The H3DII-50 MS records four shots in a row by “moving the sensor by one pixel between each shot to record full RGB values at each position”. Hasselblad Australia is currently advertising a price of $32,995 on its website (normally $40,995). It might take fantastic pictures, but that price tag is still tough to swallow. [Hasselblad via DP Review via Engadget]

Everything else on the EX-FH25 looks to be the same. Similarly, the EX-FC150 will keep its 5x optical zoom, and sensor-shift image stabilisation. Both cameras will continue to do 720p video at 30fps.

The new models arrive in Japan on November 27; we’ll keep you posted on their pricing and availability. [Akihabara News: EX-FX25 | EX-FX150]

Boy, have zombies made a comeback lately, right along with teenage vampires. Regardless, indie zombie flick Dead Season is the self-proclaimed first film shooting on the $US1700 Canon 7D. (Warning, gore ahead.)

The camera quality is sort of a mixed bag for the bloody independent film. High-resolution coupled with gorgeous depth-of-field tricks emulate Hollywood (or at least, TV-level) production. But, while you can call me old-fashioned, blood and guts only look better in low-fi. Best of luck to the group finishing the film. These dailies from week one have some nice moments. [Thanks Super Greene!]

What’s New and Dandy

What makes it my favourite Canon so far is actually everything that’s completely new to Canon — DP Review has a nice summary here in pictures. But in short, while this might sound weird, it shoots more like a Nikon than any Canon DSLR I’ve used. This is primarily because of the new 19-point autofocus system and the colour-metering system that goes with it. You’re able to select AF zones — clusters of AF points — while in the past with Canon you’ve been limited to a full AF blast or picking out a single point. The system is also more customisable, so it can be locked with different default focus points depending on whether you’re holding the camera horizontally or vertically. Against Nikon’s D300s, Canon’s new AF system mostly kept up and definitely performs better than autofocus on the 5D Mark II.

The new viewfinder now provides 100 per cent coverage, unlike previous Canons in this range, and it uses a new polymer LCD network for the graphical overlay to display AF points, grids and other displays, so it’s more flexible and feels more fluid. (It also just looks swankier, and again, more Nikon-like.) Your other viewfinder (when you’re shooting video, anyway), the LCD screen, is a 3-inch, 920k dot display like the 5D Mark II and it’s still excellent, with a wide viewing angle, nice colour and the right amount of crispness.

Sensor and Image Quality

Truthfully, I’ve been mildly surprised at the quality of photos that’ve come out of the 7D, which uses an absolutely stuffed 18-megapixel, APS-C sized sensor. (So there is a 1.6x crop factor.) For comparison, the D300s has a 12-megapixel sensor that’s the same physical size, while the D3 only goes for 12 megapixels on its bigger full-frame (35mm-equivalent) sensor. The 5D Mark II has a 21-megapixel full-frame sensor. And typically, the more pixels you try to cram on a sensor of a given size, the more the image quality degrades, especially when it comes to low light, high ISO shots.

I was expecting a noisefest, or at best, seriously noticeable noise reduction employed by the camera’s software. It is clear that Canon’s using incredibly sophisticated noise reduction algorithms with the dual Digic IV processors on board, though the effects are less drastic than I expected. It’s most apparent, actually, when you directly compare photos taken with the D300s. Looking at photos taken with the 7D and D300s at 100 per cent crops, the D300s’s images are noisier, but they also preserve more detail. For web-sized images, the 7D’s images look better, with less noise and more smoothness.

Video

You can get sense of Canon and Nikon’s philosophical differences with the difference in their buttons for video: Canon makes a distinction between Live View and video mode, while Nikon is ready to start shooting video as soon you tap the live view button on the D300s. Creating video is a separate, dedicated event for Canon, in other words, and there is a semi-serious video camera that happens to be built into a DSLR. Nikon’s D300s, on the other hand, is a DSLR that happens to shoot video.

With video, the 7D simply has the upper hand — video is very much a legitimised use of this camera, not a secondary one like the D300s. (As expected from a company with an entire wing dedicated to camcorders for pros and consumers.) Not only does it have full manual controls, I find that it’s slightly easier to use the D300s while shooting video — not to mention the whole shooting in a real video codec at 1080p, yadda yadda. Three clips here: A melange of video above, and then by two videos, one from the 7D, one of the D300s, that mirror each other. Both were shot at ISO 6400, and you should be able to catch them at full res if you click over to Vimeo.

Build and Controls

The 7D is heavy, heavier than the 5D, but it’s also slightly sturdier, with a build quality and weatherproofing that’s slightly in between the 5D and Canon’s definitely pro 1D. It feels about the same in your hand, though. And it’s roughly comparable to the D300s.

Controls aren’t radically different from other Canon DSLRs of this calibre — that is, it’s what you’d mostly expect from a DSLR that sits in between the lower end 50D and the higher end 5D MK II, though it’s a bit closer to the latter. While the menu system feels completely unchanged — leaving more advanced features, like the orientation autofocus a bit inscrutable — a few things are new on the outside: The power switch is up on the top left, under the mode dial; there’s a dedicated button for switching to RAW/JPEG; a quick action button; and a new toggle switch for Live View and video, which you engage by pressing a start button in the centre.

You Already Know If You’re Going to Buy This

The real question for Canon users who want something more than the lower end 50D is whether they go for the 7D, at $US1700, or full bore to full-frame with the $US2700 5D Mark II. The 7D has a 1.6x crop factor which is useful for sports, a better autofocusing system, shoots faster, is slightly more rugged, and is $US1000 cheaper. The 5D is full frame — which I suspect is the real consideration for folks — and takes slightly better photos at higher resolutions.

Obviously, if you’re locked into Nikon, with thousands of dollars in lenses, you’re not going to jump to Canon, or vice versa. But Canon’s dedication to DSLR video is proving formidable in carving out a new kind of market that Nikon might have some trouble competing in, since they’re a dedicated still-camera company, not a video company, too, like Canon. Really, both the D300s and 7D deliver for the money, though I think the 7D delivers more, since it’s packed full of newer technology and for the people who want it, the video component is truly killer. Either way, it’s proof that competition is good — it clearly wouldn’t exist without the D300, and the D400 will be that much better because of it.

New 19-point autofocus and metering systems plus the new viewfinder rock

Excellent 1080p video with full manual controls

Not full-frame, which might put off some people

I’d like a secondary SD card slot, like the D300s

Noise reduction can get pretty aggressive at higher ISO speeds, obscuring detail

Not much else is known at this point, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to think we’ll see the a750 at CES 2010. [LetsGoDigital via Engadget]

Hurlbut is shooting a project based on Navy SEALs, and the trailer (of sorts; it’s mostly an awful lot of bikini’d ladies) is shot with a mix of digital and film photography, using the digital Canon 5D MKII and Sony 950 as well as the Arri 235 film camera. He created kind of a contest to see who could pick out the digital shots from the film in the trailer (most is digital, shot with the 5D MKII) — it’s way harder than you’d think, not least because the dude is clearly an expert. His wide-angle shots of a yacht and close-ups of bikini-clad ladies may look like the intro to a Puff Daddy music video (sing it with me: BEEN AROUND THE WORLD AND AYAYAY), but it is shockingly gorgeous and I’m hard-pressed to be able to tell the difference between digital and film. Check out the video here, and enter his contest here. [Shane Hurlbut via Vincent LaForet]

I had around two hours to shoot with a pre-production model of the tank-like D3s at New York’s Big Apple Circus, hence all of the scary clowns and very flexible folks. Since low-light performance is what you’re probably most interested in, I’ve broken down the sample shots into galleries by ISO speed. Overall, shots at ISO 6400 are the cleanest I’ve ever seen at that ISO rating—just think about that for a second—and ISO 12,800 photos are unquestionably usable for even large web photos (like 1000×1000 pixels). Of course, the pictures at ISO 102,400 have ridiculous grain and you’d never use them for anything but novelty, but consider that we really are talking light sensitivity on the order of night vision. It’s a remarkable achievement for achievement’s sake.

All of the photos here are from JPEGs straight out of a pre-production D3s, with no retouches. They were resized, but I’ve included shots of 100 percent zoom close-ups above the galleries.

Nikon D3s Below ISO 3200

Nikon D3s ISO 3200 Samples

Nikon D3s ISO 6400 Samples

Nikon D3s ISO12,800 Samples

Nikon D3s 26,500-51,200 ISO Samples

Nikon D3s ISO 102,400 Samples

These two series are shot at the exact same shutter speed, adjusting only the ISO, so you can get a sense of how much extra light the cranked ISO absorbs.

Nikon D3s Direct Compare: ISO 12,800; 1/800

I’ve also cut together some of the 720p video I shot. The video mode’s a little confusing to use at first, since the “shutter speed” is how adjust exposure in video mode, but the results are nice, even if they’re not in 1080p. The clip was always shot at an ISO rating of at least 3200 (I was fiddling with the ISO throughout), and the second half makes use of a boom mic for stereo.

What the &*^@ is Micro Four Thirds? Olympus and Panasonic co-developed what’s called the Micro Four Thirds standard just last year. The biggest difference to the eye is the smaller-than-SLR lens mount that incompatible with SLRs unless you deploy an adaptor. Internally, the standard ditches the mirrors used in SLRs and uses a four thirds CMOS (not micro four thirds chip!) to capture the image straight from the lens (just like a point and shoot). That sensor is roughly 30% smaller than that found in your average dSLR but 9 times bigger than what’s in your average point and shoot. The result is a camera ever so slightly smaller than a dSLR that should give you a similar end image quality.

The end camera is just a tad smaller than a baseline dSLR:

But it’s still way bigger than your average point and shoot:

The big not-so-secret
There are only four products on the market at this point (Panasonic G1, its video-centric brother, the GH1, Olympus E-P1 and, of course, the Panasonic GF1), and they all have the exact same 13MP Panasonic sensor. But only the latest two, the GF1 and the E-P1, have taken advantage of the smaller technology to create design-forward cameras.

The spoiler
However, if you’re going to buy one of these cameras, you probably want the GF1 ($900 with 14-45mm lens). It couples all the good stuff from Panasonic’s existing line with a retro body that’s eerily similar to the Olympus E-P1.

The build
The GF1 is too big, and it’s too heavy. The Panasonic GF1 is indeed smaller than my Canon XTi, but it still won’t fit in your pocket.

Yet I love carrying it around. Why? The body feels solid, as if it’s from another era, a Utopian time when men were men and companies built hardware to last—before we valued sissy silver painted plastic more than the metal it was emulating.

The GF1 (and the Olympus E-P1 for that matter) feels like a small tank in your hands, an element of war that won’t give up after being tossed in a bag recklessly. If dropped on an iPod from over 3 feet, the iPod would certainly be crushed.
There are neither too many buttons nor too few. A familiar circle rotates between shooting modes naturally and burst and timer modes share a switch right in front of it. A d-pad toggles functions like ISO while a clever clicking dial allows you to adjust shutter speed and f-stops.
A few buttons earn their very own functions, like focusing mode, exposure lock and, maybe most cleverly, video. Hitting this little button to the right of the shutter release switches you to video no matter what mode you’re in.

Given the almost retro-style build, however, it was tough for me to lose an optical viewfinder (though a digital optical add-on is available). It’s a heavy camera to hold outstretched while framing shots on the viewfinder. But luckily, the 3-inch LCD’s 460,000 pixels mean you can just manage to find critical focus, thanks to the screen auto-zooming to your subject during manual focusing, though it can be tough to be sure you’ve really nailed it.

That screen resolution is below a premium dSLR, but it’s about twice as sharp as the E-P1—and you’ll notice.
And then there’s the flash. Unlike the E-P1, the GF1 has one of these bad boys, and Panasonic has celebrated that fact by designing what must be the most complicatedly mechanical flash on the market. Watching it snap from the camera body is both impressive and worrisome. Can these little struts really hold up? Regardless, it’s handy to have, even though a perk of buying such a big, expensive camera is avoiding flash photography.

The pictures
Check out all of my GF1 test shots on Flickr, untouched JPEGs pulled right off the GF1.

Honestly, there’s not much we can say about the quality of the GF1’s sensor that hasn’t been said (by us, even.) The biggest particular problem is ISO noise, as you can see in the gallery below. Bottom line: the GF1 supports ISOs up to 3200, but you probably don’t want to reach beyond 800.
However, with that disclosure out of the way, I’d like to make a few points.

1. Shooting on the GF1 feels like shooting on an SLR. I’m not just talking about the ease of tweaking advanced controls. I mean, you pull the trigger, the camera takes a shot RIGHT THEN. For dSLR owners, that’s nothing new. For P&S owners, that’s a revelation.

2. There is undoubtedly more noise with Panasonic’s sensor in high ISOs than you could find in dSLRs for a similar price. But, the image quality you can achieve—I mean that intangible mix of sensor size and great glass that makes your photos feel professional—is undoubtedly beyond the realm of point and shoots, well in the SLR ballpark.

The BEST shot I was able to recreate of that watch above on my Canon P&S?
Needless to say, pretty gross stuff.

3. The Live View system features what’s, hands down, the best function I’ve ever see on any Live View system yet. Holding a Shutter Mode Effect button previews the motion blur you can expect in your final shot—saving you the heartache of the perfect preview and horrible blurry-faced end product we’ve all experience on point and shoots.
The only catch? The system didn’t work well in daylight, when you might want to use Live View to preview sports motion blur. Note that this car didn’t blur at all in my preview, nor did about 20 similar test shots I took in identical conditions.
However, low light tests worked fine.

The 720P video I’d describe as solid but not extraordinary. The AVCHD (or motion JPEG) video, while inherently better than P&S systems or Mino HDs, is not razor sharp. Without side by side comparisons or the wonderful popping colours you get with a bit of sunlight (it rained through my entire testing period), I can’t make any definitive statements. But what I’ve seen from the T1i seems better (richer colours, sharper figures), and not just because it’s 1080P.

Versus the EP-1
There are definitely a few key advantages to buying a GF1 instead of Olympus’ E-P1. They include:

• Sharper screen
• Faster autofocus (I’d estimate about 3x faster—it’s noticeable)
• Built-in flash (the Olympus requires an optional mount)

But it should be noted, the E-P1 has its image stabilisation inside its body while Panasonic relies on its IS kit lens. In other words, every lens the Olympus uses will have inherent image stabilisation. Also, Olympus allows autofocusing on all Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds lenses. The GF1 can accept these lenses, but it only retains autofocus on its own brand. In other words, lens fanatics may find the E-P1 the better bet. And if you find one or the other on some super sale, well, it’s a toss-up.

Confession
The real reason I enjoyed shooting on the GF1, and the real reason you’re interested in Micro Four Thirds if you are indeed interested, has nothing to do with practicality.

I just feel cool using it.
I like walking around Chicago with the GF1 on my shoulder. It gives me that feeling of Leica superiority without the expense. The Micro Four Thirds system may have originated in Japan, but the romance of shooting on the latest systems is purely European. For the first time in a long time, a piece of electronics has made me long for an era and a place that I never knew.

Every soccer mum tourist in Chicago has a dSLR. They may take prettier photos than I do, but damn do I long to be different once in a while. And I’m here to say that, if you crave a Micro Four Thirds for the same reason, it’s my opinion that the GF1 works well enough that, well, that’s OK. I’m just not trading my dSLR for one.

Incredibly solid build

Best screen in class

Unique shutter blur preview

General stylishness and badassery

Video is good, not great

Same CMOS found in earlier version/competition

IS in kit lens, not camera