Update: Jan.7 2011 with Samsung Galaxy Tab 7 Plus

The review process

Most reviewers for magazines have the devices for a limited time only. They don’t have time to play and appreciate them, discover their strong and weak points or see how their familiy members interact with the the devices. They have deadlines, they may not even enjoy reviewing every piece of junk. In contrast, I personally own all the tablets in this review. How come? In addition to being a graphic artist and photographer, I’m also a software engineer – I write software for tablets. I have quite a few tablets around me, mainly for testing purposes. I know them. I take them home and let my wife and kids play with them.

I will not bore you with technical specs and performance charts; instead I’ll concentrate on real-world experiences.

Apple iPad 2

iPad 2 is, without a doubt, “the” Tablet. In fact, I could have made my job easier by declaring iPad the winner and be done with it. However, I’m not in the business of selling Apple merchandise, but in giving you short, honest reviews.

If I were to sum up Apple’s strategy, it would be – catering to the simple user’s needs, attention to detail and great marketing.

Construction

It’s a very robust device. The aluminium back stands out. On the sides it has a sleep/wake button, volume control and a lock/silent switch. It has one Home button on the front and a proprietary connector. Battery life is very good, although recharging is lengthy. The GPS is very good but the front/back cameras are not. Through the proprietary connector, the iPad 2 can access USB devices and can output HDMI, VGA or composite.

In your hand

At 1.3 pounds (600 g), iPad is rather heavy compared to other similar devices. It’s thin (0.34″ / 8.8 mm), but you definitely can’t hold it with one hand. It’s the kind of device that needs resting on a support.

Usage

Here comes Apple’s magic and appeal. The iPad 2 is (for the most part) extremely intuitive. Previously (with the first iPad), the only way you could close an application was by pressing the Home button, but now you can navigate through apps by dragging or pinching the screen. I gave it to my mother-in-law and she, with no previous experience with touch devices, was instantly able to use it and play with the mapping app.

AppStore

iPad is the ultimate consumerist device

The iPad is the ultimate consumer device and a publisher’s dream. You can buy movies, music, books, newspapers, magazines, apps and games for it. In fact, the process is made so simple that it encourages impulse buying (with no refund option) – you click “Buy” and it’s done! Apps and games in the store also make frequent use of “In-App Purchases” to buy virtual goods or unlock features.

The store is very family-friendly, you won’t find really objectionable materials there. With the new iOS 5 you can also place restrictions of all kinds on the tablet, so if you give it to your child you can be sure they don’t start buying stuff or delete apps. You can even disable YouTube.

All apps in the store are tested and they have strict guidelines so you can be reasonably sure they perform as expected.

Connectivity

This is an area that disappointed me. You can’t transfer a file via Bluetooth from your smartphone. You cannot transfer files from your computer unless you go through iTunes and even that is a pain (iTunes is so bad it feels like it wasn’t made by Apple). So if you’re with a friend, you can’t transfer a photo from their laptop simply via USB. You can’t even just copy a photo from your computer, you have to sync the photo library. Also, because each app lives in isolation, many operations are simply impossible (like transfer an Excel doc via Wi-Fi and open it with the Numbers app). Some nice features such as AirPlay or iCloud work only with other Apple devices.

The video formats it supports are rather restrictive; you’re fine as long as you only purchase videos through iTunes, but loading your own will require conversions in many cases. There are some third-party video players but their performance is pretty bad.

Even though you can connect a USB drive to the iPad (via the optional Camera Connection Kit), you can’t just copy a file and open it with an app without jumping though many hoops. Overall, it’s a frustrating experience when you try to use it for something productive.

For designers and photographers

There are some nice little tools for artists, mainly sketching apps, but nothing mind-blowing. Adobe Ideas is nice. Some apps are better suited for iPhones – DOF calculators, sun calculators and other small tools. Personally I used the iPad when shooting on location. I would transfer the RAWs on it using the camera connection kit and show them  to the client on the screen (it shows just the JPEG preview of RAW files, doesn’t actually decode it, so you can’t zoom too much to check focus and so on). There’s no real tethering app.

Price

An iPad can cost anywhere from $520 for 16 Gb Wi-Fi only to $850 for the 64 Gb white model with WiFi+3G. See at the end of the article for price comparisons.

Conclusion

As I wrote above, iPad is the ultimate consumerist entertainment device and a status symbol. It’s perfect for someone who doesn’t know or care about computers. If you set restrictions properly, you can safely give it to your kid. It’s not so great for doing productive work on it.

Blackberry Playbook

I received the Playbook as a gift from RIM. Somehow it grew on me despite its flaws.

Construction

Playbook is very small, just 7.6″ x 5.1″ (194 mm x 130 mm), a bit thicker (0.4″ / 10 mm) and lighter (0.9 lb / 425 g) than the iPad. The back has a fine rubberized texture that really feels nice. Side buttons are sleep/wake, volume and play/pause. In addition to the proprietary connector is has a micro-HDMI socket. The built-in GPS is the weakest of all tablets I’ve tested. It has the highest-resolution back camera in this review.

The processor is very fast and the graphic performance is also very good, overall at least on par with the iPad 2.

The battery doesn’t last as much (about 7 hours compared to 9 for iPad) but it recharges much faster.

In your hand

Because of its small size, you can easily hold it on one hand and use the other to tap on the screen. Unlike the iPad, you can fit it in a pocket.

Usage

The Playbook is almost as easy to use as the iPad, and in some regards even better. There’s no Home button, everything you do is with gestures. Its Tablet OS operating system has true multitasking and it’s a joy to switch back and forth through apps, for example to copy something from an app and paste it somewhere else. It recognizes more video formats, unfortunately it’s a bit small for watching movies (though they look very good and you can output to a HDTV).

Thanks to its smart gestures (the area outside the screen is touch-sensitive as well), the Playbook can work nicely without the system bar present in Android Honeycomb devices, allowing you to use the full screen effectively. This is a really nice advantage when compared to other 7″ tablets.

The software it comes with is a mixed bag. On one hand, it comes with a full Office suite. On the other hand it doesn’t have an email client (they are promising email for version 2.0 of WebOS)

AppWorld

Playbook is a nice companion for Blackberry phone owners

There are some nice apps and games in the AppWorld store but nowhere near as many as for the iPad. The store itself doesn’t feel as much polished. As a publisher I was frustrated by the lack of control I have over the apps, such as giving discount coupons. There are a number of big games available though. Sadly, no Angry Birds.

Blackberry promises that the Playbook will be able to run Android apps in 2012 with the release of Tablet OS 2.0.

Connectivity

The Playbook can pair with a Blackberry phone via Bluetooth, giving access to email, contacts, calendar and files on the phone. Playbook can connect via USB and it’s much more open than the iPad in this regard; you feel as you are more in control of the device. It can also connect with any phones via Bluetooth and you can add not just a Bluetooth keyboard, but even a Bluetooth mouse! I had some problems with the Blackberry Desktop software though.

For designers and photographers

Nothing really worth mentioning.

Price

RIM has massively discounted the Playbook, it’s currently $250 to $400. See at the end of the article for price comparisons.

Conclusion

Personally I use it more for writing documents, view PDF files and sync my Torch phone rather than to play. For Blackberry phone owners, the Playbook is a nice companion, not so much for anyone else.

Kindle Fire

Construction

Kindle Fire is about the same size as the Playbook. In fact, at a glance they look almost identical. The size and weight differences are so small it’s not worth mentioning.

Amazon’s Fire does not include cameras, GPS or Bluetooth and has just one micro-USB socket with no way to output HDMI. The CPU/GPU, although on paper is the same as with Playbook here feels underpowered; it also has less RAM and just 8 Gb of storage space. Battery life is similar to Playbook (7 hours).

In your hand

Same notes as with Playbook: very comfortable to hold and carry around.

Usage

The problem with Kindle Fire is that its real-world usage is severely restricted.

Kindle Fire runs an older version of Android. Its sole purpose seems to be to encourage you to buy stuff from Amazon – books, magazine, music, apps…

The operation has a carousel-like interface at the core, but I’m not a big fan of it. Downloading again the stuff you purchased previously from “the cloud” is nice, but the fact that there are no hardware controls for sound level is irritating. Overall it feels dumbed-down and definitely not as polished as the iPad or Playbook.

Amazon Appstore

The tablet doesn’t have access to the Android Marketplace (though you’ll find most apps here) and the store itself is not available outside US, so if you ask a friend to bring you a Kindle from the States to Europe or Asia, there might be problems in accessing the content.

Like Apple’s AppStore, the store is designed for impulse buying. In fact, it’s been reported that Amazon.com loses money ($2 – $10) on each unit they sell, so basically the tablet’s sole reason to exist is to facilitate buying of digital goods.

Connectivity

No Bluetooth, no HDMI.

For designers and photographers

Apart from the usual sketch apps, it’s too small for any work.

Price

$199!

Conclusion

At $200, Kindle Fire looks like an attractive choice. Amazon’s marketing team even managed to make a comparison chart to present it as a revolutionary device and to show that it’s better than an iPad. My problem with Kindle Fire is that its real-world usage is severely restricted. On the other hand, you can’t expect to get a $600 tablet for $200 and there’s huge demand for simple and cheap tablets. Many people don’t need a tablet for anything more than browsing the web, check the social networks and maybe read an ebook and Kindle Fire fulfills their needs at an unbeatable price.

Samsung Galaxy Tab family – 7 plus, 8.9 and 10.1

I’ll be reviewing the Tab 8.9 and touch upon its siblings, the new affordable 7″ tablet and the bigger brother 10.1

Construction

To be honest, when I unwrapped the Galaxy Tab 8.9, I was expecting a relatively cheap-looking piece of plastic. Instead, the Tab feels surprisingly well-built. Yes, it’s plastic, but it feels nice. It’s  a hairline thinner than the iPad (8.6 mm) and ligher, just (0.99 lb / 447 g). The 7 plus has the same dimensions as Playbook and Kindle Fire.

Without a doubt, Samsung copied shamelessly from Apple. The USB cable / charger looks the same, the proprietary connector looks the same (yet not compatible with Apple); even the USB connection kit and the HDMI output accessories (which cost extra) look much like Apple’s. I’m not saying this to criticize or anything, I’m just stating something obvious when you have both systems.

The 1280×800 screen resolution means higher density compared to the iPad (170 dpi vs. 132 dpi), so you get the same smooth, finely-detailed look of Playbook and Kinde Fire but on a bigger screen. One thing I noted is that the colors appear too saturated, especially the reds. I’m sure this is not a problem for most users but as a designer it bothers me a little.

The Galaxy Tab 7 Plus has a 1024×600 resolution, but because of the system bar at the bottom you have just 552 effective pixels. Not a big deal, as Kindle Fire is the same, but with a smaller device every pixel counts.

In your hand

Somehow I prefer the 8.9 size (230 x 160 mm) over the 7″ or 10″ alternatives. It’s easier to hold it than an iPad and at the same time it’s easier to operate than a 7″.

Usage

The Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 is the only tablet I actually use for design

Just like Motorola Xoom and many other tablets, Samsung Galaxy Tab uses Google’s Android 3 Honeycomb OS.

Honeycomb is not nearly as polished in terms of UI compared to iOS or  RIM’s Blackberry Tablet OS. In a way it’s more like a traditional OS like Windows. It’s more powerful and customizable but not as intuitive and at times tedious.

To their credit, Samsung have added some nice touches (marketed as TouchWiz) – some useful widgets that live in the system bar, a nicer UI, a good email program, a “Social Hub” and so on.

Marketplace

By default it comes with Google’s Android Marketplace as well as Samsung’s own store, but you can install for example the Amazon’s web store. Unlike iPad and Playbook, you can install apps from outside stores (you just need to enable the option in Settings). The apps in the Market are not curated or tested, so buyer beware.

Overall there are many nice apps available for Honeycomb.

On the downside, at the time of writing, many games were not compatible with it, but I assume they are being ported.

There’s no built-in parent control system, but there are a number of third-party “Lock” apps to password-protect apps.

Connectivity

After you install the necessary drivers, you can browse the contents of the tablet file system at will via USB. Connecting via Bluetooth is not a problem. You are in complete control.

All tablets come as Wifi+3G or Wifi only.

For designers and photographers

From simple DOF calculators to Autodesk’s Sketchbook Pro, from image viewers to RAW processors. There are tethering / remote control apps for Canon and Nikon. Adobe has a whole suite of creative apps, including Photoshop Touch, which is amazing. There are video players that can play more “exotic” formats such as MKV.

Price

Depending on the model (16 Gb / 32 Gb; Wi-Fi / 3G), a Galaxy Tab 8.9″/10″ costs between $490 and $650. Galaxy Tab 7″ may cost as little as $300 (if you get it from T-Mobile).

Conclusion

The Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 has become my favorite tablet. It’s the only one that I can actually use in my design workflow. I take it with me, meet with clients and collaborate using Adobe’s tools (Kuler, Proto, Ideas, Debut, Photoshop Touch). I’d hesitate to give it to my mother or my son though.

Asus Transformer Prime

The original Transformer was lacking in build quality but the new Transformer Prime seems much better. I haven’t had the time to test it enough to make an objective review, but I’ll update this article as soon as possible.

Motorola Xoom, Toshiba Thrive, Lenovo IdeaPad

I lumped all these together. To save time, I’ll start with the conclusion: none of these tablets impressed me.

They all use the same Honeycomb OS with minor tweaks. They have roughly the same 10.1″ size and the same screen resolution – 1280 x 800 pixels, are all pretty thick (up to 6.62″ / 16.8 mm – double the Galaxy Tab) and heavy (1.7 lb / 0.75 Kb). Battery life is lower – 5-6 hours. Apart from being $100 cheaper, there’s really nothing to distinguish them and I cannot recommend them.

What to Buy

The decision process pretty much boils down to three questions:

• Who is it for?
• What will you/they use it for?
• How much money do you have?

If the tablet is for someone not proficient with computers, especially elderly persons and children, nothing beats the iPad. Samsung Galaxy Tab may be a better choice for artists (although they tend to buy Apple stuff) and for those who want full control over their device. Blackberry owners and businesses may like a Playbook as a companion and will appreciate its security options. Students will probably appreciate the Kindle Fire as an advanced e-Reader.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1/8.9 is the most versatile of the bunch. You can use it for photo/design, documents, navigation, games and watching movies in any format. Next comes the iPad 2, best for games, presentations via projectors and e-magazines. Playbook is fine for documents and movies but doesn’t shine in any area. Kindle Fire is basically for buying stuff from the Amazon.com, mainly books, music and maybe some games and the occasional movie.

At $199, Kindle Fire is unbeatable as an “entry-level” tablet. As I’m writing this, Playbook is $270 on Amazon.com, a huge discount from $500. At $270 it’s a great bang for the buck. At $500 it’s overpriced, even if they add Android support later. Samsung Galaxy Tab is about $450 for the 16 Gb Wi-Fi only version, which is pretty attractive for its features.

To reward our readers, we’ve teamed up with Pixmac Picture Market to give away 3 one-month subscriptions to Pixmac premium service, worth $199 each!

To enter the competition, simply “Like” Twin-Pixels on Facebook (see below) and write on the wall what are you using stock images for.

The competition will end on July 27, 2011, midnight GMT. The three lucky winners will be contacted via Facebook and will also be listed here. Good luck everyone!

Update July 28: The competition is now closed! Winners are being notified.

About PixMac

PixMac is a leading microstock image agency with over 12 million images (photo and vector) and prices starting at $0.30. They also have a “premium” selection of images that can satisfy even the most strict requirements and a “Celebrity” offering for editorial images, perfect for news sites, magazines and blogs. Their site is very well done and it’s easy to navigate and search. Next time you’re looking for a stop photo, stop by them; chances are they’ll have what you’re looking for.

Do you know what you are getting?

A dSLR is something many hobbyists are secretly lusting for, but they don’t know exactly what it is, except a vague notion similar to “it’s like my compact, only better”.

If I had to describe a dSLR in one word, that would be “versatile“. A dSLR can be used for almost anything you want – from taking pictures of insects to weddings, landscapes or astronomy.

Advantages:

• interchangeable lens – depending on the type of photography you want, you can buy lenses optimized for that task, instead of the one-size-fit-all lens of a compact.
• optical viewfinder that goes through the lens via a mirror or prism – you can look through the camera lens for perfect framing and see much more detail than using the LCD screen.
• faster autofocus – the camera will focus much faster and with better accuracy.
• no shutter lag – there’s no delay in between pressing the shutter release button and taking the actual picture – you won’t miss that perfect moment.
• no delay in between pictures – you can shoot at least 3 frames per second (depending on the camera model it can be even 12 frames per second), perfect for action shots.
• less noise in low light – you can shoot in low light and still get usable image.

Disadvantages:

• size – you can’t fit a dSLR in your shirt pocket and if you get more than one lens, be prepared for a camera bag or even backpack.
• less beginner-friendly – compacts are designed for simplicity and instant gratification, while dSLR require some learning in order to be used effectively.
• no live view – not all cameras have a live view mode, and even those that do are not optimized for it, resulting in some compromises in terms of autofocus,optical viewfinder size and so on.
• no movie mode – not all cameras have a movie mode, and even those that do have significant limitations.

The disadvantages are getting fewer with each generation as more cameras come with usable live view and movie mode and even built-in help screens. There’s also a whole new class of “bridge” cameras with interchangeable lenses but with the rest similar to the compacts (Sony NEX 5 and 7, Panasonic Lumix, Nikon V1) but here I’ll be discussing “real” DSLR cameras.

Forget about brand

This is something guaranteed to cause controversy. When it comes to camera brands, people get religious. For some reason, people don’t argue loudly about HP vs. Dell or Audi vs. BMW, but when it comes to Canon vs. Nikon, people will defend their favorite brand to the death; if some poor soul dares to suggest another brand, like Sony or Pentax, murder ensures. I heard people saying “Nikons have the best quality“, “I trust Sony to make good electronics“, “I’m a die-hard Oly fan“, “Annie Leibovitz uses Canon“, “Pentax means value for money” and so on.

Choosing a camera based solely on brand is great if you want to show it off, but not if you intend to actually use it

There are five main dSLR manufactures (I list them alphabetically): Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and a few smaller ones of which I will only mention Sigma because of its unique Foveon sensor. I took Olympus off this list because now (autumn 2011) they are in big financial trouble.

Let get this straight: in terms of quality, all of them are great. Sony got into dSLR business by buying everything from Minolta, so all of these brands have a lot of history behind them. Each of these can list innovations, awards and achievements.

When you compare two cameras in the same range (entry-level, advanced amateur, etc.) the differences in terms of quality or features are very small. I won’t attempt to debunk any myths (there are too many of them), but all manufacturers produce cameras with great reliability.

Don’t buy a camera, invest in a system

With compacts, most people would just buy the camera and that’s it. You could buy a Panasonic now and a Fuji two years later.

Choose wisely as you’ll be stuck with it

Remember how I said that the keyword for dSLR is “versatility”? It’s quite possible that in the beginning you won’t even know what type of photography you’ll want to do. As you gain more experience, chances are you’ll want to buy more stuff for it, so the system will grow with you.

A likely scenario: At first you’ll get the camera body and the included kit lens. Then you’ll buy a telephoto lens; then a flash; then a wide-angle zoom; then a polarizing filter; another flash; a remote release; a vertical grip; a prime lens; and so on. Myself, in 8 years I got 7 lenses, 3 filters, 3 flashes and a wireless flash/remote release.

So in time you’ll most likely buy new camera bodies but will want to keep the lenses and other accessories. Because of that, you’ll be less likely to “jump ship” from one brand to the other (technically you can, but you’d be wasting money).

Think ecosystem

By ecosystem I mean everything that’s available for a brand: camera bodies, lenses, third-party lenses, accessories, stuff you find on eBay, tutorials, seminars, and more.

Canon and Nikon are competitive and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, with Sony being a strong contender

While the brand may not matter, the market share does. Why? If you want just the camera and the kit lens, market share doesn’t affect you. However, if you intend to keep investing, choosing a big brand means that you can easily find all kinds of accessories for it, whereas for a small brand, you’ll have to hunt to find what you need.

Global market share data for 2010 shows Canon at 44.5%,  Nikon at  29.8%, Sony at 11.9%. If we take in account all cameras, the order becomes Canon, Sony, Nikon. Read more on Bloomerg’s Sony, Nikon Narrow Gap to Canon With New Digital Camera Models.

In terms of market share, the safest choice would be Canon or Nikon. Both companies are widely supported and have a ton of lenses and all kinds of accessories (including many from third parties) available for them. After buying the business from Konica-Minolta, Sony invested massively, taking some market share from Canon and Nikon and squeezing Pentax and Olympus into a corner. There is very high quality stuff available for Sony (does Zeiss ring any bell?), but you won’t find everything you can think of for them. Olympus is pretty much out of the picture and Pentax’ future is uncertain.

A few quick searches on eBay to illustrate my point:

• “Pentax lens“: 13,000 results;
• “Sony lens“: 28,000 results;
• “Nikon lens“: 45,000 results;
• “Canon lens“:62,000 results.

What features to look for

Get an entry level camera, save your money for quality glass (lenses)

All cameras boast lots of features; sometimes they offer the same thing under a different name.

Generally speaking, I advise you against buying a high-end camera as your first. The best camera money can buy will not automatically make beautiful pictures for you – if anything, the multitude of options will only confuse you. The forums are filled with people with Sony A900, Canon 5D Mark II or Nikon D3, all complaining that their cameras are “crap” or “broken” because they can’t get a decent picture out of them. Further, an entry level camera with a good lens will produce better images than a high-end camera with a crappy one. I cannot stress this enough: buy a camera body you can easily afford and save money for good lenses.

Resolution

Megapixels. We all know bigger is better, right? Well, like all things in life, it’s not that simple. Bigger resolution is great, but the final image quality depends a lot on the sensor size. Most dSLR sensors are about 24×16 mm (APS-C size). For them, as resolution increases, noise increases too. I’d say that with the current technology, 16 Mp is the right balance. Of course, the so-called “full-frame” sensors present in high-end cameras, with a size of 36×24 mm can achieve resolutions of 24 Mp – but we’re talking about your first dSLR, right? A 12 Mp sensor can give you a 12″x16″ (approx. A3 size) picture at the highest detail and much more if you don’t need to get very close; I made a 10 feet (3m) billboard from a 6 Mp image. Higher resolutions allow you to crop large parts of the picture, but I believe you’re much better off by learning to frame effectively in the first place.

Live view

With compact cameras, you pretty much rely on the back LCD to show what you’re doing in a WYSIWYG fashion, with the optical viewfinder (if it existed at all) being nearly unusable. Until recently, dSLRs did not have a live view on LCD at all.

LCDs can be useful, but they do lead to drawbacks in design and performance; most notably, if you use Live View, the autofocus will be again slow, negating the speed advantages of SLRs over compacts. If you feel you must have it, make sure the LCD can be tilted, so you can look at it with camera over head or very close to the ground. It’d be also worth looking into the a55 and a65 SLT line from Sony, a new breed of cameras that essentially eliminate the problems associated with Live View.

Movie mode

Another feature adopted from compacts, some newer dSLRs have a movie mode, usually HD. Movies on dSLR is a mixed bag. On one hand, it can get you a beautiful, film-like look; on the other hand it’s severely limited in terms of autofocus and exposure, making it useful only for controlled environments with little motion. The only camera I’d use to record fast action would be Sony SLT line.

Optical stabilization

Shooting in low light and/or with telephoto lenses can be tricky without a tripod. Almost all dSLR cameras have some sort of stabilization. There is a trick though: Canon and Nikon provide stabilization in their lenses (“IS” lenses for Canon and “VR” lenses for Nikon), while Sony, Pentax and Olympus have the stabilization feature in camera body. The difference is very important because for Canon and Nikon you need to buy IS/VR lenses, which are quite more expensive than ‘normal’ lenses, while with the other manufacturers the stabilization will work with any lens. The effectiveness of stabilization is about the same in both philosophies (3-4 stops); the stabilized lenses have the advantage of you seeing the actual stabilized image in the optical viewfinder, while stabilized bodies enable you to use any lens for the same effect.

In-body motor

Some Nikons do not have an in-body autofocus lens motor. This means that although the camera itself is relatively inexpensive and small, you need to spend extra on lenses with built-in motors.

Hold it in your hand

Actually holding the camera in your hand can help you decide

Even if you plan on buying your camera online, I still recommend you to actually walk into a store and hold the camera in your hand and take a few pictures. All the features in the world don’t matter one bit if you hate the way it looks or it’s not comfortable in your hand or you find the layout of the buttons cumbersome. When I bought my first dSLR (after years of using a film one), I had my eyes on a certain camera based on reviews and pictures, but in my hand it felt cheap and uncomfortable.

Don’t bother asking the salesperson for advice on what to buy; chances are they are either clueless or biased toward a brand or will try to steer you to an expensive model.

Final thoughts

I tried to keep this guide as unbiased as possible and provide you with information to help you make a decision, rather than make a decision for you. Below, I’m listing some cameras on Amazon that at this time (December 2011) I believe would be good choices for you:

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Basic lens characteristics
3. Types of Lenses
4. Mounts
5. Third-Party Manufacturers
6. Advanced lens characteristics
7. Image quality considerations
8. The right lens for you
9. Where to buy from
10. Do your homework

1. Introduction

A very common mistake people make is to buy the most expensive DSLR body they can afford and use just the included lens with it (the so-called the “kit lens”). The kit lens is usually small and cheap, just enough to get you started, but rather inadequate for any advanced creative work. In worst-case scenario, the lens will negate your sensor size – a crappy lens on a 24 Mp camera might deliver the same results as a good lens on a 6 Mp camera.

Look at the photo above. This cover of National Geographic Traveler, by Luciano Mortula was shot with an entry-level Sony a100 equipped with a top Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM lens (shot at 200mm, 1/80s, f/2.8, ISO 400).

2. Basic lens characteristics

2.1. Focal Length

The first and most important lens property is its focal length. If you remember from the physics classes (or just from your days as a kid burning stuff with a loupe), focal length measures the distance from the lens to the point where the light rays are focused to a point. Of course, in photography we don’t want to focus the image to a burning point, just bring the rays nicely focused as an image on the sensor plane. Longer focal lengths are associated with higher magnifications and thus they’re directly related to the angles of view.

As you can see from the illustration above, as the focal length (distance) increases (say by moving the lens farther from the sensor), the angle of view narrows and the area that is projected on the sensor is smaller. Also, of course the size of the sensor plays a role too (imagine the sensor above being larger – you’d need a wider angle to fill the area). Lenses’ capabilities are expressed by their focal length, measured in mm, rather than by the view angle. A standard kit lens might be 28 – 80 mm or 18 – 55 mm. As I stated above, the actual result is dependent on the sensor size. On a 35mm (full-frame) sensor/film, 28mm corresponds to a 75° horizontal view angle.

Most dSLRs have smaller sensors, usually with a 1.5× “crop factor” (some Canons have 1.3× or 1.6×, the Foveon sensor has 1.7× and the Four Thirds system has 2×). Crop factor means that the full frame dimensions of 36 × 24 mm is divided by 1.5, resulting the sensor size of 24 × 16 mm.

The focal length gets multiplied by the crop factor. An 18 – 55 mm lens on a APS-C sensor corresponds approximately to a 28 – 80 mm on a full-frame sensor (18 × 1.5 = 27; 55 × 1.5 = 82).

If we are to divide lenses by their focal lengths, we can use the following table:

2.2. Aperture

The second-most important characteristic of a lens is its aperture. The aperture is simply a hole that allows more or less light to travel through the lens. It’s just like the eye pupil – in low light the pupil dilates, letting more light to hit the retina. In photography, this hole can be made larger or narrower in discrete intervals, called stops. The aperture number is expressed like f/2.8 or f/4. The sequence follows a geometric progression (sorry for all the math, I’m trying to keep it to a minimum): f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32. Subdivisions are allowed too, like f/3.5 or f/13.

Just in case you’re wondering, this f-number means the “focal length divided by number” and gives the diameter of the aperture opening. For example, given a focal length of 50mm, at f/2 the aperture has a diameter of 25 mm (50/2).

The f-number affects the exposure time and the depth of field (we wrote an entire article devoted to Depth of Field). A small f-number means a wide aperture opening and therefore more light hitting the sensor. Lenses with small f-numbers are called “fast lenses” because they can be used with small exposure times, crucial in fast-action sports or in low light. On the other hand, large f-numbers (narrow apertures) are used to obtain more depth of field (a larger part of the image in focus).

In most common zoom lenses you’ll see the aperture expressed as in interval, e.g.  f/4 – f/5.6. This means that at the shortest focal length the lens has a maximum aperture of f/4 while at the longest focal length it is capable of f/5.6. Lenses with constant aperture throughout the focal range are more expensive.

3. Types of lenses

3.1. Prime

Prime lenses have a fixed focal length, the most common being 50mm. Prime lenses are smaller and lighter than zoom lenses and because there’s a single focal length, they are optimized for it in terms of image quality. Usually they are also “faster” (allow for a wider aperture) than  their zoom counterparts. Their disadvantage is, of course, that you have to physically get closer to or farther from your subject in order to reframe it.

3.2. Zoom

These represent the most common type of lenses because of their versatility. 30 years ago, a zoom was nowhere near the quality of a prime, but now they are more than adequate for 99% of the tasks. Zooms have a focal length range like 18 – 55 mm or 11 – 18mm or 70 – 200 mm to mention just some popular ranges.

At this point, you might ask, why don’t we have an “universal” zoom, something like 10-500mm, f/1.2? It’s because it would be incredibly impractical. While “super-zooms” do exist (18-250mm, or “14x”) they have to make compromises in image quality. At 300mm, to accommodate f/2.8, an aperture has to be 107mm (4.2″) in diameter, which is huge.

3.3. Macro

Macro lenses  allow the photographer to capture an area that’s equal to or smaller than the sensor (or film) size. So, given a full-frame size of 36×24mm, a lens that can fill the frame with an area equal to (or smaller than) 36×24mm is a macro lens. It if captures an area of 18×12mm, we say it has a 2:1 magnification.  Macro lenses beyond 1:1 are rare and expensive.

3.4. Fisheye

Fisheye lenses have an angle of view of 180°. They distort the image and usually they get through post-processing to either straighten them or to make part of spherical panoramas.

4. Mounts

Each camera system uses its own mount method. While adapters do exist, they are very often impractical, resulting in loss of quality or functionality or both. Fortunately most lenses have equivalents for all systems. Mounts are not just the hardware coupling system, but include interfaces between camera and lens – electrical and sometimes mechanical signals for autofocus and aperture control, focus distance info and more.

• Canon: Uses the EF and EF-S mounts. EF-S lenses can only be mounted on cameras cameras with APS-C sensors. EF lenses can be mounted on any Canon camera.
• Nikon:  The F-mount, with some variations (MF for manual focus and AF, AF-D, AF-I and AF-S). Entry-level Nikon cameras won’t work with AF or AF-D lenses and AF-I  and AF-S lenses can’t be mounted on older cameras.
• Minolta/Sony: The A-mount. Sony took over the Minolta camera business and the system is compatible both ways – you can put a new Sony lens on an older Minolta camera and vice-versa.
• Pentax K-Mount. There are many variations and incompatibilities.
• Sigma SA mount: Used by Sigma cameras.
• Four-Thirds: Used by some Olympus, Leica and Panasonic cameras.

5. Third-Party Manufacturers

Each major camera company makes lenses for their own system, including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and more. In addition, third-party manufacturers make lenses usually for all (or at least) some of the major mount systems. Of course, the primary manufacturers would want you to purchase exclusively their own lenses, but in many cases you can find a better quality/price ratio with a third party. Carl-Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all create lenses for the major systems, and at least Carl-Zeiss offering surpasses anything in terms of quality, albeit at a vey high price.

• Carl-Zeiss makes lenses for Canon (ZE series), Leica (ZM series), Nikon (ZF series), Pentax (ZK series) Sony/Minolta (ZA series) as well as medium-format lenses for Hasselblad and Rollei. With the exception of the lenses for Sony/Minolta, their lenses are manual focus only, although the integrate nicely in other respects (aperture control, distance integration, metering and so on).
• Sigma makes lenses for Sigma cameras, Canon EF, Four Thirds, Minolta/Sony, Nikon F and Pentax K .
• Tamron makes lenses for Canon EF, Minolta/Sony, Nikon F and Pentax K. Some Sony lenses are produced by Tamron.
• Tokina makes lenses for Canon EF and Nikon F. The company was founded by Nikon engineers and most of their sales are to Nikon owners. Their glass is supplied by Hoya.
• Other brands: Bower, Samyang, Vivitar, etc. These are usually inferior in quality and are best avoided. Quantaray is rebranded Tamron.

In terms of image quality (and in every other department as well), Carl-Zeiss is the best and most expensive. You can get a lens from Tamron with image quality that matches the Nikon/Canon equivalent at 1/2 or even 1/3 of the cost. Sigma and Tokina come next. Sometimes lenses from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina go through less stringent quality assurance processes and/or higher tolerances. This means that for the same lens model,  one person can get a very good lens and someone else a passable one. As for build quality(long-term reliability) , rankings are Tamron, Tokina, Sigma.

Please bear in mind that this information comes from various surveys on the Internet, statements from repair centers and so on so it’s not 100% accurate.

6. Advanced lens characteristics

6.1. Full-frame vs. “digital” lenses

After the introduction of the smaller APS-C sensor (24×16mm – 1.5× crop factor), manufacturers started to make lenses specifically for this format. These lenses can be smaller as they require shorter focal distances and smaller apertures. An APS-C based camera usually accepts both full-frame and “digital” lenses, whereas full-frame cameras can’t use “digital” lenses as the image wouldn’t fill the frame, appearing only circular with black vignettes on the sides. As a note, if you put a full-frame lens on an APS-C camera, you’ll be using only the central part of the lens, which is usually sharper and has less distortions.

Each manufacturer has a different designation for their “for digital” line, here are the most common:

• Canon: EF-S (Short Back-Focus)
• Minolta/Sony: DT (digital technology)
• Nikon: DX
• Pentax: DA
• Sigma: DC (digital compact) – don’t confuse it with DG
• Tamron: Di II (don’t confuse it with Di)
• Tokina: DX (FX for full-frame)

6.2. Autofocus system

Some mounts have the AF motor in lens while other have it in the camera body. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Generally speaking, not having a motor in lens makes the lens simpler, lighter, less prone to malfunction, reduces vibrations and it’s cheaper. On the other hand, a dedicated motor can contribute to a more silent and faster autofocus, especially noticeable only on big telephoto zooms.

• Canon: all EF and EF-S lenses have a motor.
• Minolta/Sony: almost all lenses are without a motor, relying on a camera body motor for autofocus; a few new lenses feature SAM (Smooth Autofocus Motor) and some high-end telephoto lenses are equipped with ultrasonic ones.
• Nikon: AF and AF-D lenses (older) use the camera body motor, with D standing for Distance integration; AF-I and AF-S lenses have integrated motors, S indicates an ultrasonic motor.

Some lenses are equipped with an ultrasonic motor, an electric motor that provides fast, accurate and silent movement. The technology was introduced by Canon but it’s now available for all manufacturers under different names:

• Canon: USM (UltraSonic Motor)
• Minolta/Sony: SSM (SuperSonic Motor)
• Nikon:  SWM (Silent Wave Motor)
• Pentax: SDM (Silent Drive Motor)
• Sigma: HSM (HyperSonic Motor)
• Tamron: USD (Ultrasonic Silent Drive)
• Tokina: DC

6.3. Optical stabilization

Some lenses offer optical stabilization. A system of gyroscopic sensors and actuators moves parts of the glass assembly to compensate for small movement (shake, vibrations). The system works usually on two axis. If the system detects a sudden movement to the left, it moves the elements to the right. The system is very effective, improving the shutter speed by as much as 3-4 stops.

There is a rule of thumb in photography that says that for clear hand-held images, one should have a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length. So if you’re shooting with a focal length of 210mm, your shutter speed should be at least 1/210s, say 1/250s. A 1-stop improvement would be 1/125s, 2 stops is 1/60s and 3 stops is 1/30s. So instead of shooting at 1/250s, you shoot at 1/30s and get the same result. Of course this doesn’t work when the subject itself is moving fast.

An alternative to optical stabilized lenses are in-body stabilization systems. The principle is the same, except that the image sensor is moved around. Optical stabilized bodies have the advantage that they work with any lens, not just with with a select few (which are very expensive too). You buy it once and have the 3-stop improvement for any lens. Note that despite what fans might say, there is no difference in the efficiency of the in-lens vs. in-body systems.

Here are the systems:

• Canon: IS (Image stabilization)
• Nikon: VR (Vibration Reduction)
• Minolta/Sony: SSS (SuperSteady Shot); in-body stabilization, all lenses benefit from it
• Pentax: SR (Shake Reduction); in-body stabilization, all lenses benefit from it
• Sigma: OS (Optical Stabilization)
• Tamron: VC (Vibration Compensation)

Just in case you’re wondering, you can’t use both image stabilization methods at the same time, because they are not aware of each other and tend to overcompensate, so you’ll have to turn either of them off.

6.4. Quality

There are many types of optical imperfections, geometric and chromatic. I will go into more detail a bit later, but for now it’s important to note that all manufacturers have a way to distinguish their top line of lenses. These are lenses manufactured to tighter tolerances, with strict QA and use superior glass.

Glass elements on the lenses have various coatings (very thin film of chemical compounds) to reduce chromatic issues such as glare and ghosting. Because the digital sensor reflects much more light than film, newer lenses designed for digital cameras have additional coatings.

Another feature of the top lenses is the internal focusing mechanism, meaning that the front elements of the lens will not rotate when the lens is zoomed or focused. This is important when filters such as polarizers or linear gradients are fitted to the lens. An internal focusing mechanism ensures that the filter will not move upon zoom/focus.

• Carl-Zeiss: T*
• Canon: L (Luxury)
• Minolta/Sony: G
• Nikon: IF (Internal Focusing), ED (Extra Low Dispersion)
• Sigma: DG (Digital Grade coating), EX (superior build quality), APO (apochromatic)
• Tamron: SP (Super Performance) Di (Digital coating) LD (Low Dispersion), XR (Extra Refractive), ASL (aspherical), IF (Internal Focusing)
• Tokina: PRO, AS (Aspherical element), IF (Internal Focusing), SD (Super Low Dispersion), WR (water repellant)

6.5. Short recap of lens specifications

By now you should be able to read and understand the lens specs from their title.

Let’s consider some lenses from various brands (they are the more expensive kind):

• Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR
  This is a telephoto zoom lens for APS-C sensors (DX) with a  range of 55 to 200mm and an maximum aperture of f/4 at 55mm and f/5.6 at 200mm, Low dispersion glass (ED), internal focusing system (IF), autofocus with internal ultrasonic motor (AF-S) and optical stabilization (VR).
• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM
  This a top of the line Canon lens (L), a full-frame (EF) telephoto lens with a  range of 70 to 200mm and a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8, optical stabilization (IS) and ultrasonic motor (USM)
• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
  A Sigma ultrawide zoom lens for APS-C sensors only (DC), superior finish (EX) and ultrasonic motor (HSM).
• Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD ASL (IF)
  A normal zoom lens with f/2.8 constant aperture of professional build (SP), coating for digital sensors (Di), quality glass elements (XR, ZL, LD) and internal focusing (IF)
• Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar T
  A 135mm fixed focal length with a constant aperture of f/1.8 made by Zeiss for Sony.

It’s worth mentioning that the number of “badges” alone doesn’t say much about its quality.

7. Image quality considerations

7.1. Sharpness

Perceived sharpness is a factor of a lens resolution power (its ability to resolve fine detail) and lens contrast (or microcontrast as it’s sometimes defined). Sharpness varies with focal range; some manufacturers optimize a lens sharpness for the extremes of the focal range, other try to keep it relatively constant throughout the range. Sharpness also varies with the aperture. Lenses are “softer” when the aperture is wide, then sharpness increases progressively for 3 stops where it reaches maximum, then it starts to drop again due to diffraction. So, an f/5.6 lens would be sharpest at f/11. An f/2.8 one is sharpest at f/8 and so on. Sharpness also varies across the frame, with the center being the sharpest and the corners the softest.

You should play with your lenses and understand their strengths and weaknesses.

Sharpness can be calculated objectively and you will fine many MFT Charts on the net for almost any lens. It’s important not to obsess over it, or else you’ll spend all your time shooting test targets, walls and books instead of having fun.

Some “experts” claim not to worry about a lens performance at its widest aperture, advising to just “stop it down” (increase the f-number). The problem is that you usually want to make a portrait at wide aperture; you want to be able to use a lens effectively in low light. Why buy a f/2.8 lens if it’s usable just at f/5.6?

7.2. Distortion

All lenses suffer from geometric distortions to one degree or another. The bigger the focal range (say 18-250 mm), the more distortion there usually is, while primes are the best in this regard, with virtually no distortions. Distortions are usually “barrel”-like at wide angles and “pincushion” at telephoto ranges. The distortions are usually small enough that they are noticeable only when photographing architecture or objects with primarily straight lines, which appear curved.

7.3. Chromatic Aberration

There are two main types of chromatic problems: lateral chromatic aberration and purple fringing. Lateral chromatic aberration happens because the light refracts differently in glass depending on its wavelength; it is most noticeable at the corners of the image. Purple fringing happens mostly with digital sensors in areas of high contrast, so it’s not really optical related.

Good lenses have various optics to minimize lateral chromatic aberration; it is more apparent at wide angle and at wide apertures.

7.4. Vignetting

All lenses cause a decrease in brightness of an image at the sides compared to the center. This happens because the rear glass elements are shaded by the front elements.

7.5. Bokeh

Out of focus areas create interesting light patterns. This effect is called “bokeh” (which is Japanese for “blurry”). The geometric shapes are determined by the number and shape of the aperture blades. More aperture blades create nicer shapes and if the blades are curved, the resulting shape is circular. Depending on design of the glass elements of the lens, the out-of-focus pattern (bokeh) is rendered differently. “Good” bokeh and “bad” bokeh are subjective terms, although a smooth transition is considered more pleasing than hard geometrical shapes.

7.6. Flares and ghosts

Lens flares. You know what they are. The funny thing is that modern lenses have flare under control to the point that most flares are computer-generated.

8. The right lens for you

There is no one-size-fits-all kind of lens. There are always tradeoffs in technical specs, size/weight and price. With this in mind, I’m suggesting a few lens types depending on your camera and intended activity.  The list is by no means exhaustive, but it should be a good starting point.

NOTE: If you’re not seeing the lenses below, please disable AdBlock.

8.1. Multipurpose

First of all, every photographer should have a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. They are small, light and quite inexpensive and can prove a nice fallback regardless of the type of photography. They are great for travel because they are so small, good for photojournalism because of their ability to work in low light and excellent for portraits because their shallow depth of field blurs the background nicely.

Note that three of the above lenses are full-frame. When mounted on an APS-C sensor (which most likely your camera is equipped with), they act as 85mm lenses, more appropriate for portraits. The Sony lens is more expensive because it’s a f/1.4 lens.

8.2. Travel

Travel photography also means a lot of different shots – one moment you’ll want to take a wide angle of a square or vista and the next you’ll zoom in to an architectural detail. In this case, for APS-C cameras, an 18-200mm zoom would be nice.

These superzooms don’t have extraordinary distortion or chromatic correction, but they should be just fine for casual travel shots.

For each system (except for Sony) I included a Tamron lens, which I consider it to be on par with the Canon and Nikon offerings. On Sony A-mount, Tamron’s lens is more expensive than Sony so I didn’t include it. Also, while Sigma makes a 18-250mm similar lens, the quality is inferior to Tamron’s so I didn’t include it either.

8.3. Photojournalism

Photojournalism can mean many things, from photographing people on the street to weddings to images from the middle of a disaster area and wars. The unifying motif of all these is the unpredictability and uniqueness of the event. Something is happening, you don’t know what will happen next and you can’t say “let’s try one more time”. The keyword here is versatility (and quality if you intend to shoot professionally). You’ll need a wide aperture and both wide and tele capabilities. For this reason, many photojournalists carry two cameras with them, one with a wide-angle zoom, one with a telephoto one (see Portraits).

There’s a lot of disagreement as to what the perfect lens would be, but I tried to come up with a decent selection. Depending on your specific needs, you might choose something different.

The Tamron and Sigma lenses are available for all 3 mounts. I included a Sigma for Canon and a Tamron for Nikon just to give them equal exposure. For Sony I could not find an exact match (f/2.8 constant aperture).

Next, some fine full-frame lenses (you can put them on your APS-C camera, just mind the 1.5x multiplier).

The Tamron lens is not a 1:1 alternative (24mm instead of 28mm makes a difference) but I included it for Sony mount just to make you aware of the alternative.

8.4. Landscape & Architecture

Most of the time, architectural shots (especially) interiors and landscapes love wide angles. Of course, that’s not to say that you can’t use a wide super angular lens for something else or that you shouldn’t use a telephoto for landscapes, but you won’t get away without having something wide enough.

Personally I’m not a big fan of fisheye lenses, but you may investigate these as well.

Note: the Sony lens is much more expensive because it’s f/2.8 rather than f/4 and it has impressive optics too. A similar lens from Canon and Nikon costs about the same. Still, it’s strange that Sony doesn’t have a reasonably priced UWA lens, especially considering that large apertures are not that important for wide angles.

In the ultra-wide range, mounting a full-frame lens on an APS-C body would negate their advantage, so if you have an APS-C camera, consider these lenses instead:

8.5. Macro

Macro photography is a world in its own. Filters, macro lenses and extension tubes, special tripods and macro ring flashes. Therefore, I’ll refrain from making any suggestions on this area, as the choice for lens is just a subset of all the things you must keep in mind.

8.6. Portraits

Portraits look best when done with a focal length ranging from 80 to 135mm (full frame). A wide aperture is desired for background separation.

Most portrait photographers, as well as journalists and even nature lovers, will use a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. These are all full-frame, professional lenses.

Some dedicated portrait photographers might use also 85mm and 135mm primes. The have very shallow DOF (f/2.0 or f/1.8) and can create incredible portraits and effects, but it takes time and practice to get the most out of them and for this reason I will not list them here.

8.7. Sport & Wildlife

In my opinion this is the most expensive kind of photography. You need really big telephoto lenses – 200mm is a minimum, 300-400mm commonly used and up to 600mm. A wide aperture is required to capture fast action and to make sure that hand-held shots are sharp. These lenses are insanely expensive, starting at $5000 and with sky being the limit. I would not recommend anyone to buy one of these as a hobby and for this reason I won’t be providing links, but I’ll just list some of the options:

The 100-400 zooms are barely enough. Their f/5.6 aperture at the longest focal length means that you won’t be able to use them effectively in any circumstance other than broad daylight. For example, an overcast day is ~EV12 (EV stands for Exposure value). EV12, at f/5.6 requires an exposure of 1/125s at ISO100. For fast action that’s not nearly enough; you need at least 1/250s or more (depending on the kind of motion) to make sure that you freeze the action, so you’d need to shoot anywhere from ISO200 to ISO800.

It’s worth mentioning that not everyone spends a fortune on lenses. National Geographic photographer Mark Thiessen uses a Canon 5D and a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. It depends on what you are usually photographing: an eagle fills the frame much easier than a sparrow; on the other hand it’s easier (or at least safer) to get closer to a hare than a bear.

You can also use teleconverters, although there’s a significant image quality degradation involved; some photographers go as far as saying that upscaling an image 2x brings about the same results as using a 2x teleconverter.

9. Where to buy from

9.1. New

All major retailers are pretty much the same and most of the time the smaller ones too; I included links to Amazon.com for convenience only. Just make sure it’s a reputable company (avoid bargains – you know the saying: “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is“).

I encourage you to head to your local camera store if possible, because holding a lens in your hand and making a few test shots can really make a difference. Some lenses are huge, a lot bigger than you’d imagine from pictures or by looking at the dimensions and can be very heavy.

9.2. Grey Market

Despite its rather dubious name, “grey market” doesn’t mean anything illegal (not even immoral; the term was coined by distributors to give some negative connotations). Buying a lens from the grey market simply mean buying it from outside the official national distributors in your country. So if you are from US and make a trip to Hong Kong, it’s perfectly legal to buy a lens from a store there and bring it back to the States; you can order it online as well. The only problem is that the warranty may not be valid. To give another example, if you’re from UK and you buy the lens from US, it may come with an US warranty and UK repair centres might refuse to repair the lens under that warranty. Two of my lenses are “grey market” and I’m very happy with them.

9.3. Used

Fact: lenses outlast cameras. Also, there isn’t that much innovation in lenses. A lens made 20 years ago can be just as good (or better) than a new one and unless abused, it will work just fine. Because of this, buying a used lens can make more sense than buying an used camera.

To paraphrase Mr. Gump, eBay is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you gonna get. I bought 2 used lenses from two sites, one from eBay and one from a local Craiglist-kind of site. They both turned out very well. I also bought a used flash from Adorama, it was listed as being in “Excellent” condition. I wonder how one in “Good” condition would have been, because the “excellent” one proved to be terrible.

Assuming you don’t get scammed, there are some defects you may want to have a look at. Very old lenses tend to develop fungus inside and if you spot oil on the aperture blades, it’s a sign that the lens needs repair. Newer lenses shouldn’t have this problem, but of course you’re at the mercy of the seller for accurate statements regarding how smooth the zoom ring works, how well the AF performs and so on.

In conclusion, buying a used lens, especially one that you can’t test prior to purchasing, is a gamble and don’t expect to find a real bargain, although you can save some money.

10. Do your homework

I am not a big shot photographer. At heart, I am a mechanical engineer and I like approaching a subject from all angles in a thorough fashion. I am also an economist (marketing) and I know how branding operates. Finally, I am passionate about photography and I enjoy sharing from my knowledge and experience. It took me two weeks to write this article, which is over 10 times longer than an average blog post. I had to fact-check every statement, look up equivalent lenses for different systems and make sure every bit of info is presented in an easy to understand manner yet not “dumbed-down” or inaccurate. I also tried to be objective with regard to brand names and advices. My only regret is that I couldn’t include more info about Pentax and the Four Thirds; still, the theoretical info from the beginning applies to all lenses, so even owner of other camera brands will be able to appreciate it.

I spent all this time so you don’t have to. Still, it’s good practice to do some research before buying a lens. Be realistic in your requirements. If you’re taking photos of your kids or pets or birds at the zoo, you simply don’t need the kind of gear a photojournalist covering the Olympics would need. Be realistic over expectations too. Just having the biggest and meanest lens won’t solve all your problems; it will increase the quality, but if the subject and composition are dull, nothing will help. Don’t get sucked into overanalyzing MFT charts. Mathematically, lens A may deliver 20% more detail (line widths / picture height) than lens B but you’d be hard-pressed to notice this in a sample. And if lens A costs 400% more than lens B… well,  it may or may not be worth it, depending on how crucial small details are to you. I never had a problem with my lenses although they are not environmentally sealed, but then again, I never shot in a desert.

Above all, approach your purchase with an objective eye. Don’t be a fanboy, the kind that gets all the clothing only from DKNY, without even considering the alternatives. Companies love brand loyalty because it removes decision. Don’t let them. Do your homework and get the best lens for you.

For this tutorial, I decided to recreate the unofficial image for Microsoft Courier. Just in case you don’t know what I’m talking about, in the early 2010 some concept images and videos of a very slick, dual-screen, foldable tablet were leaked on the internet. Whether that leak was intentional or not is another story. Everyone was pretty excited by the idea, but the concept was canned by Microsoft a few months later.

The 3D model

If you’re a photographer or Photoshop artist only, this part will be the hardest. 3D modeling tools are very complex and difficult to master. Fortunately there are many free or inexpensive 3D models and you can start learning any free modeling package.

3D modeling is beyond the scope of this tutorial. Suffice to say that I built the model as a spline cage, turning them into NURBS patches. Then I exported the model in 3ds format.

Building the prop

Next, I built the prop based on the dimensions of the virtual device. Fortunately this was pretty easy as the device dimensions are exactly those of two DVD covers. I sacrificed two covers by joining and gluing them together and then wrapping them in aluminum foil.

As you can see, it was a rush job.  I was only interested in getting the size right and I used foil to catch some reflections.

The photo

With the prop built, I proceeded with the photo.  I put a neutral background and used an umbrella with wireless flash to get an even lighting on the hands.

It’s definitely not pretty to look at. Still, considering that it was about to be replaced completely, it doesn’t matter how it looks. Do notice however that the aluminum foil is picking up some reflections form the hands.

Photoshop

Now here it’s where the fun begins.

Importing the model

From the 3D menu I chose New Layer from 3D File…

Photoshop CS5 Extended does a pretty good job at importing 3D models and their materials. It supports 3ds and obj formats, which are among the most popular. As a tip, I discovered that grouped objects are imported better by Photoshop; otherwise the relative positioning may be off.

Alignment

I placed the 3D layer over the photo and adjusted its opacity to see through it. Then by using the camera rotate tools (rotate, pan, walk and zoom) I aligned it with the hands.  I made sure the virtual camera lens matches the real one’s focal length (taking the multiplier into account). On the whole, the process is not very precise, but it shouldn’t take more than five minutes to have it aligned properly.

Setting the materials

Then I checked the materials. Photoshop has a small collection of materials, so I applied a silver material with 50% reflectivity on the body (materials appear hierarchically as a sub-object of a mesh). On the panels I selected the material and I clicked the button next to the Diffuse color and selected Load Texture.

Isolating the hands and thumbs

Next, in the original photo, I double-clicked on the lock in the Layers panel of the Background to make it a layer. I deleted most of the image, keeping just the hands area.

Using the Quick Mask tool, I selected the background areas around the hands (it really helps to have a neutral background) and I removed it.

By pressing Ctrl+J I duplicated the layer and with the new layer I proceeded with another selection, removing everything except for the thumbs.

At this stage, this is how the image was looking:

Note that the tablet is drawn using the Interactive Renderer.

Retouching the 3D model

Next, to improve performance, I duplicated the layer and rendered it with the Ray Traced Final quality. After that, I rasterized the duplicated layer with Layer –> Rasterize –> 3D. Then I made some tweaks, including using the Blur tool to smooth the edges a little. As a side note, I could have done this in the 3D model by using a Smooth or Fillet Tool, but I wanted to illustrate that such edits are possible in Photoshop, especially if you have only low-poly models (such as those from Google Sketch-Up).

Shadows and reflections

With the model looking all nice and shiny, it was time for the final shadows and reflections.

From the original photo, I selected the bottom area that was featuring reflections of the hands. I applied a high-radius smooth feather and copied it to a new layer, where I used Gaussian Blur.

Lastly, I selected the thumbs and created some nice soft drop shadows for them (you can see there are some soft shadows in the original photo as well). The shadows had to be visible on the device body only and especially not on the screen, so I right-clicked on the layer effects and chose Create Layer. This “detached” the shadow in its own layer, allowing me to erase the unneeded areas.

Screen glow

If you ever tried to photograph a device with an LCD, you know it’s not easy balancing the ambient light with the image displayed on the LCD. Glare and white balance differences further complicate the matter, which is why in most cases the image is added in later in Photoshop (or in the case of video, using complex motion tracking software such as Imagineer Mocha).

To add just a touch of realism, I wanted the screen to glow a bit. For this, I made a selection of the two screens.

From the Channels panel I clicked on the Save Selection to Channel button, as I was going to need it again later. I then copied the screens to a new layer and applied a large Gaussian Blur.

I then reloaded the selection with Load Selection from Channel and deleted the inside of the blurred layer.

To better see how the glow looks, here it is on black:

Finally, I set its blending mode to Linear Dodge (Add).

The Result

So there you have it. Using the 3D tools in Photoshop, you can integrate 3D content in a composition with ease, as long as you’re planning ahead and build some props. Making sure the prop material matches the real one helps improve the realism.

My first B/W film, 2000

My latest B/W film, 2010

I don’t know why is it. Subconsciously I edit my digital photos to resemble film and I can’t be the only one, since there are are plugins and settings dedicated to making digital look more… analog, I guess.

It’s been a decade since the first commercial DSLR (Nikon D1) and by now everybody is used with digital and the much easier workflow is undeniable. So what draws people to film? Is it nostalgia? Are people becoming weary of the “digital darkroom” and RAW files and ever-more demanding software? I don’t know.

What I do know is that I still have a few rolls of Velvia, Provia and Tri-X in the fridge and from time to time I enjoy taking my old camera and just have fun, without constantly checking the LCD. With photo scanning services providing 4000 DPI scanning for 50 cents, it’s surprisingly liberating (sometimes) to simply drop the film canister for processing and get a CD full of hi-res TIFFs back.

The problem

You see, Windows actually has a nice, modern, extensible imaging framework called Windows Imaging Component (WIC). In Windows 7, this framework allows new image formats to be seamlessly integrated in the OS, meaning that they’ll have thumbnails decoded, that you’ll be able to search for embedded metadata and that any WIC-enabled application will be able to open those files.

This system makes a lot of sense and it would have the potential to obsolete all/most thumbnail explorers, from ACDSee to XNView. Think about it: why should I launch a whole big application just to see what’s in a PSD file? Sure, image organizers usually have additional image processing abilities, like batch rename or watermarking, but wouldn’t you like to have these seamlessly integrated in the system? I know I would.

Sadly, the company who had the most to offer in this area not only did not add these features, they actually removed the little functionality they had. You see, Adobe CS1 and CS2 had support for PSD and AI images in Explorer. They removed this in CS3, pushing their own Bridge as a replacement. I have not met a single person who actually likes using Bridge. Opinions range from “incredibly bad” to “useless”. Even in CS5, as a response to the numerous complains regarding speed, they created a “mini-Bridge” inside every app, while users try to hack in old versions of psicon.dll and aiicon.dll (which, by the way, don’t work on 64 bit systems).

Adobe also created a DNG codec that was supposed to provide support for DNG files in Explorer, but it was so buggy it proved a complete fiasco (it was added in May 2008 in the Labs and never updated).

The Solution

With Adobe and Microsoft pointing fingers and each  expecting the other to fix things, I found the solution from a small developer.

Axel Rietschin has created a program called FastPictureViewer Codec Pack that adds support for all major image formats (JPEG 2000, DirectDraw Surface, Targa, EXR&HDR), PSD, DNG as well as more than 300 RAW formats.

What’s nice about his codec pack is that it integrates so nicely in Windows that you can preview any RAW file, check its metadata, search for keywords and more, right from Explorer. It’s not supposed to replace Lightroom, but it does replace Bridge for me. Also, in the 4 months I’ve been using it, I haven’t noticed any bugs.

There are only two downsides to this program: it does not support vector images like AI or EPS and it’s not free. Still, at $15 I think it’s a great deal. This is not a paid review by the way, I wasn’t even contacted by the author and I paid my own copy, but sometimes we should give credit where it’s due and recognize quality.

Alternatives

An alternative to FastPictureViewer Codec Pack might be Mystic Thumbs. It has the advantage of supporting vector files (requires Ghostscript) but I had reliability issues with it. I’m not sure whether it’s my Windows 7 x64 or if Mystic Thumbs doesn’t play nice with the FPV Codec Pack, but it just didn’t work right for me. YMMV. Mystic Thumbs is $29.

PSD and DNG Codecs from Ardfry Imaging support PSD+EPS and DNG files and cost $20 each. I haven’t tried them so I can’t comment on quality.

Some concepts

To understand what’s so special about it, we must discuss first the fundamental difference between the DSLRs and compact cameras. Just in case you didn’t know, DSLR stands for “digital single lens reflex”. While you may think that DSLRs are about interchangeable lenses, they are actually defined by their mirror.

That mirror in front of the sensor redirects the light to the top prism and it also hosts the phase detection autofocus system (more about it in a minute). When a picture is taken, the mirror flips and the shutter opens. This whole system requires precision mechanics, is noisy and induces vibrations that cause problems when doing long exposures. Compact cameras on the other hand don’t have a shutter or a mirror; the sensor is continuously exposed to the light. Because there’s no mirror, compact cameras use contrast-detection autofocus.

So why is the the clunky mirror system preferred to the simpler compact one? The short answer is that phase detection is fast and contrast detection is slow.

Phase detection works with a beam splitter that redirects light rays from opposite sides on the AF sensor, where the intensity is evaluated relative to its position on the sensor. When both images have the intensity peaks on the same position, the image is in focus. If the position is different, the phase difference (the difference in patterns peaks) tells the system how much correction is needed and in what direction.

The contrast detection system employed in compact cameras is dumber. It just measures contrast in some image areas and moves the AF back and forth trying to improve contrast.

This is why dSLRs have so fast AF, while compacts are so slow in this regard.

So how’s Alpha 55 any different?

The new Sony a55 uses a translucent mirror. 70% percent of the light is directed to the main sensor, 30% to the AF system at the top.

See? No more moving  mirror. This camera includes the best of both worlds: it’s like a traditional dSLR (technically it’s a dSLT – T for “translucent” instead of R for “reflex”), with interchangeable lenses, fast shooting speed and autofocus, but with the simpler and lighter design of the compacts.

Features

Translucent Mirror Technology for simplified design, less weight and smaller size.

Continuous hi-res live image preview with phase-detection autofocus even during movie mode.

Hi-res Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) instead of the usual optical vewfinder in dSLRs, a necessary compromise due the lack of mirror.

Hi-speed, full-size shooting at up to 10 frames per second (only the very top Canon and Nikon cameras surpass that)

Fast AF during movie shooting (the only dSLR camera capable of this)

Fully-articulated 7.5 cm (3.0″) LCD

In-body image stabilization – up to 4 stops (this is not new, but still worth noting)

Integrated GPS for geotagging

HDR features from multiple images

High ISO 25600 capabilities, with noise unnoticeable prior to ISO800

Further info

More more info, check out the excellent indepth review on DPReview.com (spoiler: they give it the Gold Award.)

Pricing and availability

If you wonder why it took so long, it’s because with each version, I take the time to become familiar with each application and explore its strengths and weaknesses. I spent in total three weeks with the programs and the test images.

Table of contents

1. The lineup
2. Test images
3. Interface
4. Features
5. Image Quality
   • Portraits
   • Nature
   • Vibrancy
   • Enhancements
   • Edge sharpness
   • Detail extraction
   • Noise reduction
   • Optical corrections
6. Speed
7. Pricing
8. Conclusion

1. The lineup

For this test I selected:

• Aperture 3 – Apple;
• Bibble 5 Pro – Bibble Labs;
• Capture One 5 Pro – Phase One;
• DXO Optics Pro 6 – DXO Labs;
• Photoshop Lightroom 3 – Adobe.

2. Test images

One of the biggest challenges for this review was finding RAW images in my collection that would be readable in all five programs. My workflow is DNG-based but unfortunately DxO 6 and Bibble 5 don’t support DNG. Some other RAWs from compact cameras were not readable by DxO and Capture One. Also, I wanted flawed, challenging images. I believe that test images should not be perfect – how would I be able to check chromatic aberrations if the image was taken with a razor-sharp, $2000 lens? Or how could I evaluate highlight recovery for a perfectly-exposed scene? Or noise at low ISO?

So if you look at the images in the test and wonder why they’re not so good – it’s because I selected them to be like that.

3. Interface

All programs in this review have remarkably similar interfaces: dark/gray color schemes, tabs/stacks and sliders. By looking at their previous version, one can see how they’ve copied one another. Still, it’s easy to spot the leaders and the followers, the ones who employed usability tests vs. the ones designed just by the development team.

Aperture 3

As with any Apple software, Aperture 3 is polished to perfection. It manages to combine Library/DAM functionality with editing in a seamless way. For example, you can process any image while in browse mode. Also unique is the Light Table mode, an idea so simple yet so effective, which lets you arrange images – including variations of the same image – freely on a virtual table, drag them around, pan and zoom. You can also edit images while in Light Table mode.

Different adjustments (called ‘bricks’) can be added or removed and – very interestingly – multiple instances can be added on the same image. The usefulness of this feature is a bit dubious except for some very specific cases and it may confuse newbies since some bricks, like the Noise, are not added by default. Once added, a brick can also be enabled or disabled. Overall, I found this way overly convoluted.

Aperture’s Full Screen mode is very slick but I found it a bit impractical with the panels on top of the image. It’s a matter of taste.

Bibble 5

Bibble is more of a mixed bag. They changed the UI completely from version 4 and copied many concepts from their competitors, but it’s still a bit confusing as buttons are all over the place. Also, many of its features are very crude, like the image management or the print features.

Some simple operations are also needlessly cumbersome, like cropping or rotating and others are unintuitive.

Capture One 5

I absolutely love Capture One’s interface. It’s polished, simple and logical. It’s very easy to find the tools and the tabs are arranged in the proper order – from capture to details. It also doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not. It does not have a ton of half-baked features, but it’s focused on capturing and processing photos with ease. Just the Focus Check feature is a great little productivity tool, and its Tethered shooting feature is second to none.

DxO 6

DXO suffers from the same problems as Bibble – a rather confusing interface, with options arranged not very intuitively; for example, why is White Balance (a basic setting) placed after DXO Lighting (an advanced feature)? Still, in terms of speed and stability, it’s a huge improvement over DxO5.

Importing and exporting are cumbersome. First you must drag-and-drop files from the file system to a project, edit them and then drag-and-drop files from the project to the output queue. It just feels tedious for me, without enabling any advanced behaviour.

Whenever you want to change the color balance or correct distortions, the program will go in before/after mode, which can be frustrating.

The interface also feels slow, the slowest of all programs I’ve tried. It was also the only program that complained of a security feature in Windows (Data Execution Prevention – DEP), which leads me to believe that it has a serious problem in its codebase.

Lightroom 3

Lightroom has a simple and intuitive interface with parts that can be easily shown or hidden easily. You can easily customize the interface to fit your own workflow, turn panels off, even customize the “nameplate” to your company name – a nice touch for when you’re working with a client.

Like Aperture, it aims to be a full DAM but after 4 years it still hasn’t convinced me. Unlike Aperture, you have to jump from Library to Develop all the time as some operations are available in both modes, while others in just one of them.

On the other hand, its unlimited History, Snapshots, Presets and Variations are top-notch.

4. Features

Each program has its strengths and weaknesses. Initially I wanted to have a simple table with checks and crosses for the features, but then I realized it would not be fair to compare Lightroom’s print features with Bibble’s, so I opted for a color-coded comparison.

The topics are:

• DAM features: features like face recognition or geotagging, ease of use, reliability, etc.;
• Print: Print options, proofing, preview and overall versatility;
• Slideshow: whether or not it supports slideshows and what features it has;
• Web: Export to web sites such as Picasa or Flickr;
• DNG: If it has DNG support;
• Cameras: number of supported cameras;
• Lens corrections: number and quality of lens corrections, including chromatic aberrations, distortions, fringing and perspective corrections;
• Local adjustments: brushes, gradients and layers support.
• Tethering: basic and advanced support;
• OS: Operating Systems support – Win/Mac/Linux.
• Plugins: whether or not it supports image processing plugins and how well they’re integrated.

In terms of DAM features, Aperture 3 is king, with its seamless features, faces and geotagging support, light table and easy filtering. Lightroom 3 is pretty good but nowhere near.

Lightroom 3 and Aperture 3 are almost equal when it comes to printing, making slideshows or exporting to the web, these are relatively small features anyway so their absence in the other programs shouldn’t be a determining factor.

DNG and camera support is however a big factor. I have RAWs as old as the concept itself and I want my files to be readable. Here Lightroom 3 shines, with over 350 models recognized. Its next competitor, Bibble, has about 180 models, whereas DxO comes in last with about 100 models. It’s true that all new & popular models are supported so not all users may care, but in some cases, wide support is a must.

DxO 6 is the unchallenged master in optical corrections – after all, they specialize in lens benchmarking. If you have a supported camera and lens, the precise corrections are great, and even if the lens is not recognized, you can still apply most of the corrections – sharpness falloff, light falloff, distortion corrections, even fish-eye corrections. The most impressive feature would be the keystoning, which lets you easily correct perspective distortions – a must-have for architectural shots (not everyone has a tilt-shift lens). It also has a built-in color rendering for emulating different film looks and more. Lightroom 3 comes close, but it can’t correct sharpness falloff and, while it can correct perspective, it’s not as powerful as DxO. Aperture comes in last, with no distortion corrections, only chromatic ones.

Bibble 5 takes the number one spot when it comes to local adjustments. Whereas Aperture has many brushes and Lightroom some brushes and gradients, Bibble comes with full brushes and layers, offering limitless adjustments. You can set parts of the image to have different WB settings or any other setting. It’s simply unmatched. At the oppositite end, Capture One and DxO offer only dust removal brushes.

Tethering is Capture One‘s territory. You can sense that this is a tool intended for studio photographers as everything is refined to help professionals.

Bibble 5 is the only program available for Windows, Mac and Linux, while Aperture is Mac-only.

Finally, Bibble 5 offers nicely-integrated plugins, followed by Aperture, whereas Lightroom has more limited support, something I’m sure it’ll cost them in the future.

5. Image Quality

5.1. Portraits

The photo below was imported in each program, using “As Shot” WB and leaving all settings to default.

You can see that all programs nailed the colors pretty much OK with only Capture One 5 bringing more blue in the shadows. The differences were mainly in brightness and contrast, indicating different default curves. Personally, I find Aperture‘s version as the best and Bibble the worst.

5.2. Nature

This is a study in green. Again, settings and White Balance are left to defaults, letting the programs show their interpretation. It’s hard to say which one is better; Capture One 5 produces the image most similar to the original JPEG; Aperture 3 and Lightroom 3 look very similar, DxO’s is the brightest one, while Bibble’s looks a bit dull (I tried all Look Profiles). Interestingly, I needed to apply a +0.5 EV adjustment in Lightroom to match the exposures obtained by the others by default.

5.3. Vibrancy

Here we go one step further, allowing adjustments of brightness, contrast and vibrancy/saturation to achieve the best look.

The original image is quite dull due to atmospheric haze and time of day. All programs do a good job at improving the colors, but I think Lightroom 3 does it best, followed by Aperture 3and Bibble 5 . DxO 6 gets the plane right but not such a nice sky, while Capture One 5 , having no Vibrancy but only Saturation, misses it. I could further improve the colors by using the various color editors to selectively alter hue/saturation/brightness, but I wanted to use only global changes.

Note how in all images I was able to remove the big ugly dust spot visible in the uncorrected top left image.

5.4. Enhancements

We’re now going to try something more challenging.

In this test Aperture reveals a flaw: it can bring a lot of luminance detail from the highlight area but loses almost all color information. Capture One also exhibited a strange issue – its High Dynamic Range Highlights slider affected too much of the midtones in the cathedral, so I had to dial down. Bibble was able to extract the most highlight detail thanks to the Perfectly Clear feature but again got the midtones wrong. Good results from Lightroom and DxO.

5.5. Edge sharpness & surface smoothness

Here are some 1:1 crops:

Lightroom 3 produces a very clean image except for the ugly halo on the sky, which looks even worse if you look at the full image. Aperture 3 and Capture One 5 versions are very similar, very sharp but with some artifacts. Bibble 5 has probably the most balanced image in terms of sharpness vs. noise, demonstrating the superiority of its licensed Noise Ninja technology. DxO 6 gets the same halo as Lightroom and also some shadow noise in the blue channel.

5.6. Detail extraction

I can’t decide between Bibble 5 and Lightroom 3 on this image, they are both very good. Capture One still has the tendency of leaving speckles, this is something unnoticeable in a print, but with more and more images intended for screen, it may be a problem in some cases.

5.7. Noise reduction

The first image is a 6mm x 4mm detail area, shot at ISO3200. For reference I also shot a version at ISO100.

Here are the 1:1 crops:

All programs do a good job, although Lightroom 3 clearly produces the best image. I am surprised the Bibble 5 didn’t manage to do better. Capture One 5 produces an image a little too soft, while DxO 6 and Aperture 3 leave artifacts.

Now let’s try something more extreme:

The image above is a crop from a macro image. The area represented here is just 3mm x 2mm, shot at ISO 12800.

Lightroom 3 is really outstanding here, considering the unprocessed image. Bibble’s version is a bit too dark and, like the previous sample, it shows some speckles. Aperture 3 comes in last despite all my attempts to improve the quality.

5.8. Chromatic aberrations

All images can correct lateral chromatic aberrations with similar effectiveness, so I decided to test just purple fringing.

The image above was shot with an old lens that was not intended for digital sensors. As such, it tends to produce severe fringing on white foreground objects (the hand is also a little out of focus).

DxO 6 and Capture One 5 manage to completely eliminate the fringing. Aperture 3 does it too, but a little less effectively. Bibble 5 and Lightroom 3 fail this test, removing only parts of the color and leaving the luminance the same.

5.9. Lens and Perspective corrections

Except for Aperture 3, all others were able to correct the distortion induced by the relatively inexpensive wide lens. DxO 6 and Lightroom 3 were able to take it further by correcting the perspective as well. Here DxO is superior in every way as its keystoning tool was able to easily and accurately correct the perspective, whereas with Lightroom I had to fiddle with the X/Y/Z rotation sliders (usually an image needs to be adjusted on more than just one axis).

DxO 6 was also the best at bringing the details from the shadows, with a nice, balanced, detailed and contrasty image. Lightroom 3 came in second. Bibble 5 and Capture One 5 were the least effective (the result is not clearly visible at this small resolution but on the full-size images it was very apparent).

6. Speed

Speed comparisons are not very fair, as we’re comparing apples and oranges – some programs offer more advanced corrections so it wouldn’t be fair to say that they are slow when they also offer superior quality. Also, speed is dependent on many factors and will vary greatly from image to image.

Having said that, I found the differences in speed to be really insignificant. Bibble 5 is still the fastest and DxO 6 is still the slowest, but the margin is not wide.

7. Pricing

Quality is not the only factor in making a decision. Let’s see how competitive are the prices:

• Apple Aperture 3: $200 USD
• Bibble 5 Pro: $200 USD
• Capture One 5 Pro: $400 USD
• DxO Optics Pro 6 – Elite Edition: $300 USD ($150 USD for Standard Edition)
• Adobe Lightroom 2: $300 USD

Note: DxO differentiates Stardard and Elite based on the supported camera bodies. High-end (full frame) digital SLRs require the Elite edition.

8. Conclusions

Four years ago, RAW processors were wildly different in UI, features and image quality. With each iteration, the gaps have shrinked, with significant improvements being offered even in point releases (Capture One 5.1.2 has better noise reduction support than 5.0). Because of that, differences are becoming minute, impossible to judge unless “pixel-peeping”. It’s only in edge cases where one can truly say that software X really made a difference.

Aperture 3 made a very good impression in me. It produced the best colors “out of the box”, it has a seamless workflow, excellent DAM features, some nice features and it’s priced attractively. It has its downsides, namely poor support for optical corrections and not so great noise reduction. If you’re a Mac user, Aperture is a solid choice for any kind of photography. Highly Recommended.

Bibble 5 has many great ideas but suffers from lack of attention to the details of UI. With other programs, you can feel how each tool is in its right place to better suit the user. Bibble also suffers from the lack of DNG support, a stance I simply fail to understand considering that it’s such an often-requested feature. Some other features seem to be present just to be able to list them, but are too crude compared the competition. On the plus side, the layers support is extremely powerful, and the licensed technologies Perfectly Clear and Noise Ninja help in producing superior images. Recommended with some reservations.

Capture One 5 Pro has the opposite approach from Bibble. Relatively few features, but very fast workflow, ability to quickly judge images, advanced tethering support. It’s still very expensive and hard to justify as a recommendation outside studio shooters.

DxO 6 used to be the king of optical corrections, but the competition is closing in fast. Its “lens modules”, finely-tuned and optimized for each camera are an asset as well as a liability. If your camera and lenses are supported, DxO will give you the best optical corrections, vibrant colors and great dynamic range. Recommended.

Lightroom 3 is the all-around reliable solution. It does not have any overwhelmind advantage over the others, but it supports almost any RAW format and has all the right features. The noise reduction algorithm is on par with Noise Ninja, optical corrections are almost (but not quite) as good as DxO but it has the DIY advantage when it comes to lenses: you can generate your own profiles. In a few hours, I was able to calibrate all my lenses for results almost as good as those given by DxO. The DAM features are not as good as in Aperture, but it can provide better quality in images. Highly Recommended.

9. Buy online

This review was made over three weeks of testing. If you found it useful, please consider purchasing your software from Amazon at discounted prices:

Note: Only the above programs and versions are available through Amazon.com. If you are interested in the others, please refer to their respective websites.

I must start by stating that if you’re really serious about digital painting, you should consider Corel Painter 11, which is a dedicated natural-media painting program that allows you to use anything from a HB pencil to chalk, charcoal and watercolors and also simulates the canvas properties in addition to the brushes. Nevertheless, Photoshop’s new offering is a solid one and more than enough for many artists.

For best results, a Wacom tablet like the new Intuos 4 is also recommended, although not required. In addition to pressure sensitivity, the new Wacom also senses the angle of the stylus, allowing for even more realistic results. Alternatively there are beginner’s tablets at jr.com for heavily discounted prices, if you’re just looking to pick up digital painting as a hobby.

Theory

There are two new features used for painting in Photoshop CS5. The first one is the new Brush Tip options.

With the new brushes, you can control the number of bristles, length, thickness and stiffness and not only can you see the result in the brush panel, you also get an overlay window that shows you the 3D virtual brush and its bristles.

I am not really a big fan of the brush preview window but thankfully you can turn it off if you find it distracting.

The second ingredient in the digital paint toolbox is the Mixer Brush. The Mixer Brush is like a combination of the normal brush and the smudge tool. As you paint, it smudges and mixes the color, as if you were using wet paints.

The way the brush color is mixed with the canvas is controlled by three parameters – the wetness of the paint, the load of the brush and the mix amount between the paint color and the canvas color.

To illustrate these parameters, I brushed quickly over an image with different settings:

So, a heavy load will carry more paint over a stroke than a light load; wetness smudges and mixes the canvas color with the paint color; a high mix rate will use more of the canvas color than the paint color.

Practice

The real magic with the Mixing Brush is that you can paint using the colors from a picture, effectively helping to you turn a photo into a painting with little effort.

To demonstrate this, I will start with a nice photo I took 10 years ago on film.

Create a new transparent layer. Select the Mixing Bush and from the top bar choose the preset Very Wet, Heavy Mix; choose the brush that you want from the Brushes panel and make it a big size.

To paint on the new layer using the colors from the background, with the Mixing Brush tool selected, make sure that the option Sample All Layers at the top is selected. Deselect the icon (Load the brush after each stroke) then Alt-click on the image to load the brush and start painting on the new layer.

To paint effectively, you need to think in terms of layers, from background to foreground and from broad to detail. Therefore we’ll start painting the background, using broad strokes with a large brush tip, ignoring the shack/cabin completely. Your strokes should more or less follow the contours of the terrain and clouds.

Hide the background layer temporarily to see the effect so far:

As you can see, I smudged the colors over the shack as if it did not exist. Also, notice how my strokes follow the hills and the shapes of the clouds. Keep working until you fill the layer and are happy with the result.

Next, we need to paint the cabin. It’s better to paint it on its own layer so that if you decide to change anything, it doesn’t mess with the background.

To do that, you need to hide the landscape layer, create a new one and paint on it. This time you’ll ignore the landscape and do just the cabin. You also need to make the brush tip smaller. Make sure the background photo is visible so it can pick the colors from it.

If you look at the roof, you’ll see that I erased from it some parts I did not like – this is why it’s a good practice to work on separate layer.

Now that we have the broad strokes, it’s time to bring in the details. Repeat the process – hide the shack layer, make sure the background photo is visible, make the brush tip even smaller, create a new layer and start painting on it. This time you no longer need to fill all the stuff, just short, fine strokes in the areas you want detail.

If you show all layers, this is what we get:

Not bad. We still want to add some more details like shadows. Create a new layer and set its mode to Multiply and opacity to around 60%. Choose a Dry Mixing Brush – now we don’t need to mix with the background – and black for color. Paint the shaded areas.

At this point you can leave it as it is, or you can add a final touch. One of the nice things about oil paint is that it has thinkness. To give this kind of tridimensional effect, you need to create a merged copy of the layers. The easy way is to duplicate all layers and then merge the copy (quickest route: select the layers and press Shift+CTRL+ALT+E or Shift+CMD+OPT+E on Mac). Now you should have a new merged layer in addition to the original ones.

An even better method would be to select the layers, choose Layer –> Smart Objects –> Convert to Smart Object and then duplicate this smart object via Layer –> Duplicate Layer or CTRL+J (CMD+J on Mac). This method is better because it leaves the contents of the smart object editable as well as the Emboss effect.

Whichever method you chose, with this new layer selected, choose Filters –> Stylize –> Emboss and in the dialog enter some values like below:

Make sure Height is relatively small – this depends on how large your canvas is, and make sure you crank the Amount all the way to the max. You can always tone the effect down later with opacity. With this emboss layer, set the mode to Overlay.

Here’s the end result, including all the layers for reference:

And there you have it!

For digital painting, a pressure-sensitive tablet is recommended, you may want to get one like this: