I'm fairly versed in film and digital SLRs and have been shooting since the mid-80s. Nikon afficionado here but I did have a few Canon EOS film bodies back in the day. Currently use a D70s and soon hopefully a D200 in my bag.
Anyway, as to sugestions for future reviews, the technical aspect tests are all well and good since numbers are always easy to quantify. The MP count, max resolution, test charts and etc do help people choose cameras after all. What I'd like to see more of are subjective reviews. How user-friendly is the camera? Are the menu's easy to navigate and the features easy to get to? How are the ergonomics and will my hand require a chiropractor after a long day of shooting? Is the camera balanced even when using a medium telephoto lens? How about accessories (flash kits, filters, battery grips, flash brackets, etc), are they useful for this camera or just gravy?
What made me write these additional questions is that I experienced it when I borrowed a Canon 350d for a friend's wedding. This was before my Nikon D70s and I absolutely loved/hated it. The pictures were great but required heavy menu navigation for white balance and iso settings. The camera was lighter than my old film Nikon so it wasn't tiring to carry all the time but the grip was awful. My pinky was sticking out under the body and a;; the weight was focused on the upper/rear quarter of my right palm. I'll tell you now, it hurts to use it for a long time. Especially with a 430ex flash. I then tried a friend's D50 and a D70 after that and it solidified my Nikon preference. Great ergonomics and the two dials give you much greater flexibility on the fly.
These reviews are probably aspects that the average consumer won't consider before purchasing and just focus on numbers but it greatly affects the usability of the camera in the long run.
I don't know if these have already been covered in the comments earlier. There are quite a few and I didn't read them all.
1.) When talking about vibration reduction, you need to make sure you tell your readers that VR/IS *cannot* eliminate subject motion blur. It can only eliminate (to a degree) blur caused by handshake. I'm surprised you missed such an important point considering that you felt most AT readers are newbies at photography. It's all dandy to believe that VR gets you sharp images all the time. No, it doesn't. There are caveats and you might have mentioned them.
2.) The real benefit of SLR cameras is - more than anything else - the fact that the photographer sees what the lens sees. That's a major, major advantage of a SLR over point-and-shoots and rangefinders which exhibit parallax error by the nature of their design, especially if the subject is close to the lens/camera. Given this, you might have also mentioned that sensor-based stabilization techniques are a bit of a misfit (atleast that's what I tend to think) because having a stabilized sensor still *will not* give you a stabilized image in the viewfinder. However, lenses which have VR in-built *will* give you a stabilized image in your viewfinder - again going back to the "what you see is what you get" thing. Having stabilized sensors is good for the customers as they don't pay VR royalty on every lens they buy, but I don't see the point in seeing a shaky image in the viewfinder and somehow expecting something sharp (to what degree I may not know) in the final image. Maybe 99.9999% here (or anywhere) wouldn't agree with me on this point but I think it's worth a note.
3.) Not all kit lenses are dogs. The 18-70 DX I have for my Nikon D70 is a wonderfully sharp, contrasty lens (of course in available light situations) and after almost 2 years of shooting DSLRs I can safely admit that I've not "outgrown" this lens. It still manages to surprise me every once in a while and I don't see the need for an exotic f/2.8 zoom in this range as yet. Point I'm trying to make is - don't berate kit lenses. They are there for a reason, and as with any lens, there are certain advantages and certain disadvantages. As a photographer, it's important to understand what every bit of your equipment is good at and then maximize the technical potential of your images because of this understanding. Infact, building up on this point...
4.) I'll go so far as to say that, even with fixed focal length (prime) lenses, the so-called "sweet spot" in terms of image sharpness and contrast is usually achieved when the lens is stopped down by 1.5 to 2 stops from its maximum aperture. If you are always going to think in terms of how zoom lenses are "bad quality" compared to primes, I'd encourage you to start shooting 2 stops down on your primes (and thus lose all the speed advantage these primes offer). I think you get what I'm trying to say. Let's not get too hung up on trivialities like this because, and I repeat because, modern zooms, even the consumer zooms produce wonderful images in the hands of capable photographers. And then you have pro-grade zooms like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR from Nikon and Canon's 17-40 f/4L etc. Yes, they are costly, but so is a 300 f/2.8 VR Nikkor or a pro-grade ~100mm macro. The price differential is evident only when you start looking at wide-to-medium-tele or super-wide-to-normal fast zooms (28-70 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8) and even then the output from these lenses is well worth their cost and the walk-around convenience they present to photographers who prefer this range of focal lengths. So, not all zooms are "bad". Things have improved, just as they continuously do in the computer hardware business. Let's not get stuck in old notions based on old equipment manufactured using old processes.
5.) In your second last page, you talk about "lens confusion" and how you'd like the industry to move to a standard naming of lenses. I don't understand what can be more standard than the focal length itself - a very physical property of a lens. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm. Period. It doesn't depend on what format camera it's bolted on to. A 35mm lens is 35mm whether it's used on a 4x5 view camera or a 645 medium camera or a 35mm film camera or a digital equipped with an APS-C or.... you get the picture. In itself, the naming of the lens by its focal length (range, with zooms) is *not* confusing. What's confusing is what people make it out to be - quoting effective focal lengths for formats all and sundry, where as in reality, the measure everyone needs to be worried about is field-of-view. A 35mm lens will have different fields-of-view when used with different camera formats.
We don't need a standard for identifying lenses. We already have one - focal length (a physical property that doesn't change) and field-of-view (a very measurable metric). If anything, it's the "effective focal length" paradigm has to be done away with, IMHO.
In the last line of the third from last paragraph - Nikon doesn't make a 11-18mm as far as I know. They do have a 12-24 f/4 DX and Sigma also has a 12-24 (I think a non-constant aperture) which can be used on full-frame cameras too, unlike the Nikon 12-24 DX. The 11-18mm is made by one (or both) of Tamron and Tokina I think.
When reviewing DSLRs, I want to know how quickly they can autofocus in different lighting conditions. I want to know how good the autoexposure is in different situations. I want to know how the different flashes perform in different settings (not just the built in ones, but the ones you can buy for them). I want to know how accurate the color reproduction and contrast is. I want to know how good the jpg compression is (lets face it, few people will be using RAW). I want to know how long the batteries will last in different situations. I would also like there to be a comparison with other models in a similar price range as well as a comparison with the cheaper and more expensive models of the same manufacturer.
Boy, looking at my post I sound demanding. LOL, I'm sure Anandtech is up to the challenge.
I dont know, I dont use AF for demanding lighting situations, I use the infinite Focus setting, and set the rest manually. That, and I think all 'prosumer' DSLRs have a fairly 'shitty' on cam flash, and alot of us would probably be more concerned with the hotshoe 'adapter'
However, I will agree with battery life as an important factor, but to be honest I'm personally more concerned with how fast the camera is (FPS), and the media type used.
I see alot of stuff on dpreview.com like 'default <insert something relivent> setting is BAD' etc, but most of the these cameras can be manually adjusted away from default settings, so, IMHO, it's a moot point, and is pointless to really mention, learn how to use your camera ;)
You're not demanding, you just know what you want :)
Forget what all the nay sayers are saying guys, write you articles. I've been interrested in the Sony A100 for several months now, since the preview on dpreview.com. I also think you're right concerning the *mass* of information that dpreview gives off for thier camera reviews, most of it is un nessisary for all but the professionals, most of us just want to know things like, how many FPS does the camera achieve, how does it handle low light situations, how clean are the photos, etc.
Another good point. AT has always been about presenting good, practical information on the products that we use and in this context has always done a great job.
The A100 certainly has my intrest as well but do note that most pro's do not need bells and whistles in their equipment. In fact most don't even want them available as it adds to both cost and complexity with almost no practical return in value.
Still a lot of this is still baffling at the moment but that should change when I get my Canon Rebel XTi 400D for Christmas.
What I would like to see in the reviews would also include the quality of the bundled lens (the Canon comes with the 18-55mm lens). As well as with a quality lens.
Will you also include reviews of lens:
For example you do the "Mid Range GPU Roundup - Summer 2006"
So you could do this with Normal, telephoto, etc lens.
So instead of reviewing one lens you can do a group test.
And I also think that a few standard photos for all the reviews would be good (indoor, outdoor, macro, etc) and a few random ones the the reviewer would think we would like.
Just wanted to add my 2p-worth. I feel I fit fairly well into the target audience you're aiming at. I'm very lacking when it comes to the technical details of cameras, digital or otherwise, yet I have a great desire to take good and interesting pictures.
It's good for people to offer tips and ideas for your upcoming articles, but I don't see the point of the very knowledgeable and camera-savvy crowd out there making harsh criticisms simply because you're targetting people with less knowledge than them. Like they say, there are other sites to get in-depth information if they want it, so why berate AT for catering for others?
I for one look forward to your articles on the subject, because I know they will be well written, provide useful information and insights, and very likely make me a better amateur photographer.
Nice wrapping article! There is one thing that doesn't fit though...
If you're a pro photographer, then you don't need such a website to learn about photography or entry-level consumer DSLR cameras. A thing like "a good auto white balance" doesn't mean anything since pros are shooting RAW anyway. Also, you don't embrace a "camera system" solely for the body and the lenses -- there are lots of other accessories required that may not be available or as good as those of the two major players with offerings from other companies. (Have you heard of pro photographers working with anything but Canon or Nikon?)
On the other hand, yes, other websites prepare extensive reviews that cover, among other things, startup times, location of mirror lockup or second curtain sync features, discuss MTF charts and review lens by talking about chromatic aberrations/distortion/corner softness, etc. -- all sort of things that that matter to pros, even if it won't be covered on this site.
Where does that leave this new Anandtech section? Inevitably to consumer or photo hobbyists/enthusiasts. This is for people who expect better image quality and more freedom in picture taking than what a point-and-shoot can offer -- yet not being anywhere near pro.
So as long as you stick with this segment, spend paragraphs talking about the "direct print" features, discuss "picture styles", explain the effective range of the built-in snap-up flash, then okay. But it would be ridiculous to write articles about top of the line cameras like the Canon 5D, Canon 1DsMkII, Nikon D2xs, etc., as much as it would be ridiculous to talk about thousand dollar pro lenses, etc.
While I'm at it...
1) You seem to believe that the crop factor has an influence on the "rule of thumb" for handheld shots. A 50mm lens, equivalent to a 80mm on a 1.6x crop, still has a "rule of thumb" of 1/50s. Keeping only a smaller part of the image circle does not lengthens a lens, does not add vibration...
2) Image Stabilisation (IS) is very handy (no pun intended), but cannot replace a faster lens. Even if you can shoot handheld 3 stops slower (or even 4 stops, as in the new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM), this won't help for a moving subject, and you may well end up with blurry pictures after all -- especially if you're shooting people/animals...
3) You seem to diminish/discard the importance of a full-frame sensor. A full frame sensor has a dramatic impact on the quality of the images, especially because of lower pixel density. Also, the only comparison you've mentionned for film vs digital left readers to think that digital still had something to envy film -- which is really not seeing the whole picture. Digital reduced noise (grain) dramatically. It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. The only drawback is the higher initial cost.
And finally...
4) No pro relies on full-auto settings in a camera, no matter how sophisticated it is (or will become). Even if technology (what this website is about) keeps bringing tools to facilitate the photographer's job and render sharper, cleaner images, etc., that's not what makes a picture compelling. A 39MP PhaseOne digital back won't do any good in the hands of a beginner, as much as a pro could make astounding pictures with a very modest camera... So, please make sure you don't play the marketing game companies are using to have consumer believe they can make wonderful pictures with the touch of a single button ;)
" It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. "
Not at all ! Pro's jumped on digital as it speeds up their entire workflow and is more effecient than film. It reduces costs significantly as most studios have film processing and proofing costs around $4,k~$5,k per month. Also having the image immediately available to the client has huge returns in sales points. These are trully the only reasons. Film is still far and away better when comparing apples-to-apples.
As others have said it, at this point, there would be endless arguing about digital vs film, and I understand that some could still want to use film for obscure/critical reasons, such as shooting in harsh -60 celcius north pole conditions. ...But seriously, what I was simply trying to point out, though, is that the only mention of "film" in the article was an argument in favor of film, which doesn't allow to see the whole picture.
As for why pros are switching to digital... If it was only a matter of saving on the studios' workflow, or speeding things up for photojournalists, then only some fields of photography would have made the switch. Many other pros -- in landscape photography, for example, where you can get very complex histograms pushing the range to its limits -- would have stuck to film. The fact is that they are all switching.
I can honestly say I don't know a single photographer shooting quality landscapes on digital. I certainly don't know any that would bother with purchasing a a $33,000 Phase One digital back for a medium format camera when a $1.00 sheet of film in a 4x5 will best it in color and tonal scale.
this is a topic with no definite outcome yet. you two can argue all you want, but especially with the nicknames you've got here it'll just look stupid ;)
Who's arguing ? Digital has progressed to being nearly as good as 35mm but there is no solid documetation that I've read stating that its level of quality up to 6x4.5cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm format film cameras.
As to why pro's switched to digital, it's beyond dispute. Dollars make sense. Money talks and film took a walk. It's really that simple. Pro's have one and only one job : making money. If the quality of 8MP digital is adequate to the masses then that is what they will shoot. It doesn't matter if Mamiya has a 22MP or that you can get a $30,000 Phase One digital back for your Hasselblad. Pro's will use what is deemed acceptable or necessary by the client and that's all there is too it.
Yeah, these are PRO's who WORK in the field of photography ! And note that most of them don't even use the words "film" or "digital". They simply don't care what the tool is. They have a job to do and that job is to use their talents to make money. Short and simple. Digital is to the working pro as tires are to the rims on your car : a perfect fitting necessity.
I am a big computer enthusiast, overclocker, IT professional and long time Anand Tech reader (since inception?) I also have been into amateur photography for about 7 years, recently switching to digi SLR about 14 months ago. All my knowledge is self taught from reading stuff on the web and my own experimentation. I use 6 lenses and have taken around 12,600 photos with my SLR camera in the time that I have owned it! (just providing a gauge of my photographic experience and enthusiasm)
I was very disappointed with this article! Firstly because it degraded other excellent websites while simultaneously borrowing content and images from them! And secondly from a technical point of view I disagreed with some of the assertions made.
What you correctly identified in your article was the flexibility of an SLR camera. However you also said a few separate times that comparing times including power-on time had now become irrelevant because they were all pretty fast? I disagree!
One use of an SLR camera is sports or action photography where start up times can be very important. Just this weekend I took pictures at a car rally, where on one day it rained heavily and on another it was very dusty. I held my camera under my jacket and only pulled it out and turned it on at the last minute so to keep it from getting too wet. I think the 350D is 0.2 seconds start up time which is fine for this use, but I would not consider a camera that forced the user to wait for much longer (for example if it needed to clean the sensor). The nature of sports photography demands more of the performance of the camera as interesting things may suddenly unfold so the performance of the camera and the ability to change settings quickly rather than navigate menus gains importance...
I think DPReview and Steves Digicams both understand that their readers may vary significantly in what they want from a camera - that is in part why they may be seen as ambiguous in their conclusions as they avoid giving cameras an overall score like 88% etc. That they cover a many technical details in the article allows the readers to decide what features are important and reach their own conclusions.
Another thing you wrote was that there weren't many positive things about zoom lenses. I have both zooms and prime lenses and appreciate that they both have strengths and weaknesses.
You also said "Canon and Nikon still make reasonable 50mm f/1.8 lenses, which also happen to be the sharpest lens in either lens lineup." Can you qualify this statement re: sharpness? The Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is cheap and pretty good but not a silver bullet. The 50mm f/1.4 beats it in all areas and is still quite reasonably priced. And of course I am sure the 50mm f/1.2 is excellent, although very expensive.
So I am sorry but I think you should have a little more respect for the established sites who have done a fantastic job over the years in the field that they specialise in. I shall read your reviews in parallel with the established camera sites but will take your opinions with a grain of salt!
For others interested in digital SLR photography I recommend the following websites:
It was not my intent to degrade other excellent photo websites, in fact I mentioned no site specifically in my introductory guide. You obviously appreciate the level of some the more technical digital review sites and I certainly can appreciate where you come from. As I have stated several times, we do not want to try to emulate those sites, but to try to chart our own style. We also will not please everyone with our approach.
Where we have used images that are not public domain we have attributed those images to their sources in the guide. This is an introductory guide, and not a review.
Photodo is the well-respected Swedish lens data/review site that was extablished by Lars Kjellberg and is now owned by ePHOTOzine. The Nikon AF 50mm f1.8D is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.4, while the more expensive f1.4 is rated a 4.2. The Canon 50 EF 50mm f1.8 II costs $70 and is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.2, while the earlier 50 F1.8 is rated 4.4. The $350 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 is also rated at 4.4. All 5 of these lenses are among the highest MTF rated Canon and Nikon lenses you can buy, and all significantly outperform most zoom lenses in either line. The Canon 50f1.8 at $70 is a stellar value, at half a stop slower than the 1.4 and 1/5 the price. The plastic lens mount on the II version is cheesey, but owners have not complained about durability issues.
Regarding the Canon 50mm 1.8, I think most people would agree that the 1.4 is better since it has full time manual focus and also a silent USM motor, plus 8 aperture blades instead of 5 for nicer, smoother looking bokeh (out of focus areas in an image). Of course when you consider the cost differential most people choose the f1.8 and for many it is the smarter choice! However I still believe your sentence in the article suggesting that it happens to be the sharpest lens in the lineup a little misleading. Not a big deal I guess.
If I can make some comments on the following paragraph:
There are plenty of Digital Camera Review sites out on the web, so you may ask why AnandTech is re-launching a Digital Photography section. It appears that current sites are rarely on target with what computer enthusiasts want to know about digital cameras. Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer. Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market. Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today. It is our sincere belief that we can do it in a better way for our readers and computer enthusiasts everywhere, but please help us as we try to reinvent this wheel. Some of our readers may not like AT delving into Digital Camera Reviews, and to them we say you just can't ignore digital photography any more. Today's digital imaging is nothing more than an optic stuck on a computer, and there is very little left of the mechanical gems that once ruled the world of photography.
A few points:
"Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer."
So a 'non-photographer' will find a technical review on the big digital camera sites gibberish? I don't think that is a problem, because such reviews aren't really aimed at non-photographers. I would guess that non-computer users are going to find articles on Anandtech about ram timings difficult to understand too!
Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market.
See my comments re: sports / action photography in my previous post. Start up times, shot to shot times and file flush times are quite important to me! Other sites have (very comprehensive) standardised tests that include these timings. I wouldn't say they dwell on the subject though, unless a particular camera is unusually bad at it. If it is not something that is relevant then a reader can easily skip it.
Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today.
In my years of reading the major photo review websites, I haven't encountered this. Without asking you to be specific, can you mention general examples of what you mean?
The reality is that most computer geeks (myself included) are not photography experts, but are overall tech-savy and interested in things like digital SLR cameras.
Sure, I can go to sites like dpreview and the like, and they do an excellent job of reviewing cameras from a pro or prosumer perspective. I could sit and read a bunch of stuff on those sites and educate myself to the point of becoming very knowledgable about cameras... Most of us don't want to do that, or we would have already done so. Instead, AT hit it right on the head with this article, it's a look at digital photograhpy for the tech savy who are not photography experts.
" The artistic types distrust turning their vision into cheap Adobe Photoshop tricks, and the tech-savvy are so enamored of technology and editing that they often don't have a clue about what makes a good photograph and what lens to use in a given situation. "
I stopped reading there. If you want respectable people to respect you, its a good idea not to be a fucking jackass and insult the readers in the second paragraph. Get some common sence.
Have to side with Wes on this one. Nothing in his words are offensive. He is simply stating the view point of two extremes of the population who both hold very valid positions.
These are comments from discussions I have had on Forums and in emails with readers. They were not meant to offend, but to point out the fact that the art and technical don't always mix well. This is particularly true when the market, and not the people affected, is forcing changes in the way people work.
To those that say no, I also like to read reviews from multiple sources. AT- dont try to be dpreview, make your reviews a little less technical, easier to understand. Not to fault them, but you need to have some pretty serious photography knolwedge to get their reviews. I would welcome an easier to understand set of reviews. (I do still enjoy reading about my level :-))
On another note, on the last page, you called canons new camera the Rebel XT1, its actually the XTi.
Also, take a gander at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, its a sort of pre-digital SLR camera. It basically is a digital SLR, but with an attached lense. Its looking to be my next camera purchase since I am too poor to afford the "real" DSLRs.
I am a hobbyist photographer (Canon 350D) who likes to do macros/scenery when I can. What I'd love to see are guides for people who want to get into DSLRs and don't know which camera system to buy into. For example, if a person is interested in macros, should he buy into a Nikon system? What about the guy who wants to shoot lots of indoor shots of his baby? Lens choices are very tough for newbies to make and a hefty dose of attention to what lens to pick would be great.
Wes, thanks for the great article. I'm a grizzled vet when it comes to PC tech, but when it comes to photography I'm pretty much a noob. I appreciate the article and look forward to reviews, especially since I'm about to purchase my first digital SLR camera.
One dumb question: are lenses for SLR cameras "standard" in terms of connecting to the camera body? ie, can I take a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 SLR lens and hook it up to some other digital SLR camera?
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 ;)
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.
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.
quote: - 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Some people appreciate diversity in opinion. Take me for instance. I would prefer to read three reviews on a motherboard and come to my own consensus prior to actually purchasing said motherboard.
Overall a very good article, however there is one major points that I'd like to address here. The conclusion page (under 'Lens Confusion') makes the following statement:
quote: ...eventually name lenses by their real APS C/DX focal lengths once 35mm faded away
Focal length is a physical property of the lens itself - it is not affected by the size of the sensor. While the field of view (and hence behaviour) of a given focal length changes based on the size of the imaging plane that doesn't change the fact that the focal length remains the same. As this article notes, each format (8x10", 4x5", 6cm, 35mm, APS, etc.) uses different focal lengths for different purposes so the 35mm vs. 24mm (APS/DX) change is no different ;)
'Equivalent' focal lengths are useful as a transitional aide, but if the 35mm format fades away, then why would we want to base things on being equivalent to an obsolete format? For a new user comming into the DSLR market, it would seem just as easy to teach them that a '35mm lens is a normal' rather than trying to explain how focal lengths were used on a format that they aren't using ;) Naturally, for users comming from the 35mm space it might be easier to use the equivalent numbers - however that is only a problem durring the transition period.
Conversely, if the market moves toward a tiered system with professional equipment using 35mm sensors and consumer equipment uses APS-C then using 'equivalent' focal lengths will simply create more confusion. For instance, if an APS camera user were to buy a professional lens (that will be labeled with the real focal length) their consumer equipment (which is labeled with an 'equivalent' focal length) will be marked differently. IMHO simply telling users to multiply all focal lengths by 1.5x is much easier than explaining that a professional 100mm lens produces the same FoV as a consumer 150mm lens ;)
I basically agree with you. My only concern here is that the "digital" lenses designed for the DX format will not provide a full image on a 35mm camera. You also quickly find that the 28mm to 80mm lens is NOT a wide-angle to short tele when mountd on a digital SLR. Then there is the exotic sounding 18-55mm kit lens that behaves on a digital SLR like a 28mm-85mm lens and that most definitely will NOT operate as a full-frame 18mm on a 35mm camera.
quote: My only concern here is that the "digital" lenses designed for the DX format will not provide a full image on a 35mm camera.
True, but if you label a 12-24mm DX lens an 18-36mm 'equivalent' lens and put it on the shelf beside a 17-35mm FF lens you're bound to confuse people even more. The 17-35 will also mount on an APS camera, but it will provide the eqivalent of a 25-50mm lens - however with the differential labeling, it may appear that it would be wider than the DX lens. If you just stick with the real focal length of the lens, then you give people a better idea of their relative reach.
quote: Then there is the exotic sounding 18-55mm kit lens that behaves on a digital SLR like a 28mm-85mm lens and that most definitely will NOT operate as a full-frame 18mm on a 35mm camera.
But that's the fundamental problem - the only reason we relate 18mm as an ultra-wide focal length is that we're still used to shooting with 35mm. People with this level of experience generally can figure this stuff out relatively easilly - the people who have trouble with it are generally those just starting out. For someone who has never used 35mm, however, 18mm doesn't really mean much other than what they are told - simply telling them that 18mm is a moderate wide angle is much simpler than trying to explain 'equivalence' to a format they've never used (and likely never will) ;)
As for mounting an 18-55mm lens on a full-frame camera, you'd still get the same FoV as a full-frame 18mm lens it'd just be that the edges would have extreme vinetting so the image would be difficult to make use of. Either way, it's easier to explain 'don't put DX/EF-S/etc. lenses on a FF camera' than it is to explain why the APS 18-36mm lens is much wider than the FF 17-35mm lens ;)
Regardless, I certainly understand what you are saying ;) The caveat is that the vendors are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They could rebrand APS lenses with equivalent focal lengths, however (a) that creates confusion with full-frame lenses also in their lineup (which for most vendors is the vast majority of their lines) and (b) it means that they'll be stuck using this 'equivalent' nomenclature long after most consumers forget what 35mm was ;) If they stay with the real focal lengths, it creates some confusion in the short term, but it allows them to use a standard designation across their entire lineup and will eventually become a non-issue once people get used to it.
Purhaps the easier solution would be to simply place FoV angles alongside the focal length designations on the lens barrel. The concept of a 45 horizontal degree field of view would likely mean a whole lot more to the average consumer than saying a 28mm lens on an APS-C body ;)
I never did understand why manufacturers didn't simply go with a magnification factor. A normal lens would be a 1X which would be the equivalent of the diagonal of the film/CCD/CMOS. A 0.5X would be half the diagonal and so forth. The only issue I can see would be in considering the perspective of the subject to the surroundings in the image. Not a huge concern when using focal lengths in the 0.5X ~ 4.0X range though admitedly there are a huge number of cameras with lenses that zoom well beyond those parameters.
In that case they really need to hire better engineers if they don't know what size the CCD's in their own cameras are !
Note that this all points out the need for some standardization as well. Standardization is in the best intrest of the consumer as it opens up competition. This is why PC sell 99:1 versus Mac. Mac has completely alienated a lot of their user base by persistently changing their architecture. Something they seem determined to keep doing.
Lastly, the mangnification would be indicated based on the lenses targetd system. A lens designed for use on a Canon full-frame system would simply need to be stamped differently for use on a Nikon. The lenses aren't interchangeable unless one uses a lens mount such as the Tamron Adaptall that has seen very modest use in the past on 35mm cameras.
Sorry for the very long post, but photography is a subject that is close to me and I was left with some very mixed feelings after reading your article. I have been a "prosumer" photographer for over 25 years, with some professional work thrown-in a long time ago. I just switched to 100% digital not too long ago, so naturally I was excited to hear AT was starting a digital photography section. As a newbie when it comes to computers and overclodcking I have come to admire your incredibly thorough reviews and articles for computer hardware, and was looking forward to the same level of depth and knowledge in photography. However, I must admit that after reading this article I was somewhat disappointed.
Overall the article is excellent, as is usual with AT. But in the article you also send some mixed messages, and say some things that affect your credibility.
You start by saying that most computer enthusiasts don't know enough to understand the "jargon" used by traditional review sites. However, you are also focusing on digital SLRs which can cost $500 and more once you include the body, lens and other required accesories. Anyone seriously considering such an SLR (instead of a cheaper, simpler point-and-shoot) almost certainly already knows enough about photography to understand the "jargon", or at least can easily learn it with some research. This is a double standard. You say most photography sites use language that is gibberish to a non-photographer. Guess what: your own reviews of hardware are gibberish to most computer newbies, and even to some more knowledgeable users. Yet this is precisely why you offer great reviews. Assuming some prior knowledge on the part of your reader allows you to focus on incredibly detailed, in-depth reviews of hardware. That is, to me, one of your greatest values. I can learn the basics anywhere, but only here can I find such outstanding in-depth reviews or a community of incredibly knowledgeable users. Yet for photography you are suggesting you will target a comparably less informed user. I think this underestimates the knowledge of your community. In addition, catering to such an audience will limit the technical depth of your reviews. I'd much rather see you target a more informed user (maybe provide some guides to allow newbies to learn the jargon?) and concentrate on the same level of technical depth you currently have in hardware, along with jargon, gibberish and all. Anyone can provide a basic review of equipment, be it computer hardware or digital SLRs. Very few people can provide truly in-depth, reliable, technical reviews, and I think this is where AT can stand out from the rest.
You also make some comments that could affect your credibility. As an example, on page 1 you say "In the end taking a digital photo is still basically dependent on the same set of 'rules' as taking a film image, as the only real difference in digital and film is what happens after the image is captured". This is not accurate. As a very important example, the nature of digital sensors has a significant impact of how you expose an image for digital capture. Yes, you could just point and shoot with a digital camera, but you would not be getting the most out of your image or equipment. Given the nature of digital sensors, with digital cameras you need to "expose to the right" to maximize the amount of detail you can capture (i.e. you need to overexpose your image somewhat). You also need to think carefully about the format you will use to store the image on the camera (which may impact quality and definitely impacts the amount of post-processing you may need), and must make careful decisions on white balance before taking the picture. There is an inherent difference between film and digital sensors, and they do affect how you take pictures even before you release the shutter. Look at it this way: if a newbie was about to purchase some DDR2 1066 RAM only to permanently run it at DDR2 553 speeds you would almost certainly suggest that he/she learn enough to overclock his system and leverage the RAM to its fullest, or else you would suggest that he/she not waste the money on such expensive memory. It is no different with digital cameras. If someone pays upwards of $500 for an SLR ,he/she should learn enough to use it to its full potential, and not just use it as a film camera or a point-and-shoot digital.
Having said all this, I think you could offer a great digital photography review section if you stick to what you do best: in-depth, reliable, highly technical reviews of equipment, with your own benchmarks and testing techniques. People can learn the basics anywhere, but here they would find great in-depth reviews not available elsewhere. You go into incredible detail, testing and benchmarking when evaluating the performance of a GPU, and certainly use lots of very technical "jargon" that allows you to offer outstanding reviews, without worrying about catering to less informed users. Those users (including me) usually do their basic research to learn the jargon before reading your reviews. Why would you not apply the same high standards when reviewing digital SLRs?
Moving on to the type of tests, I would love to see extensive batteries of tests covering a wide range of factors, similar to what you now do with hardware. Conduct tests of cameras using identical images that we can compare across cameras and Brands. If testing an SLR body, use a reference high-quality lens so that lens quality is not a factor in the captured image, again allowing us to compare different camera bodies. Develop tests to measure noise at higher ISOs (a potential issue with smaller sensors, such as those in the 4/3 system pioneered by Olympus). Evaluate the time it takes for an image to be written to the camera's storage media at different formats, and how that impacts the ability to shoot continuous frames. If the camera has a built-in flash, evaluate the effectiveness and range of the flash. Look at the available lens offerings for a given body (which, as you correctly point out, can sometimes have a greater impact on image quality than the number of pixels on the sensor). Evaluate the quality of "kit lenses" (by comparing their images to those of the reference lens). Evaluate the in-camera software (e.g. how well does the auto white balance work under different lighting conditions? How well does the camera "process" the raw image to convert it to a jpg?). The list could go on and on, even without going beyond just cameras. There are numerous relevant factors to test in a digital camera, I just touched on a few. There is LOTS of room for thorough, in-depth, technical reviews that you would not be able to offer if you cater to a less informed crowd. And there certainly is room for a website such as AT to conduct these detailed, thorough reviews, using your experience with hardware testing to provide a level of thoroughness and detail that is simply not available elsewhere.
You bring up some interesting points, and they are points the staff at AT are still debating. You might find it interesting that almost all the AT Editors thought this introductory guide was possibly too technical. Several commented that they really had to pay attention to get the technical details I was discussing. This is from Editors who write those technical computer equipment reviews you enjoy here. I was worried it was too basic since I didn't even cover things like lens perspective and color balance, in the interest of keeping the size more managable and the article more readable.
Our real issue with Digital Cameras is knowing which audience to address. We do understand there are readers that are vey knowledgable in digital photography, but there are also readers who know next to nothing about digital cameras. AT is known as a computer equipment review site, so if we sometimes go too far on the technical side of computer testing it is normally forgiven. However, based on our Editors and questions from readers, we really think we need to aim our Digital Camera reviews at a slightly lower common denominator.
We will likely test and talk more about where various digital photo technology is useful and the best use for certain equipment and cameras than other photo reviews. This will likely be below what you want in the beginning, but if the demand is there we will move to ever more extensive benchmarking as the section evolves.
As for your experience with the sensor in your camera, it appears to be camera/sensor specific. I could make the same argument for every film that exists - they all respond best to certain exposure techniques and those techniques differ depending on the film. However my personal experience has been the opposite of yours - blown highlight from overexposure are much more an issue than underexposure in digital, since I can usually correct shadow detail in Photoshop and I can't always recover blown highlights. Yes, white balance adjustments can be made on the fly with digital and ISO can be adjusted on the fly, which is very unlike film. However, white balance and ISO just work at a different point in digital, and they stil mean the same thing. No we don't have the added latitude of the print process as film does, but we have a similar and even greater latitiude with post processing in Photoshop or other image-editing software.
While I do agree that anyone using only point and shoot is not getting all they can from the camera I also believe strongly that you can still get a lot of quality out of your digital camera on Auto when it is backed by some knowledge. I would also bet you that the great majority of our readers who use digital cameras generally use auto - even with SLRs - and only once in a while go off the program for special situations. I learned this the hard way trying to help our other "geek" editors who almost all own SLR cameras they bought themselves, but who really struggled to take decent photos for our reviews. Once they were given a few tips on lenses to use for available light and how to control depth of field their photos instantly improved = and they almost all still use auto.
Your suggestions for tests and benchmarks are appreciated, and we will definitely consider those as we determine how we will move forward in reviewing Digital Photography equipment.
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.
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.
quote: As for your experience with the sensor in your camera, it appears to be camera/sensor specific. I could make the same argument for every film that exists - they all respond best to certain exposure techniques and those techniques differ depending on the film. However my personal experience has been the opposite of yours - blown highlight from overexposure are much more an issue than underexposure in digital, since I can usually correct shadow detail in Photoshop and I can't always recover blown highlights.
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 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? ;-)
quote: Our real issue with Digital Cameras is knowing which audience to address. We do understand there are readers that are vey knowledgable in digital photography, but there are also readers who know next to nothing about digital cameras.
and
quote: I would also bet you that the great majority of our readers who use digital cameras generally use auto - even with SLRs - and only once in a while go off the program for special situations.
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.
quote: AT is known as a computer equipment review site, so if we sometimes go too far on the technical side of computer testing it is normally forgiven
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
quote: Names like Casio, HP, Sony, Fuji, Samsung and Kodak don't exist in SLR space
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Is providing a single sentence regarding start-up time dwelling? I don't think any camera review is complete without listing startup times and listing shot to shot time. I think it's a bit hypocritical to focus on core architecture, timings and such and then say a length of time I can actually perceive is not relevant. Especially, when you go and provide such a good article. I think you are just trying to make the other review sites seem stodgy and backward or just wrongheaded, and show that AT is "with it". Moreover, you say they speak gibberish like they are jargon slinging photo elitist snobs. Then you provide,IMO, a pretty techical primer, when they probably have some material for novices too. I know you were just saying "We're Cool, We Rule!", but I don't think when ur AT you have to do that. AT is already in my RSS reader because it does quality reviews. I just skimmed the article, and I can't wait to go back and read it in depth. I'me really excited about AT doing photo stuff too. I agree with the above poster that finding some standard meaningful benchmarks with good subjective commentary will have AT ruling the roost in camera reviews. Not to plug another site, but I think Steve's Digicams provides excellent reviews, actually his site is about the only site I really find useful for cameras. I'm glad I will soon have two sites that provide good information. YAY AT!
How does AnandTech review and compare its computer components? With standardized benchmarks and editorial commentary. Compare all the cameras with a good, strong set of standardized tests across the board, and also add a dose of the editorial commentary.
In particular, for the sub-$1000 market, I would suggest evaluating the kit as a whole (image quality with kit lens). Personally, I will be picking up a Nikon D50 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, and I have researched the heck out of that package, trying to find an AnandTech-esque review.
Venturing above the sub-$1000 (although I would be very intrigued by some reviews of the professional-level equipment) would get very expensive very fast. Perhaps start small, then venture into the almost-pro market (Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D, and some of the $500-$1000 lenses), then maybe dip a toe into the professional level, just to let us all see what the real fancy stuff is like (since very few of us will be buying a D2Xs or EOS-1D MkII-N).
Time permitting, I would put out some quick looks at the Nikon D50 and the Canon EOS 350D, with some comparison between the two. A review/comparison of both the Nikon D80 (in the works, good!) and the Canon EOS 400D would be an interesting read.
Again, review the D-SLR market the same way you guys do computer hardware. Avoid the slugfest low-range and the stratospherically-priced high range. Focus on the high-midrange market (the sub-$1000 D-SLR's to start, move up to the $1k-2k market once you gain some feel for differences between cameras). Do across-the-board standardized benchmarks, with some synthetic but more real-world results.
Exactly my thoughts. I have spent some time at a number of camera review sites and am always left wondering "Is the Nikon D80 good enough to justify the price difference over the D50?". "What about the Canon EOS 30D? How much better is it then the Nikon D80 or the Rebel XT/XTi?"
Maybe these cannot be answered in the same way as CPU and GPU articles, but standardized tests and comparisons would be nice.
Give me some numbers! I don't want to hear "shot-to-shot performance was sluggish compared to higher end cameras"...unless you can quantify that for me.
Lighting is such an improtant part of photography. Standardized indoor lighting under a couple different kinds of lighting situation (i.e. low, bright, fluorescent, etc.). I don't know how to standardize outdoor shots, but it sure would be nice.
I don't understand as I usually read more than one site on one subject. For instance I've been reading Tomshardware since it was sysdoc.pair.com and both Anandtech and Extremetech nearly as long.
I'm just a photography hobbyist, but I thought that the article covered all the important basics of full-manual general photography and digital photography.
I would touch on filters, though. Those can come in handy. Particular onces to focus on: UV ("does it actually do anything, or is it just a lens protector?" debate), Polarizing, and the primary colors (blue, yellow, and red).
Concerning polarizing filters (I really wish there was an edit functionality for comments): circular polarizing works with autofocus and digital cameras, linear does not.
I know AnandTech isn't much of a software website, but a short article on editing software (Adobe Photoshop, beta of Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture) would complete the picture. No need to focus on the software or printing, but a photography software article written in the same manner as this one is something that would help me a lot! (I have almost no experience with editing software).
We all want to improve, so please provide specifics so we can address them. It would also be helpful if you would provide your photography credentials, so we can know the level of expertise to attach to your comments.
... a first-class and technically-meaty summary of the current status of digital camera technology. Well up to the usual Anadtech standards. Congratulations, Wes. The addition of a Digital Camera section is a superb idea. By all means, use reference charts, lighting and scenes for resolution, optical-distortion, shading and color-fidelity comparison of both lenses and sensors. Just as you have with video cards and CPUs, come up with your own benchmarks if necessary.
That was a very interesting article. I've always wanted to learn more about cameras and photography, in the hopes of making it a hobby once the time and money is available. So thanks for explaining the background info for noobs like me :) I'll be looking forward to the rest of the series.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
Back to Article
squiddy - Thursday, February 15, 2007 - link
I'm fairly versed in film and digital SLRs and have been shooting since the mid-80s. Nikon afficionado here but I did have a few Canon EOS film bodies back in the day. Currently use a D70s and soon hopefully a D200 in my bag.Anyway, as to sugestions for future reviews, the technical aspect tests are all well and good since numbers are always easy to quantify. The MP count, max resolution, test charts and etc do help people choose cameras after all. What I'd like to see more of are subjective reviews. How user-friendly is the camera? Are the menu's easy to navigate and the features easy to get to? How are the ergonomics and will my hand require a chiropractor after a long day of shooting? Is the camera balanced even when using a medium telephoto lens? How about accessories (flash kits, filters, battery grips, flash brackets, etc), are they useful for this camera or just gravy?
What made me write these additional questions is that I experienced it when I borrowed a Canon 350d for a friend's wedding. This was before my Nikon D70s and I absolutely loved/hated it. The pictures were great but required heavy menu navigation for white balance and iso settings. The camera was lighter than my old film Nikon so it wasn't tiring to carry all the time but the grip was awful. My pinky was sticking out under the body and a;; the weight was focused on the upper/rear quarter of my right palm. I'll tell you now, it hurts to use it for a long time. Especially with a 430ex flash. I then tried a friend's D50 and a D70 after that and it solidified my Nikon preference. Great ergonomics and the two dials give you much greater flexibility on the fly.
These reviews are probably aspects that the average consumer won't consider before purchasing and just focus on numbers but it greatly affects the usability of the camera in the long run.
Thanks guys and keep up the great work!
appu - Sunday, October 8, 2006 - link
I don't know if these have already been covered in the comments earlier. There are quite a few and I didn't read them all.1.) When talking about vibration reduction, you need to make sure you tell your readers that VR/IS *cannot* eliminate subject motion blur. It can only eliminate (to a degree) blur caused by handshake. I'm surprised you missed such an important point considering that you felt most AT readers are newbies at photography. It's all dandy to believe that VR gets you sharp images all the time. No, it doesn't. There are caveats and you might have mentioned them.
2.) The real benefit of SLR cameras is - more than anything else - the fact that the photographer sees what the lens sees. That's a major, major advantage of a SLR over point-and-shoots and rangefinders which exhibit parallax error by the nature of their design, especially if the subject is close to the lens/camera. Given this, you might have also mentioned that sensor-based stabilization techniques are a bit of a misfit (atleast that's what I tend to think) because having a stabilized sensor still *will not* give you a stabilized image in the viewfinder. However, lenses which have VR in-built *will* give you a stabilized image in your viewfinder - again going back to the "what you see is what you get" thing. Having stabilized sensors is good for the customers as they don't pay VR royalty on every lens they buy, but I don't see the point in seeing a shaky image in the viewfinder and somehow expecting something sharp (to what degree I may not know) in the final image. Maybe 99.9999% here (or anywhere) wouldn't agree with me on this point but I think it's worth a note.
3.) Not all kit lenses are dogs. The 18-70 DX I have for my Nikon D70 is a wonderfully sharp, contrasty lens (of course in available light situations) and after almost 2 years of shooting DSLRs I can safely admit that I've not "outgrown" this lens. It still manages to surprise me every once in a while and I don't see the need for an exotic f/2.8 zoom in this range as yet. Point I'm trying to make is - don't berate kit lenses. They are there for a reason, and as with any lens, there are certain advantages and certain disadvantages. As a photographer, it's important to understand what every bit of your equipment is good at and then maximize the technical potential of your images because of this understanding. Infact, building up on this point...
4.) I'll go so far as to say that, even with fixed focal length (prime) lenses, the so-called "sweet spot" in terms of image sharpness and contrast is usually achieved when the lens is stopped down by 1.5 to 2 stops from its maximum aperture. If you are always going to think in terms of how zoom lenses are "bad quality" compared to primes, I'd encourage you to start shooting 2 stops down on your primes (and thus lose all the speed advantage these primes offer). I think you get what I'm trying to say. Let's not get too hung up on trivialities like this because, and I repeat because, modern zooms, even the consumer zooms produce wonderful images in the hands of capable photographers. And then you have pro-grade zooms like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR from Nikon and Canon's 17-40 f/4L etc. Yes, they are costly, but so is a 300 f/2.8 VR Nikkor or a pro-grade ~100mm macro. The price differential is evident only when you start looking at wide-to-medium-tele or super-wide-to-normal fast zooms (28-70 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8) and even then the output from these lenses is well worth their cost and the walk-around convenience they present to photographers who prefer this range of focal lengths. So, not all zooms are "bad". Things have improved, just as they continuously do in the computer hardware business. Let's not get stuck in old notions based on old equipment manufactured using old processes.
Keep up the nice work!
appu - Sunday, October 8, 2006 - link
Ok, one last point -5.) In your second last page, you talk about "lens confusion" and how you'd like the industry to move to a standard naming of lenses. I don't understand what can be more standard than the focal length itself - a very physical property of a lens. A 35mm lens has a focal length of 35mm. Period. It doesn't depend on what format camera it's bolted on to. A 35mm lens is 35mm whether it's used on a 4x5 view camera or a 645 medium camera or a 35mm film camera or a digital equipped with an APS-C or.... you get the picture. In itself, the naming of the lens by its focal length (range, with zooms) is *not* confusing. What's confusing is what people make it out to be - quoting effective focal lengths for formats all and sundry, where as in reality, the measure everyone needs to be worried about is field-of-view. A 35mm lens will have different fields-of-view when used with different camera formats.
We don't need a standard for identifying lenses. We already have one - focal length (a physical property that doesn't change) and field-of-view (a very measurable metric). If anything, it's the "effective focal length" paradigm has to be done away with, IMHO.
appu - Sunday, October 8, 2006 - link
In the last line of the third from last paragraph - Nikon doesn't make a 11-18mm as far as I know. They do have a 12-24 f/4 DX and Sigma also has a 12-24 (I think a non-constant aperture) which can be used on full-frame cameras too, unlike the Nikon 12-24 DX. The 11-18mm is made by one (or both) of Tamron and Tokina I think.directed - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
When reviewing DSLRs, I want to know how quickly they can autofocus in different lighting conditions. I want to know how good the autoexposure is in different situations. I want to know how the different flashes perform in different settings (not just the built in ones, but the ones you can buy for them). I want to know how accurate the color reproduction and contrast is. I want to know how good the jpg compression is (lets face it, few people will be using RAW). I want to know how long the batteries will last in different situations. I would also like there to be a comparison with other models in a similar price range as well as a comparison with the cheaper and more expensive models of the same manufacturer.Boy, looking at my post I sound demanding. LOL, I'm sure Anandtech is up to the challenge.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, November 1, 2006 - link
I dont know, I dont use AF for demanding lighting situations, I use the infinite Focus setting, and set the rest manually. That, and I think all 'prosumer' DSLRs have a fairly 'shitty' on cam flash, and alot of us would probably be more concerned with the hotshoe 'adapter'However, I will agree with battery life as an important factor, but to be honest I'm personally more concerned with how fast the camera is (FPS), and the media type used.
I see alot of stuff on dpreview.com like 'default <insert something relivent> setting is BAD' etc, but most of the these cameras can be manually adjusted away from default settings, so, IMHO, it's a moot point, and is pointless to really mention, learn how to use your camera ;)
You're not demanding, you just know what you want :)
yyrkoon - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
Forget what all the nay sayers are saying guys, write you articles. I've been interrested in the Sony A100 for several months now, since the preview on dpreview.com. I also think you're right concerning the *mass* of information that dpreview gives off for thier camera reviews, most of it is un nessisary for all but the professionals, most of us just want to know things like, how many FPS does the camera achieve, how does it handle low light situations, how clean are the photos, etc.Carry on :)
silver - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
Another good point. AT has always been about presenting good, practical information on the products that we use and in this context has always done a great job.The A100 certainly has my intrest as well but do note that most pro's do not need bells and whistles in their equipment. In fact most don't even want them available as it adds to both cost and complexity with almost no practical return in value.
Lord Midas - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
Very good article Wesley. Thanks.Still a lot of this is still baffling at the moment but that should change when I get my Canon Rebel XTi 400D for Christmas.
What I would like to see in the reviews would also include the quality of the bundled lens (the Canon comes with the 18-55mm lens). As well as with a quality lens.
Will you also include reviews of lens:
For example you do the "Mid Range GPU Roundup - Summer 2006"
So you could do this with Normal, telephoto, etc lens.
So instead of reviewing one lens you can do a group test.
And I also think that a few standard photos for all the reviews would be good (indoor, outdoor, macro, etc) and a few random ones the the reviewer would think we would like.
Keep up the good work. Thanks.
mesonw - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Just wanted to add my 2p-worth. I feel I fit fairly well into the target audience you're aiming at. I'm very lacking when it comes to the technical details of cameras, digital or otherwise, yet I have a great desire to take good and interesting pictures.It's good for people to offer tips and ideas for your upcoming articles, but I don't see the point of the very knowledgeable and camera-savvy crowd out there making harsh criticisms simply because you're targetting people with less knowledge than them. Like they say, there are other sites to get in-depth information if they want it, so why berate AT for catering for others?
I for one look forward to your articles on the subject, because I know they will be well written, provide useful information and insights, and very likely make me a better amateur photographer.
Good work AT.
sliver1 - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Nice wrapping article! There is one thing that doesn't fit though...If you're a pro photographer, then you don't need such a website to learn about photography or entry-level consumer DSLR cameras. A thing like "a good auto white balance" doesn't mean anything since pros are shooting RAW anyway. Also, you don't embrace a "camera system" solely for the body and the lenses -- there are lots of other accessories required that may not be available or as good as those of the two major players with offerings from other companies. (Have you heard of pro photographers working with anything but Canon or Nikon?)
On the other hand, yes, other websites prepare extensive reviews that cover, among other things, startup times, location of mirror lockup or second curtain sync features, discuss MTF charts and review lens by talking about chromatic aberrations/distortion/corner softness, etc. -- all sort of things that that matter to pros, even if it won't be covered on this site.
Where does that leave this new Anandtech section? Inevitably to consumer or photo hobbyists/enthusiasts. This is for people who expect better image quality and more freedom in picture taking than what a point-and-shoot can offer -- yet not being anywhere near pro.
So as long as you stick with this segment, spend paragraphs talking about the "direct print" features, discuss "picture styles", explain the effective range of the built-in snap-up flash, then okay. But it would be ridiculous to write articles about top of the line cameras like the Canon 5D, Canon 1DsMkII, Nikon D2xs, etc., as much as it would be ridiculous to talk about thousand dollar pro lenses, etc.
While I'm at it...
1) You seem to believe that the crop factor has an influence on the "rule of thumb" for handheld shots. A 50mm lens, equivalent to a 80mm on a 1.6x crop, still has a "rule of thumb" of 1/50s. Keeping only a smaller part of the image circle does not lengthens a lens, does not add vibration...
2) Image Stabilisation (IS) is very handy (no pun intended), but cannot replace a faster lens. Even if you can shoot handheld 3 stops slower (or even 4 stops, as in the new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM), this won't help for a moving subject, and you may well end up with blurry pictures after all -- especially if you're shooting people/animals...
3) You seem to diminish/discard the importance of a full-frame sensor. A full frame sensor has a dramatic impact on the quality of the images, especially because of lower pixel density. Also, the only comparison you've mentionned for film vs digital left readers to think that digital still had something to envy film -- which is really not seeing the whole picture. Digital reduced noise (grain) dramatically. It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. The only drawback is the higher initial cost.
And finally...
4) No pro relies on full-auto settings in a camera, no matter how sophisticated it is (or will become). Even if technology (what this website is about) keeps bringing tools to facilitate the photographer's job and render sharper, cleaner images, etc., that's not what makes a picture compelling. A 39MP PhaseOne digital back won't do any good in the hands of a beginner, as much as a pro could make astounding pictures with a very modest camera... So, please make sure you don't play the marketing game companies are using to have consumer believe they can make wonderful pictures with the touch of a single button ;)
silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
" It has been reported by more than a serious source that a 1DsMkII has more resolving power than *medium format film*. Color rendition is better in digital by *far*. More control over the whole workflow. All in all, digital is winning easily, which is why pros are all going digital and companies are giving up film. "Not at all ! Pro's jumped on digital as it speeds up their entire workflow and is more effecient than film. It reduces costs significantly as most studios have film processing and proofing costs around $4,k~$5,k per month. Also having the image immediately available to the client has huge returns in sales points. These are trully the only reasons. Film is still far and away better when comparing apples-to-apples.
sliver1 - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
As others have said it, at this point, there would be endless arguing about digital vs film, and I understand that some could still want to use film for obscure/critical reasons, such as shooting in harsh -60 celcius north pole conditions. ...But seriously, what I was simply trying to point out, though, is that the only mention of "film" in the article was an argument in favor of film, which doesn't allow to see the whole picture.As for why pros are switching to digital... If it was only a matter of saving on the studios' workflow, or speeding things up for photojournalists, then only some fields of photography would have made the switch. Many other pros -- in landscape photography, for example, where you can get very complex histograms pushing the range to its limits -- would have stuck to film. The fact is that they are all switching.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout...
silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
I can honestly say I don't know a single photographer shooting quality landscapes on digital. I certainly don't know any that would bother with purchasing a a $33,000 Phase One digital back for a medium format camera when a $1.00 sheet of film in a 4x5 will best it in color and tonal scale.http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/PE71278.html">http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/PE71278.html
Visual - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
this is a topic with no definite outcome yet. you two can argue all you want, but especially with the nicknames you've got here it'll just look stupid ;)silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Who's arguing ? Digital has progressed to being nearly as good as 35mm but there is no solid documetation that I've read stating that its level of quality up to 6x4.5cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm format film cameras.As to why pro's switched to digital, it's beyond dispute. Dollars make sense. Money talks and film took a walk. It's really that simple. Pro's have one and only one job : making money. If the quality of 8MP digital is adequate to the masses then that is what they will shoot. It doesn't matter if Mamiya has a 22MP or that you can get a $30,000 Phase One digital back for your Hasselblad. Pro's will use what is deemed acceptable or necessary by the client and that's all there is too it.
Resh - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Hate to fan these flames as this is ultimately a useless discussion, but here are some resources:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-test...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-test...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.sh...">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.sh...
N
silver - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - link
LOL ! Hopefully you don't consider Michael Reichmann and Co. to be professionals !!!!Please, take a look at the following :
http://www.montezucker.com/">http://www.montezucker.com/
http://mattkim.com/">http://mattkim.com/
http://www.clayblackmore.com/">http://www.clayblackmore.com/
http://www.cantrellportrait.com/">http://www.cantrellportrait.com/
http://www.silvermanstudio.com/">http://www.silvermanstudio.com/
http://www.lionphotography.com/">http://www.lionphotography.com/
http://www.orangeexposure.com/">http://www.orangeexposure.com/
http://www.mattramosphotography.com/">http://www.mattramosphotography.com/
http://www.ftapia.com/">http://www.ftapia.com/
http://www.gordonmgrant.com/">http://www.gordonmgrant.com/
Yeah, these are PRO's who WORK in the field of photography ! And note that most of them don't even use the words "film" or "digital". They simply don't care what the tool is. They have a job to do and that job is to use their talents to make money. Short and simple. Digital is to the working pro as tires are to the rims on your car : a perfect fitting necessity.
wheel - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Hi,I am a big computer enthusiast, overclocker, IT professional and long time Anand Tech reader (since inception?) I also have been into amateur photography for about 7 years, recently switching to digi SLR about 14 months ago. All my knowledge is self taught from reading stuff on the web and my own experimentation. I use 6 lenses and have taken around 12,600 photos with my SLR camera in the time that I have owned it! (just providing a gauge of my photographic experience and enthusiasm)
I was very disappointed with this article! Firstly because it degraded other excellent websites while simultaneously borrowing content and images from them! And secondly from a technical point of view I disagreed with some of the assertions made.
What you correctly identified in your article was the flexibility of an SLR camera. However you also said a few separate times that comparing times including power-on time had now become irrelevant because they were all pretty fast? I disagree!
One use of an SLR camera is sports or action photography where start up times can be very important. Just this weekend I took pictures at a car rally, where on one day it rained heavily and on another it was very dusty. I held my camera under my jacket and only pulled it out and turned it on at the last minute so to keep it from getting too wet. I think the 350D is 0.2 seconds start up time which is fine for this use, but I would not consider a camera that forced the user to wait for much longer (for example if it needed to clean the sensor). The nature of sports photography demands more of the performance of the camera as interesting things may suddenly unfold so the performance of the camera and the ability to change settings quickly rather than navigate menus gains importance...
I think DPReview and Steves Digicams both understand that their readers may vary significantly in what they want from a camera - that is in part why they may be seen as ambiguous in their conclusions as they avoid giving cameras an overall score like 88% etc. That they cover a many technical details in the article allows the readers to decide what features are important and reach their own conclusions.
Another thing you wrote was that there weren't many positive things about zoom lenses. I have both zooms and prime lenses and appreciate that they both have strengths and weaknesses.
You also said "Canon and Nikon still make reasonable 50mm f/1.8 lenses, which also happen to be the sharpest lens in either lens lineup." Can you qualify this statement re: sharpness? The Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is cheap and pretty good but not a silver bullet. The 50mm f/1.4 beats it in all areas and is still quite reasonably priced. And of course I am sure the 50mm f/1.2 is excellent, although very expensive.
So I am sorry but I think you should have a little more respect for the established sites who have done a fantastic job over the years in the field that they specialise in. I shall read your reviews in parallel with the established camera sites but will take your opinions with a grain of salt!
For others interested in digital SLR photography I recommend the following websites:
Body reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/">http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ (also general info and lens reviews too)
Lens reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/
http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/">http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/
Cheers,
Ian
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
It was not my intent to degrade other excellent photo websites, in fact I mentioned no site specifically in my introductory guide. You obviously appreciate the level of some the more technical digital review sites and I certainly can appreciate where you come from. As I have stated several times, we do not want to try to emulate those sites, but to try to chart our own style. We also will not please everyone with our approach.Where we have used images that are not public domain we have attributed those images to their sources in the guide. This is an introductory guide, and not a review.
Photodo is the well-respected Swedish lens data/review site that was extablished by Lars Kjellberg and is now owned by ePHOTOzine. The Nikon AF 50mm f1.8D is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.4, while the more expensive f1.4 is rated a 4.2. The Canon 50 EF 50mm f1.8 II costs $70 and is rated a Photodo MTF of 4.2, while the earlier 50 F1.8 is rated 4.4. The $350 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 is also rated at 4.4. All 5 of these lenses are among the highest MTF rated Canon and Nikon lenses you can buy, and all significantly outperform most zoom lenses in either line. The Canon 50f1.8 at $70 is a stellar value, at half a stop slower than the 1.4 and 1/5 the price. The plastic lens mount on the II version is cheesey, but owners have not complained about durability issues.
wheel - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Thanks for your reply.Regarding the Canon 50mm 1.8, I think most people would agree that the 1.4 is better since it has full time manual focus and also a silent USM motor, plus 8 aperture blades instead of 5 for nicer, smoother looking bokeh (out of focus areas in an image). Of course when you consider the cost differential most people choose the f1.8 and for many it is the smarter choice! However I still believe your sentence in the article suggesting that it happens to be the sharpest lens in the lineup a little misleading. Not a big deal I guess.
If I can make some comments on the following paragraph:
There are plenty of Digital Camera Review sites out on the web, so you may ask why AnandTech is re-launching a Digital Photography section. It appears that current sites are rarely on target with what computer enthusiasts want to know about digital cameras. Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer. Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market. Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today. It is our sincere belief that we can do it in a better way for our readers and computer enthusiasts everywhere, but please help us as we try to reinvent this wheel. Some of our readers may not like AT delving into Digital Camera Reviews, and to them we say you just can't ignore digital photography any more. Today's digital imaging is nothing more than an optic stuck on a computer, and there is very little left of the mechanical gems that once ruled the world of photography.
A few points:
"Some sites make the assumption that the reader knows a lot more about photography than our average reader, which often leads to much of the review being gibberish to a non-photographer."
So a 'non-photographer' will find a technical review on the big digital camera sites gibberish? I don't think that is a problem, because such reviews aren't really aimed at non-photographers. I would guess that non-computer users are going to find articles on Anandtech about ram timings difficult to understand too!
Other sites dwell on tests of things like "start-up times" that were important in early digital, but have become all but meaningless in today's digital SLR market.
See my comments re: sports / action photography in my previous post. Start up times, shot to shot times and file flush times are quite important to me! Other sites have (very comprehensive) standardised tests that include these timings. I wouldn't say they dwell on the subject though, unless a particular camera is unusually bad at it. If it is not something that is relevant then a reader can easily skip it.
Still other sites, which are very well-grounded in traditional photography show an obvious lack of knowledge about computers and computer tools that make digital photography so flexible today.
In my years of reading the major photo review websites, I haven't encountered this. Without asking you to be specific, can you mention general examples of what you mean?
Cheers,
Ian
tagej - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
The reality is that most computer geeks (myself included) are not photography experts, but are overall tech-savy and interested in things like digital SLR cameras.Sure, I can go to sites like dpreview and the like, and they do an excellent job of reviewing cameras from a pro or prosumer perspective. I could sit and read a bunch of stuff on those sites and educate myself to the point of becoming very knowledgable about cameras... Most of us don't want to do that, or we would have already done so. Instead, AT hit it right on the head with this article, it's a look at digital photograhpy for the tech savy who are not photography experts.
arswihart - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
I totally agree with "wheel." If you feel the need to review cameras, go ahead, but thats not what I come to Anandtech for.aeternitas - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
" The artistic types distrust turning their vision into cheap Adobe Photoshop tricks, and the tech-savvy are so enamored of technology and editing that they often don't have a clue about what makes a good photograph and what lens to use in a given situation. "I stopped reading there. If you want respectable people to respect you, its a good idea not to be a fucking jackass and insult the readers in the second paragraph. Get some common sence.
Resh - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
Have to side with Wes on this one. Nothing in his words are offensive. He is simply stating the view point of two extremes of the population who both hold very valid positions.Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
These are comments from discussions I have had on Forums and in emails with readers. They were not meant to offend, but to point out the fact that the art and technical don't always mix well. This is particularly true when the market, and not the people affected, is forcing changes in the way people work.ksherman - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
since we have had a camera review on AT! Kudos!To those that say no, I also like to read reviews from multiple sources. AT- dont try to be dpreview, make your reviews a little less technical, easier to understand. Not to fault them, but you need to have some pretty serious photography knolwedge to get their reviews. I would welcome an easier to understand set of reviews. (I do still enjoy reading about my level :-))
On another note, on the last page, you called canons new camera the Rebel XT1, its actually the XTi.
Also, take a gander at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, its a sort of pre-digital SLR camera. It basically is a digital SLR, but with an attached lense. Its looking to be my next camera purchase since I am too poor to afford the "real" DSLRs.
saiku - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I am a hobbyist photographer (Canon 350D) who likes to do macros/scenery when I can. What I'd love to see are guides for people who want to get into DSLRs and don't know which camera system to buy into. For example, if a person is interested in macros, should he buy into a Nikon system? What about the guy who wants to shoot lots of indoor shots of his baby? Lens choices are very tough for newbies to make and a hefty dose of attention to what lens to pick would be great.PokerGuy - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Wes, thanks for the great article. I'm a grizzled vet when it comes to PC tech, but when it comes to photography I'm pretty much a noob. I appreciate the article and look forward to reviews, especially since I'm about to purchase my first digital SLR camera.One dumb question: are lenses for SLR cameras "standard" in terms of connecting to the camera body? ie, can I take a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 SLR lens and hook it up to some other digital SLR camera?
Resh - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Also, Canon EF-S lenses only fit certain cameras (Digital Rebels, 20D, 30D), but EF lenses work on all current Canon bodies, digital or film.Third party manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma will make lenses for both Canon and Nikon.
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
ic144 - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
why don't we all just head over to http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com?silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Some people appreciate diversity in opinion. Take me for instance. I would prefer to read three reviews on a motherboard and come to my own consensus prior to actually purchasing said motherboard.tsapiano - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Overall a very good article, however there is one major points that I'd like to address here. The conclusion page (under 'Lens Confusion') makes the following statement:Focal length is a physical property of the lens itself - it is not affected by the size of the sensor. While the field of view (and hence behaviour) of a given focal length changes based on the size of the imaging plane that doesn't change the fact that the focal length remains the same. As this article notes, each format (8x10", 4x5", 6cm, 35mm, APS, etc.) uses different focal lengths for different purposes so the 35mm vs. 24mm (APS/DX) change is no different ;)
'Equivalent' focal lengths are useful as a transitional aide, but if the 35mm format fades away, then why would we want to base things on being equivalent to an obsolete format? For a new user comming into the DSLR market, it would seem just as easy to teach them that a '35mm lens is a normal' rather than trying to explain how focal lengths were used on a format that they aren't using ;) Naturally, for users comming from the 35mm space it might be easier to use the equivalent numbers - however that is only a problem durring the transition period.
Conversely, if the market moves toward a tiered system with professional equipment using 35mm sensors and consumer equipment uses APS-C then using 'equivalent' focal lengths will simply create more confusion. For instance, if an APS camera user were to buy a professional lens (that will be labeled with the real focal length) their consumer equipment (which is labeled with an 'equivalent' focal length) will be marked differently. IMHO simply telling users to multiply all focal lengths by 1.5x is much easier than explaining that a professional 100mm lens produces the same FoV as a consumer 150mm lens ;)
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I basically agree with you. My only concern here is that the "digital" lenses designed for the DX format will not provide a full image on a 35mm camera. You also quickly find that the 28mm to 80mm lens is NOT a wide-angle to short tele when mountd on a digital SLR. Then there is the exotic sounding 18-55mm kit lens that behaves on a digital SLR like a 28mm-85mm lens and that most definitely will NOT operate as a full-frame 18mm on a 35mm camera.tsapiano - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
True, but if you label a 12-24mm DX lens an 18-36mm 'equivalent' lens and put it on the shelf beside a 17-35mm FF lens you're bound to confuse people even more. The 17-35 will also mount on an APS camera, but it will provide the eqivalent of a 25-50mm lens - however with the differential labeling, it may appear that it would be wider than the DX lens. If you just stick with the real focal length of the lens, then you give people a better idea of their relative reach.
But that's the fundamental problem - the only reason we relate 18mm as an ultra-wide focal length is that we're still used to shooting with 35mm. People with this level of experience generally can figure this stuff out relatively easilly - the people who have trouble with it are generally those just starting out. For someone who has never used 35mm, however, 18mm doesn't really mean much other than what they are told - simply telling them that 18mm is a moderate wide angle is much simpler than trying to explain 'equivalence' to a format they've never used (and likely never will) ;)
As for mounting an 18-55mm lens on a full-frame camera, you'd still get the same FoV as a full-frame 18mm lens it'd just be that the edges would have extreme vinetting so the image would be difficult to make use of. Either way, it's easier to explain 'don't put DX/EF-S/etc. lenses on a FF camera' than it is to explain why the APS 18-36mm lens is much wider than the FF 17-35mm lens ;)
Regardless, I certainly understand what you are saying ;) The caveat is that the vendors are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They could rebrand APS lenses with equivalent focal lengths, however (a) that creates confusion with full-frame lenses also in their lineup (which for most vendors is the vast majority of their lines) and (b) it means that they'll be stuck using this 'equivalent' nomenclature long after most consumers forget what 35mm was ;) If they stay with the real focal lengths, it creates some confusion in the short term, but it allows them to use a standard designation across their entire lineup and will eventually become a non-issue once people get used to it.
Purhaps the easier solution would be to simply place FoV angles alongside the focal length designations on the lens barrel. The concept of a 45 horizontal degree field of view would likely mean a whole lot more to the average consumer than saying a 28mm lens on an APS-C body ;)
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I never did understand why manufacturers didn't simply go with a magnification factor. A normal lens would be a 1X which would be the equivalent of the diagonal of the film/CCD/CMOS. A 0.5X would be half the diagonal and so forth. The only issue I can see would be in considering the perspective of the subject to the surroundings in the image. Not a huge concern when using focal lengths in the 0.5X ~ 4.0X range though admitedly there are a huge number of cameras with lenses that zoom well beyond those parameters.Visual - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
well obviously its because the manufacturers have no clue on what camera you'll strap the lenses and what their film/sensor diagonal will be.silver - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link
In that case they really need to hire better engineers if they don't know what size the CCD's in their own cameras are !Note that this all points out the need for some standardization as well. Standardization is in the best intrest of the consumer as it opens up competition. This is why PC sell 99:1 versus Mac. Mac has completely alienated a lot of their user base by persistently changing their architecture. Something they seem determined to keep doing.
Lastly, the mangnification would be indicated based on the lenses targetd system. A lens designed for use on a Canon full-frame system would simply need to be stamped differently for use on a Nikon. The lenses aren't interchangeable unless one uses a lens mount such as the Tamron Adaptall that has seen very modest use in the past on 35mm cameras.
wgoldfarb - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Sorry for the very long post, but photography is a subject that is close to me and I was left with some very mixed feelings after reading your article. I have been a "prosumer" photographer for over 25 years, with some professional work thrown-in a long time ago. I just switched to 100% digital not too long ago, so naturally I was excited to hear AT was starting a digital photography section. As a newbie when it comes to computers and overclodcking I have come to admire your incredibly thorough reviews and articles for computer hardware, and was looking forward to the same level of depth and knowledge in photography. However, I must admit that after reading this article I was somewhat disappointed.Overall the article is excellent, as is usual with AT. But in the article you also send some mixed messages, and say some things that affect your credibility.
You start by saying that most computer enthusiasts don't know enough to understand the "jargon" used by traditional review sites. However, you are also focusing on digital SLRs which can cost $500 and more once you include the body, lens and other required accesories. Anyone seriously considering such an SLR (instead of a cheaper, simpler point-and-shoot) almost certainly already knows enough about photography to understand the "jargon", or at least can easily learn it with some research. This is a double standard. You say most photography sites use language that is gibberish to a non-photographer. Guess what: your own reviews of hardware are gibberish to most computer newbies, and even to some more knowledgeable users. Yet this is precisely why you offer great reviews. Assuming some prior knowledge on the part of your reader allows you to focus on incredibly detailed, in-depth reviews of hardware. That is, to me, one of your greatest values. I can learn the basics anywhere, but only here can I find such outstanding in-depth reviews or a community of incredibly knowledgeable users. Yet for photography you are suggesting you will target a comparably less informed user. I think this underestimates the knowledge of your community. In addition, catering to such an audience will limit the technical depth of your reviews. I'd much rather see you target a more informed user (maybe provide some guides to allow newbies to learn the jargon?) and concentrate on the same level of technical depth you currently have in hardware, along with jargon, gibberish and all. Anyone can provide a basic review of equipment, be it computer hardware or digital SLRs. Very few people can provide truly in-depth, reliable, technical reviews, and I think this is where AT can stand out from the rest.
You also make some comments that could affect your credibility. As an example, on page 1 you say "In the end taking a digital photo is still basically dependent on the same set of 'rules' as taking a film image, as the only real difference in digital and film is what happens after the image is captured". This is not accurate. As a very important example, the nature of digital sensors has a significant impact of how you expose an image for digital capture. Yes, you could just point and shoot with a digital camera, but you would not be getting the most out of your image or equipment. Given the nature of digital sensors, with digital cameras you need to "expose to the right" to maximize the amount of detail you can capture (i.e. you need to overexpose your image somewhat). You also need to think carefully about the format you will use to store the image on the camera (which may impact quality and definitely impacts the amount of post-processing you may need), and must make careful decisions on white balance before taking the picture. There is an inherent difference between film and digital sensors, and they do affect how you take pictures even before you release the shutter. Look at it this way: if a newbie was about to purchase some DDR2 1066 RAM only to permanently run it at DDR2 553 speeds you would almost certainly suggest that he/she learn enough to overclock his system and leverage the RAM to its fullest, or else you would suggest that he/she not waste the money on such expensive memory. It is no different with digital cameras. If someone pays upwards of $500 for an SLR ,he/she should learn enough to use it to its full potential, and not just use it as a film camera or a point-and-shoot digital.
Having said all this, I think you could offer a great digital photography review section if you stick to what you do best: in-depth, reliable, highly technical reviews of equipment, with your own benchmarks and testing techniques. People can learn the basics anywhere, but here they would find great in-depth reviews not available elsewhere. You go into incredible detail, testing and benchmarking when evaluating the performance of a GPU, and certainly use lots of very technical "jargon" that allows you to offer outstanding reviews, without worrying about catering to less informed users. Those users (including me) usually do their basic research to learn the jargon before reading your reviews. Why would you not apply the same high standards when reviewing digital SLRs?
Moving on to the type of tests, I would love to see extensive batteries of tests covering a wide range of factors, similar to what you now do with hardware. Conduct tests of cameras using identical images that we can compare across cameras and Brands. If testing an SLR body, use a reference high-quality lens so that lens quality is not a factor in the captured image, again allowing us to compare different camera bodies. Develop tests to measure noise at higher ISOs (a potential issue with smaller sensors, such as those in the 4/3 system pioneered by Olympus). Evaluate the time it takes for an image to be written to the camera's storage media at different formats, and how that impacts the ability to shoot continuous frames. If the camera has a built-in flash, evaluate the effectiveness and range of the flash. Look at the available lens offerings for a given body (which, as you correctly point out, can sometimes have a greater impact on image quality than the number of pixels on the sensor). Evaluate the quality of "kit lenses" (by comparing their images to those of the reference lens). Evaluate the in-camera software (e.g. how well does the auto white balance work under different lighting conditions? How well does the camera "process" the raw image to convert it to a jpg?). The list could go on and on, even without going beyond just cameras. There are numerous relevant factors to test in a digital camera, I just touched on a few. There is LOTS of room for thorough, in-depth, technical reviews that you would not be able to offer if you cater to a less informed crowd. And there certainly is room for a website such as AT to conduct these detailed, thorough reviews, using your experience with hardware testing to provide a level of thoroughness and detail that is simply not available elsewhere.
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
You bring up some interesting points, and they are points the staff at AT are still debating. You might find it interesting that almost all the AT Editors thought this introductory guide was possibly too technical. Several commented that they really had to pay attention to get the technical details I was discussing. This is from Editors who write those technical computer equipment reviews you enjoy here. I was worried it was too basic since I didn't even cover things like lens perspective and color balance, in the interest of keeping the size more managable and the article more readable.Our real issue with Digital Cameras is knowing which audience to address. We do understand there are readers that are vey knowledgable in digital photography, but there are also readers who know next to nothing about digital cameras. AT is known as a computer equipment review site, so if we sometimes go too far on the technical side of computer testing it is normally forgiven. However, based on our Editors and questions from readers, we really think we need to aim our Digital Camera reviews at a slightly lower common denominator.
We will likely test and talk more about where various digital photo technology is useful and the best use for certain equipment and cameras than other photo reviews. This will likely be below what you want in the beginning, but if the demand is there we will move to ever more extensive benchmarking as the section evolves.
As for your experience with the sensor in your camera, it appears to be camera/sensor specific. I could make the same argument for every film that exists - they all respond best to certain exposure techniques and those techniques differ depending on the film. However my personal experience has been the opposite of yours - blown highlight from overexposure are much more an issue than underexposure in digital, since I can usually correct shadow detail in Photoshop and I can't always recover blown highlights. Yes, white balance adjustments can be made on the fly with digital and ISO can be adjusted on the fly, which is very unlike film. However, white balance and ISO just work at a different point in digital, and they stil mean the same thing. No we don't have the added latitude of the print process as film does, but we have a similar and even greater latitiude with post processing in Photoshop or other image-editing software.
While I do agree that anyone using only point and shoot is not getting all they can from the camera I also believe strongly that you can still get a lot of quality out of your digital camera on Auto when it is backed by some knowledge. I would also bet you that the great majority of our readers who use digital cameras generally use auto - even with SLRs - and only once in a while go off the program for special situations. I learned this the hard way trying to help our other "geek" editors who almost all own SLR cameras they bought themselves, but who really struggled to take decent photos for our reviews. Once they were given a few tips on lenses to use for available light and how to control depth of field their photos instantly improved = and they almost all still use auto.
Your suggestions for tests and benchmarks are appreciated, and we will definitely consider those as we determine how we will move forward in reviewing Digital Photography equipment.
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.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).
feraltoad - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Is providing a single sentence regarding start-up time dwelling? I don't think any camera review is complete without listing startup times and listing shot to shot time. I think it's a bit hypocritical to focus on core architecture, timings and such and then say a length of time I can actually perceive is not relevant. Especially, when you go and provide such a good article. I think you are just trying to make the other review sites seem stodgy and backward or just wrongheaded, and show that AT is "with it". Moreover, you say they speak gibberish like they are jargon slinging photo elitist snobs. Then you provide,IMO, a pretty techical primer, when they probably have some material for novices too. I know you were just saying "We're Cool, We Rule!", but I don't think when ur AT you have to do that. AT is already in my RSS reader because it does quality reviews. I just skimmed the article, and I can't wait to go back and read it in depth. I'me really excited about AT doing photo stuff too. I agree with the above poster that finding some standard meaningful benchmarks with good subjective commentary will have AT ruling the roost in camera reviews. Not to plug another site, but I think Steve's Digicams provides excellent reviews, actually his site is about the only site I really find useful for cameras. I'm glad I will soon have two sites that provide good information. YAY AT!soydios - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
How does AnandTech review and compare its computer components? With standardized benchmarks and editorial commentary. Compare all the cameras with a good, strong set of standardized tests across the board, and also add a dose of the editorial commentary.In particular, for the sub-$1000 market, I would suggest evaluating the kit as a whole (image quality with kit lens). Personally, I will be picking up a Nikon D50 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, and I have researched the heck out of that package, trying to find an AnandTech-esque review.
Venturing above the sub-$1000 (although I would be very intrigued by some reviews of the professional-level equipment) would get very expensive very fast. Perhaps start small, then venture into the almost-pro market (Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 30D, and some of the $500-$1000 lenses), then maybe dip a toe into the professional level, just to let us all see what the real fancy stuff is like (since very few of us will be buying a D2Xs or EOS-1D MkII-N).
Time permitting, I would put out some quick looks at the Nikon D50 and the Canon EOS 350D, with some comparison between the two. A review/comparison of both the Nikon D80 (in the works, good!) and the Canon EOS 400D would be an interesting read.
Again, review the D-SLR market the same way you guys do computer hardware. Avoid the slugfest low-range and the stratospherically-priced high range. Focus on the high-midrange market (the sub-$1000 D-SLR's to start, move up to the $1k-2k market once you gain some feel for differences between cameras). Do across-the-board standardized benchmarks, with some synthetic but more real-world results.
mostlyprudent - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Exactly my thoughts. I have spent some time at a number of camera review sites and am always left wondering "Is the Nikon D80 good enough to justify the price difference over the D50?". "What about the Canon EOS 30D? How much better is it then the Nikon D80 or the Rebel XT/XTi?"Maybe these cannot be answered in the same way as CPU and GPU articles, but standardized tests and comparisons would be nice.
Give me some numbers! I don't want to hear "shot-to-shot performance was sluggish compared to higher end cameras"...unless you can quantify that for me.
Lighting is such an improtant part of photography. Standardized indoor lighting under a couple different kinds of lighting situation (i.e. low, bright, fluorescent, etc.). I don't know how to standardize outdoor shots, but it sure would be nice.
bigpow - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I'm gonna stick with www.dpreview.com for now if I want to get my digital photography news/articles.AT, stick with PCs, will you?
silver - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I don't understand as I usually read more than one site on one subject. For instance I've been reading Tomshardware since it was sysdoc.pair.com and both Anandtech and Extremetech nearly as long.jnmunsey - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Geez, you'd think a site like Anandtech would find someone who knows what he's talking about to write this article...soydios - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
I'm just a photography hobbyist, but I thought that the article covered all the important basics of full-manual general photography and digital photography.I would touch on filters, though. Those can come in handy. Particular onces to focus on: UV ("does it actually do anything, or is it just a lens protector?" debate), Polarizing, and the primary colors (blue, yellow, and red).
soydios - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
Concerning polarizing filters (I really wish there was an edit functionality for comments): circular polarizing works with autofocus and digital cameras, linear does not.I know AnandTech isn't much of a software website, but a short article on editing software (Adobe Photoshop, beta of Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture) would complete the picture. No need to focus on the software or printing, but a photography software article written in the same manner as this one is something that would help me a lot! (I have almost no experience with editing software).
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
We all want to improve, so please provide specifics so we can address them. It would also be helpful if you would provide your photography credentials, so we can know the level of expertise to attach to your comments.kilkennycat - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
... a first-class and technically-meaty summary of the current status of digital camera technology. Well up to the usual Anadtech standards. Congratulations, Wes. The addition of a Digital Camera section is a superb idea. By all means, use reference charts, lighting and scenes for resolution, optical-distortion, shading and color-fidelity comparison of both lenses and sensors. Just as you have with video cards and CPUs, come up with your own benchmarks if necessary.Zaitsev - Monday, September 25, 2006 - link
That was a very interesting article. I've always wanted to learn more about cameras and photography, in the hopes of making it a hobby once the time and money is available. So thanks for explaining the background info for noobs like me :) I'll be looking forward to the rest of the series.