Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet
by Wesley Fink on September 25, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Digital Challenges: What Needs to be Improved
Despite the huge leaps in digital technology in the past few years, there are still a few issues remaining. Most of the sensor makers and camera/lens manufacturers are working on these issues. You should keep them in mind when looking at digital SLRs, because they are the areas where development is needed.
Dynamic Range
Compared to film SLRs, digital SLRs still cannot match the dynamic range of film. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest highlights and darkest shadow detail in an image. Most manufacturers are working very hard to provide improved dynamic range, but there is no consensus yet on what works or will work best to fix this problem. Solutions vary from the extra set of pixels designed just to capture highlight detail in the Fuji S3 PRO (for Nikon lenses), to the Bionz image processor in the new Sony A100 electronics, and the D-Lighting feature in the new Nikon D80 that can be used to improve shadow or highlight detail.
Most users are not really aware of this issue, and sensor and camera makers are not making a big deal about it unless they have a feature that improves this weakness. However, if you examine a high contrast image from film next to the digital image you will see highlights blowing out on the digital image and less shadow detail in the digital image. Digital has improved greatly in this area, and will no doubt continue to improve, but the dynamic range difference is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital.
In shopping for a digital SLR you might pay attention to those that claim to address this issues and what they have done.
Dirt on the Sensor
One of the early problems identified by users of digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses was that the sensor could easily get dirty in the process of changing lenses. Unlike film cameras, where this issue went away with a film change, a dirty sensor will make all future photographs spotted with specks. This issue is particularly troublesome in digital cameras, because the sensor coatings are very delicate and the SLR needs to be returned to the manufacturer for cleaning dust from the sensor.
Most manufacturers have software tools to minimize this problem, mathematically "removing the spot and filling in with calculated pixels", but the first manufacturer to address it on the prevention end was Olympus with their wave filter. They provided a protective coating on the sensor and also used ultrasonic vibrations to clean the sensor on start-up to remove any dust that may have gotten through.
Sony also introduced a protective coating and start-up vibration feature to protect from and remove dust on their new 10.2 megapixel A100. Pentax and Samsung have apparently licensed the Sony system, as they have announced similar mechanisms on their new 10.2 Sony-sensor cameras. Even Canon, who denied for quite a while that there was a dust problem, is now providing the "EOS Integrated Cleaning System" on their new 10 megapixel Rebel XTi. The XTi uses special antistatic sensor coatings and an ultrasonic cleaner much like Olympus.
Auto White Balance
White Balance was not really discussed in this introductory guide, but digital cameras, unlike film, allow the user to set the color temperature or color balance of the sensor. With film you had to choose daylight (or flash), tungsten, Fluorescent, and other color balances when you selected film. In digital imaging you select the "color temperature" when you shoot. You can also leave the color temperature on Auto and let the camera choose - or be really fancy and measure color temperature (most SLRs have this capability) and set a Custom temperature.
Most users leave it on Auto, but we have yet to see a digital SLR that does a decent job with common indoor lamps and lights (tungsten) on the Auto setting. Almost all Auto settings seem to leave an orange cast in the images shot under indoor light. This can normally be corrected in images shot in RAW and some images shot as JPEG, but the easiest solution by far would be an Auto setting that really works. The best solution today is to move off the Auto White Balance setting to Tungsten (Indoor Light) when shooting indoors. Today's cameras do generally apply the correct temperature when the tungsten white balance is selected. Until this is fixed in the majority of Digital SLR cameras we plan to test the Auto setting under indoor lighting in our reviews.
Lens Confusion
This guide should help with confusion about lenses and lens factors, but the problem won't go away until camera and lens makers decide on a standard. Right now digital SLRs are still basically fed with 35mm lenses, even though the sensors are APS C and DX size and have a smaller image circle. It appeared for a while that the industry would settle on this APS C/DX size and eventually name lenses by their equivalent APS C/DX focal lengths once 35mm faded away. Now the outcome is less clear. Some now predict the SLR market will move to two tiers, with APS C/DX SLR cameras as mainstream and full-frame 35mm-size sensors at the Pro end. This certainly would maximize the existing 35mm lens line of the big camera manufacturers and still provide an upgrade path for advanced amateurs. This is the path that Canon appears to be following, but Nikon is still committed to the pro APS C/DX sensor size.
If you look closely at the new lenses Sony introduced you will see even more confusion. Sony does not make 35mm film SLR cameras, so there is no reason for them to introduce new lenses designed for 35mm just for the current Minolta film owners. Yet 2 of the 3 new Sony Carl Zeiss lenses are designed for a 35mm image circle. This leads observers to believe that Sony, one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world, may be hedging their bets on a full-size 35mm sensor Sony SLR. It is also interesting that the major camera makers that have extensive lens lines seem to have slowed their introduction of lenses designed for APS C/DX sensor size. There is no crystal ball, but it will be interesting to see where the digital SLR industry goes in the near future.
The lens confusion and format confusion is likely to continue for a while, since none of the manufacturers except Olympus, with their all-new digital 4/3 system, have truly committed to a new sensor size. If Sony or Nikon introduce a new Pro full-size 35mm sensor in the near future, you can expect the industry to segment as Canon has now done with their 35mm sensor Pro EOS 1D Mark II and EOS 5D versus the rest of the Canon line whish uses an APS C sensor with a 1.6 lens factor.
Gaps in the Lens Lines
Perhaps because of the lens confusion, there are still gaping holes in the lens lines of the APS C/DX format digital SLR cameras. Due to the 1.5/1.6 lens factors the 35mm wide angles are pretty useless on a digital SLR. There is still a need for additional wide angle lenses that are wide angle on APS C/DX. The Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 11-18mm help, but pickings form the majors are very slim. So are DT size lenses from the majors that address the need for fast fixed-focal-length wide-angles and fast normal lenses. Pentax recently introduced 21mm f3.2 and 40mm f2.8 pancake (flat) lenses for their digital line. Samsung recently announced they would introduce a 35mm F2.0 lens for their digital cameras. These three lenses will bring new options to digital photographers shooting with the Pentax KA mount.
Despite the huge leaps in digital technology in the past few years, there are still a few issues remaining. Most of the sensor makers and camera/lens manufacturers are working on these issues. You should keep them in mind when looking at digital SLRs, because they are the areas where development is needed.
Dynamic Range
Compared to film SLRs, digital SLRs still cannot match the dynamic range of film. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest highlights and darkest shadow detail in an image. Most manufacturers are working very hard to provide improved dynamic range, but there is no consensus yet on what works or will work best to fix this problem. Solutions vary from the extra set of pixels designed just to capture highlight detail in the Fuji S3 PRO (for Nikon lenses), to the Bionz image processor in the new Sony A100 electronics, and the D-Lighting feature in the new Nikon D80 that can be used to improve shadow or highlight detail.
Most users are not really aware of this issue, and sensor and camera makers are not making a big deal about it unless they have a feature that improves this weakness. However, if you examine a high contrast image from film next to the digital image you will see highlights blowing out on the digital image and less shadow detail in the digital image. Digital has improved greatly in this area, and will no doubt continue to improve, but the dynamic range difference is still about 1.5 to 3 stops better with film than digital.
In shopping for a digital SLR you might pay attention to those that claim to address this issues and what they have done.
Dirt on the Sensor
One of the early problems identified by users of digital SLRs with interchangeable lenses was that the sensor could easily get dirty in the process of changing lenses. Unlike film cameras, where this issue went away with a film change, a dirty sensor will make all future photographs spotted with specks. This issue is particularly troublesome in digital cameras, because the sensor coatings are very delicate and the SLR needs to be returned to the manufacturer for cleaning dust from the sensor.
Most manufacturers have software tools to minimize this problem, mathematically "removing the spot and filling in with calculated pixels", but the first manufacturer to address it on the prevention end was Olympus with their wave filter. They provided a protective coating on the sensor and also used ultrasonic vibrations to clean the sensor on start-up to remove any dust that may have gotten through.
Sony also introduced a protective coating and start-up vibration feature to protect from and remove dust on their new 10.2 megapixel A100. Pentax and Samsung have apparently licensed the Sony system, as they have announced similar mechanisms on their new 10.2 Sony-sensor cameras. Even Canon, who denied for quite a while that there was a dust problem, is now providing the "EOS Integrated Cleaning System" on their new 10 megapixel Rebel XTi. The XTi uses special antistatic sensor coatings and an ultrasonic cleaner much like Olympus.
Auto White Balance
White Balance was not really discussed in this introductory guide, but digital cameras, unlike film, allow the user to set the color temperature or color balance of the sensor. With film you had to choose daylight (or flash), tungsten, Fluorescent, and other color balances when you selected film. In digital imaging you select the "color temperature" when you shoot. You can also leave the color temperature on Auto and let the camera choose - or be really fancy and measure color temperature (most SLRs have this capability) and set a Custom temperature.
Most users leave it on Auto, but we have yet to see a digital SLR that does a decent job with common indoor lamps and lights (tungsten) on the Auto setting. Almost all Auto settings seem to leave an orange cast in the images shot under indoor light. This can normally be corrected in images shot in RAW and some images shot as JPEG, but the easiest solution by far would be an Auto setting that really works. The best solution today is to move off the Auto White Balance setting to Tungsten (Indoor Light) when shooting indoors. Today's cameras do generally apply the correct temperature when the tungsten white balance is selected. Until this is fixed in the majority of Digital SLR cameras we plan to test the Auto setting under indoor lighting in our reviews.
Lens Confusion
This guide should help with confusion about lenses and lens factors, but the problem won't go away until camera and lens makers decide on a standard. Right now digital SLRs are still basically fed with 35mm lenses, even though the sensors are APS C and DX size and have a smaller image circle. It appeared for a while that the industry would settle on this APS C/DX size and eventually name lenses by their equivalent APS C/DX focal lengths once 35mm faded away. Now the outcome is less clear. Some now predict the SLR market will move to two tiers, with APS C/DX SLR cameras as mainstream and full-frame 35mm-size sensors at the Pro end. This certainly would maximize the existing 35mm lens line of the big camera manufacturers and still provide an upgrade path for advanced amateurs. This is the path that Canon appears to be following, but Nikon is still committed to the pro APS C/DX sensor size.
If you look closely at the new lenses Sony introduced you will see even more confusion. Sony does not make 35mm film SLR cameras, so there is no reason for them to introduce new lenses designed for 35mm just for the current Minolta film owners. Yet 2 of the 3 new Sony Carl Zeiss lenses are designed for a 35mm image circle. This leads observers to believe that Sony, one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world, may be hedging their bets on a full-size 35mm sensor Sony SLR. It is also interesting that the major camera makers that have extensive lens lines seem to have slowed their introduction of lenses designed for APS C/DX sensor size. There is no crystal ball, but it will be interesting to see where the digital SLR industry goes in the near future.
The lens confusion and format confusion is likely to continue for a while, since none of the manufacturers except Olympus, with their all-new digital 4/3 system, have truly committed to a new sensor size. If Sony or Nikon introduce a new Pro full-size 35mm sensor in the near future, you can expect the industry to segment as Canon has now done with their 35mm sensor Pro EOS 1D Mark II and EOS 5D versus the rest of the Canon line whish uses an APS C sensor with a 1.6 lens factor.
Gaps in the Lens Lines
Perhaps because of the lens confusion, there are still gaping holes in the lens lines of the APS C/DX format digital SLR cameras. Due to the 1.5/1.6 lens factors the 35mm wide angles are pretty useless on a digital SLR. There is still a need for additional wide angle lenses that are wide angle on APS C/DX. The Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 11-18mm help, but pickings form the majors are very slim. So are DT size lenses from the majors that address the need for fast fixed-focal-length wide-angles and fast normal lenses. Pentax recently introduced 21mm f3.2 and 40mm f2.8 pancake (flat) lenses for their digital line. Samsung recently announced they would introduce a 35mm F2.0 lens for their digital cameras. These three lenses will bring new options to digital photographers shooting with the Pentax KA mount.
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