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
Well, I guess Nikon heard everyone asking...
http://nikonlife.eu/events/photokina-2014/future-imaging/
http://nikonlife.eu/events/photokina-2014/future-imaging/
Or poorly read between the lines
I'm not arguing anything, merely pointing out that movies being art is highly debatable. They are by no means art. It highly depends on ones definition of art and ones view on movies in general. Like I said, highly debatable and also completely offtopic in this thread.
If you look up the definition of art it doesn't say "attention whoring" nor "entertainment" but it says something about creating something (painting, movie, photos, etc.) that is telling the world something or provoking others so people start to think about things. There is more to art then creating something that is nice to look at or entertaining. And that's where the debate regarding movies start. Are they mainly entertainment or are they actually getting us to think about things? If you want that discussion it's better to do that in a separate dedicated thread.
Btw, there are multiple interpretations of reality thus one could also start a similar debate about movies being reality or not
Then they need to grow up. Not everybody will agree with you, share your point of view, think what you do is important and so on but does it matter if they did? Why should someone else go "ooooh" and "aaaaah" over your job? If you want to be appreciated do something for someone else for which they are actually thankful.
You really haven't thought that one out at all. The problem here is man not being able to fly because we are physically unable to. The big bird is a workaround, just not a feasible one. Other workaround like airplanes are feasible. In all cases they do not change the fact that man does not have the ability to fly.
The same goes for photography. There will be workarounds (the lithro is one of them) but they won't fix the problem. You will continuously run into the limitations. Go ask the nano tech peeps at a few universities. The city here wants to pave a road near the local university. Those guys are absolutely mad about it because the minute vibrations will mess so much at nanoscale that they are no longer able to do such research. What to think of radiation from outer space (also a problem when doing experiments, it will cause noise). Light is going to behave differently when things get smaller. There's also a limitation in how small you can make things since photons have a fixed size. Again, the laws of physics (the lot, not just a few regarding light; it's about particles in general).
The other thing is that they don't need to solve the problem. There are also very practical reasons like budget, demand from users, privacy, psychology (if things are too real people will find them rather creepy), regulations and so on.
No, I'm looking at it realistically, you are just daydreaming which is fine if you want to be in the list of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark and the likes. Technology can do quite a lot but it can't do everything. Getting close to it is all we'll be able to do.
Or poorly read between the lines
I'm not arguing anything, merely pointing out that movies being art is highly debatable. They are by no means art. It highly depends on ones definition of art and ones view on movies in general. Like I said, highly debatable and also completely offtopic in this thread.
If you look up the definition of art it doesn't say "attention whoring" nor "entertainment" but it says something about creating something (painting, movie, photos, etc.) that is telling the world something or provoking others so people start to think about things. There is more to art then creating something that is nice to look at or entertaining. And that's where the debate regarding movies start. Are they mainly entertainment or are they actually getting us to think about things? If you want that discussion it's better to do that in a separate dedicated thread.
Definition of Art:
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
Emphasis mine: note PRIMARILY is not EXCLUSIVELY
So, I went and got the definition of art for you. In the world we live in, using English, movies qualify as art in accordance with the definition in the language we are using. If YOU choose to define art as "Only oil paintings that are at least 100 years old and >50% green paint," your little private reality does not impact the rest of the world.
As an aside, the internet won't break if you admit you're wrong about this. Give it a shot.
Btw, there are multiple interpretations of reality thus one could also start a similar debate about movies being reality or not
Please head to the nearest psychiatrist and explain how you believe the Star Wars prequels are a true story.
grow up into what? EVERYONE wants their work to be appreciated. Even you. The psychiatrist who locks you in a padded cell after you explain how you believe Jar Jar Binks is real can explain it, but all humans want this.
I have thought it through just fine. Man has wanted to be able to fly for a very long time. Daedalus and Icarus ring any bells? DaVinci's ornithopter thing? People explained how it was impossible. Oh look, it wasn't.
Light can't be a wave unless it resonates in the aether. Mickelson-Morley couldn't find any such thing. I guess light violates the laws of physics. Too bad for all those photographers.
Are electrons particles or waves? They cannot be both, as that would violate the laws of physics. So you can't post to the internet.
I do not have to. I WORK in the nano nonsense field. We are very concerned about such vibrations. We find ways around the problem, just like they will. When everyone was talking about "the wall" in semiconductor manufacturing that we were going to hit in 2010, I asked one of our smart people. He drew 5 ways around it in 5 minutes, with the only limitation being process integration. Notice how the CPU business didn't collapse in 2010.
Just like any other noise. Work to increase the signal and decrease the noise. Compare AM radio in 1950 to FM, heterodyning, super heterodyning, digital signals (with encryption) and whatever else is out there. Satellite radio is certainly a lot better than AM, but no way you could broadcast AM from space. It would never be reliable enough for mono, much less stereo signals without enough power to make it impossible to launch a satellite in the first place.
Of course they do not NEED to. Most of human history existed without digital cameras. They could quietly give up, go broke, and let their children starve. We could, collectively, as a species, decide to never work on advancing digital sensors for cameras ever again. But, what if some lab came up with a new smaller sensor in secret. What if they put it out before us? They would make billions!! Those are MY Billions. Get a team on that sensor right away.
Seriously. Cameras are good business. We are taking more pictures now than ever. We are filming more movies than ever. Like any business, sensor makers want to cut costs. As we move away from silicon, costs are going to become a bigger problem for sensor size. So, they actually DO need to solve the problem. Or, they can wait until someone else does and runs them out of business.
You aren't even looking at the limits of what could be done TODAY if you were willing to throw money at it. Consider that a moment.
Many of the things I have said are problems that we could solve bin a year if we absolutely had to. It will only take longer because of costs and time to "prove it works."
So no, I am not daydreaming. I am looking forward. Consider where we were a hundred years ago compared to where we are now. It is only arrogance to think we won't progress just as far in the next hundred years - or stupidity. Neither will do you much good.
Perhaps if anything can be concluded here it is that everyone has different requirements for and expectations of a camera. Although they will change a lot in the future there will there will always be someone somewhere using a hundred year old view camera or perhaps a vintage iphone because it suits their own particular vision.
I think Flickr's camera statistics are a representation of the cameras being used to upload photos to Flickr. Meaning the iPhone might not be the most popular camera in the world, it's just what the majority of photos being uploaded to Flickr right now are shot with iPhone.
The act of sharing is what's paramount, ergo, the phone camera. For all others who care about quality, shooting with a full featured camera is primary, sharing is secondary.
Having passed the point of "needing" to share I have to agree here.
I stopped publishing and earning years ago BUT my need to please myself is still strong.
I occasionally ask an opinion on line but rarely of a 'best of' image so yes my output for me is primary so my tools of choice reflects that.
Regards
Sharkey
I would not be investing serious money in a DSLR system until the market at least stabilizes, if not improves. Vendors like Nikon can not develop and deliver high end 35mm DSLRs forever with this market trend.
http://www.43rumors.com/there-is-no...ent-data-shows-market-is-still-getting-worse/
http://www.43rumors.com/there-is-no...ent-data-shows-market-is-still-getting-worse/
So what to get? I'll take my chances with high-end canon equipment. At least if canon goes down in flames I'll be able to use equipment not as limiting as an iPhone.
You have hit on what is often overlooked in the discussion of cellphone vs P&S vs dSLR vs etc. The focus is on the technology but the technology is only tool; it is the eye behind the lens that makes a great photograph.
I see people shoot in machine gun mode and then look through their shots to pick the best one. Sure, one may be better but unless you thought about lighting, composition, the background, framing, etc. all you may get is the best of a bad bunch of pictures. They have come to rely on the tool and its capabilities rather than learn how to use the tool to its maximum.
Last edited:
I was discussing cameras at work today. A guy with a D3s was telling me it's the continues shutter release and buffer size he has. I don't think I've ever used more than 3 at an air show. Tbh I hated sorting through the pictures afterwards. I like to take my pictures one at a time.
Spray and prey is unfortunately a popular digital camera technic.
Unless you have concerns about after-sale support I can't see the logic here, at point of purchase a DSLR is a complete system (assuming you have lenses), it doesn't stop working even if the mother-ship goes down...
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/14/apple-acquires-linx-imaging/
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/14/linx-camera-technology-apple/
Sorry Apple, I already ninja'd you on that one
NO. I am not claiming that this thing will rival a FF camera with good glass this year or next, but a proof of concept for technology. As I posted in other places throughout the thread, that FF size sensor is brutal for manufacturing costs and sensor makers want a way around that pretty badly.
It is interesting that patents have changed recently.
The advent of the patent troll has now meant that companies are not patenting things purely to protect revenue or to prevent copying, they are also doing it to protect themselves against tolling later.
Patent trolling has become a market sector all of a sudden becoming a new bottom feeder industry.
Think Apple might be interested in the future of mobile phone cameras and mobile photography? $58 billion in revenue (said in the voice of Dr. Evil) and 69% of it was iPhone sales. It's easy (to me) to understand where they are headed with Photos and my guess is, as always, Apple won't be on the cutting "spec" edge of mobile phone cameras but they will continue to find ways to make it the best mobile photography experience one can have. Maybe it will challenge more and more camera form factors, maybe it won't. I bet they are busy thinking about it though. 78% of their revenue came from mobile devices with cameras in them!
Sheesh...I hope they keep making decent MacBook Pros so I can at least edit my old fashioned DSLR images in C1 Pro!
Sheesh...I hope they keep making decent MacBook Pros so I can at least edit my old fashioned DSLR images in C1 Pro!
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm sure Apple is thinking long and hard about this, because it helps to sell phones.
Phone cameras have come a long way and are formidable opponents to their more expensive brethren, under the right conditions. Under the wrong conditions your keeper shot is gone; which is what I have experienced more than once.
Yeah, and remember that photos aren't just photos for photos' sake. Lots of apps use the camera for all sorts of things where an image is desired: journals, reminders/notes, aids to navigation, document scanning, inventories, etc; there's even a ACLU app to record police misconduct. It's a tool like a word processor: you may not be a "writer" but you still use one. That's an enormous market and the use of and making of images just grows and grows.
For commercial and artistic pictures high end cameras will be used for the res of our lives. However, for consumers and pro-sumers it may be that the DLSR market will fade away.
I have a nice Canon DSLR with three really good lenses. The total kit weighs about 12 pounds. The pictures I get are vastly better yet I rarely take it with me as it is so inconvenient.
I think that if iPhones had a simple way to attach an external lens that would really kill the P&S market. With my iPhone 5 I used some cheap lenses from usbfever.com. I had a 2x, 4x and a macro lens. The macro didn't see much use. With the lens on the subject was so close that the phone blocked too much light. It only worked at home where I could provide lots of light.
The 2x and 4x were quite good considering they only cost about $10 each. The compromise was that I had to use a dedicated case for the phone. The lenses would screw onto the case. I carried them in a small pouch in my computer bag.
Clearly this didn't produce commercial quality work, but they served the purpose of story telling. I could take pictures of something and share those pictures with friends so they could see what I saw.
At the high end I'm interested in upgrading my Canon. I don't want super high megapixels. 12MP is enough. I'd rather have better low light sensitivity and really tight integration with my iPad and iPhone. I want to put the camera on the tripod and be able to operate it completely from my iOS device.
I have a nice Canon DSLR with three really good lenses. The total kit weighs about 12 pounds. The pictures I get are vastly better yet I rarely take it with me as it is so inconvenient.
I think that if iPhones had a simple way to attach an external lens that would really kill the P&S market. With my iPhone 5 I used some cheap lenses from usbfever.com. I had a 2x, 4x and a macro lens. The macro didn't see much use. With the lens on the subject was so close that the phone blocked too much light. It only worked at home where I could provide lots of light.
The 2x and 4x were quite good considering they only cost about $10 each. The compromise was that I had to use a dedicated case for the phone. The lenses would screw onto the case. I carried them in a small pouch in my computer bag.
Clearly this didn't produce commercial quality work, but they served the purpose of story telling. I could take pictures of something and share those pictures with friends so they could see what I saw.
At the high end I'm interested in upgrading my Canon. I don't want super high megapixels. 12MP is enough. I'd rather have better low light sensitivity and really tight integration with my iPad and iPhone. I want to put the camera on the tripod and be able to operate it completely from my iOS device.
What about the ability to use the camera in inclement weather without any special provisions? Pentax, Canon, Nikon all offer virtually weather-proof options. And sure with a special case an iphone can be made weather-proof also.
This is an old thread, but I have some thoughts to contribute.
I'm to the point where I'm about ready to say that my iPhone is the only camera I need / want. There are a few reasons for this:
Up until last November I had a Canon XSi and a bag of gear (3 lenses, a flash, diffusers, batteries, charger, etc) mostly sitting in a closet unused.
The photography bug bit me again last November and I decided I needed to upgrade because first off I recognized that what I had was too big and too complex, causing me to leave it at home, but it was also showing its age.
After exhaustive research I chose a NEX-5T because it was still small(er) but yet still had an APS-C sensor. Unfortunately about a half year later I'm just about back to where I was with the XSi. I'm just about to the point where I don't want to touch it anymore:
I enjoy photography but I don't make money off of it. I have a hard time justifying spending lots of money on lots of lenses and other things that inevitably come with a camera system (I have purchased 2 but I still have that feeling that it's not enough). I'm sick of having to continually feed the camera beast. With the iPhone the only thing I can even do along those lines is a new app or maybe a new vsco film pack (for like $2 not $100 when buying for LR).
Maybe I'm all wet here, but I think the iPhone is getting "close enough" for me. I'm just getting tired of trying to find the perfect camera system because I'm coming to the conclusion it doesn't exist. Im tired of having a big bag of equipment so I tired both the rx100 and the g7x. With both I thought they'd be the ticket - decent 1" sensor, large aperture. But they both suck. The ergonomics on both are horrible and despite the one inch sensor, it's grain city when you're inside in low light. In addition g7x the edges of the images are blurry and somewhat distorted because of the tricks they have to pull to get a long zoom / big aperture into a tiny little case (in my opinion it didnt produce images that were better than my iPhone). Why do these things even exist? $650-900 for the equivalent of iPhone 6 images?
Camera manufacturers are really not thinking of the future of imaging. I just feel like they have no excuse not to be pushing things along further. Imagine what Apple could do with the image processing software they use in the iPhone with an APS-C sensor and even a decent kit lens?
An Apple camera (with a big lens / sensor) would be my dream, but just like with the Apple TV, I'm pretty sure we already have the Apple camera (in fact I'm typing on it right now).
So to help things a little bit (so I could get away from needing LR) I ended up selling that crappy kit lens I had and was looking around for a wide angle or possibly zoom replacement of some type and I just got to the point where I'm spending either $950 for an 18-210, $200 for a Sigma 19mm which isn't very small, $350 for the Sony 20 which may still have a distortion problem, or maybe getting a used version of the old 18-55 kit lens (which I think doesn't have distorition problems). None of these are good options. All of them will put one more piece of equipment in my bag and give me one more thing to choose from when composing a shot (which in my experience isn't a positive thing) and all of them have some compromise.
And all the high end compacts stink. So where does that leave me? I'm to the point where this is becoming more of a headache that its worth, so I guess with the iPhone?!?
So I'll /rant, but I'm just really frustrated with the state of photography right now. Curious if anyone else had any other thoughts along these lines.
I'm to the point where I'm about ready to say that my iPhone is the only camera I need / want. There are a few reasons for this:
- It's always with me. This is obviously huge.
- The processing they do "in camera" is quite simply amazing. The pictures its able to produce with the optics / sensor it has is amazing. The tap to focus / set lighting / wb is THE best camera control on the market. Period (at least of the models I've used anways, which is mostly Canon and Sony).
- Tight integraiton with Photos and not a whole lot of need to do post processing unless I want to add an effect (this can be looked at negatively too though - I either get the shot or I don't, there's not saving a shot - but I get it most times)
- Fantastic 1080p 60 FPS video
- In camera panorama / HDR
- In camera effects / apps (why doesn't VSCO have a mac app yet). Obviously this is huge.
Up until last November I had a Canon XSi and a bag of gear (3 lenses, a flash, diffusers, batteries, charger, etc) mostly sitting in a closet unused.
The photography bug bit me again last November and I decided I needed to upgrade because first off I recognized that what I had was too big and too complex, causing me to leave it at home, but it was also showing its age.
After exhaustive research I chose a NEX-5T because it was still small(er) but yet still had an APS-C sensor. Unfortunately about a half year later I'm just about back to where I was with the XSi. I'm just about to the point where I don't want to touch it anymore:
- To start with the kit lens that it came with is a 16-50 power zoom, which Sony decided not include any lens correction profile on (many probably saw me post on this at the beginning of the year). It took me a while to figure out why my JPGs and RAWs looked differently, but that was the start of a rabbit hole, of which I could recover all the time I invested in looking for a solution. Eventually I concluded I needed to move to Lightroom because Aperture, which I was using at the time didn't, do lens correction. This was a whole "thing" for 2 months because I happened to be lucky enough for this to happen when Photos was a complete unknown, so moving forward was very uncertain (I've since moved to Photos because I simply can't stand LR).
- To solve this as I mentioned I switched to LR for a while, but also got the Sony 1.8 35mm lens which doesn't have serious distortion. It's honestly fantastic, but now i've got one more piece of equipment in my bag and it's fairly large compared to the camera.
- Since I broke through that wall, that lead to me getting a long zoom lens because we were going to be going to a Zoo for my son's birthday and he was going to be starting soccer.
- So now I have a bag FULL of gear and if I want to shoot at this focal length, I need this lens, and if it's dark I need to put the prime on, etc. blah.
I enjoy photography but I don't make money off of it. I have a hard time justifying spending lots of money on lots of lenses and other things that inevitably come with a camera system (I have purchased 2 but I still have that feeling that it's not enough). I'm sick of having to continually feed the camera beast. With the iPhone the only thing I can even do along those lines is a new app or maybe a new vsco film pack (for like $2 not $100 when buying for LR).
Maybe I'm all wet here, but I think the iPhone is getting "close enough" for me. I'm just getting tired of trying to find the perfect camera system because I'm coming to the conclusion it doesn't exist. Im tired of having a big bag of equipment so I tired both the rx100 and the g7x. With both I thought they'd be the ticket - decent 1" sensor, large aperture. But they both suck. The ergonomics on both are horrible and despite the one inch sensor, it's grain city when you're inside in low light. In addition g7x the edges of the images are blurry and somewhat distorted because of the tricks they have to pull to get a long zoom / big aperture into a tiny little case (in my opinion it didnt produce images that were better than my iPhone). Why do these things even exist? $650-900 for the equivalent of iPhone 6 images?
Camera manufacturers are really not thinking of the future of imaging. I just feel like they have no excuse not to be pushing things along further. Imagine what Apple could do with the image processing software they use in the iPhone with an APS-C sensor and even a decent kit lens?
An Apple camera (with a big lens / sensor) would be my dream, but just like with the Apple TV, I'm pretty sure we already have the Apple camera (in fact I'm typing on it right now).
So to help things a little bit (so I could get away from needing LR) I ended up selling that crappy kit lens I had and was looking around for a wide angle or possibly zoom replacement of some type and I just got to the point where I'm spending either $950 for an 18-210, $200 for a Sigma 19mm which isn't very small, $350 for the Sony 20 which may still have a distortion problem, or maybe getting a used version of the old 18-55 kit lens (which I think doesn't have distorition problems). None of these are good options. All of them will put one more piece of equipment in my bag and give me one more thing to choose from when composing a shot (which in my experience isn't a positive thing) and all of them have some compromise.
And all the high end compacts stink. So where does that leave me? I'm to the point where this is becoming more of a headache that its worth, so I guess with the iPhone?!?
So I'll /rant, but I'm just really frustrated with the state of photography right now. Curious if anyone else had any other thoughts along these lines.
Last edited:
Hi.
Have you considered one of the FE lenses from the A7 series for your NEX5? Maybe the 24-70 Zeiss Vario Tessar? Decent focal range and way better than the consumer grade lenses you have listed so far. Or even the 55/1.8 or 35/2.8 which are incredible.
Also you say "all high end compacts stink". Which are you referring to? RX1, Leica Q, RX100 MK III or IV? There are some seriously good cameras there which will beat your iphone for depth of field and DR and low light noise performance.
IPhone is fantastic dont get me wrong, but a tool is a tool it is optimised for certain things not all things. The line is blurring more and more as each next generation device comes along but it will be a while before a camera phone can beat a top end dedicated camera.
After all, an iphone will let you write documents and spreadsheets. Performance wise it is close to a laptop but you wouldnt write an essay on an iphone would you?
Horses for courses. People have differing requirements and it is good that we have choices. Undoubtedly the camera phone is an amazing device which has come a long way but I would argue to a serious photographer (I know quite a few) it will be a close second to a dedicated camera for a while yet.
I also ditched the DSLR and bags of bits trading it for full frame mirrorless so I would take it with me more. I also have an awesome high end compact for "always with me".
I am not a pro, just a hobbyist but I am lucky enough to be able to afford pro gear for my hobby and for me it lays my camera phone to waste. - for my way of shooting but everyone is different.
Just my two cents.
K
I'm curious how you plan to shoot your sons football with an iPhone?
Its true the iPhone is a great little camera in certain situations.
But the low light capabilities are still way behind a DSLR.
Carrying multiple lenses is a pain, but there are plenty of other options. Like the super zooms etc. personally I'm happier with better IQ and carrying a bit of weight. Plus I like the physical feel and layout of a DSLR.
Maybe the new offering from DXO will be more your bag?
http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one
I was out yesterday at an English Heratige site, and found it funny to see people using their iPad to take photos. So much more bulky than most cameras. And much more prone to camera shake etc.
Anyway as they say its horses for courses. If the iPhone is good enough for you, then enjoy. I'll stick with my DSLR's and lenses for now thanks.
Its true the iPhone is a great little camera in certain situations.
But the low light capabilities are still way behind a DSLR.
Carrying multiple lenses is a pain, but there are plenty of other options. Like the super zooms etc. personally I'm happier with better IQ and carrying a bit of weight. Plus I like the physical feel and layout of a DSLR.
Maybe the new offering from DXO will be more your bag?
http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one
I was out yesterday at an English Heratige site, and found it funny to see people using their iPad to take photos. So much more bulky than most cameras. And much more prone to camera shake etc.
Anyway as they say its horses for courses. If the iPhone is good enough for you, then enjoy. I'll stick with my DSLR's and lenses for now thanks.