SLR Camera Simulator
camerasim.com
camerasim.com
It would be nice if it showed non-Canon terminology (Canons say "Tv" while almost all other cameras say "S", for example), at least as an alternative. It should also visually indicate the value being automatically chosen in the different modes.
No P (program) mode. This is actually the most useful shooting mode on many DSLRs, especially for novices. It lets you trade off aperture vs. shutter speed.
__Advanced Nitpicking__
No auto ISO mode. (Great feature of Pentax cameras -- it's like M but the camera picks the ISO that will work.)
No ISO-priority mode.
It doesn't allow for things like camera shake and the child's motion (you might pick 1/60 of a second to capture the child sharply, while needing 1/250, say, for the pinwheel).
It's not worth allowing ridiculously high (small) apertures (e.g. f29) -- if you're not going to do diffraction, so I'd stop at f22. It would be nice to have faster (bigger) apertures than f2.8 to really show the benefits.
It shows autofocus points, but they don't do anything. It would be interesting to allow the user to pick a focus point and assume the metering is weighted on that position, but that's getting pretty advanced.
oh boy. that's actually the mode that keep novices clueless about what's going on with the settings.
> No auto ISO mode, No ISO-priority mode, etc. etc.
well, ISO + TIME + APERTURE are ingredients of EXPOSURE, and that should be all you need to know to start shooting. you know this and you can grab the newest high-end dslr or your grandpa's 35mm oldie and know what you're doing. the rest is just geekery.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point but that doesn't sound right. Iso does not control exposure: in case of film it is the sensitivity of a particular stock, and in case of sensors it's basically analog gain. Since to use a different ISO in a film camera you'd need to use a different roll or sheet of film, you can't vary ISO on a "grandpa's camera" very easily unlike with a digital camera.
The worst a newbie can do is to focus on learning 'camera modes' instead of learning how photography works - that's why all those "P", auto-iso, etc would be pointless when you want to learn (and that's what this simulator is for).
That's hardly the fault of the mode itself — it's just a large number of SLR-buying consumers probably didn't need the complexity (or heft) of an SLR, but have the misconception that an SLR will outperform a compact or bridge camera 100% of the time. And so they buy one.
The issue there is that a lot of these people are coming from mid-range compacts a couple of years old, and see the SLR as the next logical step. A high-end compact (S95, LX5, XZ-1) or a good bridge/micro four-thirds camera (GF1/2, E-PL2, GH2) would be a far more practical solution, and nigh-indistiguishable until ISO1600 anyway.
As a side-note, I went from shooting portraits w/ a 5D2 + primes to a GF1 + 20mm f1.7, since I no longer had the time to keep the portrait gig up as a consultant. My GF1 is no full-frame SLR, but it's very close to the entry-level SLR's and in a much smaller package (with better glass to boot).
Of course. Criticizing it for not having Program mode stuck me as similar to saying "Nice sportscar, if only it had Automatic transmission". People buy high end DSLRs and don't take the time to learn what the various A-S-M-P modes do. It is the fault of the mode and the manufacturers who put P or Green modes on the SLRs, and recommend them as idiot proof modes.
Yet, I still try to remember to leave the camera in P when I put it away and often shoot in P. It's a relatively idiot proof mode; it's unlikely that, if I just pick up the camera and shoot because I'm in a hurry for whatever's in front of me, P will give me a ridiculous, unusable exposure.
> well, ISO + TIME + APERTURE are ingredients of EXPOSURE, and that should be all you need to know to start shooting
So depth of field and the way metering actually works aren't important?
> So depth of field and the way metering actually works aren't important?
Well, we can say "everything is important" and there's no sense to number this stuff to infinity. But if you insist: metering is also just a tool, which you can live without (using exposure value tables), knowing how exposure works is the core of photography.
Nice job, whoever built this :)
i should update lensdb.
Which one are you talking about? The Canon?
Not saying it's a comparable lens, just saying that the simulator isn't necessarily talking about a cost prohibitive situation.
It's definitely a neat way to interact with it in a browser, though. If you're looking to learn these relationships in a less interactive way, I thoroughly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson.
Here's a comparison of several modern entry-level SLRs: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/page20.asp
You can go up to ISO 1600 and get (more or less) unnoticeable noise.
Note that you have to switch to RAW to show sensor noise-- JPEG mode will blur away noise, trading fine detail for smooth images.
Also that lens is really amazingly sharp at both ends of its aperture range. In the real world you wouldn't get anywhere near that level of performance without spending tens on thousands of dollars on a prime (non-zoom) lens.
The the lens calculations are a whole 'nother ball of wax, but here's the quick skinny on the exposure value system:
Av + Tv = Ev = Sv + Bv
Exposure value: Ev
Aperture value: Av = log2 (f^2)
Time value: Tv = log2 (1/t)
Speed value: Sv = log2 (0.32 * ISO)
Brightness value: Bv = subject luminance in foot-Lamberts
A difficult one from implementation standpoint: When I change the distance, it just scales the girl's face as a 2D image -- no perspective. :-) I'm not being picky, just that this is sometimes a consideration for me when clicking...
Wish someone can point me to the mathematics behind this stuff. I figure ISO means gain of some amplifier inside so less photons would be needed to get to the same voltage at the expense of more noise. I can see how with the two auto modes, aperture size and shutter speeds relate to each other (basically you need to gather a similar number of photons, given the ISO setting). Yet do not know the mathematics behind why aperture size affects the depth of focus. Likewise, why focal length does the same. What's the mathematical definition of Fstop. And last but not the least, what role the sensor size play into all of this.
Still do not know how sensor size affects things. Will read more, and hopefully will be able to construct a single mathematical model that couples all of these together.
I ask this as an owner of a Canon Digital Rebel that knows very little about photography. What does changing the ISO setting get you that changing the exposure time or aperture wouldn't?
Image sensors are not perfectly noiseless, of course, and the higher the ISO is, the noisier the image, which appears as random speckles of colored dots.
You don't notice the difference, though, because you're probably shooting in JPEG mode, not in RAW. In JPEG, the Rebel tries very hard to cover up its sins, and will blur away sensor noise, which is hard to notice unless you grovel over areas of fine detail at 400% magnification.
Second time I've linked this in this thread, but http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/page20.asp shows some great examples of what sensor noise looks like over a range of ISO values.
Edit:
Useless editorializing: A SLR isn't a great purchase for someone who knows very little about photography. A point-and-shoot is lighter, cheaper, more durable, easier to use, and in the vast majority of situations, will produce identical results to a SLR. You then graduate to a real camera when get fed up with the various fiddly technical limitations of a point-and-shoot; and bonus, you still have the small camera, which is the one you take with you when climbing mountains, or on vacation, rather than lugging around five kilograms of japanese glass.
Tedious polemic: I dearly hope you have more than one lens. The enormous price premium of a SLR is mostly for the privilege of being able to change lenses. If you just stick with the kit lens, then you will have spent rather a lot of money to accomplish nothing a point-and-shoot couldn't do.
Entry level SLRs are great, even for people who don't know anything more than point-and-shoot. The advantage of an SLR is that it will focus faster, meter faster, and ultimately take the photo faster. This is a huge advantage for parents, whose children are fast moving targets.
What's not necessarily a good idea, is buying the biggest, most expensive SLR you can find. Canon and Nikon both make entry-level SLRs that have modes specifically targeted at novice photographers who will never leave full-auto mode. Buying a more expensive model primarily gets you features. Features that you won't use. The hardware is remarkably similar until you get up in to cameras that cost thousands of dollars.
Many people believe that the huge lens is what makes SLR photos clearer in more conditions, but that's not the whole story. The lens is large because of an aspect of the SLR that you'll probably never see: the sensor. The single greatest reason for the increased image quality of an SLR is sensor size. When you shoot with a compact point-and-shoot, you're capturing light with a sensor the size of your pinky fingernail. You could shoehorn the fastest, largest, most expensive SLR lens on to a compact point-and-shoot, and the photos it takes wouldn't compare to an SLR with even a modest lens. The sensor in an SLR camera is closer to the size of a postage stamp, and this makes all the difference.
Keep in mind that compacts these days shoot comparable resolution (megapixels) to SLRs. This means that each "pixel" in a compact is microscopically small when compared to the "pixels" in a SLR sensor. This means less area for light to fall, and less light collected.
So, even with one lens, and in the hands of a novice, a reasonably priced SLR can result in sharper, more well timed photos in a more diverse range of conditions.
For most people, the upsell to the DSLR probably isn't worth it at this point.
My point was, for most people (particularly those who this neat little program was made for), the quality in the high end point and shoots is there. The G12 I used late last year performed very well in all of the categories you mentioned. And for nearly half the price of a basic dslr kit, by the time you're all done with it.
What I'm getting at here is that if you're walking about on holiday in a city, something like the S90, or maybe the G11, would make sense (though I think the G11 might be a little too big for comfort, the S90 is already quite a bit). If you're specifically trying to take photos, rather than just bringing a camera along, then you have a lot more freedom with a DSLR.
Of course you're going to have more freedom with a DSLR. That's the whole point. But, if you can't figure out what the aperture dial does, the freedom is probably going to be lost on you, along with the extra $400 you're going to spend.
I'm not anti-DSLR or anything. I've probably bought and sold $50k worth of gear in the last 5 years. DSLRs are awesome and they keep getting better. But, compact cameras have gotten pretty damn good in the last couple of years. For many people, and many different applications, they will fit the bill. If you're a sports shooter, they certainly won't.
I don't disagree with you entirely. There are APS-C compacts available that have many of the advantages of a DSLR, but I can't see where buying something like a G12 for $500 makes sense when a Nikon D3000 is available at the same price point.
My opinion is that if you need a compact, get a compact. Pick up a Canon SD1300 for $150 and go crazy. I did a (personal, not school) photography project with my SD870IS and took some of the best photographs of my life.
However, I feel that parents, especially, can benefit from a DSLR, specifically because of the speed. My mother bought a Nikon DSLR a couple years ago at my recommendation because she complained of "always missing the shot she wanted" with her Canon compact. She's been thrilled with her DSLR because she can pick it up, flip it on, and start shooting. There's no waiting for a screen to come on, she simply flips the switch that is right under her index finger, looks through the viewfinder, and pulls the trigger. When your 4 year old grandson is doing something adorable in the living room, the difference between compact speed and DSLR speed does make a difference.
I was not clear above in the discussion of image quality (got sidetracked with more or less irrelevant arguments about sensor size/dynamic range/etc.). I was attempting to say that image quality as a whole from the higher end point and shoots is on par with DSLRs for almost everyone. See here for a comparison with the 2 generation old G10 v. a $40k medium format rig: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
I take up photography in stints of a few weeks to a few months. I get inspired to do some photography, take some photos, then leave it for other pursuits. The last time I took it up, my gut reaction was that I needed to replace my old Canon A1 with a modern DSLR. Prices had come down significantly, and I couldn't possibly do good work with my compact, right?
Well, rather than rushing out and buying a DSLR, I decided to go shoot with my compact SD870IS. I'm so glad I did. It gave me a chance to re-focus on the basics without worrying about what settings I was using. I left the camera in full auto and focused instead on LOOKING at what I was about to shoot. I was really pleased with the result, and I'm 100% convinced that it improved my photography as a result.
Some examples of the photos I shot with the SD870IS:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3224710694/in/photo...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3224711584/in/photo...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3223853289/in/photo...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3224779424/in/photo...
I could not have taken the shot of the grasshopper with a DSLR because A) I wouldn't have been able to grab the camera, mount a macro lens, and get ready to shoot in time, and B) the DSLR wouldn't have fit in the space I had to put the camera to get that shot.
Then again, I couldn't have taken these shots with the compact because I couldn't quickly change settings for good DOF (first photo) and I'd have missed the moment because of speed (arguably for both).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3296469446/in/photo...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradleyland/3241790710/in/photo...
In general, you want to shoot at the lowest ISO which works in any given situation.
A longer exposure can result in object or camera shake blur. Wider aperture reduces depth of field, making it harder to focus.
Sometimes, you'll need all three to get enough light in the shot: A hot sensor, a longish exposure, and a wide aperture.
To understand, you really need to get a grasp on the basics of exposure. This may be helpful: http://www.ajkesslerblog.com/understanding-exposure/
When a photon hits a pixel it produces an electrical signal. You can think of the ISO as the amount that signal is amplified. So, if you want to keep aperture and shutter speed at certain levels, you can adjust the ISO to produce a usable image. The tradeoff is that when you amplify a signal a great deal, it gets noisy.
Go outside and fill up a memory card while you systematically work through the settings. After you get the hang of exposure you can start in on the different settings for metering, autofocus, manual focus, jpeg processing, black and white, motor drive, use of flash, different lenses, not to mention composition choices, interacting with the subject, use of filters, creative panning or rotating. Real photography is more fun than tweaking sliders on a flash app.
add.: it gives a good foundation regarding teaching exposure itself, but, apart from not explaining (nor visualizing) that focal length and perspective are two separate attributes of optics, it also misrepresents the meaning and function of the ƒ value in a very common way often repeated even by seasoned photographers, in that it suggests (and indirectly claims) that ƒ only has to do with the aperture of the lens, and that ƒ is an indicator of what depth of field you will have. In reality, ƒ only tells you how much light is passed to the film plane; it does not tell you the state of the lens' aperture, nor does it say anything about the depth of field. This misleading explanation regarding ƒ is widespread even in literature.
Instinctively, F23 will put everything in focus (which is why we use it to identify dust spots on our CCDs, whereas F1.4 on anything reasonably close is going to have a DOF measured in inches.
Can you come up with a counter example where DOF doesn't change in this direction?
Apologies if I'm missing your entire point - I've been starting at it for five minutes, not sure if you are going a different direction.
I gave three examples above. I can elaborate: DoF changes depending on how you strangle the light by contracting the diaphragm the lights passes through (thus preventing light from dispersing), not from having a higher ƒ value. A really dark lens is a good example of this. Some can have a light throughput that begins at ƒ/6.3, or even ƒ/8.0, yet at wide-open aperture they produce as narrow DoF as f.e. my Nikkor 50mm ƒ/1.4 does, which is 5 exposure steps brighter - or, as you reason, 5 aperture steps more open. Why? Because their apertures are wide-open in both cases.
It is possible, that I, and every photographer, photography magazine, photography book, photography instructor, technical reference, manufacturer, and Wiki-Page, has been using the term incorrectly all this time - but could you stop for a second and possibly consider that perhaps you might be the one using it somewhat differently than everyone else?
At the very least - look at a camera, and note that when you set the "F-Stop" to, or read it to be, say, F/3.5, it does precisely the same thing to the camera if you are in a completely pitch-dark room or outside on a very sunny day.
That alone should suggest that F-Stop is not a measure of light, but instead of something else, and, perhaps also consider that it is, as I have suggested numerous times on this thread, the ratio of the focal length to aperture diameter.
For a given focal length on a subject in focus at a reasonable distance (not at infinity), increasing the F-Stop will always increase the DOF.
Two Lenses of identical diameter [edit: aperture size] and identical focal length, by definition of the concept "F-Stop", will always have the same F Values. Period.
[1] To really understand how to calculate DoF for the format you are shooting with and the size you are viewing at, you also need to understand Circles of Confusion (CoC). The same (effective) focal length lens at the same aperture/focal distance and printed at the same size is going to give dramatically different DoF if one camera is 35mm format and the other is large format (8x10).
ƒ relates to DoF only in that it's relative to the maximum aperture of a specific lens.
No, the f/ratio is f/D, which determines the divergence angle of the ray bundles that end up on the detector plane, and this is what determines the depth of field. You can not produce two exposures that have the same focal length and f/ratio that have different depths of field. Adding an ND filter will just make one image darker, it will not change the depth of field. You can't change the aperture without changing the f/value, because the f/value determines the aperture.
I am not sure why we are both establishing to one another that DoF is determined by the dispersion of the light hitting the film plane when we already know this. My Mamiya Sekor 50mm ƒ/6.3 has a DoF not even tangibly different from my Nikkor 50mm ƒ/1.4, unless I stop the latter down to ƒ/6.3 which produces two identical exposures at same ƒ/ratio but with very different DoF.
Otherwise you're right, so in the odd circumstance the poster has a Nikkor 50/1.4 medium format or Mamiya small format 50/6.3 then their depth of field characteristics will be as you said. I'm also pretty sure that even on 6x7 50mm @ f/6.3 wouldn't give DoF characteristics anywhere near 50mm @ f/1.4 on a DX sensor (as the extreme examples to artificially push them closer together), and they'd have a radically different field of view.
Can you, perhaps, explains where you are getting your definition of "F-Stop?" Charitably, I'd like to believe you are just using a little known definition of the word, and I'd love to see your source material. I'm sure it will open my eyes to a different perspective on photography than what I've been operating with the last fifteen years.
Just to nitpick, you can if you change the size of the film/sensor. f2 on a medium format camera looks very different than f2 on a digital P&S sensor. But other than that you are correct.
1.) set up the simulator to Tv mode and play with the 'Shutter Speed' and ISO primarily
...and after this:
2.) set up the simulator to Av mode and play with the 'Aperture' and ISO primarily.
In this way you will learn how far you can go in real situations and what results you might expect.
HTH
(EDIT: Ok, you can play with the distance & focal length but I think that for the 1st step it is better to concentrate on the points above).
Besides that, it is enough more difficult to play with four variables (Aperture, ISO, Speed AND the exposure indicator (usually a vertical beam in viewfinder)) compared with two variables (ISO & Aperture or ISO & Time respectively) or with just one (Aperture or Time - if you have the ISO set to Auto).
The main difficulty here isn't that someone (you) can cope (or not) with four variables in a simulator but to adjust them quickly and exactly in the field given the very short amount of time which you (the photographer) have at your disposition to take "the shoot".
That's why the most photojurnalists (from which, more or less, is your truly also) avoid the M mode. OTOH, I have very close "brothers" which are 'studio creatures' which prefer the M mode.
And now to respond directly to your question, having the Tv (or Av mode) will give you a much 'closer to real' simulation (especially if you are on-field, on-street, on-sports etc. photographer) and will allow you to concentrate rather on the effect you want to achieve (for ex. how to simulate a good moving effect of the child's rotating toy) in the smallest amount of time (think that in the real world, the children aren't so frozen like the one in our simulator :-) ) and not to concentrate so much in obtaining a correct exposure. Usually the metering system does the job rather well. These systems have enough advanced features today to help you in avoiding the M mode with its quirks: exposure modes, over/underexposing by 1/2, 1/3 EV etc.
HTH
PS: Disclaimer: No, I'm not against the M mode. But I want to stress its limited usage today. Of course IMHO.