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
Sunrise089 - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Wesley - I feel that wgoldfarb makes one very good comment which I may have missed your answer to. He states that if you have decided to take a less technial approach to digital camera reviews compared to your other hardware reviews, and the other editors are suggesting even less technical detail than this article had (shame on you Anand, Derrick, etc, I read many articles by you guys that forced me to do outside research, and it made me a more informed user because of it) then why are you focusing on the higher-end digital camera segment, where the buyers will tend to be much more informed. The only reasons I can see are:1) This is the segment more personally interesting to you, so you're going to cover it
2) This is the segment where the most new products are appearing, so you will have the most to review
3) This is the segment that still opperates at high margins, so more samples will be sent to you to be reviewed and more inside information will be directed your way
4) You have decided to attract the same users who buy DellXPS and Alienware systems - users that have the $$$ to afford a high-end product, but lack the motivation to become an informed consumer, and will therefore buy whatever products they happen to be told to buy.
Options 1,2, and 3 will still attract a more informed consumer who desires technical detail, and by denying them that you are in effect offering reviews of one class of product written in a style for an entirely different class.
Option 4 has never been AT's approach, and furthermore, the "more money than brains" class probably won't seek out any product reviews anyways, prefering to simply buy the more expensive version of the camera their coworker has recently been showing off.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
There is a misunderstanding here. I did not mean a lower degree of technical expertise, I meant a different way of approaching digital camera reviews. Sites like dpreview do an excellent job at what they do, as many point out here. We hope to bring a different and a bit unique approach to these reviews, and not just try to emulate other sites.As for #3, I confess I have personally bought the stuff I will be reviewing so far, a Sony and a Nikon D80, so that kills that argument :) #4 doesn't even deserve comment, it is not my style or Anand's, though we are all too often ready to condemn mass market computers without truly looking first.
What some of you are forgetting here is there is a great void between sites that eat, breathe and live digital cameras and many of our readers who really want some solid info on digital cameras, but who find some of the super technical sites less than approachable. These readers want solid info to help them buy what they need, but they have not yet reached the level of photo knowledge where they are ready to argue "exposing to the right" makes digital photography different from film photography. It's a valid point, and I get what "exposing to the right" means from the link to Luminous Landscape, but I think it will be a while before that perspective is a major part of our Digital Camera reviews.
I have received a huge number of emails with very good suggestions for Digital Camera testing, and we do appreciate your comments. We can't do it all, but we are very interested in what you have to say.
As an aside Derek is busy with his wife in the hospital having their first baby and Anand is now in San Francisco covering IDF.
wgoldfarb - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
The issue I was referring to depends on the linear nature of digital sensors, and AFAIK is common to all digital cameras. A full discussion probably does not belong here, but let me try to briefly explain what I meant.
Digital camera sensors are linear devices, whereas we perceive light exponentially. This creates a mismatch between how sensors record an image and how we perceive it, to the point that about half of the perceivable tonal values in an image are recorded in the brightest f-stop of dynamic range of a camera (a typical camera may have about 5 f-stops of dynamic range). Thus, the ideal exposure for a digital sensor is one where the histogram is as far to the right as possible, yet without reaching the point of blown highlights.
I probably did a terrible job of explaining myself in a single paragraph, so a much better explanation http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose...">can be found here.
wgoldfarb - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I understand your problem of trying to meet everyone's needs. But I will try to continue to convince you to go more in the direction I'd like to see (can't blame me, can you? ;-)and
Points very well taken. Still, limiting your reviews to more "basic" skill levels may be a disservice even to those users with basic skills. Cameras chosen based on "basic" knowledge may serve readers well intially, but as they start to learn more (by reading your guides!) they may realize they made a wrong decision because they did not know enough. The problem is, these cameras are expensive, so it is not easy to upgrade them as your knowledge and skills improve. Ideally, you should choose a camera that can fit your current skills, but also those skills you will learn once you start experimenting with your new camera, as well as the many ways in which you might use the camera in the future. Before selecting components for a new rig people here usually determine how they will use their new build: will they overclock? is it for gaming? Same thing for a camera. If I know I will only use my camera in Auto mode for casual family events, I will probably choose a very different camera than if I think I may eventually try some more advanced settings or different types of photography. But if I don't know anything about those advanced modes I will be unable to make that decision.
An approach that may work is to use different instruments for different people. Readers who "know next to nothing" might benefit more from a number of "guides" to teach them the basics of what they need to know about digital cameras to make a better purchase decision, and to eventually benefit from more thorough reviews. These guides could also help them decide how they will use their camera in the future. Thus, you could have a number of introductory guides for newbies, allowing them to learn the jargon and the basics they need to understand your reviews and make a good purchase decision. If you add AT's outstanding community support, this should be enough for almost any level of knowledge. This is precisely how I started learning about computer hardware. I read lots of beginner's guides (like those to be found in many stickies in AT's forums) and made extensive visits to your forums until I knew enough to understand your reviews and decide what features were important for my needs. If people do that amount of research for GPUs costing $300, they will probably also do it for camera systems costing up to $1000.
Yet another approach that may work is to tailor the review to the camera's market. If you are reviewing an entry level SLR you may serve that camera's audience quite well with a more limited review. Yet, when you review cameras aimed at higher segments of the market, you may conduct more thorough reviews to benefit the more knowledgeable likely buyers of these cameras. Also, having this "advanced" content will allow your beginner users to learn more, and help them push their skills to the next level where they may stop relying on their camera's Auto setting so often.
Don't get me wrong, I do realize the problem you face. But I honestly believe you can add a lot more to the current mix of review sites by doing what you do best: reliable, thorough, in depth reviews.
Agreed. It is not only forgiven, it is even expected. But what is stopping you from also becoming known as a digital SLR review site? ;-) If you apply the same "business model", the same standards and techniques to SLRs that have made you so successful in computer hardware, I am confident you will enjoy the same level of success in the area of digital photography.
Belldandy - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I like your introduction to digital SLR's, well written and covers much of the basics. Others have commented that dpreview is the premier site for photography, which they are very good at, but 2nd or 3rd opinions are always a good thing. Even the pro's may miss out on some details. Detail wise, I believe readers of Anandtech who are interested in digital SLR reviews, will have fairly basic understanding of photographic basics. Certainly maybe not everyone will know the technical differences behind say lens based or sensor based image stabilization, or image quality and noise of different sensor size, sensor type, and say software processing at different ISO. But in depth highly technical reviews is what makes anandtech articles so intriguing and there is bound to be new stuff for all of us to learn.Personally I'm a photo enthusiast using a Fujifilm S3Pro & and Nikon F90x film SLR. It's a slow camera compared to other DSLRs, and perhaps my F90x. The power on time, shutter lag and focus times are all very good, (using my set of Sigma F2.8 zooms at least) however the buffer size for raw images and flush rate to compact flash is painfully slow. My point is most equipment have their strengths / weaknesses and many reviews fail to stress that it is a very good jpeg camera, with high image quality. Have to at least comment on what it was designed for, and whether it's suitable for each individual. Speed alone won't make for better images, and if I needed more speed, switching to jpeg or xD type H cards or lower to standard dynamic range, all provide additional speed for the situation. So perhaps reviews should give pointers on how to bring out the best in each camera.
In this area I totally agree with you on basing your reviews on the target group who will be interested in buying the said camera. Entry level DSLR cameras need to be tested from the basics up with both kit lens and reference for those moving up from point and shoot. Most of their targeted buyers are first time SLR users, some pro's may buy an entry level camera for backup use and rest of the family and some from film slr's. For more pro oriented bodies, more empahsis should be placed on image quality, noise, speed, and other technical details for the more advanced users.
I'd like to see tests of cameras using identical images at different ISO's that we can compare across cameras and Brands, using both reference lens and kit lens as well. Speed of both camera focusing, power on & shutter lag and image processing are important. Viewfinder image quality and built in + external flash operation are significant areas that seperates SLR & Point and shoot experience. Hopefully those can be touched upon for indoor and fill flash shots.
gohepcat - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Good stuff. I'd like to pass on some wisdom I learned a long time ago about photography and I like you to look into it a little more.10 years ago I was turned on to a photographer named Fred Picker. I was never really into his work, but his books and newsletter were outstanding. He was a crotchety old man, but he was a real straight shooter.
One of the things I remember him talking about were lenses. He basically said...forget about lenses. You blur your picture far more by handholding your camera than any small imperfection in your lenses. Also the act of the mirror slamming against the top of the camera causes shake that is larger than the resolution that the lens can provide.
I love the digital age, and don't fight it one bit, but I'm sad to see some of the qualities of film disappearing. You still can't really make a digital image as good as my $100 sixty year old Rolliflex with Tri-X pan (a 60 year old film)
Tonal range is HUGE, and I hope things improve in that area.
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Excellent ! A good, solid primer capturing some of the basic developments, capabilities and challenges of digital imaging.I'd like to make a couple of points of course and given some of the previous commentary I'll provide a little background on myself. I used to have a photography studio and I'm still often asked to photograph portraits, weddings and such. I currently work for Really Big Computer Co. in a technical role and I still shoot film even though I have a Fuji FinePix S602 digi-cam.
First, if I were a pro again I'd be shooting digital in a heartbeat. It's cheap, fast and easy. The results are instantly gratifying and lead to increasd sales. Boy are there a lot of analogies there ! That said I'm not a pro and I only shoot digital as A) a replacement for Polaroids and B) for use in a digital realm such as website design.
Second, "Image stabilization was first introduced by Nikon and Canon in specialized zoom lenses. These zoom lenses were first designed for pros at pro prices". Wasn't it the longer high magnification lenses such as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS which is extremely popular with sports photographers that first received stabilization ? And of course I realize that the majority of your readers would no more know the difference between a telephoto and prime lenses than they would between Jimmy Carter and Dubya.
Third, "Digital Challenges: What Needs to be Improved". I think you left out resolution ;>) Digital has certainly come a long way however the actual image resolution still pales when compared to any good film/camera combination.
Fourth, unfortunately you didn't directly mention the other formats of film. When it comes down to it most pro's never bothered with 35mm as it faced the same constraints as does digital which is to say that there is a limit to the amount of visual information that can be acquired per each square millimeter of light sensitive medium. That's why most of us "old timers" used cameras like the RB67 which has a film area that is several times larger than 35mm's dinky 24X36 window. 35mm was deemed adequate for low end weddings, sports, stock and wildlife photography but it was widely recognized that the limitations in image quality was difficult to overcome. Only a few photographers such as Sebastio Selgado, W.E. Smith and H. Cartier-Bresson chose the 35mm format while those that wanted the better tonal scale used medium format cameras such as the Hasselblad's, Mamiya's, Pentax, etc. or even larger cameras such as the 4X5's, 5X7's (still my favorite), the 8X10's and even larger cameras.
I would hope that you touch on the issues of image modification, output ("printing") methods and archival storage. When faced by the "technoratti" I like to paraphrase Lance Armstong and say "It's not about the camera" so in turn I hope that your scope goes well beyond the capturing equipment. In particular image stability which is one of the most poorly illustrated facets of digital imaging, and image archiving which is a huge concern given the extremely limited lifespan of digital files and formats.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Thanks for your comments. The best information I could find indicates you are correct that the first image stabilized lenses were designed for the long fast primes. It really doesn't matter for our discussion in the article, but in the interest of historical accuracy I have updated the two sentences on p. 10. They now read "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 image stabilization quickly found its way to consumer zoom lenses."As for medium and large format film, I confess I also shot 120/220 when I was selling my images. Things have improved a great deal, but the larger negative still has advantages. I did list these formats in some of the photo charts, but I felt it would just lengthen the article if I spent any time on the large foramts. It is something those shopping for a digital SLR would not likely care much about, although the digital backs for the medium format cameras are incredibly interesting.
We will definitley consider your suggestions as we move forward in Digital Camera reviews.
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
LOL ! I spoke with Fred on several occassions. The last time was immediately prior to him selling Zone VI to Calumet when I bought one of his last cherry wood 4X5's. You had to take Fred with a big grain of salt. He was a shrewd businessman and realized that most photographers wanted "straight talk" instead of scientific facts.I agree about the digital revolution. It's certainly an exciting time. I subscribe to the alt-photo list (http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/)">http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/) where many photographers are combining the capabilities of platinum printing with digital negatives created using inkjet printers. It's all about the image and permenance.
Still, I'll keep shooting film for as long as possible. No hard drive crash is going to ever take out my files again and I can always scan negatives which don't take a computer to look at or batteries to run. Hmmm, kinda like that Rollei of yours !
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Storing images on a DVD certainly appears more "crash-proof". I don't recall seeing archive times for DVDs, but I do know know corporations who store GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) records on optical, and those must have a minimum 100-year storage life.