Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet
by Wesley Fink on September 25, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Digital Directions
When consumer Digital Photography first launched over a decade ago, the only real choice for the average consumer was a point-and-shoot camera, which was completely unlike the SLR cameras that ruled the Amateur and Hobbyist film market. The image quality of the initial offerings was also poor at best, with the first models offering 0.3 megapixel sensors (640x480 images). However, the market was developing fast and megapixel ratings - the number of dots that were used to create an image - were moving higher by leaps and bounds. All of the cameras from that era seemed to have way too many compromises - slow start-up, long times to process and save an image, mediocre optics, extremely limited dynamic range, and color flaws. There were a few great ones along the way, but the market had to develop for a while before Digital cameras for photo hobbyists could even approach being as good as film-based cameras.
That goal was still a ways off, as the digital SLR cameras the Pros used had massive power requirements, battery packs that looked like they belonged in hybrid cars, and price tags of $20,000 or more. Most agreed the goal was the familiar and flexible SLR (Single Lens Reflex) format that could take advantage of the huge inventory of lenses that had developed over 40 years. It seemed every Pro and most 35mm hobbyists had a large number of lenses they would love to use on digital camera bodies.
Progress in technology development was rapid, prices dropped quickly, and most agree the photography enthusiast finally got a real camera option at a doable price with the introduction of the Canon Digital Rebel in October 2003 - just 3 short years ago. The Digital Rebel finally broke the magic $1000 price barrier for a 6 megapixel SLR and an 18-55mm lens. That kind of pricing was unheard of just 3 years ago and the Digital Rebel sold in huge volume.
The Press was astounded by the value of the Rebel, as shown in this quote in October 2003 from Steve's Digicams:
"The 'magic' $1000 price mark for digital SLRs has been broken like the sound barrier and Canon is positioning the EOS Digital Rebel as 'the digital SLR for everyone.' These cameras will be an instant hit with those wanting a digital camera that works the same as their 35mm SLR, and dealers will no doubt sell them as fast as Canon can make them. And Canon is planning on making a lot of them. They announced at the London press event that production was set at an amazing 70,000 units a month. The Digital Rebel may not be black, but don't let the silver-colored body fool you, this isn't some cheap knock-off. It's loaded with state of the art imaging technology and is sure to please both novice and seasoned photographers alike."
The 6 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel can still be bought today, although the bigger seller is the updated 8 megapixel Rebel XT. The important thing from a photography enthusiast point-of-view is that the Rebel was an inexpensively built camera with digital features previously unheard of at the selling price. Canon designed the Digital Rebel for mass sales. It was a bit of an upscale move from the 35mm Rebel series that had been advertised on TV by John McEnroe, but they were designed to be mass market. The Digital SLR had finally arrived, and would quickly grow to dominate the digital photography market.
Many readers do not realize how very much the Digital Photography market has changed since the introduction of the Digital Rebel. The $1000 price now seems high since today you can buy a Pentax Digital SLR, the *ist DL, with an 18-55mm lens for less than $500 (the body alone is $379). The price of entry for the 6 megapixel DSLR has dropped by almost 50%. This has led to Digital SLRs becoming the fastest growing segment of the Digital Camera market. Camera makers are still making point-and-shoots, and the market leader in Digital point-and-shoot cameras is now Kodak (does this sound familiar?). Big and serious players in the market have quickly moved to introduce cheaper and cheaper DSLR cameras at the bottom, and more and more resolution and features in the now "middle" $1000 price range.
This does not mean that digital point-and-shoot cameras are now useless. There will always be a market for very small, pocketable point-and-shoot cameras. That was also true in the 35mm film market. It does mean, however, that the SLR-like high-speed fixed-lens digitals in the $400 to $800 price range are having a tough time these days. The point-and-shoot offerings of tiny "stealth" cameras and mainstream point-and-shoot will continue to be targeted at families to shoot vacation pictures of their kids - the typical Kodak market. Sooner than later you will likely even see reusable digital point-and-shoots similar to today's disposable film cameras. The companies make money on paper and ink, so this market segment is a natural for Kodak and HP as technology costs continue to decline.
When consumer Digital Photography first launched over a decade ago, the only real choice for the average consumer was a point-and-shoot camera, which was completely unlike the SLR cameras that ruled the Amateur and Hobbyist film market. The image quality of the initial offerings was also poor at best, with the first models offering 0.3 megapixel sensors (640x480 images). However, the market was developing fast and megapixel ratings - the number of dots that were used to create an image - were moving higher by leaps and bounds. All of the cameras from that era seemed to have way too many compromises - slow start-up, long times to process and save an image, mediocre optics, extremely limited dynamic range, and color flaws. There were a few great ones along the way, but the market had to develop for a while before Digital cameras for photo hobbyists could even approach being as good as film-based cameras.
That goal was still a ways off, as the digital SLR cameras the Pros used had massive power requirements, battery packs that looked like they belonged in hybrid cars, and price tags of $20,000 or more. Most agreed the goal was the familiar and flexible SLR (Single Lens Reflex) format that could take advantage of the huge inventory of lenses that had developed over 40 years. It seemed every Pro and most 35mm hobbyists had a large number of lenses they would love to use on digital camera bodies.
Progress in technology development was rapid, prices dropped quickly, and most agree the photography enthusiast finally got a real camera option at a doable price with the introduction of the Canon Digital Rebel in October 2003 - just 3 short years ago. The Digital Rebel finally broke the magic $1000 price barrier for a 6 megapixel SLR and an 18-55mm lens. That kind of pricing was unheard of just 3 years ago and the Digital Rebel sold in huge volume.
The Press was astounded by the value of the Rebel, as shown in this quote in October 2003 from Steve's Digicams:
"The 'magic' $1000 price mark for digital SLRs has been broken like the sound barrier and Canon is positioning the EOS Digital Rebel as 'the digital SLR for everyone.' These cameras will be an instant hit with those wanting a digital camera that works the same as their 35mm SLR, and dealers will no doubt sell them as fast as Canon can make them. And Canon is planning on making a lot of them. They announced at the London press event that production was set at an amazing 70,000 units a month. The Digital Rebel may not be black, but don't let the silver-colored body fool you, this isn't some cheap knock-off. It's loaded with state of the art imaging technology and is sure to please both novice and seasoned photographers alike."
The 6 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel can still be bought today, although the bigger seller is the updated 8 megapixel Rebel XT. The important thing from a photography enthusiast point-of-view is that the Rebel was an inexpensively built camera with digital features previously unheard of at the selling price. Canon designed the Digital Rebel for mass sales. It was a bit of an upscale move from the 35mm Rebel series that had been advertised on TV by John McEnroe, but they were designed to be mass market. The Digital SLR had finally arrived, and would quickly grow to dominate the digital photography market.
Many readers do not realize how very much the Digital Photography market has changed since the introduction of the Digital Rebel. The $1000 price now seems high since today you can buy a Pentax Digital SLR, the *ist DL, with an 18-55mm lens for less than $500 (the body alone is $379). The price of entry for the 6 megapixel DSLR has dropped by almost 50%. This has led to Digital SLRs becoming the fastest growing segment of the Digital Camera market. Camera makers are still making point-and-shoots, and the market leader in Digital point-and-shoot cameras is now Kodak (does this sound familiar?). Big and serious players in the market have quickly moved to introduce cheaper and cheaper DSLR cameras at the bottom, and more and more resolution and features in the now "middle" $1000 price range.
This does not mean that digital point-and-shoot cameras are now useless. There will always be a market for very small, pocketable point-and-shoot cameras. That was also true in the 35mm film market. It does mean, however, that the SLR-like high-speed fixed-lens digitals in the $400 to $800 price range are having a tough time these days. The point-and-shoot offerings of tiny "stealth" cameras and mainstream point-and-shoot will continue to be targeted at families to shoot vacation pictures of their kids - the typical Kodak market. Sooner than later you will likely even see reusable digital point-and-shoots similar to today's disposable film cameras. The companies make money on paper and ink, so this market segment is a natural for Kodak and HP as technology costs continue to decline.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
wheel - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Thanks for your reply.Regarding the Canon 50mm 1.8, I think most people would agree that the 1.4 is better since it has full time manual focus and also a silent USM motor, plus 8 aperture blades instead of 5 for nicer, smoother looking bokeh (out of focus areas in an image). Of course when you consider the cost differential most people choose the f1.8 and for many it is the smarter choice! However I still believe your sentence in the article suggesting that it happens to be the sharpest lens in the lineup a little misleading. Not a big deal I guess.
If I can make some comments on the following paragraph:
There are plenty of Digital Camera Review sites out on the web, so you may ask why AnandTech is re-launching a Digital Photography section. It appears that current sites are rarely on target with what computer enthusiasts want to know about digital cameras. Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer. Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market. Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today. It is our sincere belief that we can do it in a better way for our readers and computer enthusiasts everywhere, but please help us as we try to reinvent this wheel. Some of our readers may not like AT delving into Digital Camera Reviews, and to them we say you just can't ignore digital photography any more. Today's digital imaging is nothing more than an optic stuck on a computer, and there is very little left of the mechanical gems that once ruled the world of photography.
A few points:
"Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer."
So a 'non-photographer' will find a technical review on the big digital camera sites gibberish? I don't think that is a problem, because such reviews aren't really aimed at non-photographers. I would guess that non-computer users are going to find articles on Anandtech about ram timings difficult to understand too!
Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market.
See my comments re: sports / action photography in my previous post. Start up times, shot to shot times and file flush times are quite important to me! Other sites have (very comprehensive) standardised tests that include these timings. I wouldn't say they dwell on the subject though, unless a particular camera is unusually bad at it. If it is not something that is relevant then a reader can easily skip it.
Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today.
In my years of reading the major photo review websites, I haven't encountered this. Without asking you to be specific, can you mention general examples of what you mean?
Cheers,
Ian
tagej - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
The reality is that most computer geeks (myself included) are not photography experts, but are overall tech-savy and interested in things like digital SLR cameras.Sure, I can go to sites like dpreview and the like, and they do an excellent job of reviewing cameras from a pro or prosumer perspective. I could sit and read a bunch of stuff on those sites and educate myself to the point of becoming very knowledgable about cameras... Most of us don't want to do that, or we would have already done so. Instead, AT hit it right on the head with this article, it's a look at digital photograhpy for the tech savy who are not photography experts.
arswihart - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
I totally agree with "wheel." If you feel the need to review cameras, go ahead, but thats not what I come to Anandtech for.aeternitas - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
" The artistic types distrust turning their vision into cheap Adobe Photoshop tricks, and the tech-savvy are so enamored of technology and editing that they often don't have a clue about what makes a good photograph and what lens to use in a given situation. "I stopped reading there. If you want respectable people to respect you, its a good idea not to be a fucking jackass and insult the readers in the second paragraph. Get some common sence.
Resh - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Have to side with Wes on this one. Nothing in his words are offensive. He is simply stating the view point of two extremes of the population who both hold very valid positions.Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
These are comments from discussions I have had on Forums and in emails with readers. They were not meant to offend, but to point out the fact that the art and technical don't always mix well. This is particularly true when the market, and not the people affected, is forcing changes in the way people work.ksherman - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
since we have had a camera review on AT! Kudos!To those that say no, I also like to read reviews from multiple sources. AT- dont try to be dpreview, make your reviews a little less technical, easier to understand. Not to fault them, but you need to have some pretty serious photography knolwedge to get their reviews. I would welcome an easier to understand set of reviews. (I do still enjoy reading about my level :-))
On another note, on the last page, you called canons new camera the Rebel XT1, its actually the XTi.
Also, take a gander at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, its a sort of pre-digital SLR camera. It basically is a digital SLR, but with an attached lense. Its looking to be my next camera purchase since I am too poor to afford the "real" DSLRs.
saiku - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I am a hobbyist photographer (Canon 350D) who likes to do macros/scenery when I can. What I'd love to see are guides for people who want to get into DSLRs and don't know which camera system to buy into. For example, if a person is interested in macros, should he buy into a Nikon system? What about the guy who wants to shoot lots of indoor shots of his baby? Lens choices are very tough for newbies to make and a hefty dose of attention to what lens to pick would be great.PokerGuy - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Wes, thanks for the great article. I'm a grizzled vet when it comes to PC tech, but when it comes to photography I'm pretty much a noob. I appreciate the article and look forward to reviews, especially since I'm about to purchase my first digital SLR camera.One dumb question: are lenses for SLR cameras "standard" in terms of connecting to the camera body? ie, can I take a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 SLR lens and hook it up to some other digital SLR camera?
Resh - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Also, Canon EF-S lenses only fit certain cameras (Digital Rebels, 20D, 30D), but EF lenses work on all current Canon bodies, digital or film.Third party manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma will make lenses for both Canon and Nikon.