What Now?

[Loupey]

With the recent press release of Canon’s 1DsMkIII, I was wondering how much more the future will change. The specifications for the 1DsMkIII seem unbelievable even now – unthinkable just a few years back.

How much more improvements will there be in the future? How large does a photo-realistic image need to be? I know technological improvements are going to continue and the pace will be progressively faster. But, how “clean” of an image will clean be 5 years from now? Will the world no longer need anything below ISO 1600? Will DOF even need to be considered except for those who want a really shallow one? Life at 1/4000s all the time. No need for IS. What is dpi? Nothing below 15 fps.

Sounds like a party. Technology took hold of an art which required craftsmanship and plunked it squarely in the front seat of “progress”.

What am I saying? I dunno. Just thinking out loud. Perhaps only to say that I can’t see where this is taking us.

[Xia_Ke]

Who knows what's next. All I know is that I am very scared for my wallet

[SmartWombat]

Even 21MP is not a great increase over the current 14MP.
OK yes it's 50% more pixels but to double the resolution you need 4x the number of pixels.
Now 35mm 56MP would be fantastic
Within 5 years? I don't think so, without a huge change in technology.

ISO ? Whatever the technology, lower ISO will still produce better images. Longer exposure = more photons = better signal/noise. I can't see our cameras coming with sensor coolers to reduce thermal noise like astronomical imagers - but it might happen !

I don't see DoF issues changing at all, you cannae break the laws of optics. (OK, bad Trekkie mis-quote).

Life at 1/4000s ... why? Do we want everything pin sharp, no motion blur?


I think the next big thing will be video/still convergence, perhaps in cellphones.
Already there are 5MP cellphones, with proper flash, not just bright white LEDs.
It's almost time to upgrade - put all my eggs in one basket, or pocket ;)

[WCpilot]

I don't comment much, but this is an interesting discussion. So...

I have to agree with SmartWombat. DoF and shutter speed will remain artistic tools as much as camera or lense capabilities. And, correct me if I'm wrong, all sensors are analog devices that convert signals to digital. So they are simply bound by the fact that it takes time to gather enough photons to 'accurately' reproduce an image. But it will always remain a tool for an artist to express themself. 1/20 sec will always be a valuable speed.

I also like to try to think of where it's all going, and I again agree with SmartWombat. Still/video will be the next big wave. Of course, the problem with that is that now we all have to master sound as well as light :mad2: (I'm still struggling with just the light!).

[Old Timer]

Your knowledge of the medium amazes me Paul. I wish I had just a fraction of your insight and knowledge. I just love to take pictures and the better equipment I can afford the better image I seem to be able to produce. I know at some pint my limited abilities will no longer keep up with the technology.

[photophorous]

A tilt/shift image sensor might come in handy.

In terms of sensor sensitivity and high ISOs...How about a sensor that is so sensitive, and processor that is so smart, that you will be able to use whatever aperture and shutter speed you want, to capture DOF and motion as you see it, in most typical lighting situations, and the camera will adjust the sensitivity to get the right exposure?...and of course, the image quality will still be excellent?

There are still huge improvements to be made in terms of size...my biggest complaint. I want a full frame digital rangefinder with about 15 MP, and I want it to be a little smaller than a Leica. In my opinion all dSLRs are too big, even the D40. The pro cameras are just ridiculous. If you did away with the mirror in an SLR, you could make the lenses small like rangefinder lenses. That alone would be a huge improvement. You just need an electronic viewfinder that's as fast as light.

DSLRs are just film cameras that have been converted to digital. I think there will be a fundamentally new camera design that takes over gradually as the electronics catch up with the mechanics. I think it's going to be some combination of the compact digitals, the SLRs, and the rangefinders we have now. Of course there will still be other cameras too.

Paul

[another view]

Life at 1/4000s all the time.

There's the quote - and an interesting one at that. I suppose the same sort of thing could have been argued when Tri-X first came out (first fast film, 1954) and lots of other technological milestones. I think we'll be OK.

[JETA]

Love reading your posts PAul.

All I have to say is I'm DONE, done, done..... No more $$ cameras for me. Gonna worry about lenses now.

[Loupey]

Keep in mind that I wasn’t trying to make a specifc point of a specific change. Just trying to imagine what it’s going to be like. Hard to be specific of what the future is going to be like

However, trying to compare the effects of the past changes to the changes which will come in the future is hard to equate.

As for the life at 1/4000s, it comes from my son’s learning of photography. Reviewing his images, I frequently find images at 1/2000s to 1/4000s. I can imagine, once the noise penalty of going to ISO 1600 and 3200 becomes negligible, that many people would put the future Xtvi at those extremes and shoot away. At ISO 3200, daylight shooting would be 1/4000s at f/11. And once the ISO genie is out of the bottle, shooting at small apertures would be a piece of cake (i.e. immense DOF for the general shooting public).

As for not breaking the laws of physics, I agree. But one needs only to trick it, not break it. Imagine a camera which can adjust the focus during the exposure. Recording pixels only as they come into focus.

Just think of the possibilities.


Oh, as for the video/still convergence - agree. I wrote about that one too

[photophorous]

...Imagine a camera which can adjust the focus during the exposure. Recording pixels only as they come into focus...

I was just out mowing the yard and thought of something along these lines...like maybe microlenses that could individually focus each pixel, and therefore only the optimal aperture would be needed...no worries of diffraction, and the photographer would have complete control over focus/DOF. That would be a whole different game. Unlikely any time soon, but fun to think about.

[JSPhoto]

Well I can tell you that things are changing bigtime in the print media. Indiana's largest paper the Indianapolis Star threw a curve ball at their photographers recently, well, actually when the MKIII was released they told ALL their photographers "NO MORE STILL CAMERAS!!" from now on all new gear will be VIDEO! WHAT! I can't believe the Star, a Gannett owned paper was falling for this website only paper stuff going on at some papers, but apparently thats exactly what they are heading for. Instead of high quality photos you will get low res videos, maybe medium res IF your lucky.
To make things worse, area small papers think the only way they can compete is to do the same thing.
Oh well, those of us who shoot stills and not video just may wind up out in the cold... litteraly.

[Old Timer]

they told ALL their photographers "NO MORE STILL CAMERAS!!" from now on all new gear will be VIDEO!

John this is the biggest new I've heard from print media in ages. I can't believe that they are selling out to the have to have it now age. Well I guess they can just issue cell phones to their photogs now.

[another view]

I was just out mowing the yard and thought of something along these lines...like maybe microlenses that could individually focus each pixel, and therefore only the optimal aperture would be needed...no worries of diffraction, and the photographer would have complete control over focus/DOF. That would be a whole different game. Unlikely any time soon, but fun to think about.

Aspirin... Please pass the aspirin...

Yes, I suppose anything is possible. There are quite a few people here who have been shooting for many years, and if you told someone 30 years ago about what would be "normal" equipment today (and the price that we got used paying for a camera!) I suppose they would have a pretty hard time comprehending that too. In 1977, the Nikon F2 was one of the most popular SLR's and it had already been out for about five years. I think it was '80 before the F3 was released. Now, people are reluctant to buy something that's been on the market for one year...

So I guess this is a little bit of what Loupey is talking about, just looking back in hindsight. Funny thing about all this technology is that fantastic images from 30 or 100 years ago are still fantastic images. I'm sure this will still be the case years from now.

[racingpinarello]

If I had a Canon 1DsMk2, I would be reluctant to buy the Mk3. I would rather upgrade to a Hasselblad with a digital back if I wanted an increase in pixels.

The advantage to the Mk2 is the size of the sensor and the size of the pixels. You start cramming more pixels you do need more technology. I still prefer the optics of mf and lf lenses. You get less barreling and better perspecive control.

Once MF cameras start to focus as fast as 35mm, that will be the next step for the upper end professional. Most of us will not have the funds or the real need to buy the mk3. The size of the market for the Mk3 is relatively very small.



Loren

[freygr]

Even 21MP is not a great increase over the current 14MP.
OK yes it's 50% more pixels but to double the resolution you need 4x the number of pixels.
Now 35mm 56MP would be fantastic
Within 5 years? I don't think so, without a huge change in technology.

ISO ? Whatever the technology, lower ISO will still produce better images. Longer exposure = more photons = better signal/noise. I can't see our cameras coming with sensor coolers to reduce thermal noise like astronomical imagers - but it might happen !

I don't see DoF issues changing at all, you cannae break the laws of optics. (OK, bad Trekkie mis-quote).

Life at 1/4000s ... why? Do we want everything pin sharp, no motion blur?


I think the next big thing will be video/still convergence, perhaps in cellphones.
Already there are 5MP cellphones, with proper flash, not just bright white LEDs.
It's almost time to upgrade - put all my eggs in one basket, or pocket ;)

Well at one time before I even before 1 mega pixel cameras, I calcalated that 35mm film resolution was about 16 mega pixels.

[drg]

John this is the biggest new I've heard from print media in ages. I can't believe that they are selling out to the have to have it now age. Well I guess they can just issue cell phones to their photogs now.

The biggest news from the print media is that the New York Times won't be "PRINTED" in less than 5 years. The direction was annouced some months ago and is not surprising at all if you survey where the readership of most 'newspaper' outlets gets their daily fix. I wonder how long before there are many printed newspapers at all????

The Internet long ago overtook the printed news and the remaining newspapers in this country, [can't speak for Europe or Asia], have far more online readers than not.

The influx of the net video is swamping networks worldwide and there has been a decided march to the user contributed and journalist generated video piece as the main story component. Most journalism schools that I've heard anything about or have had contact with for a DECADE, have either long ago abandonded still photo-journalism all together, or it is a few weeks of the curriculum at best. UTexas or Houston, I don't remember which off the top of my head, stopped their photo-journalism degree all together over 10 years ago as they were not getting enough students and those they had at the time reported job difficulties with such a limited education background in the TV world.

On the other hand, Vogue has the largest number of advertising pages in the current issue that it has ever printed.

[Sebastian]

I think the next big thing will be video/still convergence,

I suggest you read up on the Canon TX-1...

[SmartWombat]

Not sure about deformable microlenses, but deformable mirror arrays are already here.
Who says a camera has to have a lens?
Semiconductor manufacturing technology could be applied on a tiny scale to make a steerable mirror array.
So then you get the possibility of making a reflector, not refractor, for your imaging.
But a tiny one, or many tiny ones, under software control for focus.

Even clever stuff like removing atmospheric disturbance.
How would you like heat haze free images?
Use a laser to project a guide beam and then apply corrections so that the image of the laser spot is a spot not a blur.

Take astronomical imaging technology and bring it down to earth
http://scikits.com/KFacts.html

[JSPhoto]

John this is the biggest new I've heard from print media in ages. I can't believe that they are selling out to the have to have it now age. Well I guess they can just issue cell phones to their photogs now.

The Star is buying high quality digital video cameras to replace the still cameras. Even the local paper has gone and bought a $9000 digital video camera and lenses another another $6k in P&S cameras with video. Yet they still need me fortunately.

The real drawback is that you cannot get descent prints off these digital video cameras, but that doesn't seem to bother these people.... and the photos in the papers are starting to show it.......

JS