Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The future of photography...
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because they already have one.The DSLR market is only saturated to the extent that fewer and fewer people want one.
----------
This feature doesn't work that well.
----------
These are future tech predictions that do not yet exist. Right now what comes out of iPhones is very, very limited. Take a 10 year old DSLR and it will still outperform an iPhone in many regards.
----------
And today a roll of film still outperforms any iPhone in most regards.
It seems quite obvious to me that the feet dragging is strategic - slowly roll out new features starting with the higher end model. Canon is obviously limiting the video capabilities of their cameras once they've released a "cinema" lineup. Lots of manufacturers roll out new models with small updates that are mostly software. We also see lots of cameras that have crippled features in order to move their customers up the line. For example, the Sony a6000 forgoing the x-avc video codec to roll it out a few weeks later in the a7s. Then the a5100 comes out with the codec but gets much lower burst rate than the a6000 even though it shares the sensor, shutter and processor... I think those strategies work in a striving market. But I feel like they should just blow the doors off to show the place of a camera in our modern digital life. To me, that starts with fixing the image transfer software to your phone. Those I've used are clunky, take a while to connect and then are slow to navigate. Even Sony which has NFC needs quite a bit of menu diving.
As for the modularity of medium format. I think it stems from historic reasons. Photographers would want to change the backs on their cameras to use different films. For example, it would be common place in a studio to use a polaroid back to do a test exposure before switching the back to a true film back. I'm not sure how useful this would be on consumer cameras. The processor is intimately tied to the sensor. With technology moving towards mirrorless, there's not a whole lot going on in terms of the capture box. Maybe we could see something happening with the communication and a second processor dedicated to UI and communication. Maybe something using Google's Ara. But really, I think the communications is set for the next couple of years: bluetooth 4, NFC, WiFi. The problem is firmware updates. Other than Fuji, most manufacturers see firmware updates as a selling feature on new camera models. And it makes sense. They don't want to sell you a camera you'll want to use for the next 12 years.
Something that hasn't been mentioned is that as sensor technology evolves on the smartphones, the same technology can be applied on the larger cameras. There's no ways around the physics, the larger the capture medium, the better the picture. It's no surprise that a camera with the same resolution as the smartphones but using a FF sensor like the a7s can deliver a clean image in basically any lighting condition where smartphones start to get grainy at dusk.
The software and integration needs to evolve. The convenience is the big asset for the smartphone right now.
Although practically, if you think that what's offered now is good enough for most users, then why wouldn't you use your camera for 12 years (or more)? It is something like the problem of PCs and iPads and whatnot--at some point the marginal value of the new features just isn't worth the cost of upgrading any further, and the only reason to buy a new thing is if the old one just stops working altogether. And since the cameras are consumer electronics, at some point, they will.
It's true that the device itself may eventually fail but a camera (sans mechanical/electrical failure) may have a pretty long life span before it becomes obsolete. A properly working film camera is in no way obsolete. It seems that somewhat modern DSLRs (say the 2007-2008 and beyond models) may have a fairly long useful life as well. As in nothing will really make the image they produce obsolete (if you are happy with that particular level of IQ).
Let's pretend that DSLRs are now 3 main modules (lens, image capture, & back end...that being processing, UI, comms, software, firmware, etc...) to me the possibilities of upgrading the backend but keeping the sensor or vice versa would be interesting. Or even being able to mix and match...say I have lenses I love and a backend that meets all my needs and I can swap a FX or DX module in and out in the middle to suit my needs (I know...I have that now with two cameras). I think my thought is to decouple the rapidly changing tech (the UI, comms, maybe processing etc...) from the tech that doesn't need to change as rapidly. That way the big boys could compete with all the disruptive tech like cell phones without making me buy a $3000 body just so I can get a ultra retina oled flippy display, Bluetooth 8, and the latest set of in camera instafliktweet filters.
It works better than on a DSLR.
Film didn't work that well when it was new. Things change.
----------
This IS a thread on speculating about the future of photography
----------
And today a roll of film still outperforms any iPhone in most regards.
It depends on the film. I would not say early tin types do, for example.
But if you want to talk about more modern film, still not in EVERY way.
Digital is improving dynamic range, and is getting close now. Soon, it will exceed film.
I can fit more pictures on my cell phone than you can carry in film. One advantage here is that it is much easier to practice and get better. taking 3000 photos to learn a technique in film is expensive and time consuming. On a digital camera, it is just practice. Practice makes you better, after all.
Speed of feedback. Can't check the back of the camera to see if someone blinked.
Have you priced any ISO 12,000 film lately? what about 50,000 ISO? 200,000?
Also, my digital is whatever ISO I ask it to be (within reason).
HDR
Video. Every try filming your kids entire game/recital on FILM?
Histograms.
Focus peaking.
Embedded EXIF data. Really, does anyone honestly miss logbooks?
Never run out of film. If aliens land in my back yard, I can always format the card and start shooting, if all else fails.
Does film have advantages? Sure. But don't overlook the beauty of digital
When you look at the same chart for 2013 and 2014 it is going the other direction... Sorry but the majority of DSLR sales are to people that do not need a DSLR, they need a decent mobile phone camera and Photos.
That indeed squeezes the DSLR manufactures...
Your thought process is a perfect example of those that get hammered by a disruptive technology. It is amazing to see it play out time and time again...
Last edited:
Yes, but that's not what I was referring to in relation to lenses. If you look at the all the 35mm film SLR cameras and lenses as well as the DSLR cameras and lenses of today, they don't look much different. In my view the cameras of the future will have wide and short lenses with a much wider apertures and focal ranges. As such there won't be a need to carry a bag full of lenses, just one or two.
By the way, I am using some Nikon manual lenses with my Canon cameras.
The aperture is a ratio based on focal length and dependent on the size of the sensor/film. IT would be difficult to use a lens the size of a dime to expose a full frame sensor at F2.8.
The only way to shrink the lens is to shrink the sensor. Then you reduce light sensitivity and extend depth of focus unless other technological tricks correct for this (which I believe they will eventually). So once they manage that, THEN then lenses can get smaller.
Agreed - even more so when you factor in the growing population able to afford cameras but making a phone-based camera decision as it is increasingly "good enough" for their needs and/or they value the sharing technology aspects over the image quality (although they may have no issue with the quality for their purposes.
I think for most people they don't see the quality difference between a DSLR and a camera phone as they have never used a DSLR.
For example the one feature that camera phone makers always talk about is megapixels. So because of this, the general populace sees a 12 megapixel camera as being better than an 8. They don't however factor in the many other issues that help make a camera good.
Sensor size
Focus points
ISO range
Burst rate
To name just a few. I don't think most people know the difference between digital and optical zoom either.
If you were to show them a Nikon D3 12 megapixel camera specification against a Nokia LUMIX 24 megapixel they would genuinely think the camera phone was better.
Of course when they look at a picture online or in a magazine they don't realise what camera (or type of camera) was used.
No and increasingly they won't ask or investigate.
I shoot a D300 but TBH I'm out of the MP race, just can't see the image value beyond the 12MP I have - although my Coolpix AW is 16MP but the images still don't have the DSLR quality...and the most commercially successful image I have was shot with my first D70 @6MP...
Absolutely. If you set two photos side by side, they would see the difference, but normally the iPhone photo is good enough. I think 8MP is plenty for a cell phone camera at today's technology. Better light sensitivity and lower noise are far more important than more pixels.
And Look at all the people that tried to argue that a nokia phone camera WAS better than a DSLR (not just on 41MP, but that is where it started).
I disagree, and not just because tintypes aren't actually film. Tintypes were popular in their day because they were relatively fast and cheap (sound familiar?) but capable of very fine detail, and can be quite nice when well done. See, for example:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101014-Collodion-Wet-Plate-Images
Yeah, that's why everyone with a digital camera is now a veritable Martin Mankasci. If you need 3000 shots to learn a technique when the camera is doing most of the work for you, you're doing something wrong,
No, I haven't; I mostly shoot 100 or less. I'm not a Morlock.
Blech.
Don't need these things.
Given the number of 'ufo' photos, ghost photos, etc., that were recorded in the film era, I'm not sure this was really ever a problem.
I'd love to try one but no, I operate mostly in the shallow end of the financial pool.Look at all that can be done computing and communicating wise with something the size of an iPhone. What's one of the biggest knocks on the iphone as a serious camera...lens and sensor. What's one of the biggest knocks on modern high end DSLRs....back end features (maybe I stretched a bit on that one).
Apple can produce and sell an iphone for $699. Nikon can produce and sell a D750 for $2300. Would you buy a modular DSLR with the imaging capability of a D750 and the computing capability of an iphone 6 for $3000?
How do you sign up for Kickstarter?
That's a pretty crude example, I admit, but I can't believe something close to that is not possible. RED is a good example of the usefulness of module design. I imagine you would give up something in slimness and weight and perhaps compromise some weather resistance but it would be awesome to have those kind of choices with a DSLR. Apps for your camera? Mix and match lenses, cameras, and brains? Upgrade the backend while keeping the sensor? Configure your camera to be completely controlled by the full camera size touchscreen on the back? Auto tether your camera to your iPad Pro in the field? Sounds good to me.
You can't compare the introduction of film to a cheap software gimmick like panorama.
----------
Nikon and Sony FF DSLRs already exceed film in DR, ISO and resoltution. Phone cameras don't - not even close. Hell, Canon has a hard time building a DSLR with proper DR.
----------
Very good points. Digital is awesome, especially for beginners. Phonecameras on the other hand are pretty lame.
----------
I am not a morlock either.
----------
Film already comes with HDR
so do the raw files from my D610. HDR on the iPhone is the sadest feature ever! It's so pointless and depressing, I feel like buying my iPhone a pretty new case after every time I use it, just to make up for this bizarre experience.
What app gives you a histogramm and what for?
What app gives you focus peaking? And what focus would you peak at? The sensor is so tiny, pretty much everything is in focus.
One factor that is not being canvassed here is the all-important end use.
What are you going to use the photograph for?
My working life as a freelance photographer was with film cameras. The end use dictated which camera format would be used; 35mmm, 6x7cm (roughly four times the film area), and a 5x4 inch view camera.
Clients tolerated contact sheets from the medium format 6x7 and disliked 35mm. The 5x4 allowed for lens and film plane movements to correct perspective etc, etc. Photographs were most commonly used for reproduction in publications and 10x8 inch prints were the standard size submitted.
In the early years 35mm film was not considered to be good enough for reproduction. The immediacy of 35mm sports photography compromised between quality and result. 35mm film did improve but medium format became the favourite for commercial work.
Photographs for reproduction need at least a DSLR matching the resolution of 35mm film. Current DSLRs have reached that point, but they are still not the equivalent of a 6x7mm. If your requirement is for 'postcard' sized prints your iPhone or P&S is probably good enough, but they do not cut it for reproduction quality prints or electronic files for printing.
I am guessing, but I think most photographs taken on an iPhone are only ever seen on an iPhone screen. At best on a computer monitor.
DSLR or iPhone? Depends what you want to do with the photographs.
The future? I am a photographer, not a clairvoyant
What are you going to use the photograph for?
My working life as a freelance photographer was with film cameras. The end use dictated which camera format would be used; 35mmm, 6x7cm (roughly four times the film area), and a 5x4 inch view camera.
Clients tolerated contact sheets from the medium format 6x7 and disliked 35mm. The 5x4 allowed for lens and film plane movements to correct perspective etc, etc. Photographs were most commonly used for reproduction in publications and 10x8 inch prints were the standard size submitted.
In the early years 35mm film was not considered to be good enough for reproduction. The immediacy of 35mm sports photography compromised between quality and result. 35mm film did improve but medium format became the favourite for commercial work.
Photographs for reproduction need at least a DSLR matching the resolution of 35mm film. Current DSLRs have reached that point, but they are still not the equivalent of a 6x7mm. If your requirement is for 'postcard' sized prints your iPhone or P&S is probably good enough, but they do not cut it for reproduction quality prints or electronic files for printing.
I am guessing, but I think most photographs taken on an iPhone are only ever seen on an iPhone screen. At best on a computer monitor.
DSLR or iPhone? Depends what you want to do with the photographs.
The future? I am a photographer, not a clairvoyant
Last edited:
You can't market cameras that way, or nobody would feel the need to get on the constant upgrade train. As part of the consumer electronics industry, camera makers need to make people feel that they always need to have the latest thing and toss the last latest thing. Even if the last thing was pretty good and the new thing isn't really going to make that much difference to you. The technology has become fairly mature in that gear to suit most purposes--casual, art, commercial, whatever--is readily available. Sure, they might be able to squeeze a little more juice out of the turnip, but at some point people will just start to say, hey, I don't really need more than this.
Last edited:
It used an emulsion layer mounted on glass/iron/other instead of celluloid. The "photographic" part was indeed a film. The "see-through plastic part that holds it up" was different.
It was still a form of "film" in the photographic sense. IF the only thing you can argue is the semantics of it, then you have already admitted defeat.
It was fast in the photographic sense (short exposure times), but not as fast as an iPhone. It was capable of fine detail, but not like an iPhone. Color representation was non-existent, so iPhone wins. I can't even give you the large format as a win because you really couldn't take advantage the way you can with later cameras. So the only thing you have is nostalgia. Technically, the iPhone wins ant every step.
I used to work in a photo lab. It used to be worse. Or is your argument that people should not practice to get better? They should just wing it and pray? Even with an iPhone, people who practice (not just spray and pray) get better. Full stop. Anything you say in disagreement with this is known to be wrong by everyone (except some teenagers and possibly you).
If you practice (again PRACTICE) something 3000 times, you will be better than if you practiced 100 (or 24 or 36).
No, you're a demon with a giant photon stun gun wandering around scaring the bejesus out of people, which is why they have that deathly pale deer in the headlights look when you take pictures after sundown. I can tell you're a demon because your children have those glowing red eyes when they open there presents on Christmas morning before the sun comes up.
There are plenty of reasons to use higher ISO if it is available to you. IT is a tool in the tool box. What are you going to do, throw it out and say "real artists shoot ISO 100 or less so I will just ignore my son's night baseball game?"
Again, another tool in the toolbox. Use as needed.
until you do. Embedded EXIF data is way better than logbooks.
To answer someone else's question - The following Apps offer histograms
Aperture, Lightroom, Capture 1 Pro, Darktable, Photos (beta), Photoshop, and pretty much any other App that offers histograms on a DSLR. Just import. There are also a variety of apps on the App store that offer them in real time.
But those weren't the real deal, and you are avoiding the larger issue of running OUT of film and not being able to get it as quickly as you needed. You're in Yosemite Park and there isn't a film store for 100 miles. You see that perfect shot that you would love to immortalize on film, but you're out. Or it's your Daughter's wedding and you're re-winding/re-loading at the wrong moment.
relatively neck technology that evolves over time. Film got better. Digital is now doing the same, thus my comparison.
----------
Nikon and Sony FF DSLRs already exceed film in DR, ISO and resoltution. Phone cameras don't - not even close. Hell, Canon has a hard time building a DSLR with proper DR.
Some but not all film, true. That said, until it gets as good as the human eye, there will be room to improve. Even old movies had to tint the windows they panned across to keep them from being blown out.
----------
They are the same. One is more specialized and refined than the other. Digital IS the foreseeable future of photography. They will make small sensors better for the reasons I have listed before. They will overcome the limitations. Eventually, the phone will be "good enough."
----------
I am not a morlock either.
So you're a demon too
See above----------
Film already comes with HDR
HDR on the iPhone is the sadest feature ever! It's so pointless and depressing, I feel like buying my iPhone a pretty new case after every time I use it, just to make up for this bizarre experience.
What app gives you a histogramm and what for?
What app gives you focus peaking? And what focus would you peak at? The sensor is so tiny, pretty much everything is in focus.
I hate to break it to you, but there are no "Light fairies" in your D610. The "D" in "D610" stands for 'Digital." My argument is and has been that Digital is replacing film. As with all things digital, they get smaller over time because this is a DIRECT, squared impact on cost. Reducing the area of the sensor saves money.
This is why APSC cameras exist. It is why M43 exists. It is why those P&S cameras use 1/4" sensors. So all of those companies are looking for a way to make the sensor smaller. The reasons you say they can't are not impossibilities to them. They are problems to be overcome, and they WILL get overcome.
One day, they will find the processing power to make APSC as good as FF Digital.
18 months after that, M43 will be as good as APSC which is as good as FF.
18 months after that, 2/3" sensors will be as good as M43 which are as good as APSC which are as good as FF.
18 months after that, iPhone cameras will rival FF with capabilities.
As I stated in my first post in this thread, the limit after that is the form factor.
18 months is roughly how long it takes to double the processing power in digital (see Moore's Law). This is the basis of my every 18 months claim.
There are some physical stumbling blocks holding up your current crop of sensors, but the day is coming. When they fire them out, the floodgates will open. You can ignore it if you like, but progress will not care.
The camera in my iphone 5 is a piece of crap.
Sure, there are times for higher iso; but why 102000? Do the kids play at night without the lights on in the park? The last time I was at a night game I was using Portra 800 and it was fine.
And the quality of these software simulations can surely be debated. I'm sure they'll get better, but in the end they're still only simulating an effect. Whether or not that will ever be as good as the real thing is questionable.
Two problems with that. One, drastically changing lens properties/mounts results in many pissed off customers with collections of lenses. After all, lenses retain their value quite well over decades, which is why it's easy to just change camera bodies as tech improves. The second, as V3lon pointed out is physics. There are reasons why lenses are such complex mechanisms.
Well to be fair, you can't dismiss data tabulated over 10 years with one additional data point.
Right now I use 3 different cameras for various uses. My iPhone, my Canon DSLR, and a Leica M3. Obviously the iPhone gets the most use as a camera simply because it's so easy to just pull out and snap a picture. And I'm sure this is the case for most consumers out there. That, and they really don't care about picture quality as long as it's "good enough."
The Apple campaign surrounding the iPhone/iPad cameras is just that, a marketing campaign. The results are impressive, but it's fairly meaningless considering the source. Mentioning that an episode of "Modern Family" was shot on phones/tablets is also misleading. No one is shooting a "regular" episode of anything with an iPhone or iPad. It was a gimmick episode with a particular conceit.
For the consumer market you are right. Digital is just too convenient. For artists however, digital will never replace film. Just like CGI will never replace a real movie set.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/31/quentin-tarantino-christopher-nolan-kodak-film
----------
Interesting theory.
I have a Canon Powershot in my camera bag. It was an entry-evel P&S that Canon brought out in 2005. When I have the choice between this P&S and my iPhone camera, I will take this P&S, because it takes better photos. Phone cameras are finally about to surpass P&S cameras ... that were built a decade ago.
We talk again when your iPhone matches my D610. If we are still alive ... and still use cellphones ...
----------
Two years ago I bought my first smartphone. A Lumia 900. Nice phone. I thought the camera would be awesome. Shiny Zeiss lens with a silver frame. Boy, was I wrong!
Now I have an iPhone 5c. I love it. The camera is very useful in day to day life. I use it to digitalize documents at work. but for taking real photos it sucks ass!