Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet
by Wesley Fink on September 25, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Digital Directions
When consumer Digital Photography first launched over a decade ago, the only real choice for the average consumer was a point-and-shoot camera, which was completely unlike the SLR cameras that ruled the Amateur and Hobbyist film market. The image quality of the initial offerings was also poor at best, with the first models offering 0.3 megapixel sensors (640x480 images). However, the market was developing fast and megapixel ratings - the number of dots that were used to create an image - were moving higher by leaps and bounds. All of the cameras from that era seemed to have way too many compromises - slow start-up, long times to process and save an image, mediocre optics, extremely limited dynamic range, and color flaws. There were a few great ones along the way, but the market had to develop for a while before Digital cameras for photo hobbyists could even approach being as good as film-based cameras.
That goal was still a ways off, as the digital SLR cameras the Pros used had massive power requirements, battery packs that looked like they belonged in hybrid cars, and price tags of $20,000 or more. Most agreed the goal was the familiar and flexible SLR (Single Lens Reflex) format that could take advantage of the huge inventory of lenses that had developed over 40 years. It seemed every Pro and most 35mm hobbyists had a large number of lenses they would love to use on digital camera bodies.
Progress in technology development was rapid, prices dropped quickly, and most agree the photography enthusiast finally got a real camera option at a doable price with the introduction of the Canon Digital Rebel in October 2003 - just 3 short years ago. The Digital Rebel finally broke the magic $1000 price barrier for a 6 megapixel SLR and an 18-55mm lens. That kind of pricing was unheard of just 3 years ago and the Digital Rebel sold in huge volume.
The Press was astounded by the value of the Rebel, as shown in this quote in October 2003 from Steve's Digicams:
"The 'magic' $1000 price mark for digital SLRs has been broken like the sound barrier and Canon is positioning the EOS Digital Rebel as 'the digital SLR for everyone.' These cameras will be an instant hit with those wanting a digital camera that works the same as their 35mm SLR, and dealers will no doubt sell them as fast as Canon can make them. And Canon is planning on making a lot of them. They announced at the London press event that production was set at an amazing 70,000 units a month. The Digital Rebel may not be black, but don't let the silver-colored body fool you, this isn't some cheap knock-off. It's loaded with state of the art imaging technology and is sure to please both novice and seasoned photographers alike."
The 6 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel can still be bought today, although the bigger seller is the updated 8 megapixel Rebel XT. The important thing from a photography enthusiast point-of-view is that the Rebel was an inexpensively built camera with digital features previously unheard of at the selling price. Canon designed the Digital Rebel for mass sales. It was a bit of an upscale move from the 35mm Rebel series that had been advertised on TV by John McEnroe, but they were designed to be mass market. The Digital SLR had finally arrived, and would quickly grow to dominate the digital photography market.
Many readers do not realize how very much the Digital Photography market has changed since the introduction of the Digital Rebel. The $1000 price now seems high since today you can buy a Pentax Digital SLR, the *ist DL, with an 18-55mm lens for less than $500 (the body alone is $379). The price of entry for the 6 megapixel DSLR has dropped by almost 50%. This has led to Digital SLRs becoming the fastest growing segment of the Digital Camera market. Camera makers are still making point-and-shoots, and the market leader in Digital point-and-shoot cameras is now Kodak (does this sound familiar?). Big and serious players in the market have quickly moved to introduce cheaper and cheaper DSLR cameras at the bottom, and more and more resolution and features in the now "middle" $1000 price range.
This does not mean that digital point-and-shoot cameras are now useless. There will always be a market for very small, pocketable point-and-shoot cameras. That was also true in the 35mm film market. It does mean, however, that the SLR-like high-speed fixed-lens digitals in the $400 to $800 price range are having a tough time these days. The point-and-shoot offerings of tiny "stealth" cameras and mainstream point-and-shoot will continue to be targeted at families to shoot vacation pictures of their kids - the typical Kodak market. Sooner than later you will likely even see reusable digital point-and-shoots similar to today's disposable film cameras. The companies make money on paper and ink, so this market segment is a natural for Kodak and HP as technology costs continue to decline.
When consumer Digital Photography first launched over a decade ago, the only real choice for the average consumer was a point-and-shoot camera, which was completely unlike the SLR cameras that ruled the Amateur and Hobbyist film market. The image quality of the initial offerings was also poor at best, with the first models offering 0.3 megapixel sensors (640x480 images). However, the market was developing fast and megapixel ratings - the number of dots that were used to create an image - were moving higher by leaps and bounds. All of the cameras from that era seemed to have way too many compromises - slow start-up, long times to process and save an image, mediocre optics, extremely limited dynamic range, and color flaws. There were a few great ones along the way, but the market had to develop for a while before Digital cameras for photo hobbyists could even approach being as good as film-based cameras.
That goal was still a ways off, as the digital SLR cameras the Pros used had massive power requirements, battery packs that looked like they belonged in hybrid cars, and price tags of $20,000 or more. Most agreed the goal was the familiar and flexible SLR (Single Lens Reflex) format that could take advantage of the huge inventory of lenses that had developed over 40 years. It seemed every Pro and most 35mm hobbyists had a large number of lenses they would love to use on digital camera bodies.
Progress in technology development was rapid, prices dropped quickly, and most agree the photography enthusiast finally got a real camera option at a doable price with the introduction of the Canon Digital Rebel in October 2003 - just 3 short years ago. The Digital Rebel finally broke the magic $1000 price barrier for a 6 megapixel SLR and an 18-55mm lens. That kind of pricing was unheard of just 3 years ago and the Digital Rebel sold in huge volume.
The Press was astounded by the value of the Rebel, as shown in this quote in October 2003 from Steve's Digicams:
"The 'magic' $1000 price mark for digital SLRs has been broken like the sound barrier and Canon is positioning the EOS Digital Rebel as 'the digital SLR for everyone.' These cameras will be an instant hit with those wanting a digital camera that works the same as their 35mm SLR, and dealers will no doubt sell them as fast as Canon can make them. And Canon is planning on making a lot of them. They announced at the London press event that production was set at an amazing 70,000 units a month. The Digital Rebel may not be black, but don't let the silver-colored body fool you, this isn't some cheap knock-off. It's loaded with state of the art imaging technology and is sure to please both novice and seasoned photographers alike."
The 6 megapixel Canon Digital Rebel can still be bought today, although the bigger seller is the updated 8 megapixel Rebel XT. The important thing from a photography enthusiast point-of-view is that the Rebel was an inexpensively built camera with digital features previously unheard of at the selling price. Canon designed the Digital Rebel for mass sales. It was a bit of an upscale move from the 35mm Rebel series that had been advertised on TV by John McEnroe, but they were designed to be mass market. The Digital SLR had finally arrived, and would quickly grow to dominate the digital photography market.
Many readers do not realize how very much the Digital Photography market has changed since the introduction of the Digital Rebel. The $1000 price now seems high since today you can buy a Pentax Digital SLR, the *ist DL, with an 18-55mm lens for less than $500 (the body alone is $379). The price of entry for the 6 megapixel DSLR has dropped by almost 50%. This has led to Digital SLRs becoming the fastest growing segment of the Digital Camera market. Camera makers are still making point-and-shoots, and the market leader in Digital point-and-shoot cameras is now Kodak (does this sound familiar?). Big and serious players in the market have quickly moved to introduce cheaper and cheaper DSLR cameras at the bottom, and more and more resolution and features in the now "middle" $1000 price range.
This does not mean that digital point-and-shoot cameras are now useless. There will always be a market for very small, pocketable point-and-shoot cameras. That was also true in the 35mm film market. It does mean, however, that the SLR-like high-speed fixed-lens digitals in the $400 to $800 price range are having a tough time these days. The point-and-shoot offerings of tiny "stealth" cameras and mainstream point-and-shoot will continue to be targeted at families to shoot vacation pictures of their kids - the typical Kodak market. Sooner than later you will likely even see reusable digital point-and-shoots similar to today's disposable film cameras. The companies make money on paper and ink, so this market segment is a natural for Kodak and HP as technology costs continue to decline.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
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.