Are we (almost) there yet?

[Sanford]

I was just reading a 1998 Popular Photo buying guide (yes I save that

kind of stuff, at least until I move). Many manufacturers were

touting their latest, state of the art 1.3 mp digital cameras and it

made me reflect on how far we've come in five years. It seem's to me

we must be getting very close to perfection as to how far a dightal

camera can go, since film quality was surpased some time ago. A tweek

here and there, maybe larger sensors or faster operation - what else

is there?

[oskar_ojala]

There are many more things out there but the real question is at what speed is the development going to continue?

[basscheffers]

You could say 35mm film quality was passed some time ago, but now DSLR can actualy beat a piece of 35mm Velvia scanned on a drum scanner operated by someone who realy knows how to operate it. Now most of us don't need that quality and as no desktop scanner can really compete with any of the affordable DSLRs these days, there is something in your statement.

 

But I don't see many people who shoot professionaly on medium and especialy large format giving up film!

 

The next improvements should be in the ISO/noise ratio rather than the megapixel race.

[dave_cheng1]

I remember in the 80's when digital music (CD) was booming I kept on

walking into Tower Records looking to spend $12 - $18 a piece state

of the art digital music. Now I think there is no question the digital

music has made it up there (for quite some time already). But I found

myself never walk into that store ever again. In fact the store had

gone under for quite some time too. I guess it is all about MP3 on

I-Pod now.

 

No, I don't think we are even close to be there. But if we are, sure

we will know. When those manufacturers are working hard to make the

one on your hand totally obsoleted then we can all say we have been there.

[EricM]

"what else is there?"

 

Size. The cameras will get smaller. Sensors don't need all this glass, and computers don't need all that size. So, my prediction, is the format, the thing we hold to our eye, will become smaller, incredibly smaller. Our 80-200 f2.8 will end up in garage sales for $15...

[gary_woodard]

the future of photography is in cellphones, cellphones will be packed with more than just a high resolution sensor, one lens will be used for

both tele and wide angle shots, with focal lenghts adjusted and tweaked in camera computer and transferred wireless to computer or cell phone.

The use of single purpose units for image capture will move rapidly to a

multipurpose camera/phone/music/palm. The sales and technology will take

great strides in the next five years and the old style D-whatever will

look rather silly, Nikon will start moving to cellphones as an operating

base, canon soon to follow, sales will be hugh worldwide and fuel further refinement, Samsung buys Minolta and Nikon lens division is bought by Sony. Cellphone/cameras will have 8mg high resolution lens,

anti-vibration functions, instant on, 12 frames per second up to 80 frames per second, 2 year, solar/lith batteries, fits easily in pocket

and is assembled in China.

[john_gill]

I'm there already - all the money has gone.

[godfrey]

No matter where you go, there you are.

 

Godfrey

[kaur_virunurm]

you call our current Bayer pattern sensors which cannot yield sharp images by definition a "perfection"? oh my god.

 

but as a direction... does the phone of today give you a better voice quality than that of 10 years ago? no, it does not, but it comes in zippy colours, rings as your favourite pop band, doubles as a game console / calculator / watch / video camera, and follows you everywhere. the same is happening to photo cameras. the quality will become worse because people "require" features and look over quality.

 

so in 10 years noone has a camera as a separate piece of equipment... there is some gadget which works as your camera, phone, wallet, game console, computer, media player... LF format users are all extinct and 35mm is regarded as pre-WWII-cars are regarded now.

[Dave Luttmann]

Bas,

 

A lot of working pros have given up on medium and even LF film. The latest Canon 1DS II should be able to surpass what I can achieve on my RB67. The latest 22MP backs come pretty close to 4x5. Digital backs from Betterlight at 48MP surpass what can be achieved on 4X5. It comes down to how much you're willing to spend.

[John Crowe]

I think a few people here are giving digital a little more credit than it currently deserves with respect to resolution, but beyond that, lets simply look at PRICE. Digital technology has a very loooooong way to go....DOWN! It is absolutely ridiculous that a high end DSLR costs 3-6 times more than its 35mm counterpart and that 22MP wonder costs way more than a medium format film system. Yes, the past 5 years has made a huge difference with respect to price too and I trust the manufacturer's will continue this downward trend.

[larry_tudor1]

I remember when the Kodak DSC(or is it DCS???)760 came on the market.I think it was in early 2001.It had a whopping 6.1 MP sensor and a whopping $25,000. price tag so...I guess in 3 years from now,we will have those 22MP things for about $1500.

[glenn_kroeger]

Don't blame Bayer patterns... after all, the human eye effectively uses a Bayer pattern... you only have about 7 MC (mega cones) to detect color, and each one only detects one broadband color. Of course you have about 160 MR (mega rods) to provide high resolution luminance data. Of course it comes with pretty good software.

[Karim Ghantous]

I'm with Glenn: Bayer arrays are pretty good things in practice. And everyone knows that luminance data is more important than chrominance data. :-D

 

To answer Sanford's question: there is no reason why we can't squish the workings of a D70 into an F3 or even OM-4 sized body. Eventually.

 

Bigger viewfinders are necessary, too. But megapixels? Well, that's a mere technical point and some of us prefer a compromise between resolution and file size.

 

One thing we always need more than anything is competition. I'd love it if Olympus got their act together and gave Nikon and Canon a run for their money. Here's dreaming.

[Greg M]

I know I'm there. A 10D, Digital Rebel, 17-40 and 70-200 f4L zooms, 50mm f1.8, 550EX and 420EX. No room left on the credit card. It all seems to work pretty damn good, too.

[gary_ferguson1]

Sanford, I agree with you. In terms of image quality the new 22MP medium format backs and the Canon 1Ds Mark II must surely be approaching the top of the curve. The Canon 1Ds I've been using for the last two years gives pretty much the same quality that I expect from 645. And when I looked at Phase One's 22MP backs they were right up there in 6x9 and even 4x5 territory.

 

Technically there's sure to be a little bit more like better noise reduction and faster precessing, but in terms of quality I'm not expecting the next five years to deliver anything like the advances of the last years.

 

Where I expect the digital developments will come is in pricing.

 

In real terms a Canon 1Ds today is about the same price as a Leica M3 was when it was released back in 1954. And as such it's a super luxury item that's unfortunately out of reach for most amateurs. But I hope that will change in exactly the same way that good quality film cameras became ever more affordable during the 1960's and 1970's.

[basscheffers]

Unless there is a vast improvement in optics, cameras won't get much smaller. The lens resolution simply isn't there to allow for one prime lens with a gigapixel sensor and just crop if you want telephoto...

 

Plus there is also the problem of DOF. I own an E-1 and that always has more DOF than a 35mm sensor. It's not so much more I can't live with it, but I wouldn't want an even smaller sensor.

[msitaraman]

I am reminded of a rather clever line in the movie, 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the Ocean', where Russell Crowe's early 19th Century character, says, after marvelling at a wooden ship's then state-of-the art hull design, "Gentlemen, what fascinating modern times we live in...". Or words to that effect.

 

Indeed they did, and certainly we do, but perhaps the best is yet to come?

[daniel_smith6]

Cell phones don't work in most locations here in Utah, Idaho, Nevada & much of the intermountain West. They are all battery dependant and the batteries aren't always available nor do they hold a charge long enough for many trips. The pixel recorders of all types are no good for long exposures & go to hell in below zero weather most of the time.

They have their place & are useful but are not 'the answer' to so many needs in photographing the world around us.

[benoit_deshaies]

Dynamic range/exposure latitude. I feel the exposure latitude of DSLR is about the same as slides. In high-contrast scenes, it's hard to keep detail in both highlights and shadows. I wish DSLR had the same range as print film. I think Fuji is working on the problem, but I'm not sure how successful they have been so far.

[Spearhead]

Where are you getting your information?<p><i>

They are all battery dependant and the batteries aren't always available</i><p>

 

They are all rechargeable. You don't need to buy batteries more than once every couple years, even with heavy usage.<p><i> nor do they hold a charge long enough for many trips</i><p>Mine goes five to six days with average talk time, three days with heavy talk time. I can charge it in the car or hotel room.<p>

 

Really, it would help to get out more, you would understand what you are talking about rather than making bizarre statements.

[glenn_kroeger]

Well, Dan, I do geophysical work in some of the remote areas of Canyonlands NP, and I can get Verizon if I climb up on a ridge. And from there I called my students at a fossil dig in the San Rafael swell, and they answered on their cell phone.

[abufletcher]

The day the puny viewfinders on DSLR's are as large and lucious as the one

on my good old FM2 (I'd even settle for the N90 VF) and I can have a 20-35/

2.8 equivalent lens -- THEN we will have arrived!

 

Digital technology may have come a long long way -- but actual camera

design is still far from mature.

[david_l.]

I think the post referencing CDs and MP3 players sums it up perfectly (somewhat unbeknowst to the poster.) You don't have to be an audiophile to hear the differences between a CD track and an MP3 copy of the same track. The quality is reduced to an "acceptable" degree for the sake of "convinece"; carry your library of CDs (or rather downoladed and stolen files) in your pocket! I think convienence will become a priority of digital camera manufacturers over quality. The hipsters don't fuss that there is a limited audio spectrum to the files on their iPods, so why should the photogs fuss over a limited visual spectrum? (gotta love digital reds...)

 

 

The main change on the horizon of digital technology is convergence. People are getting tired of buying a digital camera, a computer, a portable hard drive, a cell pgone and a PDA. Albeit manufacturers are making more money by selling these devices seperately, consumer demand is increasingly putting pressure for consolidation. The device I am waiting for is the PDA/phone with a hard drive that can play MP3 and MPEG4 video with expandibility for WAV/MP3 recording and flash card downoading. The technology has been available for quite some time; in fact I have seen some Windows CE devices hacked to utilize PCMCIA hard drives like are in iPods. See the iPod Photo yet? One step closer...