Do we need more specialization with digital cameras?

[john bond]

First, I do not mean this thread to start another discussion of film vs digital.

However, we used to have a large variety of products to apply to a large

number needs. Presently, digital photography seems to emphasize the

versatility of one camera to do a large number of tasks. My question is , is

this the best way to do things? For example why do we not see a digital

camera that is optimized to take black and white pictures. Yes we can convert

in PS or in some cameras create a black and white photograph. But, wouldn't

it be better to have a camera that was designed do this and nothing else. How

about a digital camera that specializes in infra red? And what about format.

Yes we can crop, but why not have digital cameras with different formats, say,

one for square format or one for panoramics. I could go on with any number

other specialized areas, but I think you get the point.

 

Does any one see a need to press the maufactures to make more specialized

digital cameras?

[eric friedemann]

"(W)ouldn't it be better to have a camera that was designed (to take B&W photos) and nothing else(?)"

 

 

Yes, it would- and I would buy one. If you took the mediocre 6 Megapixel APS-C sensor used in a number of DSLRs (e.g. the Nikon D100) and tasked it solely to recording B&W images, you could boost the resolution of the sensor to 12 Megapixels or more. Also, such a high-resolution camera, using less-expensive, proven 6 MP sensors could sell for under $1K. Unfortunately, the only attempt at such a camera has been the ill-fated Kodak DCS 760m (monochrome):

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml

[._kaa]

<p><i>If you took the mediocre 6 Megapixel APS-C sensor used in a number of DSLRs (e.g. the Nikon D100) and tasked it solely to recording B&W images, you could boost the resolution of the sensor to 12 Megapixels or more.</i>

 

<p>I think you're confused. 6-megapixel sensors have 6 million photosites. You *will* get kinda-higher resolution than a color sensor, because a Bayer-pattern color sensor interpolates color information, but there is no way you will get 12 megapixels worth of data out of a sensor which has only 6 million photosites.

 

<p>Other than that, I don't want a pure B&W camera because I will lose the flexibility I have in doing color->B&W conversions in Photoshop. The ability to choose how colors will map into tones at edit time is extremely useful. Not having to carry filters around (besided the polarizer) is an extra bonus, too.

 

<p>On the other hand, I expect to see MF digital cameras with a square sensor.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Well, John, how much $$$ are you offering the manufacturers to build that one special camera just for you? How many purchasing customers are you gonna bring with you when you contact them? Unlike a single inexpensive roll of IR infrared film that sits on the shelf, unsold, all by itself, can you imagine an expensive IR infrared camera sitting there with a lens and body and electronics, just sitting, unsold, wasted, needing deep discounts to move it before it becomes an antique, a tax inventory liability for the warehouse stoopid enough to pre-order it on specualtion that some customer, some day, will come along and not only ask for it, but be willing to pay for it and not move on looking for a better price, especially from a camera that has a gazillion other all-purpose features?!?

 

I think you are wrong, in that each digital camera I see has very different and specific features and benefits -- different from the next difital camera.

 

For instance, look at the pocketable, no lens protrusion cameras invented and released by Minolta and now released in the Konica Minolta DiMage X-series of cameras ... then look at their EVF SLR-type wide-angle to telephoto super zoom macro Minolta DiMage 5/7/7ug/7i/7Hi-series and Konica Minolta DiMage A1/A2/A200-series cameras ... then look at the true DSLR Minolta 7D and 5D with all the "tradional" SLR offering PLUS anti-shake in the camera for all lenses ... and then go back and look at the Konica Minolta DiMage Z-series with it's movies and hybrid focusing ... and DiMage G-series ... and DiMage F-series ... and DiMage S-series ... all targeted to differing consumer demands with different feature and benefit sets. And that's just in one company - Konica Minolta.

 

Now look at the offerings from Casio, Sony, Samsung, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Leica, Polaroid, and on and on and on ...

 

Hewlett Packard has in-camera panorama stitching.

 

Minolta DiMage 7 had IR infrared response, and a variety of independent companies are "upgrading" other cameras to respond to IR.

 

Medium format interchangeable digital backs, constant view digital web cams, and so on ... incredible the variety of offerings out there.

 

CMOS, CCD, Foveon ... choices!

 

All can do black and white conversion, PLUS sepia and other toning, PLUS imitate a variety of film saturation responses ... incredible the choices!

 

Of course there's a hunger for a one-to-one correspondence from digital with film offerings, including 3-D and multiple lens ID and sports cameras and such, but, hey, that's what FILM SCANNERS are for -- to bring everything onto the computer desktop regardless of capture source.

 

No, I think your assesment of the situation "out there" is NOT truly accurate, but maybe you are reading only the main-stream ads from the big players, and they were always monolithic even before digital.

 

Read between the ads to see all the incredible alternatives available, and new ones announced on a daily basis.

 

What a great hobby/profession we have chosen, eh?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[mike_lepp1]

Yes, you will still need sites dedicated to color for the tonal response with a BW dedicated camera.

 

As far as specialization, I don't believe there's a big enough market out there for this. I think several manufacturers have tried but couldn't sell enough to be pofitable.

 

There is specialization in modification of cameras. Asto and IR come to mind. These, however, are small niches. If they were a large markets the main manufacturers would do it. Canon did make an astro 20d. Haven't heard much after the announcement.

 

To add more, people are in search of the holy grail of digital cameras. A bazilillion pixles and umpteenthousand fps, etc. etc. Measurebating (and editing: not another boring panorama, the thrill is gone) has become a bigger pastime than actually taking pictures for enjoyment and print. I see people just starting out by buying a d2x, the best lenses, and on and on that think they're a better photographer because they have the latest equipment. With this mindset the money is in adding a little extra so these people can upgrade and mantain their status.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how come there were so few MF, LF, and even eos1/f5 level cameras in the film days? Apparently we most of us didn't need all these features back then. Why now?

 

Sorry for my rant.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Eric - "Also, such a high-resolution camera, using less-expensive, proven 6 MP sensors could sell for under $1K."

 

Except that it can't sell for under $1k. DLSRs that sell for under $1k do this only because they're built in million unit quantities. A B&W only camera is a highly specialized device, even moreso than the Epson RD-1 rangefinder. That sells in the $3k range, because they build about 10,000 units/year (and that's with an off-the-shelf sensor).

[eric friedemann]

Kaa, read the article: "(w)ithout an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix."

 

 

Joseph, the main cost of a DSLR is the imaging chip and the price of 6 MP APS-C chips has dropped to the point where a Nikon D50 can sell for $650 (B&H, U.S. warranty). You wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel- you could take a stock D50 and reorient it to shoot only B&W images. I'm reasonably certain even Nikon could accomplish such a modification for well under $350 per body.

[stephen hazelton]

I don't recall that they ever had film cameras intended for B&W or for IR- too small of a market for them, also.

 

I would expect that eventually, there would be some more versatility. Right now, the high-end cameras are trying to get more and more pixels. Eventually, they'll have an economical camera that has all the pixels anyone could need, then they'll start looking at other ways to develop the product. A camera that does better B&W (but still does color) or one that does better IR (but still does normal) are a lot more likely than B&W-only or IR-only models.

[john bond]

I appreciate everyone's respones. Obviously, the financial or commercial

concerns have a lot to do with what drives this topic. That is an unfortunate

reality, I think. But, lets put the affordabiltiy, profitability, marketabilty issues

aside for a moment. So much of the versatility of digital cameras rests in

digital processing outside of the camera. We don't like the format, we crop.

We, want black and white, we use channel mixer or a dozen or so other

techniques to do this. We want infra red, we have a series of computer

generated effects to do that. The problem is that the more you manipulate an

image outside of the camera, the more you degrade it. In most cameras,

noise, bit depth, tonal range, and shaprness are really close to the limits of

good quality without any manipulation. When we start cropping, and mixing

channels or try to maximize every little shadow or highlight detail, we quickly

began having increasing problems with noise, posterization and sharpness.

 

I would argue that while we can do a fair job with many of these things by

manipulating a picture on the computer, couldn't we do a much better job if

the camera were designed to take a picture with the desired effect without the

need for subsequent manipulation. Hence, the need for more specialized

cameras.

[robert_potts1]

I would like to see a top DSLR that has a couple of sensor shape options. One that allows you to make 8x10 prints without cropping for example.

[craig_gillette]

"But, lets put the affordabiltiy, profitability, marketabilty issues aside for a moment."

 

Why not put aside the "laws of physics" while we are doing this too?

[ellis_vener_photography]

"My question is , is this the best way to do things?"

 

No.

 

"For example why do we not see a digital camera that is optimized to take black and white

pictures. Yes we can convert in PS or in some cameras create a black and white

photograph. But, wouldn't it be better to have a camera that was designed do this and

nothing else."

 

No. unless you were completely satisfied always and foreveer with a camera that had no

color sensitivity. even black and white film has colro sensitivity that is whty the standard

red, orange, yellow, green and blue contrast filters work work with panchroamtic film.

 

"How about a digital camera that specializes in infra red? "

 

well that would be a specialty camera.

 

"And what about format. Yes we can crop, but why not have digital cameras with different

formats, say, one for square format or one for panoramics."

 

There are a variety of sensor sizes and a variety of resolutions available from 35mm

quality to large format. whether you can and are willign to pay forthem is a different

matter. many of the better high end commercial photographers use 35mm DSLRs (think

Nikon D2X or D70s or Canon 1Ds mk2 & 20D) when appropriate and medum format

digital backs on their existing medum format cameras when appropriate.

[john bond]

Seems that there is a convergence of opinions that this all rests with

marketabilty/affordability and nothing else. Such a shame.

[larrybc]

John Bond wrote:<br>

<p><i>So much of the versatility of digital cameras rests in digital processing outside of the camera. We don't like the format, we crop. We, want black and white, we use channel mixer or a dozen or so other techniques to do this. We want infra red, we have a series of computer generated effects to do that.

</i></p>

<p>Computer generated effects is only one way to mimic IR. You CAN shoot IR with some digital cameras, and they do sell at least one camera that is specialized for it, plus you can modify many digicams for IR by removing the filter (camera tech generally has to do this).</p>

 

<p>Much of the versatility of a film camera also lay outside the camera; it was in the film and subsequent processing techniques. The difference is that we can get these differences in post processing with digital, where as with film, it required input (film buying/loading) AND post processing (development, printing).

</p>

<p><i>The problem is that the more you manipulate an image outside of the camera, the more you degrade it. In most cameras, noise, bit depth, tonal range, and shaprness are really close to the limits of good quality without any manipulation. </i>

</p>

<p>With projected slides, yes. But once you start printing, you have to need to manipulate the process to get proper colours and exposure. Sharpness didn't need to be adjusted, though.</p>

<p><i>

When we start cropping, and mixing channels or try to maximize every little shadow or highlight detail, we quickly began having increasing problems with noise, posterization and sharpness. </i></p>

<p>You only have a problem when you start making extreme changes. With a properly exposed image, only minor adjustments are needed, much the same as with film negs.</p>

<p><i>I would argue that while we can do a fair job with many of these things by manipulating a picture on the computer, couldn't we do a much better job if the camera were designed to take a picture with the desired effect without the need for subsequent manipulation. Hence, the need for more specialized cameras.</i></p>

<p>You're talking about specialized sensors, then. And in that case, you may have a point, but it would only happen in your hypothetical world. In the real world, I'm quite happy to shoot in RAW and do whatever I want in post processing.</p>

<p>larbc</p>

[vivek iyer]

If there is a DSLR with increased UV sensitivity, I will buy one. The realted lenses are quite specialized, anyway.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Yes, UV lenses are available -- search for older Nikon and other new and used sources for specialty UV lenses -- many fit or adapt to DSLRs. Some DSLRs may need their filter removed from in front of the sensor for UV and IR capture, and maybe even a compensating "lens" added to replace the filter for TTL EVF cameras with one lens already fixed on.

 

Earlier in this thread: "...Seems that there is a convergence of opinions that this all rests with marketabilty/affordability and nothing else. Such a shame...."

 

Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. I feel well served by the industry -- not compromised in the least. I'm THRILLED with what's available to me. Maybe you just need to either search better, or even search within what you've already got to find more?

 

Earlier in this thread: "...I would argue that while we can do a fair job with many of these things by manipulating a picture on the computer, couldn't we do a much better job if the camera were designed to take a picture with the desired effect without the need for subsequent manipulation. Hence, the need for more specialized cameras...."

 

Peter Blaise responds: What "...desired effect..."? Sometimes I don't even know what I want for YEARS after capture. Sometimes I republish the same picture over and over with a variety of different effects as I grow and mature and change my point of view, so to speak. I can't imagine limiting myself to ONLY what I considered at the instantaneous moment of capture.

 

Argue all you want, and all you're convincing me of is your own limitations.

 

Are you a slide shooter? I LIKE revisiting captured images and consider the subsequent, revisitable task of MAKING a picture as an acceptable and SEPARATE activity from TAKING a picture. Heck, even slide shooters want to revisit their captures occasionally, right? I do not see computer work as a compromise, and I do not see my captured images (scan or digital) as limiting or limited. If you see your images and your computer resources as limited or limiting, contact me off line for some training and upgrades -- wow, this stuff is real neat, real exciting, and w-a-y better than you seem to have discovered.

 

I think I know of what limits you are bumping your head into -- and it's all in your head! ;-)

 

Get out of your head and get into the experience of modern photography, complete with all it's ties to antiquity.

 

C'mon on in, the water's fine!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[vivek iyer]

"Peter Blaise Monahon , oct 20, 2005; 07:53 p.m.

.

 

Yes, UV lenses are available -- search for older Nikon and other new and used sources for specialty UV lenses -- many fit or adapt to DSLRs. Some DSLRs may need their filter removed from in front of the sensor for UV and IR capture, and maybe even a compensating "lens" added to replace the filter for TTL EVF cameras with one lens already fixed on."

 

Speaking from your experience, Peter?

[troyammons]

I dont think more specialization but maybe more options, like a removable hot mirror for an IR mode, and a removable AA filter for a B+W mode.

 

Also shooting B+W you could turn off or tune down the bayer color software interpretation, and all of the above would give you sharper monochome photos.

 

I would also like to see a more serious approach to Raw from the manufacture like film dup modes, Porta, Velvia etc.

 

Fuji has in camera color modes, but the S2 raw software sucked, and it did not have any sort of removable IR or AA filters.

[dennis_oconnor3]

Well Nikon is offering a D2 model optimized for astrophotography,... By simply leaving off a filter layer on the sensor chip... Making a monochrome optimized model would seem at first blush a matter simply leaving off the Bayer color filter layer on the sensor chip and laying on a filter layer for monochrome, or merely putting a filter in front of the chip... Likely this is not an expensive change, but more likely they don't see enough market to warrant even the labor cost of having an engineer write up the specs for the chip foundry...

 

denny

[vivek iyer]

"Well Nikon is offering a D2 model optimized for astrophotography,... By simply leaving off a filter layer on the sensor chip..."

 

Where can buy one of these Nikon cameras?

[vivek iyer]

"Fuji has in camera color modes, but the S2 raw software sucked, and it did not have any sort of removable IR or AA filters."

 

Mamiya ZD has removable/interchangeabe filter/slot.

[eric friedemann]

"(The) Mamiya ZD HAS removable/interchangeabe filter/slot." (Emphasis added.)

 

 

Vivek, I don't mean to nit-pik. As Emerson warned, "... foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." That having been said, I'll be more impressed with the ZD if Mamiya ever actually releases the ZD and sells one to a consumer:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=mamiya+zd

 

 

Mamiya announced the ZD in August 2004 and was to have released the camera this summer (not even Nikon is this absurd in dragging out its announcement-to release dates):

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022403mamiya_zdpriceavail.asp

 

 

There is still no release date for the ZD:

 

 

http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2107

 

 

The ZD is beginning to remind me of a few years ago when Mamiya announed an aspheric, rectilinear 43mm lens for the RZ to promote the sales of digital backs for the RZ. The lens was posted on Mamiya America's website where it remained for more than a year- then disappeared. The lens never made it into stores.

[vivek iyer]

Eric, I will have to admit that I have not made the time to visit the actual shop (very closeby) to check out the camera. It is here though:

 

http://www.calumetphoto.nl/item/30MAM-ZD.html?&ac.cat.CatTree.detail=y&type=PRDINDEX

[eric friedemann]

Vivek, using your link, I get a message that says: "We're Sorry

This item is not currently active." Going through the site's menues and looking at Calumet's "Digital Imaging > Digital Cameras > SLR" no Mamiya models are listed.

[vivek iyer]

Guess you are right, Eric. Sorry.