Is the super zoom all in one the future of photography?

[JDDavis]

I'm no Luddite (I did start this post), but my thoughts on all this are often in conflict on this subject. I welcome technological advances that make it possible to take better pictures with a smaller and lighter device. That suits the type of photography I like to do. On the other hand, all the digital advances sometimes seem to make everyone's photography look the same. I'm not talking snapshots here, of course. Really good photographers are still differentiating themselves even in the digital age and that's comforting to see. In the end I don't really care too much what the camera of the future is. I just hope we don't get to the point where technology takes the art (or artisan) out of everything.

Yes, the person behind the camera will always matter the most...I just don't want to be reduced to a self propelled tripod where the difficulty in photography is just ensuring the camera is in the right place.

BTW, thanks winkosmosis and talmy for your explanations. That helps to put the engineering difficulties in perspective. Along the lines of a "super zoom" I will say that my 18-300 (DX) lens on my D750 takes pretty doggone good pictures. If I use it, I know that I will be cropping to the best part of the image. Of course it's not useable at 18mm and it's not as sharp as a prime or something like the 70-200 but it makes me think something like an 18-300 FX lens might be doable one day.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

I tend to think a bit different - as we break the barriers of pixel count, why not end up with a camera that has a very tiny sensor, at least 200 megapixel coverage and a simple but very sharp lens so that we start wide and simply crop down to 16 megapixel for the portion one wants.

Sub micron pixels with a lens that will match? I suppose you want high iso and low noise with that, too. At some point you'll just start running out of photons and your camera will have to go beyond image processing into image creating-out-of-nothing.

 

[JDDavis]

Sub micron pixels with a lens that will match? I suppose you want high iso and low noise with that, too. At some point you'll just start running out of photons and your camera will have to go beyond image processing into image creating-out-of-nothing.

What if it did? What if the camera just used the image you exposed the sensor to as a reference for the CPU to create a perfect image (to your specifications) out of? Bum-bum-buummmm... (as my daughter would say).

I'm not being sarcastic, that's just one of my concerns. It seems to me that's where some manufacturers, like Apple, would like to go with their "cameras". Just hold it up and the camera/computer will render the best possible version of what's in front of it...and that might mean adding pixels that weren't there before.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Just hold it up and the camera/computer will render the best possible version of what's in front of it...and that might mean adding pixels that weren't there before.

Or maybe taking them away. Homeless guy in the background? Poof, gone. That aunt you don't like? There's a filter for her. Security guys beating you up for taking pictures in the wrong place? Camera doesn't see that.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Or maybe taking them away. Homeless guy in the background? Poof, gone. That aunt you don't like? There's a filter for her. Security guys beating you up for taking pictures in the wrong place? Camera doesn't see that.

So basically Photoshop built into the sensor?

 

[Ish]

I hope not, who wants to carry something like that all the time? Well I don't!

 

[phrehdd]

Sub micron pixels with a lens that will match? I suppose you want high iso and low noise with that, too. At some point you'll just start running out of photons and your camera will have to go beyond image processing into image creating-out-of-nothing.

Photons? We are talking photo receptors. We have seen all sorts of other types of models including a rather limited version from Sigma that in simple terms places the photo receptors not all on the same plane. Rather lackluster to exclude other models for sensors. Then again, Canon came out with a 120 megapixel sensor that is slightly smaller than today's FF sensor. - I would call that a good start and the best part it sits within the limits of a single plane so that you can acknowledge it is possible.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

What if it did? What if the camera just used the image you exposed the sensor to as a reference for the CPU to create a perfect image (to your specifications) out of? Bum-bum-buummmm... (as my daughter would say).

I'm not being sarcastic, that's just one of my concerns. It seems to me that's where some manufacturers, like Apple, would like to go with their "cameras". Just hold it up and the camera/computer will render the best possible version of what's in front of it...and that might mean adding pixels that weren't there before.

Out of fairness, in the P&S arena, every manufacturer, not just Apple, is heading in that direction. That's not a surprise, as that's effectively been the goal since George Eastman brought photography into the consumer realm - the best possible photo with the least necessary knowledge, practice, or skill. The camera that delivers the fewest bad shots wins.

Not that anything's wrong with that. It raises the bar for those who strive for greater than whatever "average" is at a given date and time. Without that impetus, there is no growth. Arguably, this is what happened to the business of painting when photography came on the scene - routine photographic portraiture, newspaper and catalog illustration and the like forced painters down the path of Impressionism and all that followed.

Artists will continue to find whatever creative opportunities exist, and do something that hasn't yet been added to the Program settings. That's what "creative" is all about - the ability to go beyond the bounds of the conventional. Eventually, will we be able to say, "Siri, be creative?" Anything's possible, but until Siri is truly artificially intelligent, Siri's "creative" will almost undoubtedly be maintained within certain bounds - nobody's going to thank her/him/it for unpleasing images, any more than the professional's client thanks him/her for unpleasing images.

Will the day come when photography is less appealing as a hobby or career? It's the natural order of things. Exceptional and unconventional will simply become too hard to achieve - it might require expensive and elaborate artificial lighting, programming ones own Photoshop filters and effects... but there will likely always be some who are up to the challenge.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Photons? ... Canon came out with a 120 megapixel sensor that is slightly smaller than today's FF sensor. - I would call that a good start and the best part it sits within the limits of a single plane so that you can acknowledge it is possible.

The pixels on that sensor are 2.2 microns. The wavelength of red light is appx. .7 microns. If your pixels get smaller than that, weird things are going to happen (not least of which, your photos will be orthochromatic).

 

[phrehdd]

The pixels on that sensor are 2.2 microns. The wavelength of red light is appx. .7 microns. If your pixels get smaller than that, weird things are going to happen (not least of which, your photos will be orthochromatic).

Yes, the basic limitation exist for that model. Again, we may see other models appear that counter some of these issues. Even slight changes to microlenses as well as more of a "cone" shaped receptor would certainly be worth greater considerations. As well, maybe the Bayer standard will get revised with newer technologies to counter some facets of light wave predisposition.

 

[Robotti]

The pixels on that sensor are 2.2 microns. The wavelength of red light is appx. .7 microns. If your pixels get smaller than that, weird things are going to happen (not least of which, your photos will be orthochromatic).

Oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to the wave propagation direction. Thus I was under the impression that wavelength in itself does not have anything to do with "fitting" the photon into the transistor junction. Photons do not have a size, they only carry the energy to a certain mesurable location. The amount of that energy is comparable to the amplitude of the light wave, but even a large amplitude does not mean that the wave wouldn't fit into the transistor.

The thickness of the silicon on the other hand has a lot to do with wavelength. Different thicknessess are used in the Foveon to filter out different wavelengths.

I'm sorry for going off-topic. I just find the small sensors very interesting and techniques such as backside illumination and foveon are making small sensors better. At the moment I'm considering moving from APS-C to full frame, but maybe the day will come, when it's time to move back.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Photography will not have just a one size fit all solution so I would venture it will continue to evolve into various new paths and solutions.

I tend to think a bit different - as we break the barriers of pixel count, why not end up with a camera that has a very tiny sensor, at least 200 megapixel coverage and a simple but very sharp lens so that we start wide and simply crop down to 16 megapixel for the portion one wants. Maybe have a lens that is simply a 2:1 zoom that is very fast and between that and the high megapixel count, you end up with the same results as a super zoom but in a far smaller package. It would be also nice if the camera would make certain adjustments when you go for that tight crop as your image to maximize the quality of the info captured. We already see Canon coming out with a 120 megapixel sensor so it certainly is possible.

There are so many ways one can go to reduce size and gain options.

In my view the super-zooms are an excellent idea and will continue selling well with technological improvements. The future of photography will arrive once camera manufacturers break from the mold of having a box (body) with a narrow tube in front of it (lens).

The problem for Canon, Nikon, and other camera and lens manufacturers is that they have invested countless sums of money on bodies and lenses that date back to the film years (same shape, and function). The future of photography will be outside of the "mold" I have referred to above. The existing super-zooms are a step in the right direction, but they have a long way to go.

The camera of the future will be a super-zoom lens without a body. Why having a sensor, circuit card, and shutter mechanism in a huge box that's attached to a narrow lens that in turn has circular glass elements? And the sensors? That too will change to mimic the human eye. It means that sensors won't have a flat surface.

 

[phrehdd]

In my view the super-zooms are an excellent idea and will continue selling well with technological improvements. The future of photography will arrive once camera manufacturers break from the mold of having a box (body) with a narrow tube in front of it (lens).

The problem for Canon, Nikon, and other camera and lens manufacturers is that they have invested countless sums of money on bodies and lenses that date back to the film years (same shape, and function). The future of photography will be outside of the "mold" I have referred to above. The existing super-zooms are a step in the right direction, but they have a long way to go.

The camera of the future will be a super-zoom lens without a body. Why having a sensor, circuit card, and shutter mechanism in a huge box that's attached to a narrow lens that in turn has circular glass elements? And the sensors? That too will change to mimic the human eye. It means that sensors won't have a flat surface.

All rather interesting take on potential future of "image taking." Again, why have to have a super zoom? Why not simply have enough pixels you can crop with a set focal length lens or a minimal zoom? With even today's technology, one could set the view to show exactly what part of the total image you want at any part of the sensor reading. We perhaps agree there is far more that can be done to achieve tools that go in tandem with what we are trying to achieve as an end product image.

For me, I'm happy with a few good sharp lenses (zooms too) and a camera that I can feel helps me create the image and doesn't fight me along the way (like pathetic deep menus).

 

[AlaskaMoose]

All rather interesting take on potential future of "image taking." Again, why have to have a super zoom? Why not simply have enough pixels you can crop with a set focal length lens or a minimal zoom? With even today's technology, one could set the view to show exactly what part of the total image you want at any part of the sensor reading. We perhaps agree there is far more that can be done to achieve tools that go in tandem with what we are trying to achieve as an end product image.

For me, I'm happy with a few good sharp lenses (zooms too) and a camera that I can feel helps me create the image and doesn't fight me along the way (like pathetic deep menus).

The idea of a super-zoom is weight reduction and compactness. But when I say super-zoom, I am referring to the camera of the future. Such a super-zoom would allow for macro, ultra-wide, and tele photography, all with a single lens.

 

[marmiteturkey]

Multi exposure composite images are only possible with certain types of images.

Can you expand on this? I'm sure you're right, just not clear what the specific limitations are.
Cheers
MT

 

[Apple fanboy]

Can you expand on this? I'm sure you're right, just not clear what the specific limitations are.
Cheers
MT

Sure. For a landscape photo, you can do this no problem. For fast moving sports not so much.

 

[marmiteturkey]

Sure. For a landscape photo, you can do this no problem. For fast moving sports not so much.

Duh. Of course, sorry, completely failed to think of the issue of movement - head in landscape mode!