Choosing a lens kit

I've been enjoying Mike Johnston's posts on lens kits (part 1 and part 2). It's thinking I've been through many times. I thought I'd share my kit development.

It all started with the basic kit zoom as he describes. My first SLR was purchased in 1996 just after graduation. I bought the basic Canon kit -a lot of camera for relatively little money at the time (now you can get 10x the camera for the same actual money as then). Multi-purpose zoom (35-80, I think). Got the job done, until i got into wildlife photography. So I went long - a 70-300mm being the cheapest way into long reach. With limited means, that proved a nice combination. I did get a wide angle converter for the shorter lens but it's seen precious little action. I just don't see the world in wide angle and these days it's easy enough to stitch panoramas if I want that sort of thing.

However, much like Mike, I think 2 lenses generally suffices but that'll be two different for each scenario. I have many two lens kits:
The walk-around kit (actually a choice between 2 - I carry only the one)
The indoor kit
The rangefinder kit
the LF kit
The sports kit
The travel kit
The landscape kit
The cycling kit
The wildlife kit

You get the picture. I have a trunk full of cameras and lenses. But I mainly carry 2 lenses at a time, sometimes 3, although mostly one of those three is neglected. The selection I have also include a number of primes, some good, some frustrating (e.g. my 50mm f/1.8 is frustrating: all electronic, all plastic, difficult to focus but it was cheap).

So a pair for any given situation and enough choice the cover the lot.

If I was forced into just 2? Tricky. Excluding the wildlife (where the 500mm is invaluable), I reckon my 17-55 and maybe an 85 or 135 would do the job (although I own neither of those primes). Or my 70-200 of the current stock. Force me to go prime? then I'd stick with the rangefinder and the 40mm and 75mm. As nice combo for a wide range of situations.

I o see the attraction of micro four-thirds, however. Small cameras and small lenses for the longer reach I like. If a decent camera comes along, I'd snap it up with a couple of lenses to cover most of my going about, travelling applications.

On film cameras

I'm sure you read the recent TOP post from Ctein and Mike J himself. interesting how so many comments flooded in about film being the real thing, digital's not all that etc etc. Phooey. And I'm still a film shooter.

I've never done any darkroom work and quite frankly don't really want to try. Too much faffing with chemicals in the dark for me and I'm perfectly happy with digital printing. but i do use a couple of film cameras regularly purely for the camera-ness of them. The large format does the movements that are not readily (or cheaply) achieved with a digital solution, and the rangefinder is a great camera for fast, light shooting (I'm still dismayed by the short battery life of the M9). If I felt I could get the same function out of a digital camera, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Tools for the jobs

Reading the TOP camera of the year put me to thinking, as I occasionally do, as to what I'd be looking for in cameras. There will never be just one suitable, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm always on the look out for the ideal device - right tool for the job and all that.

So what am I looking for? Well, I break my camera needs down into 4 areas:

Landscape

All about quality images - tripod mounted, moderate wide (I'm not a real wide angle fan) to moderate telephoto lenses.

I have a dilemma for my landscape photography. I really like the flexibility of movements my large format camera gives me, enabling a type of photography not really available with digital (even putting an MF back on a field camera isn't quite the same and T-S lenses don't have the same control due to the small format). And yet the latest crop of 35mm DLSRs are offering super resolution (I really like the whole Sony offering). I'm sort of torn between ditching the LF and not.

When in doubt, stay put.

Street (out and about in town)

Small, discrete, wide-ish normal lens. Responsive a plus. I'm sorely tempted by the M9 or the Olympus EP-1. My little Lx3 has never really quite cut it. My preferred camera is my Zeiss Ikon but film is a bit of a hassle, especially now I've moved.

Travel

Similar criteria to a street camera, except I like a moderate telephoto lens. But my overriding criterion is battery life. I'm sure I've ranted about this before. I need something that'll go 2-3 weeks on a couple of batteries and only the mid-level DLSRs seem to do that. I'm currently getting 900+ shots from the Canons and none of the smaller alternatives get close to 500 it seems.

I'd really like a micro 4/3 system or travelling but they've a way to go to be suitable for my needs.

Wildlife

Noting but the all-singing, all-dancing SLR system with the long lenses. I'm really happy with Canon gear and will probably stay put, maybe with an extra body later this year (let's see what the new models have to offer). Stronger low light capability would be nice, however.


I was going to wrap up this post talking about how digital cameras aren't addressing the full range of photography application, or maybe not fulfilling their full potential or some such. But then I thought some and that's not it.

With my film cameras I'm happy with simple devices. A mechanical means of trapping measured portions of light onto some film. No fancy features on any of them. And yet I never wanted more. And then along comes digital. Programmed marvels of computing technology trapping those light portions in all manner of fancy ways. That opens up a realm of possibilities in use and function and interface. No longer mechanical but malleable electronic wizardry. Therein lies the problem. All that possibility opened up fosters a desire for just so. Not quite perfection exactly (there's really no such thing) but everything one could want. Once the range of offerings has been tasted, it makes one realise all that could be achieved. Sufficiency is no longer enough.

That is maybe my problem with assessing digital cameras - I know what I want, see it all offered but spread across many products. And I then want the best bits of each condensed into a single device. Thence the dissatisfaction: reality not meeting promise.

Unfamiliarity

Manila, December 2009 (as it came out of the camera)

Use a camera for any length of time, take a bunch of pictures and you get to feeling you know how it works. Conventional wisdom in the photography game. But I also realised that one needs to be familiar with the equipment in a range of situations, too.

Last week our department at work had a social, so I was snapping a bunch of pictures at the restaurant with my LX3. I've taken loads of photos with it, am comfortable with it in a range of situations. Except this was new for me. Normally I'd have a rangefinder and fast film in this sort of environment.

Getting home, I found most of my shots were rubbish, grossly under-exposed for the most part. Something I hadn't realised was that the LX3 metering is strongly protective of highlights in its matrix mode, much more so that my Canon SLRs. And so, with a mixture of bright back-lighting and darkened table lighting, I got a lot of shadows (like the one at the top of the post). No flash - I don't do that. And after a few drinks and with the general aim to be quick, I wasn't chimping and playing around with settings.

At least I've learnt for the next time, I suppose.

Lumix LX3 firmware update: in action

Lisbon, October 2009

Crikey! A photo on a photography blog.

Last time I posted a quick view on the Lumix LX3 firmware update (rev 2.1). Last weekend I was putting I to use in the pleasant sunshine of Lisbon. The main way I was using the new lens memory function was to set a fixed focal length of around 40mm-e and zone focus at f/4.

The review is simple: I really like this new mode. With all the zooming and focusing removed, te camera is very responsive. When waking up from off or sleep, the lens returns to the last position as promised. This makes it more fun to use as I'm not constantly battling the camera to do what I want. I took a lot more pictures as a result. And I expect I shall continue to do so.

This is the feature I most wanted when I first bought the camera and here it is. Now I have just the street camera I wanted. Of course, I've also got the zoom should I need it and a focus button when required.

Lumix LX3 firmware update: first impressions

Just installed the new firmware for the Panasonic Lumix LX3 (version 2.1). Main reason for installing is the new "Lens resume" feature, which remembers the zoom and focus position after the camera is powered down 9either in sleep mode or by turning it off). Nice feature, suddenly I've got a snapshot camera that I can set to 40mm-e and zone focus.

As a result, I decided to test the focal lengths available to see if I could find somethng in the 35-40mm-e range. Turns out there are 13 distinct focal lengths available in the range, these are they as reported in EXIF, together with the 35mm equivalent focal lengths in parentheses (all figures in mm):

5.1 (24)
5.4 (25)
5.9 (28)
6.3 (30)
6.8 (32)
7.4 (35)
7.9 (37)
8.8 (41)
9.3 (44)
10.2 (48)
11.1 (52)
12.1 (57)
12.8 (60)

So I've set mine up 6 stops from wide (which is the default starting position) at 7.9mm. I'll probably also mark the lens barrel at this point with a silve pen so I've got a marker.

So far it seems to work OK, although I've just done a few test shots. A trip away next week will be a nice test out on the streets.

Hooray for Panasonic

Panasonic have released new firmware for the LX3. Big deal, you might say, cameras get minor tweaks all the time. But this one is different, with a few proper functional improvements.

The big thing for me, and one of my continuing gripes about the LX3, is the new "Lens Resume" function which allows the zoom and/or manual focus points to be remembered when powering down. This means I can set a preferred zoom and zone focus and have it remember the settings. Very nice. I also like the fact that they supply a downloadable pdf user-manual for the new functions.

It's nice to see at least one manufacturer fixing/improving software and control issues through firmware revision. I wish the others would follow (are you listening, Canon?).

Why optical viewfinders won't disappear

I was going to title this along the lines of "Why the SLR will continue" but I think it's a bit wider than that. Also, this argument will throw up an anomaly that's worth noting.

In the digital world, it's all about battery life. And battery life is really important if you're away from electricity or needing to travel light. I regularly travel for 2-3 weeks when I might be 500 miles or more from electricity. Even when I'm not, I don't want to carry an array of batteries and chargers if I can help it.

Micro four-thirds is looking promising but has pretty limited battery life (in the order of 350 shots per charge). I regularly get 950 from my DLSRs. The difference on a long trip would be between 2-3 days per charge to 7-10 days. That's significant, the difference between a couple of batteries and a bag full.

As far as I can see, the big difference is the lower power required by an optical view-finder system. Without the screen/EVF to keep powered, the camera can use less power overall. The optical finder and separate metering systems of the SLRs are similar to the low power units of the film days.

There is that anomaly I mentioned: the Leica M9. Seems it only gets about 300 shots from a relatively high capacity battery. Erwin Puts even reckons as little as 100 using the 16 bit RAW. Can't understand why, as the DSLRs can achieve much more from essentially the same processing requirement.

It's an area that disappoints me in camera development - not enough focus on battery life. It seems as the capacities get bgger and cicuits more efficient that is ussed to pile in more features and ways to drain power. Would it be possible to create a digital camera with a stripped down processing system getting 2000 shots from a typical sized battery.

Leica: cameras worth buying?

Until now Leica have not made a camera I'd consider buying. When I bought a rangefinder it was a Zeiss Ikon for both superior function and cheaper price. Leica just weren't offering anything that represented something I wanted. Much as I'd love a digital rangefinder, the M8's problems were too much, especially at those prices.

And now we have three new Leica cameras on the scene.

The X1 - a rather nice looking poket camera. Nice controls & nice focal length lens. The one thing I'm a little less sure about is the large sensor (although I'm sure I've insisted it is critical in the past). The reason being versatility for point and shoot. I really like using my LX3 in f/4 and zone focus for quick shooting - the short focal lengths for small senosrs yielding large DoF. This means I don't have to worry about focus, even in low light. But quick focus would sort that and small print sizes (lower enlargement leads to greater DoF). Otherwise a very nice package for a compact.

The M9 - it seems a digital rangefinder that works. No significant IR and cyan image problems. Better handling and all the control simplicity of an RF. Looks like a very nice package. I have one cocern over aliasing (not just moire but other problems in fine detail) that did show up in some M8 images. I'll be looking with interest over the next few weeks - I might be saving my money for one.

The S2 - looks like a programmable camera. The initial impressions from Michael Reichmann, especially about the user interface, are right along my thinking. Price is definitely not in my budget but maybe the others will take a look and incorporate similar controls. certainly for landscape photography this looks to be a package that is very interesting.

So suddenly Leica have 3 different cameras that I'd like to own.

Movement

Fork in path, Thirlspot, Cumbria, May 2009

As Colin Griffiths comments on my last post, I enjoy the process of lugging a big camera up big hills. But it is results driven. I want movements for angle of view & focal plane control. I want fine detail and smooth tones for large prints.

For the details and tones it is (for me) prohibitively expensive to go digital.
On investigating tilt-shift lenses for 35mm it's becoming clear that the only way to properly do the movements I want is to have a large focus screen.

The more I investigate options, the more I find I have the right one.

I'm thinking of poking around with Helicon Focus, which will be cheaper than a tilt-shift lens, but it can't do some things. Subject movement is an obvious one (and I work quite a lot in windy conditions). Soft clouds is another - I like to use a front tilt to extend depth of field in the land, which helps soften up focus on the clouds. Sure I can do all that in software, and use multiple exposures.

Here's the thing, though. Using movements in the field takes no more time than running a series of careful exposures and the time I need for the final processing is a whole lot less.

Digital solutions? Here's a couple of ideas.

• Auto multi-focus. I set start and end points for focus and the camera runs a series between them.
• Digital tilt focus. Can be manual with confirm or auto. Define the points you want in focus and adjust accordingly, just like the manual process. Asymmetric tilt/swing would help a lot for manual (auto can do fancy simultaneous movements). 2 points needed for single-axis movement (tilt or swing), 3 for 2 axes (tilt and swing).

Of course, there is one problem that all this digital stuff doesn't fix: reliance on power in the field. Maybe we'll get really good solar panels that will sort that out too.

Not at the limit yet

Little Man and Skiddaw, Cumbria, May 2009
Shot on 120 roll film, 6x9 on an LF camera

Those who read the Luminous Landscape have probably seen this article by Ray Maxwell ostensibly on the applicability of Moore's Law to camera sensor development, coming to the conclusion that we're hitting the limit, especially in terms of resolution. The arguments didn't look right to me and this TOP article by Ctein neatly debunks the entire thing.

Even with my moderate grasp of the subjects of optics and digital sampling it didn't take long to confirm that the LL article was wrong and to be able to come up with my own calculations (which turned out to be very similar to Ctein's).

Maxwell omitted the Nyquist-Shannon sampling [WARNING: geeky maths link] limits which means we need pixels at most half the size of the given Airy disc or smaller to get full resolution data. Sensor arrays further reduce the pixel size required in order to sample each frequency. I reckoned we can go down to about 1/4 the given Airy disc limit. Of course Maxwell did his numbers at f/11 which suggests large pixels but optics tend to be optimised for larger apertures, with the photographer accepting the resolution/depth of field trade-off for smaller values. Even if we calculate at f/11, with the 1/4 Airy pixel size then that yields a limit of 1.5micron. For comparison a typical pocket camera 1/1.7", 12MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 2micron, so within the grasp of current technology. Compare that to the current 4-6micron for larger sensors and we could happily go to pixel counts 9-16 times those used today before hitting resolution limits.

So your 22MP 35mm full frame could stretch out to around 200-300MP and still yield noticeable resolution improvement. Another upside of extreme resolution is the ability to crop. I could see an argument for using wider angles and cropping for a lot of shots. Imagine only carrying a wide angle and mid-tele for everything. Shoot 100mm and crop the centre for a 400mm equivalent shot. Monster panoramas in one exposure.

Sufficiency is never enough anyway. The sufficiency argument has been touted since cameras hit 4MP.

And all of that ignores any future technology leaps.

[Hereby rewarding a healthy dose of scepticism and justifying my geek tag]

Three types of camera user

The new Olympus E-P1 is causing some buzz and there is some interesting comment over at Colin Jago's photostream. This got me thinking about who actually uses cameras and how. I have quite a lot of first-hand knowledge as I seem to be "camera guy" in my circle of friends, family and colleagues.

Type 1: the point and shooter

Easily 95% of camera users are the casual snappers - holidays, social events and the like. They want easy. they want decent pictures. Auto everything, please, and make sure the exposure is right. Most frequently asked question: how do I turn off the auto flash? (No, really.)

If Olympus thinks that the E-P1 is simplifying the DLSR in a way that will appeal to this lot, I think they're way off base.

Type 2: what do these buttons do?

I reckon this is the majority of DSLR buyers. Want some more control and better image quality (I won't say better quality pictures, hah!) but largely use auto stuff. P-mode abounds, all auto focus, auto exposure. Exposure compensation is advanced. Dabble in RAW but don't want the hassle. go on courses to learn what the buttons do (manual, what's that?). most frequently asked question: what aperture should I be using?

The E-P1 might appeal to this lot but it does have largely the same features as a DLSR and costs way more than an entry-level from the big manufacturers. I think price alone will stop this group buying it.

Type 3: I want it my way

Of camera buyers, they aren't many, but I bet they're a huge chunk of the spend. Gear mad, or very focused on particular usage. All the advanced amateurs and pros are in this group. Know how they want to the camera to work and want to be able to set it up that way. gripe about all manner of nuances in features, performance, ergonomics. Post-process everything. (I'm one of these.) Most frequently asked question: how do I set the ?

No camera will ever satisfy all of them but some will figure out how to get it to do good things. I think it is those type threes that can live with the compromises that will try the E-P1.


Notice I haven't said much about camera type. Type ones buy P&S, whichever was recommended to them, type twos tend to buy entry DSLRs and may have a cheap pocket camera, type threes probably have a bunch of cameras & lenses, small to large. they want small cameras to be as fully-featured as the top-end DSLRs. Why should the new E-P1 behave like an entry-level P&S?

And it's not just Olympus. I think all camera makers are missing some vital points. Most people want basic, simple cameras that give good results. The top end want a bunch of features that lets them shoot the way they like but wrapped in different sized packages.

A tale of two LCDs

All that rumination over view finders has just reminded me of my observations of the viewing screens on my EOS 40D and LX3, DSLR and pocket camera respectively.

On the latter, it is the be-all and end-all of framing. And shooting info. And the ever-so-useful live histogram. I thought I'd get annoyed by the inherently shorter battery life but I'm not, in actual fact. That's because i take less photos with it. Not in that I picture less scenes but the at-the-moment shooting information means I don't take a pile of multiples. This greatly reduces the number of shots I need. In most cases I want large DoF and it has that in spades, thus less fiddling & bracketing of aperture & focus. battery life of 150-200 shots is OK for a day's shooting in the hills, although I might case load of batteries for long trips in the wilds.

On the former, the screen has 2 main uses: chimping exposure between shots (which I keep to a minimum) and the oh so lovely Live View for tripod work. In this case it enables better shots: finer focus, greater DoF control. (I'm still not convinced by the metering on the live histogram but will test in due course.) This is leading to me taking more shots, picturing more scenes because I can get the critical focus and framing I want. Sort of like a mini large format camera (if that isn't an oxymoron). But the battery life stinks. Canon really need to get onto that. Slumping from 950 shots to 150 is a nightmare. Suddenly a single battery is good for half a day rather than 2 or 3.

The ideal camera

Apropos of the announcement of the new Olympus P-E1 (digital PEN), the ideal camera:

• will (not)* have an electronic/optical* viewfinder


• will (not) have thumb & finger wheels


• will (not) fit in a pocket/bag*


• will (not) have a folding/rotating* LCD


• will (not) have many buttons


• will (not) have many functions


• will (not) be automated


• will (not) have (fast) (small) prime lenses/zooms


• will take (nice) photographs (maybe)

It's been 2 days, there are a few online snaps and already it's going to save the world/cause Armageddon*.

*delete as appropriate

Live View: the great focusing aid

Bug on flower, Swaledale, June 2009
I've yet to identify the species

When I started photographing last week, I realised it was the first time I'd used the 40D on a tripod. that gave me the opportunity to use Live View for the first time. It's one of those features I'd rather dismissed and ended up using it almost constantly. Here's why:

At normal view, Live View is fairly mundane - just a full-screen view of the subject rather like using a digicam. However, for critical composition that is useful as it is 100% view, compared to the 95% view finder. Suddenly I don't have extraneous objects in the corners.

The most useful feature is the zoom for focus. Suddenly focus is even more precise. Better than using the view finder or auto focus. Used on a tripod with manual focus, I'm getting far more detail out of the sensor than ever before. When I'm working this way, I've found it best for me to use live view to focus, then a remote release with mirror lock-up for the exposure. Live View does have a histogram function (which takes several settings to activate) but I'm not convinced it is as accurate as my tuned settings for review. More testing required for that.

Crop from the centre of the frame. Final output sharpening not applied.
I couldn't get focus this accurate any other way.

As Paul Butzi has said, it's rather like using a large format camera. I just miss the movements (not having tilt-shift lenses).

There is one drawback, battery life reduces significantly. With normal hand-held use, I get about 950 shots to a full charge, with Live View that drops to around 150. Suddenly I need a couple of batteries per day. As a result I'm getting more selective about using Live View - check composition, check focus and then turn off.

Thoughts on some new cameras

I've been reading with interest stuff on a couple of new cameras: the Sigma DP2 and the Pentax K-7. Wildly different yet each addressing some things I've ranted about in the past.

First up the DP2 - mroe of the Sigma large sensor in a small body idea. Nice that it has my favourite 40mm-e lens, and quite fast. Simple controls, always a bonus. Then the actual performance - it seems all agree it's quite slow, quite noisy and inconsistent. When it's good it's very. very good, when it's bad... And of course, the limited softyware support for Foveon. I just hope that this tumbling attempt to make a high quality, large sensor compact doesn't kill the whole idea.

Then there's the K-7. Mid-price DSLR. Smaller size, without losing a decent grip. And high specs. I looked through the list of stuff it's got, from the viewfinder, through the weather sealing to the custom functions. Most of this level of stuff Canon only put in the 1-series cameras. I especially like the ability to fully configure the thumb & finger wheels, and set all kinds of limits on shutter speed & ISO. TAv mode (carried over from previous models) is just what digital needs.
Now that the K20D is going, looks like this will be the DSLR I'll be recommending to others.

In fact, with the features this one has, and the great results coming from the Sony A900, I'm considering those cameras in place of some of my Canon gear, keping the Canon for sports and wildlife only. We shall see...

The true use for a pocket digicam

Untitled, Cumbria, May 2009
Lumix LX3, ISO 80, 1/15" @ f/8.0 handheld

Like Colin Jago, I've been a little frustrated in using pocket cameras, even my Panasonic Lumix LX3. Nice results, but a little slow for anything requiring speed of reaction. I've never been happy with the way it forgets zoom and focus settings when going to sleep. Around town it just doesn't compete with a rangefinder.

This last week, however, I was trying an experiment. As I was spending a week walking in the hills, I thought I would see how well it did as a general landscape travel camera. I know the image quality is good, so in situations where speed isn't essential it should be ideal.

Before I get to the verdict, a little background on my idea of a travel camera, and a little of what I was doing photographically in Cumbria.

I was after 2 things - testing gear in the hills to see what would be appropriate for a tip I'm going on this summer and also taking some shots to put together a collection of my views of the area. I took my large format camera, the EOS 40D DSLR and the LX3 pocket camera. I had a few specific photos in mind, scenes from familiar routes but was also open to interesting things along the way. This was also a walking holiday, so I didn't want to spend too much time stopping.

My use of LX3 extended to carrying it in a pocket all day, lens cap off. See a photo, retrieve quickly, snap and away. Not as fast as DLSR hanging from the harness but much smaller. I used the large format for the more deliberate stuff. In the end I didn't use the DSLR at all.

The main advantages of a small format camera in this use: small sensor = large DoF = large aperture = fast shutter. Makes it good in windy conditions when it's hard to stand still. Short actual focal length = low minimum shutter speed handheld = low light & motion blur. Good for forests, overcast conditions and water.

The initial results look good. Nice for smaller prints, web and books. Not fine-art quality but that's not the aim of a travel camera. It saves several kilos of gear and I can carry a much smaller bag. For hiking in the mountains, that's a big plus. An important thing to watch for is smears on the lens - I have several shots ruined because I didn't check. That also means always having a small lens cloth to hand.

Processing the images: Lightroom default seems to yield more natural colours straight from camera than for other cameras. White balance is particularly good. I took a lot less shots mainly due to the live histogram which means less bracketing.

Overall verdict - the LX3 is likely to become my travel hiking camera, with DSLR and/or rangefinder in support when a vehicle is available. There will be times I carry something larger when a main aim of the trip is photographic or the walking is easier but for the long trekking holidays I like, the LX3 seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

The market speaks?

TOP has a poll running on video in stills cameras - what is being described around the web as an inevitable convergence of technology.

I'd imagine that the poll represents quite well the target market for DSLRs: photographers from the enthusiastic amateur up to pros all with an interest in kit & technology. I'd also imagine there are enough votes to make it representative. As of this writing the results are pretty stable.

So what do I take away from the numbers? First, more than twice as many people actively don't want video as do want it. That means there are potentially twice as mny people who would NOT buy a camera because it has video as would do so. Further, half those polled don't want video, although most of that group would just ignore it.

So while the camera companies and pundits reckon this is all inevitable, a large part of the market is saying it doesn't want it. Seems to me (as I commented over there) that there is call for 2 distinct products.

An ideal travel camera?

The new Panasonic announcements on micro four-thirds look pretty good. The new 14-140mm lens and those small bodies (G1 & GH1) add up to a pretty versatile package. The G1 got a good write-up at Luminous Landscape.

For me, this could be good. At present, my hiking, travel and cycling set-up is pretty heavy.

Currently I carry an EOS 20D, the 17-55IS and either a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 DO for cycling & travel. I could also use my 40D. Great pictures but a lot of camera. Weighs in at around 2250g.

The G1 & 14-140 weighs around 840g+battery. The equivalent Canon set-up (EOS 450D & 18-200) weighs 1075g+battery. That's a whole lens of difference.

If I could be getting comparable results from a G1 as I get from the 20D, this is an attractive option. If the 20mm f/1.7 materialises then there is a useful low-light, evening lens which might supplant the Zeiss Ikon on some of my travels, too.

I'll be watching this micro four-thirds closely over the coming months: I can see a potential trade-in of some of the Canon gear for something like a G1 outfit.

The fully programmable camera

After my latest ruminations on camera controls, I think the future will be in programmable cameras. First one to the line gets the sales (if not the girls).

What am I thinking of? Well - a camera with a bunch of buttons and a bunch of functions and the user gets to chose what button does what. And further, open firmware so the capabilities can be programmed. Like my card-mode adjustments. Maybe we'd just get access to the sequence and card write commands and get left to do our own thing. Firmware "hacks" would become the norm. A whole new industry. Great for nerdy tinkerers like me. Probably means set-up from a computer (or maybe a handheld device) but most of this stuff doesn't get changed very often, anyway.

Of course, there'd be the standard out of box set up like today, for those who don't want to get into all that.

I can see this helping camera companies, too. They'd get to see more of the ways people use their cameras, which would lead to more innovation. Development unfettered by common/current notions of the camera. Focus groups don't cut it - IME, ask people about what they'd like to see and the current product is always the reference. You only get incremental improvement ideas. Innovation comes from seeing what creative people do with what they've got, leading to more fresh ideas. Win-win.