Engadget is predicting the end of photography in the traditional meaning:

Switched On: Photography is dead, long live photos -- Engadget

It seems they were inspired by the Canon concept camera that got publicity recently:

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfsGb9SDcCU&annotation_id=annotation_251005&feature=iv[/YT]

Well, the death of photography has been predicted many times and will certainly be again. However, there certainly is a grain of truth in it. The paradigm most definitely has changed and the speed of change is accelerating. We've gone through different steps over the time in photography. First, only a few could afford and use a camera of any kind. Then the average consumers could buy low quality cameras, while the better ones were still out of reach money and quality-wise. Fast forward to today: "everybody" can buy a camera, which can produce technically very good pictures. And yet, more and more photographs are taken with mobile phones and web cams. The technical quality isn't a priority, but rather other virtues such as mobility, real-time connection to other people, "being there". Nothing wrong in that IMO, while many photographers sneer on that kind of use. I believe many feel actually threatened. One gathers so much skill, knowledge and high quality gear - and yet media and people are happily using the "miserable" looking snapshots from cell phones. Nobody owns photography any more like it used to be in fewer hands. Also, the somewhat artificial dicotomy between still photography and video is diminishing. While there are and will be dedicated video cameras, practically every P&S camera and more and more DSLRs are shooting video now. This brings compromises to cameras and video quality, but then again, the availability and easiness override other aspects.

How I see the situation is, that in the near future, cell phone -like gadgets will replace most of the every day level still and video cameras, while there will be higher quality stand-alone stiil/video cameras for pros and enthusiasts. (Film? Yes, I guess a miniscule niche market will live on, perhaps even some cameras in production.)

[Ratmagiclady]

*putting on Men in Black suit.*

Photography is *not* dead. It just went home.

[alohadave]

The narrator sounds like a PR man. Maybe he works for Canon. Not a single negative to say about the concept, and nothing but glowing praise for every aspect of the presentation.

[falconeye]

The concept is based on predictions about 2030 (20 years ahead) in terms of progress in:

• Sensor technology
• Optical zoom lens technology
• Ergonomy and control

Moore's law would indeed suggest 10,000 MP sensors by 2030. But this ignores the physics involved. A pixel smaller than about 1µm isn't capturing enough (read thousands of) photons even at daylight for a good quality. And 10,000 million 1µm pixels mean a 100x100 mm^2 large frame sensor size I predict medium format compact cameras with 1,000 MP by the year 2030.

A superzoom from (in 35mm language) say 25 to 5000mm (200x) will be feasible for low resolution like HDTV. But not high resolution still cameras. Because (read above) they require a large image circle and such lenses would be HUGE! Certainly not like the Canon concept. Yet another reason why high end still and video cameras will stay different kind of beasts. Moreover, the lenses by 2030 will differ from lenses in 2010 as they now differ from lenses of 1990. Which still sell high on ebay...

The ergonomy doesn't make sense. By 2030, I rather predict digital end caps optimized for each lens featuring a (removable) EVF where everything is controlled on a virtual large screen. This will look like a spotting scope now, with optional grip. If the EVF isn't attached wirelessly to the lens which some photographers by 2030 will prefer, other's won't. The tilt-and-swivel discussion by 2030


So, all in all, the Expo 2010 concept shown by Canon is a pure marketing gig almost insulting better informed people's intelligence. ALmost looks like the marketing dep was left alone with the task with no help from engineering


The active content wall screens however are a very accurate prediction (AFAIK) and will boost the demand for crazingly high resolution pictures. Start taking GP panorama images now as by 2030, there will be a shortage of vintage GP photography

Also, the Canon Expo presentation was very well executed

---

Last edited by falconeye; 07-12-2010 at 06:05 AM.

[szurinaga]

I was thinking something like this today while walking home.

when you shoot film, you realize that the film has a mind of its own. Sometime you get strange color-cast, double exposures, extreme shadows, heavy contrast, overly saturated colors, grain and so on. All these things is what makes film photography so subjective. It's impossible many times to go back to re-capture photos because for whatever reason, its just not the same.

In digital photography, especially when shooting RAW, you realize that your not taking a photo, you are just recording data. Every detail is exact, color temperatures can be changed with a button, you almost never have to worry about exposure because in RAW editor you can work around all of that. Now shooting photos is so objective, there's no uniqueness about it. It's only after photos are heavily edited that you start to make the photos your own and becomes more subjective in its look.

I dunno, maybe I'm just rambling. People who have never shot film won't understand me, but for those who have, think about it.

[Ratmagiclady]

The concept is based on predictions about 2030 (20 years ahead) in terms of progress in:

• Sensor technology
• Optical zoom lens technology
• Ergonomy and control

Moore's law would indeed suggest 10,000 MP sensors by 2030. But this ignores the physics involved. A pixel smaller than about 1µm isn't capturing enough (read thousands of) photons even at daylight for a good quality. And 10,000 million 1µm pixels mean a 100x100 mm^2 large frame sensor size I predict medium format compact cameras with 1,000 MP by the year 2030.

A superzoom from (in 35mm language) say 25 to 5000mm (200x) will be feasible for low resolution like HDTV. But not high resolution still cameras. Because (read above) they require a large image circle and such lenses would be HUGE! Certainly not like the Canon concept. Yet another reason why high end still and video cameras will stay different kind of beasts. Moreover, the lenses by 2030 will differ from lenses in 2010 as they now differ from lenses of 1990. Which still sell high on ebay...

The ergonomy doesn't make sense. By 2030, I rather predict digital end caps optimized for each lens featuring a (removable) EVF where everything is controlled on a virtual large screen. This will look like a spotting scope now, with optional grip. If the EVF isn't attached wirelessly to the lens which some photographers by 2030 will prefer, other's won't. The tilt-and-swivel discussion by 2030


So, all in all, the Expo 2010 concept shown by Canon is a pure marketing gig almost insulting better informed people's intelligence. ALmost looks like the marketing dep was left alone with the task with no help from engineering


The active content wall screens however are a very accurate prediction (AFAIK) and will boost the demand for crazingly high resolution pictures. Start taking GP panorama images now as by 2030, there will be a shortage of vintage GP photography

Also, the Canon Expo presentation was very well executed

I've always liked your speculations on tech, Falconeye.

I personally would expect another proliferation of shapes, as the tech allows them, and then a winnowing-down to the ones that interface the best.

I think the 'little rectangle' is mostly about the shape of a pocket, but the shape of a serious camera will be about the shape of the lens, and the shape of the human body, eventually.

[rparmar]

Wow, how naive some folk can be! I followed the technobabble with jaw agape at the stupidity of the presenter.

Photography is interesting precisely because someone makes a choice (or series of choices) about what content to include in what form within what frame. By freezing one moment in time it allows us to ponder this exact combination of parameters at our leisure.

This experience has (almost) nothing to do with the technologies that get us to that point.

Photography is now and will always be alive and well for any who care to use it for what it is. The issues are the same with digital, heliographs, daguerreotypes, phototelegraphy, emulsions or anything else. That's why it's an art form.

[Ratmagiclady]

Photography is now and will always be alive and well for any who care to use it for what it is. The issues are the same with digital, heliographs, daguerreotypes, phototelegraphy, emulsions or anything else. That's why it's an art form.

Just a different medium, is all, one film or sensor or tech to another.

If they sell the ultimate consumer camera, the real trick will be *not looking like that.*

[alohadave]

I was thinking something like this today while walking home.

when you shoot film, you realize that the film has a mind of its own. Sometime you get strange color-cast, double exposures, extreme shadows, heavy contrast, overly saturated colors, grain and so on. All these things is what makes film photography so subjective. It's impossible many times to go back to re-capture photos because for whatever reason, its just not the same.

In digital photography, especially when shooting RAW, you realize that your not taking a photo, you are just recording data. Every detail is exact, color temperatures can be changed with a button, you almost never have to worry about exposure because in RAW editor you can work around all of that. Now shooting photos is so objective, there's no uniqueness about it. It's only after photos are heavily edited that you start to make the photos your own and becomes more subjective in its look.

I dunno, maybe I'm just rambling. People who have never shot film won't understand me, but for those who have, think about it.

I think you are smoking something, or aren't very experienced. If you don't handle or shoot film properly, you can get all those problems. Digital is no different than film photography is, simply a different way to record it. Exposure does matter with digital, just like any other form of photography.

Film is not magical, and digital isn't soulless.

[szurinaga]

I think you are smoking something, or aren't very experienced. If you don't handle or shoot film properly, you can get all those problems. Digital is no different than film photography is, simply a different way to record it. Exposure does matter with digital, just like any other form of photography.

Film is not magical, and digital isn't soulless.

Smoking something? Please don't try to feed your ego by trying to insult me or my experience.

If you would get off your high horse, then you would admit that at one point you were inexperienced, and all the things I described at one point happened to you. I was just trying to discuss that the happy mistakes and weird mishaps that happened to all of us when we first shot film is what made us become more immersed in our mediums, what made us want to understand what was happening and what caused us all to fall in love with this art form. These things don't happen with digital cameras, not with auto-white balance, auto exposure, auto-focus, auto blah blah blah.

You can't negate that RAW is a million times more forgiving in exposure then a film negative(although color print is more forgiving then slide). But I know exposure does matter, I still use my Minolta IV flashmeter everytime I go out to shoot

[rparmar]

I was just trying to discuss that the happy mistakes and weird mishaps that happened to all of us when we first shot film is what made us become more immersed in our mediums, what made us want to understand what was happening and what caused us all to fall in love with this art form.

There is poetry too in the happy mistakes of digital. Maybe you haven't found it yet, in which case you have a lot to look forward to.

You can't negate that RAW is a million times more forgiving in exposure then a film negative

Er, actually the opposite is true! It's a lot easier to preserve highlights on film and blacks also have way more detail, unless one is very careful. Digital exposure requires a much tighter rein.

Film is not magical, and digital isn't soulless.

Or maybe they are both magical.

[alohadave]

Smoking something? Please don't try to feed your ego by trying to insult me or my experience.

If you would get off your high horse, then you would admit that at one point you were inexperienced, and all the things I described at one point happened to you. I was just trying to discuss that the happy mistakes and weird mishaps that happened to all of us when we first shot film is what made us become more immersed in our mediums, what made us want to understand what was happening and what caused us all to fall in love with this art form. These things don't happen with digital cameras, not with auto-white balance, auto exposure, auto-focus, auto blah blah blah.

You can't negate that RAW is a million times more forgiving in exposure then a film negative(although color print is more forgiving then slide). But I know exposure does matter, I still use my Minolta IV flashmeter everytime I go out to shoot

No high horse here.

I certainly was inexperienced, and still am in certain things.

Your post reeks of film nostalgia, and disdain of digital. You surely know that auto exposure and auto focus predate digital by about 20 years.

Digital sensors are very similar to slide film in that there is no latitude in the highlights-once you blow your highlights, they are gone, just like slide.

I find wonderful and amazing images on Flickr on a regular basis, from people who have never held a film camera.

[szurinaga]

I don't disdain digital. I LOVE that I can take photos and upload it to my computer in seconds. When I developed b&w in my room, it was a horribly messy ordeal that took a lot of time and money and my results weren't very consistent. But film is film, its everything digital tries to emulate. And who doesn't love the smell of film right out of the canister?

Yes Auto-focus is old and auto-exposure even older. I just mean that many people who like photography, or taking photos, don't see the pleasure in complete manual control over their camera. Alot of these people don't even know what aperture is! I still don't get why almost all lens made today don't have an aperture ring.

But a great photographer is a great photographer, film or digital, brand new camera or 100 year old camera

[falconeye]

I think the 'little rectangle' is mostly about the shape of a pocket

The way you say it, sounds convincing

Only caveat (I see) is that I see camera phones (whatever they are called by then) taking this spot. Camera phones of 2030 will be flat, pocketable (of course) and use a lens array to provide very good image quality with noise and DoF qualities challenging today's dSLRs. I fear there won't be a separate class of pocketable cameras left. Just like today, you can't buy portable radio anymore.

but the shape of a serious camera will be about the shape of the lens

I agree. I called it digital end cap.

and the shape of the human body, eventually.

But wait a second. What do you mean? Photographing robots? With the shape of the human body for better street photography?

[Boris]

Printed reproduction did not kill the art of painting. Color printing did not kill black and white printing. Photography did not kill painting. Color photography did not kill black and white photography. Stereophotography did not kill regular photography. Motion picture did not kill still picture. Three-dimensional motion picture did not kill 'plain' motion picture.

Even today we have exhibitions of modern painters and marvel and fabulous prints.

The list goes on.

It does not mean however that technology is not advancing or that in the future more interesting and powerful devices will not be be built. But it does mean that "kill" is evidently too strong a word in this context.