54 Awesome Action Sequences [Photography]

What happens when Gizmodo readers capture action at 3-5fps? Why, the results of this week’s Shooting Challenge: Action Sequence Photography. Read on for the winners.

Second Runner Up


“Shot in my New England backyard during the lull in a snowstorm on February 26, 2010.”
Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM
ISO: 3200
Focal Point: 73mm
Aperture: f/7.1
Shutter: 1/4000
[Ed note: Loved the juxtaposition of the soft yet miserable environment and a young, undeterred athlete.]
– Ron Miles

First Runner Up


“I have shot this series in Engelberg Switzerland on Jochpass on an awesome day. I have used a Canon EOS 50D with a 17-85mm lens.”
Exposure Time 1/4000
ISO 100
Exposure bias +2 steps
Focal Length 17mm
[Ed note: The epic jump, mixed with the sun that blinds us to the full scope of the scene—my eye kept coming back.]
– Simon Sharp

Winner


“I was directly below the snowboarder, standing behind the jump ramp. All photos taken with Nikon D2x with Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye lens. I didn’t use any tripod, it was all hand held. Aperture was around f/6.3 and shutter speed around 1/1000sec. No flash Photos are then merged together in Photoshop cs4.”
[Ed note: It’s just an awesome shot that required an element of risk, capturing a classic sports action sequence from an immersive perspective.]
– Vedran Frka

Truly fantastic entries this week. Thanks to everyone who entered.

Just a note to commenters: Please, please, sing praises for your favorites. There are so many great shots here, and it’s flat-out unfair for them not to be recognized. But there’s absolutely no reason to put down anyone’s work from the cheap seats. We will ban accordingly.

Nikon D3s Review: A Light Stalker [Review]

A $5000 camera is not within reach for most people. So this Nikon D3s review is a bit different—it’s a peek at the near future of photography where shooting in any lighting condition is possible. It’s really exciting.

ISO Is the New Megapixel: A Case Study

Nikon effectively declared the pixel war over with D3 two years ago: Its $5000 flagship shot a mere 12 megapixels—less than many point-and-shoots—and began the low-light arms race. The D3s again forsakes more megapixels for more light, sticking with 12 megapixels, and it’s a tiny miracle of engineering.

The D3s isn’t a thoughtless product rehash—as you might expect given that Nikon’s simply tacked an ‘s’ onto the end of the D3. Unlike the D300s, which didn’t progress all that far in the two interceding years, the D3s is steady evolution at its best: It offers roughly double the low-light performance as the original D3.

What All This Low Light and ISO Business Means

A brief explanation of low-light digital photography and ISO is in order (click here for the long explanation). The focal point of engineering with the D3s, and other cameras of this caliber, has been boosting their ability to pick up more light (because a photo = light). That photo directly above with a 100 percent crop in the loupe? Taken at night at ISO 102,400.

The D3s uses a completely new sensor that refines elements of the original D3’s sensor, like a new gapless microlens architecture that directs more available light onto the sensor’s photodiodes. With film, ISO speed is a standard that indicates how sensitive the film is to light—higher speeds are more sensitive. With digital cameras, when you set the ISO speed, it’s supposed to be equivalent to the film standard. In low-light conditions, you boost the ISO, so you don’t need a long exposure time or wide open aperture. The problem with cranking up the ISO is that when you boost the camera’s sensitivity to light (the signal) you’re also boosting its sensitivity to noise—which can be sexy with film, but isn’t really with digital photos. The D3s shoots up ISO 102,400, far beyond any film you could buy at Walgreen’s. (Does Walgreen’s still sell film?) At that level, you’re talking night vision, practically, though the resulting noisy ass photo’s nothing you’d want to print.

So, here’s what the D3s offers, practically. In the most common DSLRs that people own, or with the latest crop of Micro Four Thirds cameras, the borderline for what we’d call good ISO performance is around ISO 800. In the original D3, it was ISO 3200, orders of magnitude better.

The D3s doubles the low-light performance of the D3: ISO 6400 photos look just about as clean ISO 3200 photos taken with the D3 (they look good), and ISO 3200 photos are whistle clean to all but the most trained eye, especially if they’re down-res’d to web or print size. ISO 12,800 is the new ISO 6400—the outer limit of acceptably printable. In short, the D3s is the best low-light camera we’ve ever used, a leap beyond last-generation’s low-light killers. You can basically shoot in any lighting condition. That’s incredible.

It’s Built for Photographers

The D3s is built for war zones, and being slung in the mud at 40mph. It weighs nearly 3 pounds, without a lens. Yet it’s well-balanced and supremely comfortable to hold, with the best ergonomics in its class—Canon’s 1D Mark IV feels surprisingly awkward by comparison—so we could shoot for hours on end in the closest thing to gadget blogging’s war zones, CES and the iPad launch, and slug people who got in our way. (The dual CF card slots and ginormous battery help with shooting for hours. We didn’t quite reach the 4,200 shots it’s spec’d for, but we definitely shot a couple thousand photos per charge.)

It feels like what a pro camera should feel like, with almost all of the controls you need at your fingertips—the addition of a dedicated live view button versus the original D3 definitely helped there, though a more natural way to change the ISO setting while using the camera’s vertical grip would be nice.

It is a photographer’s camera, though, to be sure. Even as it shoots a crazyfast 9 frames per second at full-resolution RAW and its 51-point autofocus proved fast and accurate for us at trade shows, Nikon continues to lag behind Canon when it comes to video, with it feeling more tacked on than any of Canon’s shooters—it’s still 720p video using the bleh Motion JPEG codec—it’s functionally better than the D300s, though, with improved autofocus in live view mode. That said, given that Nikon’s announced its first 1080p-shooting camera, we’re hopeful for the seemingly inevitable D700s on the video front, anyway.

Most of our testing took place at CES and the iPad event, which are marked by shitty and ever-changing light conditions, and we’ve never felt more comfortable shooting handheld without a flash or tripod. It’s truly liberating. Light is your bitch—you can shoot wherever, whatever you want. (Especially with a fast lens, but even “slow” lenses suddenly feel eminently more usable.) While auto white balance was never quite perfect, the pop and saturation of the D3s’s colors are just about unbeatable. It’s the ultimate gadget-shooting-in-crappy-conditions camera. Here’s some of posts we used the D3s to shoot:

iPad Hands On
iPad Liveblog
Slayer Espresso
E-Ink Is Dead, Pixel Qi Just Killed It
Ballmer CES Keynote
CES We’re Here

(You can also check out our previous hands on with a pre-production unit for more samples. And for a more technical review, DPReview’s got you covered.) A note: You’ll notice I don’t have a ton of sample photos, and that’s because somehow hundreds of them completely poofed from my hard drive.

The D3s doesn’t operate under any new philosophy, but it does remarkably take the game a step further, revealing with more clarity a world where camera performance doubles roughly every two years. Much like processors, where the tradeoff is more power or more efficiency, the choice is more megapixels or better performance. (But newspapers and monitors are only so big.)

We’re running through Canon’s answer to the D3s, the 1D Mark IV at this very moment, so we’re intensely interested to see who’s wearing what pants at the end of this. Either way, it shows that competition is a very good thing: Everybody wins.

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerThe best low-light camera we’ve ever used

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerFast and accurate 51-point AF to go with its 9FPS rapid fire

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerSolid ergonomics

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerWould prefer a more accessible ISO button

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerThere’s still a major disconnect with video, which lags behind Canon quality and otherwise

Nikon D3s Review: A Light StalkerIt’s $5000, so this amazing low-light performance is out of reach for most people for a few more years (not really a knock against the camera, just a general frowny face)

[Nikon]

122 Brilliant and Blinding Blow Outs [Photography]

99.99% of our photography falls within a certain acceptable range of exposure—one filled with color and detail. Last week’s Shooting Challenge was dedicated to the rare .01% that’s blinded by the light. The resulting shots are incredible.

Second Runner Up


I shot most of the photo with the exposure I wanted, but used photoshop to up the exposure, gamma correction, noise reduction and unsharp mask.
Lens: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm VR
ISO: 200
Shutter: 1/200
Aperture: F13
Focal Length: 50mm
[Ed note: I have a feeling that the larger you can look at this, the more you can appreciate the gradient of detail and the more striking it would be. Imagine a wall-sized print.]
-Jason Bolt

First Runner Up

Camera: Canon Eos 40d
Lens: Canon 24-70 2.8L USM
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 52mm
Aperture: f2.8
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
[Ed note: I was just struck by the simple, clever play of black and white.]
-Justin Carney

Winner

Michelangelo´s “Creation of Men” inspired me to this “Adam´s sight of view”.
I shot “Gods hand” with my Canon Eos 500D and the Canon 18-55mm lens.Also used a tripod and a remote trigger. 1/4 sec. Iso 800, into the sunlight. No software adjustments except for crop and resize.

[Ed note: My mind just kept coming back to this one.]
-Roland Renne

The notable shots mentioned here barely represent the creativity and awesome execution of this week’s challenge, ranging from subtle clipping to complete whiteouts. Thanks to everyone for participating, and readers, be sure to mention your favorites in the comments!

UPDATE: Download wallpaper sizes here.

74 Phenomenal Panoramic Planets

The point has grown cliche by now, but it’s true. Every week your submissions to Shooting Challenges blow me away. And your polar panoramas just upped that ante on every challenge to come.

Honorable Mention (non-original photography)


Subject: Denali, Alaska
Built from 9 photos
Camera: Nikon D80
Lens: AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 18mm (27mm /35mm equiv.)
Aperture: ƒ/8
Shutter Speed: 1/250
As you can obviously tell by climate, I broke rule 2 because I’m a college student and don’t have time to go out and take photos, but I did want to test my hand at the challenge!
-Isaac Chambers

Second Runner Up


Camera: Sony Cybershot DSC-W50
F-stop: f/5
Exposure time: 1/200 sec.
ISO Speed: ISO-80
Focal length: 16mm
Flash: None
I leave my office right around sunset everyday and park on the top of a garage in the middle of downtown Charleston, SC. I saw a particularly nice sunset and pulled out my basic point and shoot (Sony Cybershot DSC-W50) and took a series of 5 pictures to stitch into a panoramic. After creating the Polar Panorama, I merely adjusted the brightness so that the buildings would show more detail.
-David Crosby

First Runner Up


I shot these with a Nikon D60, 18-55mm kit lens. This was seven 20-second exposures at f5 of the quad at Oklahoma City University.
-Robert Rickner

Winner


Camera: Nikon D5000
Lens: Tamron 28-135
ISO: 500
Exposure: 1/250
Location: Seattle, WA
I had gone out shooting trying to emulate the look of old contrasty but yet washed out photos of boats I had seen all over the harbor and its various shops and thought it would make an interesting juxtaposition using a new technique with an old look. Taken in the Ballard Harbor.
-Tyler Yates

This was the hardest week to judge yet, and I don’t know that anyone can really “win” at art. (So as always, praise our intrepid photographers in the comments.)

Also, for those of you saying “I wish this was in a wallpaper,” just go here: [Gizmodo Flickr]

117 Beautifully Blurry Photos

Motion blur! It doesn’t just ruin photos. It’s also something that can be used for artistic effect, when done properly. And for the results of this week’s Shooting Challenge, we’ve got 117 photographers who did just that.

First Runner Up


This is my favorite Korg, and I thought this would be pretty cool to capture “In motion!”
I used a Canon Rebel T1I
f/25
20 Second Exposure
18-55mm Lens (shot at 27mm)
ISO 100
Developed in Lightroom2
And my lighting was a small fluorescent tube light, the size you would put in a closet and such… -Marcel Maynard

Second Runner Up


Camera:Canon EOS REBEL T1i
Lens: 18-55m F/3.5
Exposure:3.2
Aperture:f/22.0
Focal Length:28 mm
ISO Speed:100
Exposure Bias:-1/3 EV
-Shant Meguerdichian

Winner


Camera: Canon S90
Shutter Speed: 0.81 sec
Aperture: F/8
Focal Length 6mm
ISO: 80
Exposure Compensation: -0.7 step
-David McGibbon

30 Photographers Make a High Speed Getaway

Some people really hate being photographed, so much, in fact, that they’ll run, jump, tight rope walk or even teleport away. Seriously! Here are 30 such getaway shots from this week’s Shooting Challenge, including the winners:

Second Runner Up: ‘Don’t Fall!’

Technique: Pre-Step 1: Walk to beach. Step 1: Set camera on railing Step 2: Set 2 second timer to take 2 pictures Step 3: Press shutter Step 4: DON’T FALL! Equipment: Nikon D5000 with a 35mm f1.8 lens. Picture Details: 1/250 sec. at f/8. Nerd Details: Camera set to program auto (lazymode), ISO 200, custom picture style, auto white balance, no flash. Confession 1: Picture was actually taken 4 seconds after the shutter was pressed because the timer was set to take 2 pictures, each after 2 seconds. 2 seconds was nowhere near enough time to get into the frame, so the second picture was chosen. I’m not a tightrope walker, I can’t move THAT fast on that rail! Picture was taken in Emerald Isle NC. And yeah, it really was foggy. Like could not see more than 100 yards foggy. Like everything was moist foggy. Oh and sorry if you don’t like the word moist.
-Cory Efland

Runner Up – ‘Tight Rope Walker’

I shot this image tonight on a roof top in Chicago. I setup a single strobe (Calumet 7B) synced to my 5D Mark II on a tripod, set the timer and leaped from one roof top to the other! 5D Mark II with a Canon 17-40 f/4; Exposed for 8 seconds at f/5.6; Strobe at half-power; ISO 200; Mirror locked up. It was a fun shoot, little did I know, the rooftop that I was jumping onto was someone’s apartment. After about 5 test jumps I heard some screaming and ignored it, after getting this final image the neighbors were throwing eggs up on to the roof at me.
-Josh Billions

Winner – ‘Teleport’

For this shot, I used my Canon XSi on the 2sec timer with a Canon 50mm at f/1.4, ISO 100, and 15sec. I set the camera to shutter speed priority at 15s. I then ran from my camera holding a flashlight for about 10 seconds, then light painted my body for the rest of the exposure.
-Kinta Maeda

I absolutely love that we started with such a simple idea—running from your camera—and ended up with so many entries I could have never anticipated. Even more worthwhile shots in the full gallery:

Thanks again for your participation!

107 Dazzling Christmas Lights

You readers have filled me with so much freakin’ holiday cheer that I may, MAY, not protest the holidays with my ritualistic murder of a tree. Here are the 107 entrants in this week’s Shooting Challenge. UPDATE: Wallpaper versions HERE.

Second Runner Up
This is actually a picture of my Christmas tree. I shot this with my Canon XS using a 4 second exposure at f-8, and an iso of 100. I started with the lens unfocused and zoomed in at 55m. During the 4 second exposure I zoomed out to 18mm.
-John Chapman

First Runner Up
Sony A230 Body; Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens; ISO 800; 1/500 sec @ f2.8; No Flash
-Nick Marquis

Winner!
Nikon D5000; Nikkor 18-200 VR; Exposure: 12.2 seconds; Aperture: f/9.0; Focal Length: Multiple; ISO: 200; White Balance: Cool White Fluorescent. This was taken in bulb mode on a tripod. I exposed the tree and surrounding scene at 18mm for about 9 seconds, then slowly zoomed to 200mm closing the shutter right before hitting 200. More here.
-Dan DeChiaro

Dan, please contact me to claim your Joby SLR-ZOOM Gorillapod and Ballhead.

As always, thanks to everyone for participating, and enjoy all of the awesome entries in the gallery below. Picking winners is my favorite worst job to do of the week. Oh, and for those of you wanting wallpaper-sized images, we’ll be popping those in a separate post soon.

By the way, more of you sent in shots of soul-sucking winter than pretty, happy Christmas lights. What’s that say about us all?

Images coordinated by Kyle VanHemert.

Giz Explains: What Everyone Should Know About Cameras

Talking to a camera nerd—or even reading about new cameras—can feel like translating from a different language. But it doesn’t need to! Here, in this here post, is everything you need to know about cameras, without the noise.

When you buy a camera, you’ll be pelted with specs from a salesperson, many of which are confusing, and even misleading. You will cower, and may cover your head for protection. He will keep pelting. And really, he has to—spec sheets and jargon are integral to camera marketing, at least for now. Here’s what it all means, in one handy cheat sheet.

Types of Cameras

Before you set out to buy a new camera, or even just to get to know yours a little better, you’ve got to know the difference between the different types or cameras. Here are the ones you’re likely to come across.

Point-and-Shoots: Also known as compact cameras. If you don’t know what kind of camera you’re looking for, or what kind your have, it’s probably one of these. They’re the smallest style of camera, typically—at least in the last few years—trending toward a boxy, mostly featureless shape. The lens is non-removable. The flash unit is built in. They have LCD screens on the back, not just for reviewing photos, but to use as a viewfinder as well. When you press the shutter button on a point-and-shoot, there is a slight delay before the photo is actually recorded. Many new point and shoot cameras will take video, and some even manage to record in HD.

Bridge/Superzoom Cameras: These cameras often look like DSLRs, but don’t be fooled: They’re just juiced-up point-and-shoots. They will typically come with longer lenses and slightly more impressive specs than your average P&S, and will give you a bit more photographic flexibility to play with. Sadly, they suffer from the same picture-taking delay, or “shutter lag,” as point and shoots. The problem with bridge cameras, especially now, is that in order to get a decent one you have to spend at least a few hundreds dollars, at which point you may as well get a…

DSLRs: This unwieldy acronym stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex. Narrowly, this means that the camera has a mirror mechanism which allows photographers to see through the camera’s lens while setting up a shot, and which flips up, exposing the image sensor (the equivalent to film in a digital camera). Widely, this means that the camera will have interchangeable lenses, a larger sensor than a point and shoot, and to an extent, more image controls. When you press the shutter button on a DSLR, it takes the photo instantly—no lag, like in a point-and-shoot. Many new DSLRs at mid-to-high price points shoot HD video; some manage 720p, some manage 1080p, but all turn out impressive results, if simply because of the cameras’ lenses. That said, they’re not really ready to replace proper video cameras yet, because amongother things, no DSLR to date has got the autofocus during video thing right.

These are the cameras that photographers, or people who call themselves photographers, use. They’re also the ones that are capable of taking the best photos.

As a rule, DSLRs are more expensive than point and shoots. But they’re getting cheaper. Much, much cheaper. Olympus, Nikon, Pentax and Sony all have DSLRs that can be had for under $500—and these are real cameras—rendering the entire category of bridge cameras kind of pointless.

Micro Four Thirds/Digital Rangefinder: Micro Four Thirds cameras are interchangeable-lens cameras, minus the straight-through-the lens viewfinder that defines a DSLR. In other words, they have larger sensors like DSLRs, have swappable glass like DSLRs, but use an LCD screen as viewfinderlike a point-and-shoot. This saves space inside the camera, meaning that—at least this is the theory—it can be more portable than an equivalent DSLR, while maintaining the same versatility and image quality. Most of them record video, too, and they’re pretty good at it: They don’t have the complex viewfinder/mirror system of a DSLR, so it’s technically simpler to record video. Some of these cameras are styled like DSLRs, like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, while some are styled more like portable cameras, like the Olympus EP-1.

This is a small category for now, and accordingly, prices are still high, starting at about $750. Panasonic and Olympus are basically the only game in town.

Sensors

The sensor is the part of the camera that actually records the image. In other words, it is your camera.

Megapixels, and image resolution: Megapixels have been central to digital camera marketing since the beginning (it just sounds like a 90s term, doesn’t it?). A megapixel, quite simply, is one million pixels. If a one-megapixel image (or sensor) was perfectly square, it would be 1000×1000 pixels. They’re usually rectangular, at 4:3 or 3:2 ratios, which means their resolutions look more like this: 2048×1536 pixels for a 3-megapixel camera; 3264×2448 pixels for an 8-megapixel camera, and so on.

As digital cameras mature, this number means less and less—it’s easy to cram megapixels in a camera, but without good optics and light sensitivity, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to turn out an honest, clean, high-quality images at such a high resolution. My cellphone shoots at five megapixels, but the images look like screenshots from some kind of ghosthunting show. My DSLR shoots at 10.1 megpixels, but turns out images more than twice as clean and clear as my phone. My point-and-shoot is rated at 12.1 megapixels, but on close examination, its images are effectively blurrier than those from the DSLR.

If you’re planning on making huge prints, or need to crop your images a lot, a high megapixel count is necessary, but beyond a certain point, the returns are minimal. You’ll read a lot of guidance from camera manufacturers about how many megapixels you need to print different sized photos, which you can ignore, because they seem to change with every generation of cameras. Unless you’re printing billboards or in magazine or something, don’t sweat it too much.

Aside from indicating how many dots a camera is capable of capturing, megapixels can be a helpful indicator of how old a camera’s guts may be. Megapixel count has been increasing fairly steadily over the years, so within a given manufacturer’s camera line, increased megapixels could correlate to newer sensors, which could, along with high resolution, take richer, less noisy pictures.

ISO: This indicates how fast your camera’s sensor collects light—the higher your ISO, the more sensitive your camera is to light, the less light you need to take a picture. And while high-ISO capability is most useful in low light, it also comes in handy when you’re shooting extremely fast exposures in the daytime, like at a sports game. With higher ISOs, though, comes more noise—some point-and-shoot cameras advertise extremely high ISOs, on the order of 6400. Shots at this sensitivity will invariably look like ass. DSLRs, which have larger sensors that are better at gathering light, can sometimes shoot at 6400 ISO and higher without too much noise.

It might help to think of it like this: ISO ratings are actually a callback to the days of film. You used to have to anticipate how you’d be shooting, and buy film based on how sensitive it was, as expressed in an ISO or ASA rating. The ratings got carried over to digital cameras, despite film getting replaced with sensors.

Anyway, don’t buy a camera for its ISO rating alone, because there’s a good chance its top two to three settings will be useless.

CCD and CMOS: From our previous Giz Explains on the subject:

There are two major types of image sensors for digital cameras and camcorders: CCD (charged-couple device) and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor, sometimes also known as active pixel sensor). We’re not going to get into the really geeky differences, because you don’t really need to know or care. What you should know is that higher-end digital SLRs (the big cameras with a removable lens) use CMOS because it’s easier to make bigger CMOS sensors; and mobile phones do because CMOS uses less power. That said, most point-and-shoot cameras and most camcorders use the more common CCD sensor.

Things are a little different now, and CCDs are common in DSLRs nowadays. The difference for consumers is minimal—don’t be alarmed to see either on your camera’s spec sheet. UPDATE: As some commenters have pointed out, this isn’t quite right: DSLRs are still trending more towards CMOS sensors, including most of the latest/greatest cameras. Anyway: still more of a curiosity than a purchasing point, for most people.

White Balance: Have you ever seen a set of indoor pictures that’s totally, inexplicably orange? That’s a white balance problem. Your camera can adjust to compensate for different light temperatures—tungsten lights have that orange hue, and sunlight will turn your photos kind of blue—and correct your image’s color accordingly. Virtually all cameras let you adjust white balance with presets, though it’s best if you can adjust it manually, too.

Sensor size, and crop factor: Some cameras have sensors that are roughly the same size as 35mm film, at 36x24mm. These are called full frame cameras. They tend to be more expensive—like Canon’s 5D and 1D series, or Nikon’s D3s—and their bodies tend to be a bit bigger. Semi-pro to pro equipment, basically.

APS-C sensors, on the other hand, are what almost all consumer DSLRs ship with. These sensors are about 22x15mm, which is significantly smaller than a full frame’s sensor. Why does this matter? Larger sensors provide more room for each pixel, which makes them better at picking up light. (A bucket analogy is useful here.) More importantly for APS-C users, though, is crop factor. A smaller sensor will pick up a smaller section of what’s coming through a lens, so: A 200mm lens on a full frame DSLR becomes a 300m lens on an APS-C camera, a 50mm becomes a 75mm, etc. Of course, camera manufacturers make APS-C -specific lenses which are designed for the smaller sensors, but the listed focal lengths aren’t adjusted—they’re still 35mm-equivalent numbers. Just be aware the any given lens will shoot differently from one type of camera to another.

Optics

The optics are the the parts through which your camera sees. They’re the eyeballs, basically.

Swappable lenses: There are two kinds of swappable lenses, generally speaking. Ones that zoom in and out, which are called “zoom” lenses, and ones that don’t move. These are called “primes.” They’re all classified by focal length. Strictly speaking, focal length refers to the distance required for a lens system to focus light. In real terms, focal length roughly correlates to physical lens length, and helps indicate how much a lens magnifies an image. 18mm focal length on a DSLR is considered wide, 200mm or more would be considered a telephoto lens.

Point-and-Shoot Lenses, and the X Factor: The second most prominently featured number on your point-and-shoot’s obnoxious feature sticker is the zoom rating. It’ll be expressed as a number, with an x: 5x, 10x, etc. You’ll also see a printed range, something like 5.0-25mm, which describes the focal length of the lens. Here’s a trick: Divide the larger focal length measurement by the smaller one. The result should match your “x” zoom rating, because, well, that’s all it is: the quotient of the maximum lens length and the minimum lens length.

This is misleading labeling. Mounted on the same camera, a lens that zooms from 50mm to 100mm would be called a 2X lens, while a lens that zooms from 18mm to 42mm would be called a 3X lens, even though at the longest, it doesn’t zoom in as far as the 50-100mm lens does at its shortest. Take this equation into account when comparing point-and-shoots, but most of all, try them. You’ll see the difference.

Shutter, shutter speed, and shutter lag: You shutter is the little door that opens up between your lens and your sensor, allowing for photographic exposure. Shutter speed ranges are advertised with the intention of implying that the camera will be useful at both ends: from the 10-second long exposure to the 1/4000th-second high-speed shot. Keep in mind, for both numbers, that shutter speed alone doesn’t guarantee anything. If your camera can shoot at 1/4000th of a second, but it’s got a small aperture and low ISO rating, your shots will probably be too dark.

Shutter lag is something else entirely. You know how on a point and shoot, there’s a frustrating gap between when you press the button and when your shot actually takes? That’s it. The lower the shutter lag, the better, though many camera manufacturers don’t even bother to advertise this.

Aperture: This is the hole through which light passes after its been through part of your lens, and before it hits your sensor. The bigger the hole, the more light gets in. The smaller the hole, the less light gets in. Larger apertures allow you to take pictures in lower light situations, but only allow you to focus on a thin plane—either your background or your foreground will be out of focus. Smaller apertures let you keep more of a scene in focus but they let less light through, and require longer exposure times. Apertures are described by f-numbers—these are the ration between the width of an aperture and the focal length of a lens. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture.

Optical vs Digital Zoom: Another scourge of the camera buyer is digital zoom. Optical is magnification by your lens—in other words, it’s true zoom. Digital zoom is just your camera taking the optically zoomed image and blowing it up, like you’d do in Photoshop. It’s only useful for framing shots and sometimes helping your camera focus properly. Otherwise, it’s a gimmick: Ignore it, shoot wide and crop your shots later.

IS, or Antishake: Image stabilization is fast becoming a standard feature on even the cheapest cameras, though you’ll find some sub-$150 point-and-shoots without it. The point of image stabilization is to correct for camera movements during an exposure, which cause blurry shots.

There are two types: Digital IS, which you’ll find mostly in point-and-shoots, corrects the image with software, and can be somewhat effective, though the results are often passable, not perfect. Optical image stabilization physically moves some part of the camera to counteract shaking. In some cameras, like Nikons and Canons, the moving parts are in the lens. In most other other manufacturers’ DSLRs, it’s the sensor that actually moves to stabilize the image. Optical IS almost always works better, but it’s not magic—you won’t be able to shoot a freehand four-second exposure just because it’s on, but you might be able to keep things together for a half-second or more.

Software


“Modes,” Face Detection, Smile Detection: Your camera’s modes are assistive tools,, not hard features. They’re generally just collected presets for settings that you can adjust yourself, like equalizer presets on your iPod. They can be useful, though you’ll be a better photographer if you manage settings yourself.

Face and smile detection, again, are like crutches. Face detection guesses when there’s a human in the photo so the camera can adjust exposure, white balance and focus to make sure that said human doesn’t end up blurry. Smile detection is a crude algorithm that measures facial features, and won’t take a photo until the subjects are judged to be SUFFICIENTLY CONTENTED, by which I mean they have vaguely crescent-shaped mouth holes. It’s a good way to ensure that nobody is ruining a photo with a grimace. Also, to ensure that none of your photos are ever interesting.

Image formats: You digital camera doesn’t have film, but your photos have to go somewhere. In today’s cameras, the digitally stored photos are either JPEGs or RAW files. JPEG files are compressed, which means that they are encoded in such a way that they don’t take up much space, but lose a small amount of quality. This is how point-and-shoot cameras almost always store images, and how DSLRs store images by default, generally.

If JPEGs are like photo prints (they’re not, really, but bear with me) then RAW files are like the digital negatives. (In fact, one popular RAW format, .DNG, crudely stands for “digital negative”). Raw files contain almost exactly what your sensor has recorded, which means you can change values like exposure, white balance and coloration after taking the photo, to a surprisingly high degree. It feels like cheating! There is a downside: larger image files. And, depending on the type of RAW file—different camera manufacturers have different ones—you may need special software to view and edit your photos. Shoot in RAW if you can, and buy a camera that’ll let you. This is a huge feature.

As a bonus, most cameras that shoot RAW will also let you shoot RAW and JPEG files simultaneously, so you have a lightweight, ready-to-print-or-upload file right away, as well as the RAW source, for later editing. It takes up a ton of space, but hey, space is cheap nowadays. Spend a few bucks on a bigger memory card, and live your life.

Video: Most new cameras, including some DSLRs, shoot video. But just because your camera shoots stills at 10 megapixels doesn’t mean that it’ll shoot anywhere near that kind of resolution in motion. The standard resolution for most point-and-shoot cameras is VGA—that’s just 640×480 pixels of video, which is good enough for YouTube—while DSLRs, and some nicer point-and-shoots, record in either 720p or 1080p, which are HD resolutions, which translate to 1280×720 pixels and 1920×1080 pixels, respectively.

Storage


Point and shoot cameras usually come with a small amount of onboard storage. This, I’m about 100% sure, is there so that the camera technically works when you buy it, making your inevitable extra storage purchase seem more like a choice, and less like a mandatory camera tax. Anyway, with any camera, you’re going to need to buy some memory, or storage.

There are a few peripheral memory card formats still kicking around (Sony, can you please just put Memory Stick Pro out of its misery? Thanks!) but there are only two that matter.

SD: Also seen as SDHC, or SDXC, these little guys are the card of choice for point-and-shoot and bridge cameras, and some newer DSLRs. They’re small, they works fine, and they’re available in just about any capacity you could ever want. Almost: Most cameras are only SDHC-compatible, a standard which maxes out at 32GB. SDXC, the next evolution of the SD standard, maxes out at a theoretical 2TB, though almost no cameras support it yet.

Compact Flash: These cards are chunkier, can be faster, and are more durable, and anecdotally less prone to temperature and weather damage. These are what you’ll find in DSLRs.

Speed ratings: Memory cards come in different speeds. These are advertised in a variety of different ways, for no good reason. You’ll see a couple of numbers on most cards, in the “133x” syntax. Ignore them—they are inflated, unregulated and therefore, basically meaningless. What you’re looking for on SD cards is a Class rating, from 1-6. The official SD Association chart:
For Compact Flash cards, your best bet is to look for an actual transfer speed on the card, expressed in MB/s.

Further Reading


Reviews: One gadget blog, try as we may, can’t cover the hundreds of cameras that come out every year. We’ll leave that to the obsessives. See:

DPReview

The Photography Bay

Photography Review

Photo.net

You really shouldn’t buy a camera without consulting these guys first. They have a habit of lapsing into jargon at times, but hey, if you’ve read this far, you’ll be able to get by.

Taking Photos: So now you’ve got your new piece of neck candy, and you feel awfully cool. You know what would make you cooler? Learning how to shoot, for god’s sake. A few of out recent guides:

The Basics: Your new camera has been removed from the box. It has been fiddled with. You cat has been photographed multiple times. Now what?

When Not to Use Flash: The answer: Pretty much always.

How To Shoot HDR: Taking hyperreal photos by combining multiple exposures, without, as we call it, the “clown vomit.”

• For general advice, Photo.net‘s comically extensive set of photography guides provides instructions for virtually any scenario. Need to shoot some, say, nudes? In, say, Namibia’s uniquely harsh sunlight? They’ve got you covered.

And although broad guides are useful, I’ve learned more about photography and cameras from Flickr than any other resource. Join the Flickr group for your camera, and spend some time on the message boards. You’ll learn clever tricks for getting the most out of your hardware, but in doing so, with the help of a gracious community, you’ll learn just as much about photography as a whole.

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about DSLRs, P&Ses, B&Bs or BBQs here, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

153 Soul-Sucking Shots of Winter

After going through the results of this week’s “Gray Winter” Shooting Challenge, I’m going to need years of therapy. Or a hug from someone very, very attractive. But as usual, Gizmodo photographers have completely exceeded my expectations.

(Also, based upon my favorites, I appear to have a barren tree fetish. Regardless!)

Second Runner Up
Camera: Canon EOS 40D; Lens: EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM; ISO: 400; Exposure: 1/8000. Subject: Winter after California Wildfires -Devin Workman

First Runner Up
I used a Panasonic DMC-FX150 point and shoot camera. I had to shoot it in manual mode because I was shooting into the sun. This is after a rainy day in Los Angeles. The shot is looking toward Century City (The water is behind it). -Jim Hale

Winner
This is a shot I took myself at my college Campus in Goshen, Indiana. Was a very rare morning with snow on the ground, yet a tremendous amount of fog also, it almost whited out everything. This tree is in front of our cafeteria, not sure the type, but always looks very spooky at night, and this fog made it really stand out and look awesome. I shot it with a Canon 30d, Sigma 17-70 lens. No real special technique other than framing the shot and taking it. (hope this shot can be extra depressing and destroys the hope of happy holidays for everyone.) Believe me, living in Indiana in the winter, I know a thing or 2 about a gray winter…. -Andy Graber

Thanks to everyone for making this week’s turnout absolutely nuts. And as always, my choices are painfully subjective, so take part of this afternoon to look through our gallery of participants, which includes photographs taken on everything ranging from Holgas to iPhone 3Gses—all of which are producing impressive, unique results.

Gallery assembled by Kyle VanHemert.

The Four DSLR Cameras for Every Budget

We’re in kind of a golden age of DSLR cameras. They’re cheaper than ever, so they’re affordable, and they do more stuff than ever, so the time’s right to jump in. Here’s our DSLR picks for every (non-pro) budget.

Baby’s First DSLR: Nikon D3000

The D3000 is cheap. We’re talking a full kit (i.e., it comes with a lens) for just $460, making it the cheapest DSLR kit around. But what really makes it stand out for beginners is a built-in tutorial system that explains how to get certain kinds of shots—like shallow depth of field—in plain English.

Amateur Hour: Canon T1i

The next step up is Canon’s T1i. What we like is that it packs a bigger boy’s image sensor—it’s got the same 15-megapixel sensor as the pricier mid-range 50D—and 1080p video into a camera that’s $720 with kit lens. Also, for the money, it edges out Nikon’s D5000 on a few points, namely superior video handling and Live View.

Bigger Britches: Nikon D90

Nikon’s D90 was the first ever DSLR to shoot 720p video with manual controls, but that’s only part of the reason we like it. It’s got the awesome image sensor from the semi-pro D300, in a package that’s just over $1000. And at that price, it’s $100 cheaper than Canon’s competing 50D, which has the same image sensor as the cheaper T1i above, but none of the video benefits of either camera.

The Budding Auteur: Canon 7D

The only camera on this list that’s more expensive than its competition—the D300s—the 7D overwhelms with DSLR video that’s superior to every camera but Canon’s very pro 1D Mark IV (which costs $5000). It shoots in 1080p, with full manual controls, and it’s amazing what it can do in low light. Besides that, Canon’s somehow cheated physics with an 18-megapixel sensor that doesn’t explode with noise at high ISO settings, all while cramming a whole bunch of new features, and an actually good autofocus system. It’s $1900 with a kit lens.

Beyond here, honestly, you should already have a pretty idea of what you’re gonna buy without our help. And if you’ve got your own opinions about what’s best in every price range, let’s hear ’em in the comments.