Fast Forward

With digital SLR sales continuing to show record growth in a photographic market whose overall growth is much slower, it should be clear that a lot of photo buyers are selecting digital SLR cameras instead. The reasons many of these new buyers select a digital SLR is because they want better quality pictures than they can get with a point and shoot camera. They may also choose a DSLR for the flexibility and growth potential if they get hooked on the photo hobby.

These are exactly the same reasons buyers chose film SLRs instead of 110 point and shoots in the 70s, and 80s. Those reasons are just as valid in the DSLR market as they were in film, and maybe even more so. Digital sensors, like other electronics, are constantly evolving and improving, and whatever megapixel assumptions we talk about today will certainly become invalid and outdated in the near future. However, it is very clear with today's sensors that the tiny sensors in compact point-and-shoot cameras are reaching the point where higher resolutions are simply being traded for noise. Somewhere around 8-10MP we are finding that higher resolution also generally means higher noise and lower sensitivity.

No doubt this roadblock will be passed with advancements in sensor technology, but today more than 8MP of clean resolution and usable sensitivities greater than ISO 400 are rare indeed in the compact camera market. APS C sensors in digital SLRs, however, seem to be getting better and better at higher and higher sensitivities at ever-increasing resolutions. Pundits are already screaming we are going too far with14MP sensors, but they forget that the smallest 4/3 sensor is still more than nine times greater area than the average compact sensor. There is still a lot of room for growth in resolution.

The other complaint - that lenses are finally reaching resolving limits with higher sensor resolutions - is certainly true with the cheap lenses that were the wunderkind of the developing SLR market. It looks like time for quality optics again as the industry has been skating for far too long in the low demands of the developing digital SLR market.

It also appears that prosumers, the serious amateurs among us, will be facing a difficult decision today and even more so in the near future. The cost of larger and larger sensors has been dropping rapidly, and CMOS sensor development from all the majors is also a factor in lowering costs and increasing resolution. Like it or not Canon and Nikon have already begun segmenting their SLR line into full-frame and APS C sensors. Those who couldn't figure out why Sony was introducing mainly full-frame lenses will finally get their answer later this year with Sony's 24.6MP full-frame flagship model.

Despite the fact that full-frame will be aimed at the top of the DSLR market by Canon/Nikon/Sony, the APS C market does not appear to be in any danger. Developments and new models will definitely continue. Players like Pentax and Samsung seem positively locked into the APS C space with no full-frame peeking around the corner, and Olympus has fought too hard for credibility with 4/3 to start singing a full-frame song. Similarly Nikon, Canon, and Sony will adamantly define the full-frame as pro and the rest of their line as prosumer and entry-level. Nikon may also have struck the marketing chord that will develop with full-frame sensors being touted more for their incredible range of ISO sensitivity than for their higher megapixel resolutions.

The problem is that prosumers lust after pro gear and a prosumer today will have to ask another question in their buying decision for accessories now that full-frame looks like it will be "for real". That question is: "will it work on a full-frame". The current $2000 street price of the Canon 5D and the coming release of the Canon 5D Mark II are making that question an important one for many prosumer buyers. The final street price of the presumer Sony "A900" is also still a mystery, but if it is in line with the Canon 5D, as many expect, then this question in the back of the minds of prosumers will move up-front very quickly.

The purpose of this sensor guide was not to explore every facet of sensor design and performance considerations. Each topic discussed could have been an individual article in its own right with more in-depth discussion of the factors that drive design decisions. Instead, the hope was to provide a framework of basic sensor information to provide a better understanding of the evolution of digital sensors and the types of concerns and decisions that are being made in the market today. We sincerely hope you come away with a better understanding and appreciation of the current digital SLR market, and perhaps of your own digital SLR camera or one you might buy in the future.

Part 2 of this Sensor Series is in the works and many of the images are already in the can. It will take a closer look at the sensitivity range and noise of the most recent sensors in the 14MP, 12MP, and 10MP classes of sensors. A few more cameras are on the way, and as soon as they are prepped and tested we will be sharing more of our findings on the newest sensors in the higher resolution sensor classes.

Lens Equivalence
Comments Locked

72 Comments

View All Comments

  • Johnmcl7 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    I do agree with you there that it is desirable to have deeper depth of field (particularly on macro) but I think the difference is that on an SLR you have the choice - you can shoot wide open and have shallow depth of field or you can stop down (and normally have to use up the ISO advantage) to get depth of field. On a camera with a small sensor you are generally stuck with the deep depth of field whether you want it or not.

    John
  • finbarqs - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    I hope nobody is using F/1.2 when shooting a portrait. Unless you want only a nose to be in focus. With something THAT shallow, you either have to REALLY step back and use distance to your advantage to get what you want in Focus. Professional Wedding photographers will not TOUCH anything above f/5.6 as you don't want to get ONLY the bride in focus while the groom is OOF.

    People, remember there are multiple factors that affect DOF. Aperture is definitely one of them, distance, and Focal Length.

    Obviously you want something very shallow with great bokeh, then you would get close to your subject, open up your aperture, and have a telephoto focal length.

    The thing is, on a FF sensor, you "see more" on the same focal length as a cropped sensor. Well put wesley, a 50mm is a 50mm. For those of us with cropped sensors, slap a 50mm on your camera. (or zoom to 50mm). Look at your subject with your naked eye, then look through the view finder. SAME SIZE AND SHAPE! Nothing gets larger! Supposedly a telephoto range (greater than normal) should have some zoom effets shouldn't it? I mean APS-C sensors are either 1.5 or 1.6 smaller than a full frame, that means the normal focal length should be around 27mm? So 50mm should be 75mm for nikons and 80mm for canons! That means you should see some zoom in 50mm! but nope! you don't! in fact, the only time you'll see the zoom is AFTER you fire the shutter and it displays the image to fill that 2.5" or 3.0" inch lcd you have! (or even 2.0") So where does the FF excel? you place 2 cameras exactly side by side of each other, same focal length, same focus point. Same lens. Through the Viewfinder, you'll see the nice Bokeh of your subject on BOTH cameras, exactly the same. Difference? the FF has more frame coverage! Thus, having better "DOF" (or lack thereof) because of the more frame coverage! On this note, let's all by Hasselblad's Medium FF and get some nice digital backs! ;)
  • haplo602 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Hmm ... In my understanding the difference in FF to APS-C is CROP.

    A 50mm lens on APS-C has the same DOF, same perspective characteristic as on a FF camera, but the sensor is smaller, so you basicaly get a CROP of the original FF image. There is only a perceived zoom effect as the image is a smaller area.

    For Nikon you get 1.5x smaller image area, but everything else is the same as on FF.
  • melgross - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    It has to do with distance from the subject as well. Perspective is the ratio of the distance to the subject to the distance to the background.

    So, to get the same size on sensor, with the same lens length, you must either move closer, or further, changing the perspective, and the depth of field.
  • finbarqs - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    Medium Format* sorry, typo :)
  • Johnmcl7 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    Other way round - a larger sensor gives you *less* depth of field which as you quite rightly point out is a strong advantage of a larger sensor.

    John
  • pinto4402 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    DOF is also a function of the lens. Some ultra-serious photographers are willing to pay $2500 for a Canon 85mm 1.2L over a 85mm 1.8 (which is just as sharp and which only retails for $300), because the 1.2L has a softer, more pleasing DOF effect.
  • TETRONG - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    Cool article.

    Looking to buy a camera pretty soon here.
    What do you folks think about the G9?
    Is there a particular brand I should favor?

    Also, are there any cameras available that do "tricky" stuff, like Infrared, Macro, or that neat effect when cities look miniature? (Can't find an example)

    I read an article about a guy a few years back that would setup a scene, then he would walk around selectively lighting certain aspects in trippy ways to make a final composite image.

    Anyone know what this is called, or where I can learn more about it?

    Much obliged!
  • strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Is "fisheye" what you are looking for for the miniature cities?

    and the selective lighting is often called "Painting with light"

    plenty of compact cameras can do OK macro if you can get really close to your subject, but as this is often hard for reasons of lighting and/or scaring off the subject, an SLR with a real macro lens is still beneficial.
  • pinto4402 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link

    There was an article at http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures...">http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotogra.../4923/th...
    about infrared photography. It also discusses a company that is modifying certain digital cameras for infrared use.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now