Fast Forward
There was a time not long ago when casual photographers selected a point-and-shoot digital camera. They were reasonably priced, new models were everywhere, and the price for something even better was extremely high. Technology development in the digital camera arena, as in every other area of consumer electronics, has pushed the price of digital sensor technology lower and lower, and that is a trend that will undoubtedly continue. At the same time speed and quality have continued to evolve at a dramatic pace.
As a result the digital point-and-shoot has moved downstream, as it is hard to convince anyone to buy an expensive point-and-shoot when you can buy a capable Digital SLR today for as little as $400. When 10MP sensors burst onto the DSLR scene about two years ago the price of admission was $1000. Today that $400 to $600 DSLR has a 10MP sensor.
With lower prices and more capabilities, the Digital SLR is clearly today's photo market leader. The explosive growth in this segment is bringing new first time buyers into the DSLR market, some moving up from point-and-shoot and some choosing one of today's more reasonable DSLRs as their first camera.
With so many new users in the DSLR market it should come as no surprise that DSLR makers are trying to make DSLRs easier to use. There is one trend to make the DSLR more comfortable for those moving up from point-and-shoot with features they already know like Live View. Another trend is to give first time users a greater chance of success by combining optical (in-lens) or mechanical (in-body) IS (Image Stabilization) with the cheaper, slower DSLR lenses. This actually gives new users a better chance of capturing decent pictures in everyday lighting conditions. If you wonder how universal this has become you only need to look at the cheap optical IS lenses Canon and Nikon now supply with their entry D60 and XSi models.
It is easy in examining technology to forget about buying motivations. Lower price is increasing Digital SLR demand, but the reason new buyers select a Digital SLR is because they want better quality pictures than they can get with a point-and-shoot camera. The same reason applied in the first SLR explosion in the 70’s and 80’s when new buyers chose film SLRs instead of 110 point-and-shoots.
The quest for improved quality may be even more relevant in the digital camera era than it was in film. Film was a common denominator in film cameras, but in digital cameras film and the processing lab have moved inside the camera. This makes the digital sensor the most important factor in the imaging quality of today’s digital cameras. Different manufacturers have different optic lines to mount on this analog-to-digital computer. All the big brands have different expertise and interpretations of the analogue capture to digital image conversion process. In the end, however, it all begins with the digital sensor.
The digital sensor is the reason the tiny sensor in point-and-shoot cameras has a limited speed range and why the images can never be as good as a Digital SLR. Even if you mount the world’s best optics on a point and shoot you are still quality bound by the digital sensor capabilities. For today the resolution limits of the small P&S sensors seem to have been reached. Somewhere around 8 to 10MP we are finding that higher resolution also generally means higher noise and lower sensitivity. That is the reason the growth and development has moved to the larger sensors of the DSLR.
No doubt this roadblock will be passed with advancements in sensor technology, but today more than 8MP of clean resolution and usable sensitivities greater than ISO 400 are rare indeed in the compact camera market. APS-C sensors in Digital SLRs, however, seem to be getting better and better at higher and higher sensitivities and ever increasing resolutions. Skeptics are already screaming we are going too far with14MP sensors, but they forget that the smallest 4/3 sensor is still a ten times larger area than the largest compact sensor. There is still a lot of room for growth in resolution.
The other complaint you often hear is that lenses are finally reaching resolving limits with higher sensor resolutions. That is certainly true with the cheap lenses that were the staple of the developing SLR market. Most any piece of glass was fine on a 6MP sensor, but 12 to 14 megapixels demand quality optics. This will challenge the industry to produce higher resolving optics at ever cheaper prices as digital cameras approach and pass the resolving power of 35mm film. The industry has been coasting for far too long in the low demands of the developing digital SLR market. Innovative high-quality optics will emerge as we are already seeing in some of the remarkable new kit lenses developed for the higher resolution sensors.
Serious photo hobbyists will also be facing difficult decisions today and even more so in the near future. The cost of larger and larger sensors has been dropping rapidly; and CMOS sensor development from all the sensor manufacturers is also a factor in lowering costs and increasing resolution. Like it or not Canon and Nikon have already begun segregating their SLR line into full-frame and APS-C sensors. Those who wondered why Sony was introducing mainly full-frame lenses will finally get their answer later this year with Sony's 24.6MP full-frame flagship model.
Full-frame has been mainly the domain of Professional photographers up to this point. Full-frame will likely still be targeted at the top of the digital SLR market by Canon/Nikon/Sony so your favorite APS-C camera and lenses does not appear to be in any real danger of becoming obsolete.
Players like Pentax and Samsung seem positively locked into APS-C with no full-frame peeking around the corner, and Olympus has fought too hard for credibility with 4/3 to start promoting full-frame. Similarly Nikon, Canon, and Sony will define the full-frame as Pro and the rest of their line as prosumer and entry. However, technology will march on and new and cheaper full-frame sensors will be introduced. With the new sensors will come new camera models built around those sensors.
Those who doubt that only have to look back at the development history of the digital sensor. When 1 megapixel was reached Nikon ran huge spreads of carefully produced photos created with their expensive point-and-shoot digitals showing that digital had arrived and photographers had all they could possibly need in that 1 megapixel sensor. We know better today only because the digital sensor continued its development. You can be certain that, like CPUs in computers, the digital sensor of tomorrow will be different in ways we can only imagine today.
For some readers the joy of the process is the technology ride. For others the utility of the ever evolving digital sensor and processing electronics is the main thrust. We can only say there is plenty of joy in the Digital SLR market for everyone.
Slapping optics on an Analog-to-Digital imaging computer is an exciting concept for geeks. We sincerely hope The Digital Sensor articles have given you more insight into how digital cameras work and a better understanding of the technology issues facing Digital Camera development.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
danette57 - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
FYI, the k20D sensor is not designed by PENTAX, it was conceived by an israeli company bought by Samsung sometime ago called originally transchip and now Samsung Semiconductor Israel R&D Center (SIRC).Quit a feat, by the way, judging by its performance.
Daniel
Matt08 - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link
There are many aspects of raw that you have left out/misinterpreted.Just to name a few: To begin, jpeg can never be better than raw, because in camera jpeg is created from raw. In camera jpeg *can* only be *better* than jpeg converted from a software converter.
Jpeg will allways be inferior, as it is only 8Bit and compressed.
But in camera jpegs are also limited to a certain color space (Mainly sRGB) and white balance. Alone for archiving, raw is better. In the future, new ways to develop bayer arrays or better noise removal softare will be found and displays and prints will have a better quality such as improved color gammut or dynamic rage. Other reasons to use raw have allready been pointed out by other users. If you want more reasons, look at other boards.
If you are a serious photographer, shoot Raw. Raw+jpeg is only meaningfull if you instantly need jpges, as full size jpegs are included in the raw files.
But 99% of the pictures made are rubbisch anyway. It's like playing guitar. If you are a bad musican, it doesn't really make a difference if you have a fender guitar or a 0815 cheapo guitar. The better you are, the sooner you can utilise better equipment.
Regards, Matthias
BillWilliam - Saturday, May 24, 2008 - link
When I was trying to make the change from film to digital I had a chance to use a top of the line point and shoot. The shutter delay made action shots impossible. Only the DSLR could take the picture almost as fast as the film camera. From the remarks made by friends who have new fixed lens cameras the problem is still here. At the time I made the move to digital, Canon was the best choice because of the lower noise in low light. Now there is little difference between the top models of each brand. The reason to consider a fixed lens is the cost of the DSLR lens. The small sensors demand the finest lens and that means $1000.00 and up, way up each. What do you get for that, outstanding prints. 35mm can not touch a 8 or 10 mp sensor. I used to be a pro and owned a studio. My 10mp Canon XTi has better image quality than my old Hasselblads. This will start a fight but I have tested it myself and that is my opinion. Remember it is the photographer that makes a great photo not the camera.tehcook - Friday, May 23, 2008 - link
Article's title is about sensors, but it says lots about P&S vs DSLRs. There are some pieces missing - camera responsiveness and autofocus speed. Which have absolutely no relation to the sensor size but would be nice to mention.Zak - Thursday, May 22, 2008 - link
I just don't understand the entire RAW vs JPG argument? If JPG is an end result of processed RAW image how can it possibly be better than RAW? RAW editor gives us the level of control unattainable from processed bitmaps. Even 40D makes mistakes and I have to correct white point or recover highlights. Then when I'm done, I save the result as JPG into my albums, but I keep few years worth of RAW images. Shooting JPG is for people who don't want to spend time to perfect their images, they want instant gratification, they shouldn't bother with DSLRs in the first place IMHO, a high-end point and shoot will be good enough for them.Z.
Hulk - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link
Thanks for the great series of articles but I think you should reconsider your choice of example image.The one you are using does test resolution but does not do a good job with detail in shadow area. In fact an overly contrasted image will do great in this test, appearing to have both high resolution and noise because there isn't much shading required in the test image. Most consumer cams, which are over sharpened, saturated, and contrasted out of the box will do great with this image but not with a most photos that involve more colors and shadow areas that actually require detail.
warezme - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link
As mentioned above the main reason for RAW is being able to pull recover more information from over exposed or underexposed images if necessary than ever possible with a simple JPG. JPG should be only one solution not your goal. RAW removes all the mostly bad and inconsistent in camera processing as clearly illustrated by all these generic crops displayed. In shooting JPG only, you are stuck with those bad in camera decisions of how much noise to remove, how much tone balance, color saturation, etc. the camera post processes. The worst culprit which immediately deletes a great deal of your detail is the built in noise and moire removal filters on all JPG output in camera processed pictures. You are stuck with that. Why any self respecting photographer with a $1000 DSLR or higher would shoot RAW and count on built in JPG processing is beyond me. There are many nice point and shoot solutions for that. Just push a button and don't worry.haplo602 - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link
Any self respecting photographer will get a dual card DSLR and shoot RAW on one card, JPEG on second card. That way you can give some results to the client directly after the shoot (the card with the JPEGs) and they can choose what they like and what they don't like. After their selection you process the selected images from RAW with all the bells and whistles.This way you save time and unnecesary work (processing all the RAW files). That's why you need good in-camera JPEG.
But for sub 1000$ DLSRs which will be bought by folks either commning from P&S or new to digital will almost always shoot in JPEG, check each shot on the LCD and reshoot if possible. So again good JPEG performance will sell the camera for them.
Which goup will turn more profit for the camera maker ? I bet the larger JPEG shooters group.
Point and shoots don't give the level of control even an entry level DSLR can achieve (not to speak about speed).
pinto4402 - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link
Right on. RAW images are 12 or 14-bit. Jpeg images are only 8-bit. Those extra bits of information which the camera "throws out" during the conversion process do make a HUGE difference in the quality of the final image. The obviously superior quality of images in RAW format has to be seen to be appreciated, especially in the highlight and shadow areas of a photograph. Even untrained people, not just pixel peepers, can discern the difference. Converting a RAW image to JPEG in order to demonstrate that there is little difference in the formats is self-fulfilling because you've taken a 12 or 14-bit image and downprocessed it to a 8-bit image in order to compare it to another 8-bit image. Naturally, you won't see much of a difference. An (imperfect) analogy would be using Windows XP 32-bit to test the difference between systems with 2 Gig and 8 Gig memory configurations. For obvious reasons, I don't think any self respecting tech geek would do that. If you want to do a fair image comparison, you have to post images in uncompressed 14-bit TIFF or RAW or even DNG formats. However, this would present a challenge for most websites because you'd be dealing with massive image files.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - link
The article makes the point quite clearly IMO that RAW is a great medium for those that want to really tweak the images after shooting. While that's probably true of serious professionals, I can tell you that I have only once bothered to shoot in RAW and after the hassles of spending extra time converting the image for an article I never did that again.Does that mean RAW is bad? Of course not, but the point is there are many (MANY!) people that just don't need/want that level of control. I personally am far more interested in getting a high-quality image quickly rather than an exceptional quality image after a lot of work.
We did look into trying to use/post the TIF images, but we ran into a variety of issues. File size was obviously a concern (up to 45MB files for TIF), and being able to show images in a browser meant we needed a web format. Our server also doesn't appear to allow direct downloading of TIF files, so we would need to put them in a ZIP wrapper. We may still add a link if there's a desire from enough people, but the main point is that while RAW is far more powerful in a variety of ways, a lot of that power is wasted on anyone short of the prosumer photographer.
Another point mentioned above is the choice of subject for the comparison photos. Remember, we need something that can be compared in future reviews. That pretty much means we want a room set where we can fully control lighting, the objects being photographed, tripod location, etc. Outdoors thus won't work - at least not for apples-to-apples comparisons. If you're a professional, I imagine you already have plenty of sources for camera information; if you're more of a hobbyist and someone looking for better than P&S, hopefully these articles are providing a lot of good information.