Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet
by Wesley Fink on September 25, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Taking a Picture: Putting it All Together
Now that the basics of how a digital SLR works have been covered, we are ready to put it all together. For those who have had enough of new ideas to remember and balance it should be pointed out that you don't really have to understand or adjust any of this to take images with a digital point-and-shoot or a digital SLR. All the digital SLR cameras on the market are autofocus and auto-exposure, and some even have the very consumer-oriented programs that make decisions for you in tough situations like backlight or sports. However, without understanding a bit about what your automatic camera is doing you will never figure out why that kit zoom takes blurry shots of your family on Christmas morning or your son's birthday party or your daughter's dance recital. With understanding you can make choices to fix these problems.
Why the Kit Lens is a Dog
For some reason, the world has moved to zoom lenses. There is no doubt they are definitely convenient for cropping in the camera, but most people would rather have a sharp picture they can cut in Photoshop instead of a blurred one that is already cropped. You see, people seem to have forgotten the compromises of most zoom lenses. To better understand this let's look at equivalent exposures.
If you followed our discussion of the basics, all of the exposures above represent the same amount of total light. As shutter speed increases (less light) then aperture decreases (more light). The chart below also shows equivalent exposures - we have just shifted the values to a common indoor scene at a moderately "fast" ISO of 400.
As you can clearly see our old normal f1.7 can shoot this between 1/125 and 1/250 - which is plenty fast enough to get a sharp picture with equivalent 75mm f1.7 normal on a digital SLR. A 28mm f2.8 would behave like a 42mm f2.8 normal lens and also be fast enough to shoot at 1/60s. Our kit 18-55mm is equivalent to a 28 to85mm,. At the short end at 1/45 s it is probably fast enough to capture a sharp image, but it gives out quickly and will definitely yield blurred images at anything above about 45mm. At the telephoto end of 85mm (55mm) the shutter speed for the fastest f5.6 is 1/15s - which will definitely be a blurry picture. If you were shooting at ISO200 nothing would be sharp with your kit zoom under these conditions, as everything would shift a notch to the left. At the default ISO 100 the best you could do would be between 1/8 and 1/15s and blurry.
The point is, your kit zoom is for shooting outside and indoors with flash at limited range. It is the wrong tool for available light photography. If you have followed this it is our advise that you buy a normal lens as your first interchangeable lens for your digital SLR. Canon and Nikon still make reasonable 50mm f/1.8 lenses, which also happen to be the sharpest lens in either lens lineup. The bonus on a digital is it becomes a 75mm f1.8 fast short telephoto, which is great for portraits and available light photography. Bonus two is that the close focus is the same but the image is magnified by a 1.5 to 1.6x factor, making the lens a terrific macro lens. Minolta has a great 50mm f1.7, as does Pentax, but used prices have been rising recently. The other option is a 28mm or 35mm lens. There are plenty available at f1.8 to f2.8 on the used market and you get a fast true normal lens of 42mm to 53mm focal length. Since the APS C or DX format only uses the center of the image, the third bonus is that even mediocre lenses with edge falloff in the corners on 35mm are normally very sharp in the area used in digital SLR photography.
There is also a new market developing for fast fixed focal length lenses for the APS C/DX. Several companies have announced new 30mm to 50mm f1.4 to f2.0 lenses for the smaller APS C/DX format. Sony picked up the Minolta 50mm f1.4 for their new lens line, though we wish they had also picked up the excellent and reasonable 50mm f1.7 instead of just the $350 f1.4.
There is also the option of fast zoom lenses, but zoom lenses are rarely if ever as sharp as fixed focus and the prices for fast zooms are high. There are several independent and brand name zooms in the 28-75mm f2.8 format. They range in price from $450 to $5000 or so. Fast, quality zoom lenses cost big money, because they are hard to design and expensive to make. A fixed focus lens gives you that pro quality at a much lower price - particularly if that fast fixed lens is a normal 35mm lens.
Image Stabilization
Image stabilization was first introduced by Nikon and Canon in specialized lenses designed for action photography. These lenses were first designed for pros at pro prices, but they quickly found their way to consumer zoom lenses with wider zoom ranges than kit zooms. The advantage of the image stabilization is that the stabilized zoom lens can produce sharp images at a couple of f-stops slower than the normal rule. That means a 125mm focal length can be handheld with sharp results down to about 1/30s, while a 28mm wide angle can go down to 1/8s or less. The problem with these "image-stabilized" lenses is that they are relatively expensive, starting at $300 or so and going up to thousands of dollars.
More recently, Minolta introduced image stabilization into the SLR camera body. That means any lens mounted on the camera can have the advantage of image stabilization. The Minolta Maxxum 7D was the first interchangeable lens SLR to offer this feature, which was also continued on the mainstream-priced 5D. Sony has continued this feature in their new 10.2 megapixel $899 A100 and improved the effectiveness, they say, to 3 to 3.5 stops. Sony has also licensed the steady shot technology to Pentax, which uses it in their K100D and the announced K10D. It will also appear in future Samsung SLR cameras, since they use the Pentax mount and are basically relabeled Pentax cameras.
Image stabilization, with custom lenses or built into the camera body, allows normal zoom lenses to act like they are faster - some 2 to 3.5 stops faster - and this makes them usable in the difficult situations we described above for zoom lenses. It is a good feature, but keep in mind that the body-integral steady shot also works with any lens, including the fast normal lens. This extends the useful speed of the normal lens even further, just as it does the zoom lens.
One significant advantage of image stabilization with a normal lens is the ability to shoot greater depth of field in available light. Shots that were doable before with shallow depth-of-field, can now be shot with a greater range or depth of sharpness. This is particularly useful for things like we do at AnandTech - shooting motherboards in available light to avoid hot spots, while still keeping the entire board in sharp focus.
Now that the basics of how a digital SLR works have been covered, we are ready to put it all together. For those who have had enough of new ideas to remember and balance it should be pointed out that you don't really have to understand or adjust any of this to take images with a digital point-and-shoot or a digital SLR. All the digital SLR cameras on the market are autofocus and auto-exposure, and some even have the very consumer-oriented programs that make decisions for you in tough situations like backlight or sports. However, without understanding a bit about what your automatic camera is doing you will never figure out why that kit zoom takes blurry shots of your family on Christmas morning or your son's birthday party or your daughter's dance recital. With understanding you can make choices to fix these problems.
Why the Kit Lens is a Dog
For some reason, the world has moved to zoom lenses. There is no doubt they are definitely convenient for cropping in the camera, but most people would rather have a sharp picture they can cut in Photoshop instead of a blurred one that is already cropped. You see, people seem to have forgotten the compromises of most zoom lenses. To better understand this let's look at equivalent exposures.
| Shutter Speed to f/stop Comparison | |||||||||||
| Shutter Speed | 1/4 second | 1/8 | 1/15 | 1/30 | 1/60 | 1/125 | 1/250 | 1/500 | 1/1000 | 1/2000 | 1/4000 |
| f/stop | f/45 | f/32 | f/22 | f/16 | f/11 | f/8 | f/5.6 | f/4 | f/2.8 | f/2 | f/1.4 |
If you followed our discussion of the basics, all of the exposures above represent the same amount of total light. As shutter speed increases (less light) then aperture decreases (more light). The chart below also shows equivalent exposures - we have just shifted the values to a common indoor scene at a moderately "fast" ISO of 400.
| Shutter Speed to f/stop Comparison | ||||||||||||
| Shutter Speed | 1/2 second | 1/4 | 1/8 | 1/15 | 1/30 | 1/60 | 1/125 | 1/250 | 1/500 | 1/1000 | 1/2000 | 1/4000 |
| f/stop | f/16 | f/11 | f/8 | f/5.6 | f/4 | f/2.8 | f/2 | f/1.4 | - | - | - | - |
As you can clearly see our old normal f1.7 can shoot this between 1/125 and 1/250 - which is plenty fast enough to get a sharp picture with equivalent 75mm f1.7 normal on a digital SLR. A 28mm f2.8 would behave like a 42mm f2.8 normal lens and also be fast enough to shoot at 1/60s. Our kit 18-55mm is equivalent to a 28 to85mm,. At the short end at 1/45 s it is probably fast enough to capture a sharp image, but it gives out quickly and will definitely yield blurred images at anything above about 45mm. At the telephoto end of 85mm (55mm) the shutter speed for the fastest f5.6 is 1/15s - which will definitely be a blurry picture. If you were shooting at ISO200 nothing would be sharp with your kit zoom under these conditions, as everything would shift a notch to the left. At the default ISO 100 the best you could do would be between 1/8 and 1/15s and blurry.
The point is, your kit zoom is for shooting outside and indoors with flash at limited range. It is the wrong tool for available light photography. If you have followed this it is our advise that you buy a normal lens as your first interchangeable lens for your digital SLR. Canon and Nikon still make reasonable 50mm f/1.8 lenses, which also happen to be the sharpest lens in either lens lineup. The bonus on a digital is it becomes a 75mm f1.8 fast short telephoto, which is great for portraits and available light photography. Bonus two is that the close focus is the same but the image is magnified by a 1.5 to 1.6x factor, making the lens a terrific macro lens. Minolta has a great 50mm f1.7, as does Pentax, but used prices have been rising recently. The other option is a 28mm or 35mm lens. There are plenty available at f1.8 to f2.8 on the used market and you get a fast true normal lens of 42mm to 53mm focal length. Since the APS C or DX format only uses the center of the image, the third bonus is that even mediocre lenses with edge falloff in the corners on 35mm are normally very sharp in the area used in digital SLR photography.
There is also a new market developing for fast fixed focal length lenses for the APS C/DX. Several companies have announced new 30mm to 50mm f1.4 to f2.0 lenses for the smaller APS C/DX format. Sony picked up the Minolta 50mm f1.4 for their new lens line, though we wish they had also picked up the excellent and reasonable 50mm f1.7 instead of just the $350 f1.4.
There is also the option of fast zoom lenses, but zoom lenses are rarely if ever as sharp as fixed focus and the prices for fast zooms are high. There are several independent and brand name zooms in the 28-75mm f2.8 format. They range in price from $450 to $5000 or so. Fast, quality zoom lenses cost big money, because they are hard to design and expensive to make. A fixed focus lens gives you that pro quality at a much lower price - particularly if that fast fixed lens is a normal 35mm lens.
Image Stabilization
Image stabilization was first introduced by Nikon and Canon in specialized lenses designed for action photography. These lenses were first designed for pros at pro prices, but they quickly found their way to consumer zoom lenses with wider zoom ranges than kit zooms. The advantage of the image stabilization is that the stabilized zoom lens can produce sharp images at a couple of f-stops slower than the normal rule. That means a 125mm focal length can be handheld with sharp results down to about 1/30s, while a 28mm wide angle can go down to 1/8s or less. The problem with these "image-stabilized" lenses is that they are relatively expensive, starting at $300 or so and going up to thousands of dollars.
More recently, Minolta introduced image stabilization into the SLR camera body. That means any lens mounted on the camera can have the advantage of image stabilization. The Minolta Maxxum 7D was the first interchangeable lens SLR to offer this feature, which was also continued on the mainstream-priced 5D. Sony has continued this feature in their new 10.2 megapixel $899 A100 and improved the effectiveness, they say, to 3 to 3.5 stops. Sony has also licensed the steady shot technology to Pentax, which uses it in their K100D and the announced K10D. It will also appear in future Samsung SLR cameras, since they use the Pentax mount and are basically relabeled Pentax cameras.
Image stabilization, with custom lenses or built into the camera body, allows normal zoom lenses to act like they are faster - some 2 to 3.5 stops faster - and this makes them usable in the difficult situations we described above for zoom lenses. It is a good feature, but keep in mind that the body-integral steady shot also works with any lens, including the fast normal lens. This extends the useful speed of the normal lens even further, just as it does the zoom lens.
One significant advantage of image stabilization with a normal lens is the ability to shoot greater depth of field in available light. Shots that were doable before with shallow depth-of-field, can now be shot with a greater range or depth of sharpness. This is particularly useful for things like we do at AnandTech - shooting motherboards in available light to avoid hot spots, while still keeping the entire board in sharp focus.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
sliver1 - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Nice wrapping article! There is one thing that doesn't fit though...If you're a pro photographer, then you don't need such a website to learn about photography or entry-level consumer DSLR cameras. A thing like "a good auto white balance" doesn't mean anything since pros are shooting RAW anyway. Also, you don't embrace a "camera system" solely for the body and the lenses -- there are lots of other accessories required that may not be available or as good as those of the two major players with offerings from other companies. (Have you heard of pro photographers working with anything but Canon or Nikon?)
On the other hand, yes, other websites prepare extensive reviews that cover, among other things, startup times, location of mirror lockup or second curtain sync features, discuss MTF charts and review lens by talking about chromatic aberrations/distortion/corner softness, etc. -- all sort of things that that matter to pros, even if it won't be covered on this site.
Where does that leave this new Anandtech section? Inevitably to consumer or photo hobbyists/enthusiasts. This is for people who expect better image quality and more freedom in picture taking than what a point-and-shoot can offer -- yet not being anywhere near pro.
So as long as you stick with this segment, spend paragraphs talking about the "direct print" features, discuss "picture styles", explain the effective range of the built-in snap-up flash, then okay. But it would be ridiculous to write articles about top of the line cameras like the Canon 5D, Canon 1DsMkII, Nikon D2xs, etc., as much as it would be ridiculous to talk about thousand dollar pro lenses, etc.
While I'm at it...
1) You seem to believe that the crop factor has an influence on the "rule of thumb" for handheld shots. A 50mm lens, equivalent to a 80mm on a 1.6x crop, still has a "rule of thumb" of 1/50s. Keeping only a smaller part of the image circle does not lengthens a lens, does not add vibration...
2) Image Stabilisation (IS) is very handy (no pun intended), but cannot replace a faster lens. Even if you can shoot handheld 3 stops slower (or even 4 stops, as in the new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM), this won't help for a moving subject, and you may well end up with blurry pictures after all -- especially if you're shooting people/animals...
3) You seem to diminish/discard the importance of a full-frame sensor. A full frame sensor has a dramatic impact on the quality of the images, especially because of lower pixel density. Also, the only comparison you've mentionned for film vs digital left readers to think that digital still had something to envy film -- which is really not seeing the whole picture. Digital reduced noise (grain) dramatically. It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. The only drawback is the higher initial cost.
And finally...
4) No pro relies on full-auto settings in a camera, no matter how sophisticated it is (or will become). Even if technology (what this website is about) keeps bringing tools to facilitate the photographer's job and render sharper, cleaner images, etc., that's not what makes a picture compelling. A 39MP PhaseOne digital back won't do any good in the hands of a beginner, as much as a pro could make astounding pictures with a very modest camera... So, please make sure you don't play the marketing game companies are using to have consumer believe they can make wonderful pictures with the touch of a single button ;)
silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
" It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. "Not at all ! Pro's jumped on digital as it speeds up their entire workflow and is more effecient than film. It reduces costs significantly as most studios have film processing and proofing costs around $4,k~$5,k per month. Also having the image immediately available to the client has huge returns in sales points. These are trully the only reasons. Film is still far and away better when comparing apples-to-apples.
sliver1 - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
As others have said it, at this point, there would be endless arguing about digital vs film, and I understand that some could still want to use film for obscure/critical reasons, such as shooting in harsh -60 celcius north pole conditions. ...But seriously, what I was simply trying to point out, though, is that the only mention of "film" in the article was an argument in favor of film, which doesn't allow to see the whole picture.As for why pros are switching to digital... If it was only a matter of saving on the studios' workflow, or speeding things up for photojournalists, then only some fields of photography would have made the switch. Many other pros -- in landscape photography, for example, where you can get very complex histograms pushing the range to its limits -- would have stuck to film. The fact is that they are all switching.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout...
silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
I can honestly say I don't know a single photographer shooting quality landscapes on digital. I certainly don't know any that would bother with purchasing a a $33,000 Phase One digital back for a medium format camera when a $1.00 sheet of film in a 4x5 will best it in color and tonal scale.http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/PE71278.html">http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/PE71278.html
Visual - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
this is a topic with no definite outcome yet. you two can argue all you want, but especially with the nicknames you've got here it'll just look stupid ;)silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Who's arguing ? Digital has progressed to being nearly as good as 35mm but there is no solid documetation that I've read stating that its level of quality up to 6x4.5cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm format film cameras.As to why pro's switched to digital, it's beyond dispute. Dollars make sense. Money talks and film took a walk. It's really that simple. Pro's have one and only one job : making money. If the quality of 8MP digital is adequate to the masses then that is what they will shoot. It doesn't matter if Mamiya has a 22MP or that you can get a $30,000 Phase One digital back for your Hasselblad. Pro's will use what is deemed acceptable or necessary by the client and that's all there is too it.
Resh - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Hate to fan these flames as this is ultimately a useless discussion, but here are some resources:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-test...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-test...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.sh...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.sh...
N
silver - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
LOL ! Hopefully you don't consider Michael Reichmann and Co. to be professionals !!!!Please, take a look at the following :
http://www.montezucker.com/">http://www.montezucker.com/
http://mattkim.com/">http://mattkim.com/
http://www.clayblackmore.com/">http://www.clayblackmore.com/
http://www.cantrellportrait.com/">http://www.cantrellportrait.com/
http://www.silvermanstudio.com/">http://www.silvermanstudio.com/
http://www.lionphotography.com/">http://www.lionphotography.com/
http://www.orangeexposure.com/">http://www.orangeexposure.com/
http://www.mattramosphotography.com/">http://www.mattramosphotography.com/
http://www.ftapia.com/">http://www.ftapia.com/
http://www.gordonmgrant.com/">http://www.gordonmgrant.com/
Yeah, these are PRO's who WORK in the field of photography ! And note that most of them don't even use the words "film" or "digital". They simply don't care what the tool is. They have a job to do and that job is to use their talents to make money. Short and simple. Digital is to the working pro as tires are to the rims on your car : a perfect fitting necessity.
wheel - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Hi,I am a big computer enthusiast, overclocker, IT professional and long time Anand Tech reader (since inception?) I also have been into amateur photography for about 7 years, recently switching to digi SLR about 14 months ago. All my knowledge is self taught from reading stuff on the web and my own experimentation. I use 6 lenses and have taken around 12,600 photos with my SLR camera in the time that I have owned it! (just providing a gauge of my photographic experience and enthusiasm)
I was very disappointed with this article! Firstly because it degraded other excellent websites while simultaneously borrowing content and images from them! And secondly from a technical point of view I disagreed with some of the assertions made.
What you correctly identified in your article was the flexibility of an SLR camera. However you also said a few separate times that comparing times including power-on time had now become irrelevant because they were all pretty fast? I disagree!
One use of an SLR camera is sports or action photography where start up times can be very important. Just this weekend I took pictures at a car rally, where on one day it rained heavily and on another it was very dusty. I held my camera under my jacket and only pulled it out and turned it on at the last minute so to keep it from getting too wet. I think the 350D is 0.2 seconds start up time which is fine for this use, but I would not consider a camera that forced the user to wait for much longer (for example if it needed to clean the sensor). The nature of sports photography demands more of the performance of the camera as interesting things may suddenly unfold so the performance of the camera and the ability to change settings quickly rather than navigate menus gains importance...
I think DPReview and Steves Digicams both understand that their readers may vary significantly in what they want from a camera - that is in part why they may be seen as ambiguous in their conclusions as they avoid giving cameras an overall score like 88% etc. That they cover a many technical details in the article allows the readers to decide what features are important and reach their own conclusions.
Another thing you wrote was that there weren't many positive things about zoom lenses. I have both zooms and prime lenses and appreciate that they both have strengths and weaknesses.
You also said "Canon and Nikon still make reasonable 50mm f/1.8 lenses, which also happen to be the sharpest lens in either lens lineup." Can you qualify this statement re: sharpness? The Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is cheap and pretty good but not a silver bullet. The 50mm f/1.4 beats it in all areas and is still quite reasonably priced. And of course I am sure the 50mm f/1.2 is excellent, although very expensive.
So I am sorry but I think you should have a little more respect for the established sites who have done a fantastic job over the years in the field that they specialise in. I shall read your reviews in parallel with the established camera sites but will take your opinions with a grain of salt!
For others interested in digital SLR photography I recommend the following websites:
Body reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/">http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ (also general info and lens reviews too)
Lens reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/
http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/">http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/
Cheers,
Ian
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
It was not my intent to degrade other excellent photo websites, in fact I mentioned no site specifically in my introductory guide. You obviously appreciate the level of some the more technical digital review sites and I certainly can appreciate where you come from. As I have stated several times, we do not want to try to emulate those sites, but to try to chart our own style. We also will not please everyone with our approach.Where we have used images that are not public domain we have attributed those images to their sources in the guide. This is an introductory guide, and not a review.
Photodo is the well-respected Swedish lens data/review site that was extablished by Lars Kjellberg and is now owned by ePHOTOzine. The Nikon AF 50mm f1.8D is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.4, while the more expensive f1.4 is rated a 4.2. The Canon 50 EF 50mm f1.8 II costs $70 and is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.2, while the earlier 50 F1.8 is rated 4.4. The $350 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 is also rated at 4.4. All 5 of these lenses are among the highest MTF rated Canon and Nikon lenses you can buy, and all significantly outperform most zoom lenses in either line. The Canon 50f1.8 at $70 is a stellar value, at half a stop slower than the 1.4 and 1/5 the price. The plastic lens mount on the II version is cheesey, but owners have not complained about durability issues.