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 - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I think this is one tidbit that you might write on when you're realy bored. My images are backed up using Verbatim UltraLife Gold DVD-R media. You also need to make sure that they stay cool and dry much as you do with film. They're not as sensitive to humidity but as certainly far more sensitive to heat.Googer - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Panasonic is makeing and selling cameras based on good old Leca Lens. If you have a leica lens from any point in the last 55+ years, it will be compatable with a Panasonic/Leica Camera.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
The Pansonic Lumix DMC-L1 digital SLR uses a Leica lens built with a four thirds mount. This is the new digital only mount pioneered by Olympus. The LMC-L1 is mentioned in the guide.silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
One of my friends has one of these and the images are simply incredible. He states that the Opticla Image Stabilization is simply the best he could find.wilburpan - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
As someone used to shooting with film cameras, I can say that I still notice some shutter lag when using digital SLRs, even with current models. To write this off as "Virtually none of the lags of early digital cameras remain" is to ignore a real factor when it comes to the use of any camera.To put this another way, if a digital camera website stated that the choice of CPUs was unimportant in buying a computer because all modern day CPUs were fast and powerful enough, the readers of this site probably would bust a gut.
There are also speed issues involved with other uses of a digital camera that need to be addressed. The Nikon D80 takes about 1.4 seconds to store and then display an image after the shutter has been pressed. The speed of this process varies widely from camera to camera. Similar variances in speed and performance come into play when performing tasks such as playback of pictures taken, the time that it takes to process bursts of photos when shooting in continuous mode, etc.
silver - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
Regarding shutter lag, digital cameras will always be slower than film. There's no way around that. My FM2n's have near instantaneous shutter release and are quite the opposite of my admittedly dated Fuji S602. What manufacturers need to do is to have separate power sources (batteries) for lens focusing and camera functions other than CCD/CMOS/memory charging. Obviously this would complicate the camera so they probably aren't considering this option.Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
This is where we start to get into questions about what test is real. The file flush time on a Nikon D80 is 2.0 seconds for a fine jpeg and a little less than 3s for a RAW+jpeg. However, you never encounter this becuase of the memory buffering built into the Nikon D80 and every other digital SLR camera. The D80 can do 3 fps for a little over 30 seconds shooting raw+jpeg, and with fine jpeg it can shoot 3fpm until you run out of flash card room or battery.I consider the D80 time of 160ms viewfinder blackout (0.16s), and a less than 0.1s from off to shot negligible for almost any users. Even the Sony, which has a 1 second start-up, is using almost all that time to clean the sensor before shooting, while shot-to-shot is very competitive with the best SLRs around. Some users might be happier if you could turn off the cleaning on start. While this may be very important for some users, it is doubtful that the small differences in recent digital SLR cameras will really be noticable or matter to most users.
dpreview is an excellent and respected digital review site, and I have sent many readers there with their questions. They often come back with more questions than answers, which usually means they found the technical level too far above their skills and needs. We can't be all things in Digital Camera reviews so we will likely err toward the more basic side.
We'll consider your suggestion about start-up times, but I'm not convinced yet.
yacoub - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I appreciate your article but I don't know: I think that folks into digital photography, no matter what other hobbies they have, including computer hardware or gaming, are knowledgable enough (or are competent enough to gain the knowledge needed) to make good use of a site like DPReview, which offers about all the info most need to make an intelligent purchase of a digital camera. Plus that being their primary focus (and has been for years), they automatically get much more credibility than a computer hardware site can hope to achieve by writing content basically saying "look we can do this too!" and writing what most good highschool photography classes are teaching today anyway.I guess my question is, why not stay focused on computer component hardware? All branching out does is reduce the chance of the main hardware getting the attention it needs. There are umpteen motherboard, videocard, and RAM reviews and guides yet to be completed or even begun, yet you're going off into digital photography land? That's kind of disappointing. For that hobby there are already many strong resources for folks who are into that, and many more for folks who want a simple pocket-sized point-n-shoot (which is the majority of folks). Why not focus on being the strong resource in computer hardware that folks in this hobby need?
fanbanlo - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Maybe AnandTech can explain to use what are the new technology built into the sensor rather than meaningless marketing terms givin to them.Different algorithm used? what's their computational power?
Why shoot RAW? RAW-enabled software review!?
Thx
Heidfirst - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
For the lower end DSLRs (D50,350D,K100D etc.) I think that you should also review the standard kit lens as the majority of buyers will probably be buying it with the body as a package.By the time that you start hitting EOS30D type level imo most people will probably have lenses already or be buying a better lens than the entry level kit lens. Also if they are paying that for a body they quite probably are reasonably knowledgeable photo enthusiasts & maybe Anandtech isn't going to be the first place that they look for reviews so sticking to the lower end at least initially sounds reasonable to me.
The idea of a standard test scene is interesting but it would have to be reproducible which means in the studio & that means that it's less representative of the conditions in which most people will use them (I imagine that the % of even current DSLR users who shoot in the studio is in single figures & probably low single figures at that).