[q] technology trends for nxt 10 years in photo equipment

<p>Speculative but, would like to post my view (and hear others) on what will be the 'market' universe of digital photo space in 2030</p>

<p>1) APSC and m43 sensor cameras -- disappear <br>

<br /> 2) phone /in glasses/in watch cameras accounts for most pictures taken<br>

<br /> 3) Full frame cameras are the only DSLR/Mirrorless around<br>

4) photo viewing migrates from computer screens to holograms<br /> (and therefore proliferation of large sensors with stereo/3d capabilities for the larger hollogram projectors)<br>

5) Storage capabilities, instant view is merge together into store/view media (e.g a blue ray like disk that shows the photos right there, in addition to storing them)<br>

6) I do not see 'cloud storage' being used as the main image storage venue<br>

7) because sensors can afford high shutter speed (due to low iso) -- most lenses will be f5.6 or above, but with MTF50 exceeding 2,000 (for the full frame). With 'bokeh' and out of focus blur produced by in-lens software<br>

8) there will be a class of lenses that come with built in 'cameras' (rather than camera that accept lenses) <br /> They will be the 'bridge cameras' -- between phones and FX. They will be based on easy to hold zoom lenses with built in camera. Will be popular for underwater and sports photography. They will transmit image for view/review wirelessly.<br>

9) there will be viewfinders available as glasses</p>

<p>10) hopefully a new version of 'film' comes out that allows to use mechanical cameras to take 'ready' to view pictures (and project them out through the attached lens/filter combo)</p>

<p>11) pictures will always come with sound and other ambient characteristics stored with the new 'digital medial formats'. So the difference between video and photo will be the 'still' part -- everything else will be shared.</p>

<p>12) 3d printers will be printing from the 3d photos<br /> using moldeable micro fibers.</p>

<p>13) people would not know what 'filters are for' </p>

<p>14) picture control will be changed from Shutter/aperture to different nomenclature characterizing the type of the picture composition.</p>

<p>15) sharing of digital material with others will further be simplified by wireless distribution, tagging, digital identity awareness (ie. cameras will be aware who are the trusted family members of the photographer/etc)<br /> Also cameras will allow much more comfortable 'self-portaits'/etc to serve as communcation devices to bride 'long-distance' and allow family/friends/etc to have more ubiquitous communication means</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, to start with, 2030 is not 10 years off, but 17. Not a good start for a set of predictions.</p>

<p>I am personally still waiting for my flying car.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>JDM you forgot 1979 and Bo & Luke ?<br>

:o)<br>

<img src="http://cartocars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-dukes-of-hazzard-movie-jump-police-cars-1600x1200-wallpaper.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1200" /></p>

<p>Oh, heck, in 10 years I predict our cameras will fly alongside us, read our minds, know what photographs we want, and do the required photography and postprocessing for us -- in 3D, with holographic output, of course.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I was alternately, and sometimes simultaneously, out of my mind and out of the country in 1979, so the reference does in fact escape me> :(<br>

Google™ tells me that this is a reference to something called the "Dukes of Hazard" and that may explain some otherwise inexplicable skits on <em>Robot Chicken</em>.<br>

;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1) APSC and m43 sensor cameras -- disappear</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Useful formats. I doubt it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 2) phone /in glasses/in watch cameras accounts for most pictures taken</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe some</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 3) Full frame cameras are the only DSLR/Mirrorless around</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bet'cha not</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>4) photo viewing migrates from computer screens to holograms (and therefore proliferation of large sensors with stereo/3d capabilities for the larger hollogram projectors)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We've been predicting the imminent boom of holographic displays from the dukes of hazard days. (See Star Wars, 1976.) We've also been predicting that 3D would flourish for almost a century now. We've had the technology for almost a century now, and yet 3D is still a niche pursuit. I do predict Netflix will have a few 3D movies for me to watch with our new 3D television, though. I'd enjoy that. However, I think I'd prefer most of my movies be in 2D. Glasses are annoying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>6) I do not see 'cloud storage' being used as the main image storage venue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>God, I hope not!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>7) because sensors can afford high shutter speed (due to low iso) -- most lenses will be f5.6 or above, but with MTF50 exceeding 2,000 (for the full frame).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People use large apertures for reasons other than low light.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With 'bokeh' and out of focus blur produced by in-lens software</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Physically impossible.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>8) there will be a class of lenses that come with built in 'cameras' (rather than camera that accept lenses) They will be the 'bridge cameras' -- between phones and FX. They will be based on easy to hold zoom lenses with built in camera. Will be popular for underwater and sports photography. They will transmit image for view/review wirelessly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds very awkward to hold!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>9) there will be viewfinders available as glasses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would be cool. However, they would also either block your view or give you a poor (transparent) view through the viewfinder -- unless they were some sort of look-down system that would leave you a slit of unimpaired vision so that you could see an angry person coming at you with a baseball bat, unhappy that you are photographing something. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>10) hopefully a new version of 'film' comes out that allows to use mechanical cameras to take 'ready' to view pictures (and project them out through the attached lens/filter combo)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not likely sensors and LEDs/LCDs will share the same chip, because there would be competition for real estate and hence compromise to quality. However, cute idea!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>11) pictures will always come with sound and other ambient characteristics stored with the new 'digital medial formats'. So the difference between video and photo will be the 'still' part -- everything else will be shared.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>File annotation would be nice. It's offered on some cameras, but maybe it will become more common. I guess you could use that for recording ambient sound clips also, maybe with a better microphone.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>12) 3d printers will be printing from the 3d photos using moldeable micro fibers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that already happening? Or maybe you're referring to a new sort of 3D printer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>13) people would not know what 'filters are for'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Will never happen! Cheap accessories are a gravy train for camera retailers. We will always know what they are and what they are for, even if new justifications have to be invented!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>14) picture control will be changed from Shutter/aperture to different nomenclature characterizing the type of the picture composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Already happening. However, real photographers will always use shutter speed and aperture.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>15) sharing of digital material with others will further be simplified by wireless distribution, tagging, digital identity awareness (ie. cameras will be aware who are the trusted family members of the photographer/etc) Also cameras will allow much more comfortable 'self-portaits'/etc to serve as communcation devices to bride 'long-distance' and allow family/friends/etc to have more ubiquitous communication means</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I truly hope cameras don't get that smart! At that point we'll live in a very disturbing world.</p>

 

<p>The future is the future and nobody can predict for certain. Speaking of your prediction I hope none of them will come true. None of the stuff that you predict is some thing I would like to see happening. </p>

<p>Mirrorless FF will become very big.<br>

One of the things I see happening is price's going lower on top end Pro FF cameras as production methods go more automated; Not entirely tho as that can't happen. I think their going to have to do something price wise to draw more wannabe's into higher quality bodies otherwise midlevel cameras, even FF ones will be even more dominate and might make production of $3-7K bodies to costly to make for sales returns.<br>

We'll probably see phone cameras getting better with more attachments from 3rd parties, even the maker's.<br>

The 4'3rd's market is popular because of body sizes, even fit in the pocket bodies, and all the abilities that many need for family photo's as well as Pro's second's. It's also popular because of legacy lens adapters. It will probably stay around but increased competition from future mirrorless FF bodies at lower prices will tax it's sales numbers as the years go on.<br>

The big change I see in photography will be video. You'll be able to pull any still image off a video clip and still have 12mp to 16mp resolution. Why anticipate a shot and possibly loosing it when you can shoot a roll's worth thru video and pick just the right image you want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think that the entire range of production cameras will continue to not only be broad, but to expand - I seriously doubt any current formats will disappear in the next decade, or even two. Perhaps P&S disappear but not really - they just become part of a mobile device, which in fact they were to start with. One thing that will happen as discussed in the OP's original post is a continued "connectivity" trend where devices will communicate with other devices. I do expect to have some kind of remote connectivity to "see" through a viewfinder, to adjust settings and trigger stills and videos. And I expect that cameras will wirelessly connect with tablets and networks - that is likely going to be available pretty quickly. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"And I expect that cameras will wirelessly connect with tablets and networks - that is likely going to be available pretty quickly."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a huge advantage for photojournalism. One of the challenges to journalism will be repressive nations jamming telecommunications to limit the propagation of reporting. What's needed is a system of redundant wireless protocols to help ensure free expression even when conventional cell phone and WiFi frequencies are jammed.</p>

The only thing predictable about the future is it will NOT be what we predict it will be...

<p>In ten years there should be some useful new film technology ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In ten years there should be some useful new film technology ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to Oxford Dictionary: <em>Should "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions"</em></p>

<p>Perhaps you meant "it would be great if"?</p>

<p>Or according to Oxford (not my preferred Webster, since we're talking about British English)...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>2used to indicate what is probable: <em >£348 m should be enough to buy him out</em><em > the bus should arrive in a few minutes</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe Keith was joking about an expectation, David.</p>

<p>This English language is a very tricky thing! :-)</p>

<p>In any case, here we are talking about "actually existing" English, not some hot-house dialect controlled by elderly high school teachers.<br>

Otherwise, this would be English today:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a name="top"></a>On þyssum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cyldamæsse dæg 7 se cyng Eadward forðferde on Twelfts mæsse æfen 7 hine mann bebyrgede on Twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmyntre 7 Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe 7 eac men hine þærto gecuron 7 wæs gebletsod to cynge on Twelftan mæssedæg 7 þa ylcan geare þe he cyng wæs he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme ... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>... which reminds me, I predict time travel will open up brand new markets to the camera manufacturers within the next 10 years, but to tap this market, they will need to add ancient languages to their menu systems.</p>

<p>Pixels will be so small that there will be one photon per pixel... in bright sunlight! ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah - I believe Keith was joking about an expectation, David.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah - as was I, if I remember yesterday correctly.</p>

<p>If I'm in the age group, to survive to 2030, I my going back to painting, instead to follow my robot. I using my cameras in "M" mode all the time, from the F's, D40 to the D4. </p>

<p>I don't why it should be "physically impossible" to produce background blur with software as opposed to a wide aperture. People already do it. It would just have to be very sophisticated--many digital photos already tend to present a subject that looks like it's been pasted onto the background. There has to be a realistic fade from the front to the back of the subject. It shouldn't be impossible.</p>

<p>ps--<br>

I'm willing to believe the original poster on his predictions if the predictions he made 10 years ago came true...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't why it should be "physically impossible" to produce background blur with software as opposed to a wide aperture. People already do it. It would just have to be very sophisticated--many digital photos already tend to present a subject that looks like it's been pasted onto the background. There has to be a realistic fade from the front to the back of the subject. It shouldn't be impossible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's physically impossible to control bokeh and background blur with software in the lens because the scene must first be imaged with a sensor. Maybe this could be done with a camera's firmware, but not in the lens. All the lens can do is to focus light according to its optical design. It has certain bokeh properties, and those can even be variable, as in the case of a soft focus lens, but that's about it.</p>

<p>Obviously, it would require software in the camera. But that should be easy--today's cameras can figure out that there are faces. It'll just follow all the other corrections-vignetting, fringing, etc--that are now done with software. I'd be surprised if, someday, vibration reduction is just done with software and not stabilizing the lens.</p>