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
silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
No Adaptall for digital cameras ?tsapiano - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
Well, most DSLRs use the same lens mount as their film-based predecessors so you can use things like Adaptall on the new cameras as well if you really want. The problem with that is that this technique was pretty much abandoned a while ago, so to do this you'd be stuck using old aftermarket lenses. While it was relatively easy to make a universally adaptable lens when everyone was using simple mechanical couplings - the electronic communication used in modern lenses has made that much more complicated. As such, most modern aftermarket lenses are now generally built and sold specifically for the mount you are using.With that said, there are simple adapters that you can buy to mount Nikon, Leica, Contax, Olympus OM and Pentax lenses on Canon EF bodies. As the Canon mount has a smaller register (ie the mount is closer to the film plane) and wider opening than all of those mounts, it makes it possible to fit an adapter in there. The catch-22, however, is that these are very simple adapters and don't do much other than mechanically attach the lens to the camera - you loose aides like autofocus, aperture must be set on the lens (ie A or M exposure modes only), you're forced to revert to stop down metering, etc. As such, while this may be useful to use a special purpose lens or two it's not really what you want to do for your everyday photography ;)
Resh - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Nope.Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
No, Canon lenses fit Canon only, and same with Nikon. Each brand will only fit their own lenses and independent lenses made for that clens mount. Samsung licensed their lenses from Pentax and they will fit Samsung and Pentax. Sony bought Minolta so Sony and Minolta lenses both fit.nigham - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I'm really happy that AT is getting to digital SLR camera reviews. This article was slightly disappointing. As has been pointed out, anyone who doesn't know his or her f-stops and shutter speeds should certainly not be spending money on a Digital SLR just yet. My experience with my prosumer Canon S2IS says that it takes a while to _really_ appreciate these settings and they're not simply learned theoretically. And I don't particularly care for history, but maybe thats just me.That said, it's OK since I've only seen one real good DSLR introduction for beginners (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumi...">here), and what matters most are the reviews, which I'm hoping will measure up to the usual AT standard. Here's what I'd like:
- Feature description and (in prose) comparisons to comparable and current cameras. What's really improved, and what's just marketing? etc.
- How good the documentation is. This is something woefully ignored by many camera review sites.
- Reference testing with a high-quality lens; since I would expect to be buying lenses eventually if I get a DSLR
- A section (maybe short) evaluating the quality of the in-kit lenses
- Battery tests (these are important! unlike that startup times in which case I totally agree with you). Also options for backup batteries (how expensive, availability)
- A (necessarily subjective) description of the "feel" of the camera output in various real-world scenarios like landscape, low-light, fast-motion etc.
- A human-readable description of how easy/difficult the UI is. I do not want a list of menu options five levels deep and 20 EVF screenshots, I need you to take a call and let me know what the bottom line is. How hard is it to change the basic stuff (F-stop, ISO, WB?); are there any customizations available; are there any quirks like controls that inadvertently get messed around with; does it have a on-screen histogram?
- How good the AUTO mode is, and when it fails. Personally, I believe that the primary job of a photographer is to see the photo and compose it. I'd like to know when I can afford to go auto and spend more time composing my shot, and when I can't do that.
- A set of sample photos in real-world situations
I think it would be nice to remember that even for hard-core computer enthusiasts, photography remains an art and is not easily described; and is nearly impossible to describe with numbers alone.
Lastly, I'd really appreciate an article on RAW workflow - if possible one that includes a discussion of the ways Linux handles DSLRs. That is something that changes quite a bit for users transitioning to DLSRs.
Resh - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Sorry, just can't agree with that. How can the inter-related tasks of exposure, choosing focus point, and depth of field be separated from composition?
mostlyprudent - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
One thing I forgot in my earlier post (and forgive me if it has already been mentioned), I would like to see more on lenses. I think AT should test both the Kit lense and a high quality reference lense. I wouldlike to know both how good the camera can be with a great lense and how good of a value the kit lense offers.Thanks.
Resh - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I thought it was a good primer for beginners and was full of useful history, but couldn't shake the feeling that AT was trying to crowd into an already crowded room.While I fully agree with those who have pointed-out that a diversity of reviews is a good thing, I think that diversity already exists with sites like Steve's Digicams, DPReview, etc. In addition to those we have more art, in-the-field sites like Luminous Landscape that focus on how a product performs in the field.
Some have argued that AT should do reviews to the level of detail/bench-marking that is employed for motherboard and video cards. Here, I have a harder time as I don't see an SLR body as being comparable to those components.
AT reviews those parts in the context of choosing one to fit into a larger computer system. Alternatively, an entire system (e.g., Alienware) is tested against a home-built system with similar specs or at similar cost. This model, however, doesn't appear relevant to the SLR market as one cannot individually buy the processor, sensor, body, etc. that is the best and construct their own camera. Rather, a first time buyer chooses an entry point into a given manufacturer's "system" based on the body's attributes; lens cost, availability, and quality; and available accessories. For someone upgrading their SLR, the choices are even less driven the details that AT would likely be assessing. Rather, they'd be considering the costs of switching systems (e.g., from Canon to Nikon), or simply considering the value of upgrading to the latest and greatest, a question that existing sites can answer just fine.
All that to say that there are areas where current sites fail and where AT's expertise might be better leveraged. The main example, for me, is in the area of displays and printers. With regard to the former, quality CRTs are gone and LCDs present a purchaser with huge variability in cost, performance, and quality. AT could look at the display market from the photographer's point of view (appropriate brightness coupled with stable contrast, wide-colour gamut, ease of calibration, wide viewing angles, etc). This could be supplemented with discussion of colour calibration products. Similarly for printers, there is little to be found on-line that offers critical comparison of competing printers on different papers. Both of these areas would fit well within AT's current review framework.
Lastly, AT, while not a software site, could elevate the standards of software reviews by taking a hard look at the effects of different RAW converters, enlargement software, sharpening tools, and noise reduction software. I have not seen anyone do this in an objective, scientific manner.
AT is a fantastic site and while I applaud your willingness to branch-out, I am cautious about your getting too far from your core audience and your core strengths.
N
s12033722 - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
It would be good to delve into the nature of how image sensors work and the differences between types of sensors. I think Anandtech would be an excellent place to discuss these aspects of the cameras.Image sensors basically work by photons interacting with light-sensitive portions of the sensor to create electrical charge. The efficiency of the sensor at converting photons into electrons is reffered to as quantum efficiency, and has a serious impact on how well a camera will perform under different imaging conditions. After the charge is collected, in the case of a CCD sensor, the charge is read out of the sensor, passed through a processing chain, and then digitized. It is important to note that this is an ANALOG process until the point of digitization. In the case of a CMOS sensor, the digitization may occur at each pixel on the sensor, at the end of each row or column of pixels on the sensor, or off sensor like the CCD. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, generally trading off noise performance for pixel size.
Image sensors are characterized by a number of factors. Noise, dynamic range, pixel size, and so forth tend to be interrelated. The comment in the article about dynamic range was somewhat simplistic. Dynamic range is primarily governed by the charge capacity of the pixel. A sensor will be characterized by a quantum efficiency as noted above, which means that as more photons strike the sensor, a greater charge will be built up. If a very bright spot exists on the image, that spot will usually fully charge the pixels under that spot, limiting the output at that level. For instance, let's say a pixel has a full-well charge capacity of 30,000 electrons, and that there is no noise. The dimmest pixel possible on the image would be 1 electron (well, 0, but let's say 1) and the brightest would be 30,000, for a dynamic range of 30,000 to 1. Now, in reality there are noise sources in a sensor. Many of them. That will typically mean that the dimmest pixel will have a charge on it, which reduces the dynamic range. Perhaps there are 500 electrons of noise. Now the sensor has a dynamic range of 30,000 to 500 or 60 to 1. Far less. The ways to increase dynamic range are to decrease noise or to increase charge capacity. Unfortunately, charge capacity is directly tied to the physical size of the pixel, so as resolutions get higher, pixel size gets smaller, and dynamic range suffers. It is entirely possible to build sensors with dynamic ranges that meet or exceed those of film, but generally not within the size constraints imposed by sensor size and the perception of resolution as king by most consumers. When was the last time you saw the dynamic range or noise performance advertised on a camera? Even though these are arguably far more important than resolution to most SLR purchasers, these details are glossed over.
I would like to see a basic overview of the guts of a digital camera given. Sensors, data conversion, data processing, autofocus mechanisms, etc. Anandtech seems like a good site to do it. Contact me if you need help or technical details.
Curt - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Could you include in your reviews astronomy photos? As an amateur astronomer, I'd be interested in comparing the very low light sensitivy and contrast ratios of the CCD's.Thanks in advance