the end of my camera-buying days

Nicholas, I fully agree with your comment - "I do find it a bit sad that some amateurs, myself included, desire to

change cameras just to have the latest and greatest when they should just be enjoying what they have and taking

the best pictures possible."

 

I've been shooting for many years, have NAS and want the best and highest end equipment (including bodies) that I

can afford. Why? My dream is to some day take a truely great image. When (and if) that ever happens (come

close a few times) I want to have the very best capture instruments I can.

 

About 20 years ago I was in western North Dakota in the summer. At that time I was shooting an inexpensive Nikon

EM body with a cheap lens and 35mm negative/print film. The stars must have been in alignment for me, because

when I looked to the west up a slight hill, there were 3 bison (Papa, Mama, Baby) at the top of the hill silhouetted by

an approaching storm. One of the images was so outstanding that a native american indian medicine man wanted

the image for a website he was creating for indians to come to and pray at. I gave him the image. Because of the

shortcomings of that equipment/format/film I found that I could not even make a decent 8 by 10 of this image of a

lifetime. When I got home I immediately moved to medium format slides. I hope to never again

be "underequipped" when the magic stikes next.

A. Valerio :

 

>> Software processing may one day be the great equalizer of image quality, just as film was.

 

Your 30MP camera might not have much advantage over your buddy's 24MP 5 years from now, due to software interpolation, noise reduction, and optical enhancement. <<

 

It may sound strange, but I almost agree with your message, except on the reason why the pixel run will end and the sentences above.

 

Pixel run will slow down and will certainly come to a standstill but not until the eye of the photographer will reach its physiological limit of discrimination between the older sensor and the newer or the technology itself will find its limits. It is actually slowing down when compared to the time when digital photography began.

 

But software processing introducing TRICKS to reduce the noise and moreover massive interpolation will have nothing to do with that.

 

Interpolation is a trick, you introduce artefacts to fill the voids and allow for bigger enlargements obtaining the look of continuous tones to the viewer, but you don't add any real details from the subject if they were not initially captured by the sensor of your camera. Finally you end up with a print which is closer to an heavily retouched one of silver halide printing times. True, our eyes are fooled by such a clever touch up, but IMHO the subject is completely betrayed. When the pixel density will reach a threshold where the capture of real details of the subject will be present with a sufficient density to allow for forgetting the need of interpolation, you will reach the limit of interest of an increase in pixel count.

 

This isn't a simple problem, because it depends both on a definite factor : the circle of confusion of a human eye and of the distance of observation of the print, which is a variable.

 

We can consider the first factor has to be considered alone as long as the eventual viewer can feel the need to go closer to the print to observe details and is physically allowed to proceed so. Thereafter the distance of vision commands. Though these two situations can overlap. But what is sure is we are still far from obtaining the first condition without some interpolation with today's DSLR's.

 

Now we can use another standard : when a "small format" (equivalent to 24x36) DSLR will reach 16mpx, it has been said it will equal in built-in definition what the slowest film used on a similar format film camera affixed on a sturdy tripod allows. So at any higher ISO setting you will obtain far better resullts than you ever obtained on a film camera. It seems to me it is the standard Nikon is aiming to these days.

 

But I doubt the evolution will stop there. People will certainly aim to the performance of a medium format camera then. Thereafter, they even may be tempted to obtain the large format defintion...

 

But there will be an end : even in film times, large format cameras tended to limit their dimensions to 4x5in with larger ones becoming the exception. 8x10in are now extremely rare and the so-called "Tourist" view cameras of the late 19th century with their 50cm x 60cm format are long gone, because with modern films such dimensions are practically useless.

 

Now I would be very interested if you describe what you mean by "optical enhancement"...

 

I've practised photography for many years, I'm 54 now and took my first pic around the age of 7. I've seen very few decisive improvements in high end lenses since these lenses ae computer designed. Most improvements had been the fruit of better coatings to eliminate parasite reflexion both external and internal (this is why a zoom, with far more lenses can now rival to a certain extent with a prime) or the fr more frequent introduction of aspherical lenses because their fabrication has been industiralized instead of being a manual operation. But as with any technology, these "new" processes are reaching their limits. The effect of new coatings is now marginal in actual results. So unless a completly new technology appears, considerably modifying the conditions of transmission of light in a lens, I don't see how you can significantly better what already exists. The only forseeable progress I can imagine, is consumer grade lens becoming the equal of pro ones by better industrial processes of production allowing for lower prices. But do the consumer market need them ?

 

FPW

FPW - Thank you for that lucid explanation.

 

 

You do say "Try an A2+ enlargement without interpolation software to make things apparently viewable and compare with what a D3-D700 output allows...". I guess my point would be that I never do print at A2 (I've done one 11x14 print in 40+ years and a handful of 8x10s), and in any case, my labs printer rezzes down even from the 6mp images I hand them. I can see however that there are improvements in color fidelity and white balance and when I do upgrade that's going to be the deciding factor. But for now, I'm satisfied.

 

Good point also about today's DSLR camera buying decision equating to a camera+film decision in the days of old. My only comment is that it sure is an expensive way to check out a newer, better "film". For now, I'm sticking with my infinitely reusable D100pan "film" instead of springing for the newer, better and also infinitely reusable D700pan "film".

 

;-)

FPW,

 

By "optical enhancement" I meant software augmentation of optical quality. Using "signal processing" to cancel out

the "physical" signatures of optical issues. Or, as you put it, a software "trick" that neutralizes much of the

issue after the fact. DXo, D-Lighting, Digital ICE, interpolation schemes, Noise reduction, Image Dust-off, and

the new digital film effects "filters" are all current attempts. The demosaicing algorithms in modern DSLRs also fit

into the category of signal processing, I believe.

 

Now, manufacturers of lenses must not become "lazy" as a consequence of advancements in signal processing.

Chromatic issues and perspective "distortions" are PHYSICAL effects, and are just as fundamentally physical

as the Doppler Effect and spatial perspective. If manufacturers rely too heavily upon digital signal processing, we

may end up in the long run with lenses that are optically worse than those of today. Caution and discrimination do

need to be exercised.

 

Personally, I don't believe what several pioneering electrical engineers are saying. There are some researchers who

are working on digital sensors with 100 million, 500 million, and even 1000 million photosites. Some of these

prototype sensors are not physically any larger than those in our current DSLRs. Some of these people are claiming

that in the near future ~15 years that teh tiniest digital sensors used in camera phones will contain 50+ megapixels,

and that digital point-and-shoot cameras will have 1 Gigapixel sensors. Even if somehow, it does become possible to

cram this many photosites into such a small area, where does that leave medium format sensors? 20 thousand

million pixels in a 36x48mm area??? Clearly, if this is really where the state of the technology is headed, there is

going to have to be some digital signal processing "miracle" (revolution). How could such a densely-packed device

gather enough light and perform properly without advanced "software enhancement" of some sort?

I had to use the word "issue" instead of "aberration". Photo.net would not let me use that word; I was not allowed to

post it for some reason.

I had the perfect camera once about 30 years ago. I was not going to ever buy another one. I was in Nervana of camera stuff. Then one day it vanished while camping. I had to buy another camera. Now 30 years later I have a FE2 and a D200 and have a great time with both of them. Retirement coming up in 4 years and I plan to shoot a lot more. Not sure what gear I will shoot because it changes in my mind every day. Maybe I will upgrade the digital end and/or start shooting a View camera. Whatever I do I plan to have a blast. To go to some great places and enjoy myself. But I have to get through the next 4 years of work and educating my kids. 4 in college at the moment. 3 of them are planning on graduate school. One out of school finally and then my youngster who will start college in 2 years. I need a good hobby for sanity.

A. Valerio :

 

>> By "optical enhancement" I meant software augmentation of optical quality. Using "signal processing" to cancel out the "physical" signatures of optical issues. Or, as you put it, a software "trick" that neutralizes much of the issue after the fact. DXo, D-Lighting, Digital ICE, interpolation schemes, Noise reduction, Image Dust-off, and the new digital film effects "filters" are all current attempts. The demosaicing algorithms in modern DSLRs also fit into the category of signal processing, I believe.<<

 

For me, I don't consider "optical enhancing devices" the use of algorithms to add "details" which unavoidably won't be ever conform to what was really on the subject. It is simply a mere palliative to a lack of "native" definition of the sensor and to a certain extent a betrayal of the subject.

 

>> Now, manufacturers of lenses must not become "lazy" as a consequence of advancements in signal processing. Chromatic issues and perspective "distortions" are PHYSICAL effects, and are just as fundamentally physical as the Doppler Effect and spatial perspective. If manufacturers rely too heavily upon digital signal processing, we may end up in the long run with lenses that are optically worse than those of today. Caution and discrimination do need to be exercised. <<

 

I agree... But I think this is already the case to a large extent. See the remarks of some people on the lack of necessity of fast lenses as the high ISO capability of sensors are enhanced. I think this is totally unrealistic as you nullify the new capabilities. Another point is zoom mania, I mean by that the excess of range many people now require which seems to make impossible a reasonable and constant aperture along all the zooming range for the focal lengths covered.

 

>> Personally, I don't believe what several pioneering electrical engineers are saying. There are some researchers who are working on digital sensors with 100 million, 500 million, and even 1000 million photosites. Some of these prototype sensors are not physically any larger than those in our current DSLRs. Some of these people are claiming that in the near future ~15 years that teh tiniest digital sensors used in camera phones will contain 50+ megapixels, and that digital point-and-shoot cameras will have 1 Gigapixel sensors. Even if somehow, it does become possible to cram this many photosites into such a small area, where does that leave medium format sensors? 20 thousand million pixels in a 36x48mm area??? Clearly, if this is really where the state of the technology is headed, there is going to have to be some digital signal processing "miracle" (revolution). How could such a densely-packed device gather enough light and perform properly without advanced "software enhancement" of some sort? <<

 

I'm more cautious than you regarding the engineers forecast. I'm not an electrical engineer but I remember how they managed to cram an awesome number of transistors in computer processors just in a few years (and this not coming to an end)... Perhaps they've already tested new photosites technologies and are hoping to get rid of the contradiction between reduction in size and on the other side lack of native sensitivity and dynamic range... But as far as current technology is evolving, this doesn't seem to be the case now as it seems increasing the sensor size (so the pixel size) gives better and more immediate results. Now if you mean by software advancement better filtering of parasite noise, yes, it is certainly necessary but this don't bother me, because it doesn't change the very nature of the image.

 

But there is also a physical limit these engineers are not thinking of : as aptly put by our friend Ilkka, to obtain the same image quality from a tiny sensor with the same pixel density, the lens MTF curves should be even better and this proportional to the reduction in size ! ... So good luck with "photographic cellular phones" ...

 

My personal forecast will be less optimistic but perhaps more realistic : within the coming 10 years the general trend will be a return to the classic photographic formats as the norm with an increase of defintion allowing for small format cameras (I mean digital equivalent in size of 24x36) to rival totally with the present medium format camera performance adding the advantage of size and high ISO performance. The Medium Format cameras will reach the defintion threshold of large format cameras and will be equipped as to allow the same kind of use (tilt and shift) through tethered or WiFi linkage to a computer from which they will be piloted, aimed and focused from a large screen for studio or architectural work without loosing their capabilities to operate with a "solid" lens in the field. The large format cameras will become a rarity and this is where a certain kind of trimming the camera range will appear. On the other part of the range compact cameras (but some dedicated to "stealth" pro use with a high quality output) will disappear to the photo cell phones. May be, if we're lucky enough, some old but relevant concepts will be properly translated into digital world : a small format rangefinder camera (but in full format and with all relevant features present on DSLR's and at an affordable price) or even a medium format TLR akin to the Rolleiflex but again with all relevant features and a short range (65-150) zoom fixed lens for extremly high quality pics to add to the photographer arsenal a very special kind of "photographic notebook"... All these cameras will see their price going down (at least in constant money) to a point they will be less costly than their equivalent silver halide ancestors. But I don't expect the lenses to follow the same trend. In a more distant future, I think mirrors and classical shutters will disappear and we will simply aim through electronic finders directly linked to the sensor. Triggering the "shutter" button will simply instantly put the image in the memory card.

 

Enough said, my crystal ball is heating too much :)

 

FPW

Roger,

 

I finally have to join in this thread. My story is similar to yours - FE2, lots of primes, then D70s, then D80 with 16-85. I

was quite happy and proficient with the FE2, much less so with the D70s and D80, and it has nothing to do with image

quality, basically it was trading my fast primes (which I've kept) for slow zooms, and never could get used to the change

of perspective and wide angle distortion.

 

I held off buying the D300 and I'm glad I did. Even though at $3,000 the FX700 sounds very expensive, in my case,

there are no lenses to purchase. It will take some time to save the $$$$$, but it is a camera that should end the

upgrading for quite some time. Had I not recently purchased the D80/16-85 I'd be half way there!

 

Gene

I purchased a d80 a few months ago and was never "truly" satisfied with it,

 

I soon relegated the d80 to my back-up camera, and now use a Nikon d300 as well.

 

With the 180200 vr, it's a fantastic combination which I feel will suit me for a while to come.

 

Maybe in time, I may move up to the D3 (or equivalent) and I'm tempted to get a Cannon and build a nice kit for both systems.

 

But for as far as my mind can see, I'm also very happy with the d300, and cant see any major purchases anytime soon.

I'm a little older than most of you guys. In 1967 I bought 4 Nikon Fs from Peerless (Hank Greenberg) and ran them to Marty Forscher to get de-lubed since I used them in really cold temps. Not one of them has ever been repaired. Thay are mostly bare brass now and not used much at all. They still work so i still use Nikons. My first digital camera I paid a fortune for, a Kodak D20. It still works too. I guess the only thing that doesn't work anymore is me, but i still lug around some D80s and a D50 which work just fine. I don't need any of the fancies. I still use some old elcheapo lenses from freddie Spira's place too. They will work and just fine. Too much technology and not enough understanding of exposure and focus. After awhile they are second nature. My Father said a good workman never blamed his tools. It's still the finger on the trigger that does the work.

my 2c:

got my first digital D70 in 2004(coming from a 1991 F801 which I was in love with). Never completely satisfied.

got my D200 in 2006 and thought was suiting fine. I elected it my next 10 years camera....

forget about. The D300 is a step already too short to be the next one. in a couple of year I'll go for full frame for a devalued D3/D700. Compared to film, changes are simply too great to ignore them.

In this age we buy the latest and greatest just to tell others that we have the latest and greatest. If we own it, would that make us the latest and greatest photographers? Has anyone seen any famous names on this site?I think the more money we spend the lazier we are. We all want to be better than we were yesterday. The most famous photographers have never read this crap or will they ever. A true craftsmen never blames his tools or material.