The Digital Sensor: A Guide to Understanding Digital Cameras
by Wesley Fink on April 21, 2008 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Lens Equivalence
It is important to understand that a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens, as that is the focal length. That 50mm specification affects depth-of-field and other image characteristics tied to the lens focal length. However, we can calculate focal lengths for each multiplier that will give the same field of view in the finished image.
With a closer look at field of view and the impact of the changes in field of view, it is easier to understand recent DSLR lens developments. Early DSLR lenses were generally 35mm lenses mounted on the new smaller sensor cameras, except for complete new systems such as the 4/3 digital-only system championed by Olympus.
Using 35mm or full frame lenses was great if your primary interest was telephoto and bird photography, as that 35mm 70-300mm lens that was the second lens for most film buyers now had a field of view like a 112mm-480mm zoom on the new Canon Digital Rebel. Unfortunately interiors, architectural photography, scenes, and fans of the extreme wide angle point of view were left in the cold in the early transition to small digital sensors.
That has been corrected in recent years with lenses designed for smaller sensors, lenses like the Canon 10-22mm, the Nikon 12-24mm, and similar APS C zooms from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Today, whatever your mount and lens multiplier, there are lens choices that can cover the full range of choices for field of view.
A few lenses by Sigma are actually available in every mount and multiplier listed above. Obviously, these few lenses were originally full-frame 35mm that have been carried over with new coatings for improved performance and reduced flare on digital sensor SLRs. One such lens is the Sigma 24mm f1.8. The field of view on the different mounts and sensors this lens will fit illustrates just how the digital sensor size can influence the use of any lens. On the full-frame Canon5D, IDs III, and Nikon D3 this lens is a fast super wide 24mm. On the Canon 1.3X pro models it is still a fast f1.8, but with the FOV of a 31mm moderate wide angle.
On the Nikon D300/D60, the Sony A700/A350, and the Pentax K20D/K200D this fast lens is now a moderate wide angle to near normal lens that shoots images with a 36mm angle of view. On the Canon XSi and 40D we are at 38mm, which most would consider near normal. The Sigma SD14 FOV of 41mm has definitely crept into the normal range. Finally the 4/3 mount version of this lens is one of the "normal" lens choices on the Olympus E3/E510/E410 and Panasonic and Leica 4/3 digital SLR cameras. The 24mm on a 4/3 camera looks at the world as though it is a 48mm f1.8 lens, and competes with the Leica 25mm f1.4 as a much lower cost normal lens.
Similar comparisons could be made in other focal length ranges, but you get the point. Olympus makes a 70-300mm telephoto lens for 4/3, and it is much sought after by "birders", because the view on a 4/3 camera with this lens extends from 140mm to 600mm.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
72 Comments
View All Comments
Johnmcl7 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
On page 4:"The Foveon sensor falls between 4/4 and the Canon 1.6 in size and has a 1.7X lens multiplier."
I assume this should read '4/3'
Obvious question is what about Fuji? While I realise they re-use Nikon bodies and lenses, the discussion about Bater and Foveon makes no mention of Fuji's sensor. While it is more conventional than the Foveon, it's not just a bog standard bayer sensor and while Fuji are a minor player, so are Sigma.
For those who are not familiar with Fuji's design, they use two photodiodes at every point one larger and one smaller with the two combined to produce a single pixel in the output image. The idea is that these pair of pixels can capture more extended dynamic range than a standard bayer sensor of the same size. The latest version of this sensor is in the Fuji S5 Pro however it's limited to just 6MP although I can't remember if they still produce 12MP files from this. The S5 itself is basically a Fuji version of the very good Nikon D200 body although Nikon have of course moved on with the very impressive D300.
John
Wesley Fink - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
Yes, it should have read 4/3 and the reference is corrected. The Fuji S3 was one of my favorite Nikon bodies and the dynamic range was certainly impressive in the studio.We did not mean to slight Fuji, but as one Nikon-mount body with a sensor that hasn't been updated in several years (the S3 and S5 sensors are the same as I understand it) we decided not to include the Fuji since there have been no sensor updates in quite a while.
Johnmcl7 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
"We did not mean to slight Fuji, but as one Nikon-mount body with a sensor that hasn't been updated in several years (the S3 and S5 sensors are the same as I understand it) we decided not to include the Fuji since there have been no sensor updates in quite a while. "I can't say I really agree there, given the article more focuses on concept in parts I think the S5 sensor is still relevent as it's something slightly different to the bayer sensor. The article refers to only Bayer and Foveon which implies there is nothing else, I think for completeness even if you don't go into any detail it's still worth mentioning Fuji are doing something else.
Also the S3 and S5 sensor are not the same, while they have the same amount of pixels it appears there's been some slight improvements although clearly not much. To be far to Fuji though, the Foveon sensor hasn't really come on much either - it's gone up very slightly in resolution with some small other changes but that's it pretty much. If the Foveon sensor had been just mentioned in passing I could definitely understand leaving Fuji with a similar mention but generally Fuji and Sigma are considered in the same boat as doing something a bit different although arguably with the Nikon body and mount Fuji have had more success.
John
melgross - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
I never saw an advantage to their designs. I can't see what purpose having a smaller photo site on the sensor would do. It just has more noise, and less dynamic range than the larger sensor. I've read their papers on the subject, and they don't seem to have made a good case for it. Somehow, I think they understand that now.Johnmcl7 - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
"I never saw an advantage to their designs. I can't see what purpose having a smaller photo site on the sensor would do. It just has more noise, and less dynamic range than the larger sensor. I've read their papers on the subject, and they don't seem to have made a good case for it. Somehow, I think they understand that now."Are you referring to Fuji? If so, your information is incorrect - the last measurement I saw put the S5's sensor at slightly more dynamic range than the 35mm sensor in the Nikon D3. Their real problem at the moment seems to be resolution as well as having the older D200 based body.
John
strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
I think Sigma (and Foveon) would be better off if Sigma could license a major player's mount, like Kodak did with the SLR/n and SLR/c. There are plenty of people who would like to have the sensor for the situations where it excels, but have no interest in a whole Sigma SA mount setup.pinto4402 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
I've been reading Anandtech for over 8 years now. I was a bit skeptical about your doing articles on digital cameras; however, this article put my reservations to rest. Very nicely done.I see why it makes sense for Anandtech to write about digital cameras. The nexus between computer tech and camera tech are very obvious if you've been following the trends. I'm a professional portrait photographer. In the last few years, it has become virtually impossible to remain in business unless you have a firm grasp on the latest camera tech as well as computer tech. I spend as much time on my computer as I do behind the camera. The camera has become a computer accessory (or vice versa). Many old timers who are hanging on to film are slowly being forced out. I'm somewhat of an old timer myself because I learned about photography when it was cool to have a darkroom, but I embraced digital equipment early.
Your graphs make it very easy to explain to people why their P&S (piece of s***) cameras are simply not adequate for serious portraiture. The MP count is marketing crap. As you demonstrated, it's the physical size of the sensor that matters.
Looking forward to part II of the series. Also, do you have any solid info on the introduction of 5D Mk II?
bjacobson - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
"The MP count is marketing crap."Mostly. If you're willing to do some post processing yourself, the higher MP will enable you to decrease the IQ gap between the higher end DSLR and the ho-hum consumer camera. For this reason, since I wanted something compact and didn't really need a lot of optical zoom, I chose the Canon SD1100IS. 8MP, and while you begin to get noise at ISO400, more at ISO800, and tons at ISO1600, using a non-linear digital filter should correct most of that without blurring the image much (if at all).
strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Problem is that the camera has already blurred away lots of your detail at ISO 400 and up.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd1100is/page...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd1100is/page...
Too bad there is no option to reduce/turn off the in-camera NR, for those of us who own a better program for it already.
Wesley Fink - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
I wish I did have definitive info about the 5D Mark II launch, but the best info I have is this fall at Photokina. Rumors pop up every month that the new 5D will be here in a few weeks - and the last rumor was a definite April 22, which is tomorrow. Rumors are just that - rumors.