixel appear bigger if you combine it with its neighbors. In short, you can make a small pixel camera behave more like a big pixel camera, but you can’t do things the other way around. This parity can be seen if one compares results of the 5D mark 2 and the Nikon D700. The D700’s bigger pixels perform better in low light, but when you reduce the 5D mark 2’s image to the same size, the results are virtually identical.

Currently, designers try to balance the resolution advantages of small pixels with the noise advantages of big pixels. However, if the sensor can pack enough pixels to break the current 1 imaging pixel equals 1 image pixel condition things could change in interesting ways.

With a whole heck of a lot of pixels, designers could choose to bin pixels all the time. That is, treat each RGBG quad as a single image pixel. It reduces the image resolution at least by a factor of 4, however, noise goes down, and image quality goes up. Moreover, the anti-aliasing (blur) filter can be disposed of without worrying about moiré so the camera should be able to resolve more fine details.

The other alternative is to progressively bin as the signal to noise ratio or ISO increases. This has the advantage of producing the highest possible resolution image in situations where there is enough signal to support that, and producing increasingly less noisy, though lower resolution, images as pixel noise increases. Binning based on ISO isn’t something that’s unheard of either, Phase One’s P+ medium format backs do this to achieve their highest ISOs, so do many P&S cameras.

Bits, FPS, and Bandwidth

The real problem, and what makes this sensor largely infeasible as a commercial product for the foreseeable future, is the amount of bandwidth that this sensor can consume. Assuming it keeps a 14-bit output reading out 120MP sensor 9.5 times a second requires almost 2 GB/s in bandwidth. At that rate, a 32GB flash card would be filled in less than 2 seconds and with only 16 or 17 pictures.

2GB/s isn’t an insurmountable problem; most modern PCs are capable of moving much more than that between their system memory and CPU. Even the DDR memory used in Canon’s current top end camera’s in theory, at least with a wide enough bus, could handle the data. The problem in a camera, however, is twofold. First, is power; simply put moving lots of data requires a lot more power than moving a lot less data, and this sensor would be moving more than 7 times as much data as the fastest production camera Canon currently makes.

Simultaneously, there the problem with storage, at 9.5 FPS, this sensor could fill a 32GB flash card in less than 2 seconds, with only 16 images. Well, at least it could if the buffer was big enough. The fastest flash cards currently available can’t write any faster than about 100MB/s. At that speed, it would take almost 30 seconds to write a single 120MP 14-bit image (assuming no compression).

It’s a Tech Demo, Don’t get Excited Yet

Of course, ultimately this announcement wasn’t intended to demonstrate what Canon expects to put in a camera in a couple of years. This is a demonstration of their capabilities in designing and building bleeding edge imaging sensors, and while it’s not ultimately useful on its own, it is very much necessary to spend the time and money on R&D that results in this kind of thing even if you only use part of what you learned.

There are a few things, however, that concern me about this announcement. For starters, there’s the frame rate. 9.5 FPS is quite fast, and while Canon doesn’t go into detail about how parallel the readouts are, it’s clear that in addition to reading in parallel the sensor is being read out quite quickly as well. The problem is, speed and noise, at least when it comes to analog to digital conversion, don’t play together very well. Conversions can be done quickly, but doing so increases the amount of noise in the conversion.

This problem is most obviously seen in the EOS 1D mark 4. Independent tests have shown the sensor could be capable of >15 stops of dynamic range if the conversion circuitry wasn’t driven to meet the 161MP/s requirements of 10FPS shooting. Now this might not be an issue for this prototype sensor, it may not have even been a goal of this prototype, and of course, Canon may have found a way to build an ADC that performs better at the required speeds.

While this prototype sensor is certainly impressive, photographically speaking FPS and pixels mean less to me than noise, dynamic range, and color accuracy. What would really get me excited is to see Canon announce is a sensor with good by current standards resolution (say ~20MP full frame) and 20 stops of dynamic range. Even better, would be for them to say they’re going to ship it in a camera in the next year.

Version 4.0.2 can be downloaded form Datacolor’s download site.

Supposedly they were released to distributors some time ago, however, they appear to be just making it into retail channels.

B&H Photo finally has them listed, though they apparently aren’t stocking them.

Midwest Photo Exchange also has them listed, though with even less detail.

The AC-3 is listed at $69.99 from both sources.