Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2009, 09:34 AM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
Future Will Be 24x32 sensor; no mirror; contrast AF

I believe the future of photography is a high quality 24x32 (18 -20 MP) sensor; no mirror; super fast and accurate contrast detect AF; high rez fast electronic viewfinder (with perhaps option for external viewer as w/rangefinders). Light weight, very quiet, minimal vibration, accurate AF with almost any lens. They could even market a couple of fast lenses with shutter in the lens for extra quiet mode to use in the front row of the church at weddings, etc. Or, electronic shutter mode to keep it quiet. I assume video mode will also still be around and included. Price for camera around $2,000 in current dollars.

Lenses will probably need to be adjusted in mechanical design as well to be optimized for fast contrast detect AF. Optical design could also be changed if there is an advantage to shorten sensor to lens distance for wide angle lenses ala rangefinder wide angle lens designs. Not sure this works as well for digital sensor, however.

I also believe that Pentax and others know this. It is just a matter of getting the computational power and software in the camera at a reasonable cost and coordinating it with the mechanical aspects of the camera and lens AF.

Print this out and keep it. Bring it out 3 years from now and compare to the new models.

05-14-2009, 09:37 AM   #47
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by yurihuta Quote
Yes, it is an evolution, however, it does not mean everything needs to evolve and follow that line. I hope that traditional cameras are still being made in ten years and that the DSLR/Vido camera represent a branch, moving forward along with traditional cameras.
That would be a sensible approach. As others have stated, this 'hybrid' still/video camera is really a new medium. It should be viewed as such - not a replacement for traditional still cameras, but a device that exists in addition to the pure still camera, and the pure video camera (and someday, the holographic camera).
05-14-2009, 09:52 AM   #48
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
I believe the future of photography is a high quality 24x32 (18 -20 MP) sensor; no mirror; super fast and accurate contrast detect AF; high rez fast electronic viewfinder (with perhaps option for external viewer as w/rangefinders). Light weight, very quiet, minimal vibration, accurate AF with almost any lens.
Photomy,

I agree with everything you said ....except the 24 x32 sensor size.

I think in a few years the sensors we have today will have technically changed dramatically and the size of the sensor will make little difference. IMHO.

wll
05-14-2009, 09:53 AM   #49
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 103
privide examples

please provide examples



QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
Composition is vastly different for still and video. What looks great as a still image is entirely boring as video, and vice versa. You are simply using a common medium to achieve two entirely different goals.


05-14-2009, 10:05 AM   #50
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I think we are just seeing the beginning.

In the mid term I guess that the EVIL format will conquer the segment of high quality video/still cameras. Just like A/V receivers do now. The high quality consumer segment. I see another form factor for EVIL as well. The current offerings are still rather traditional.

Below this, phone cameras will be video as well. P&S or camcorder will disappear.

Above this, dedicated still image and movie cameras will continue to exist -- because the two are two separate art forms. Here, I see SLRs with optical viewfinders and sensors larger than those in the EVIL segment. Probably medium format or full frame. Expensive. Just like high end stereo amplifiers.

Today, the two segments aren't clearly separated. And the P&S segment still alive. So we see mixtures of all forms.
Yes, Pentax is probably wise to get out of P&S business (allthough they made many nice little optios) before it dies by itself because everyone has a phone that takes good enough pictures of the kids and other memories.
05-14-2009, 10:10 AM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
Because it is news ...
You mean like the "news" of you selling your stuff?
I still feel that this belongs to the General Photography discussion, as there is no new information or report in your post - no news; just a "philosophical discussion".
05-14-2009, 10:13 AM   #52
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
I think in a few years the sensors we have today will have technically changed dramatically and the size of the sensor will make little difference.
You probably would be surprised how few photons hit a pixel in a dark scene. And after all, countings photons is the best you can do.

Technology can only go to a point, but not surpass the laws of nature. Except in CSI Miami, of course
05-14-2009, 10:48 AM   #53
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You probably would be surprised how few photons hit a pixel in a dark scene. And after all, countings photons is the best you can do.

Technology can only go to a point, but not surpass the laws of nature. Except in CSI Miami, of course
Falconeye,

I'm sure you are correct about the number of photons hitting the sensor, but like some of the news postings on sensor development, don't you think the day will come when that section of sensor detecting the loss of photon hits could increase its dynamic range ? I don't think that is out of the realm of possibility ?


wll

05-14-2009, 10:54 AM   #54
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
Composition is vastly different for still and video. What looks great as a still image is entirely boring as video, and vice versa.
It's not THAT different. There are visual rules that apply regardless of whether you're shooting stills, shooting video, or just painting a scene. It's just that video has the added advantage of showing movement, so a composition that might be too static for a still shot, can be interesting in video due to action within the frame.
05-14-2009, 11:12 AM   #55
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Denver
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 92
Ctein over at TOP had a couple articles on the topic of future-tech for cameras, including radically different sensors. Some of it does sound a bit CSI-ish. Anyway, interesting reads.

The Online Photographer: (Still) Keeping the 'X' in 'Xmas'

The Online Photographer: Shapes of Some Things Long to Come
05-14-2009, 02:18 PM   #56
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 32
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
...no mirror; .... They could even market a couple of fast lenses with shutter in the lens for extra quiet mode to use in the front row of the church at weddings, etc. Or, electronic shutter mode to keep it quiet.
They only use electronic shutter now. the clunk you hear on a dslr when it takes a picture is the mirror slap.

QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
Optical design could also be changed if there is an advantage to shorten sensor to lens distance for wide angle lenses ala rangefinder wide angle lens designs. Not sure this works as well for digital sensor,
You do realize they have digital rangefinders don't you. Rangefinder camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia expensive little ****ers but true works of art. Respective to everything but the way it absorbs light, digital sensors work just like film
05-14-2009, 02:33 PM   #57
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Bill Stickers Quote
They only use electronic shutter now. the clunk you hear on a dslr when it takes a picture is the mirror slap.
??? What type of camera are you referring to?
Not DSLR I hope, as almost all DSLRs still use mechanical shutter. A few earlier models have a combination of electronic and mechanical shutter (e.g. D50), but none relying on electronic shutters alone. Otherwise, we would have X-Sync at 1/8000s!
05-14-2009, 02:43 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
Otherwise, we would have X-Sync at 1/8000s!
i've always wondered why don't we? electronic shutters must be cheaper and infinitely more durable than mechanical?
05-14-2009, 03:06 PM   #59
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: madison
Posts: 239
I am no electronic engineer, but I guess it might take more than 1/8000s for the A/D converter to read off all the 14 mega pixels.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
i've always wondered why don't we? electronic shutters must be cheaper and infinitely more durable than mechanical?
05-14-2009, 03:14 PM   #60
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
It's not THAT different. There are visual rules that apply regardless of whether you're shooting stills, shooting video, or just painting a scene. It's just that video has the added advantage of showing movement, so a composition that might be too static for a still shot, can be interesting in video due to action within the frame.
Or disadvantage, depending on your point of view

I agree the fundamentals of composition are more or less the same for stills and video. But with video you have more options/factors to use/deal with because of the continuous nature of it. I haven't thought through it all the way, but it might be that video composition is a superset of still composition. That is, with video you have to deal with all of the factors of still composition PLUS additional factors due to motion, whether it be subject motion or camera motion. Thus I would think it would be much easier for a good videographer to do still photography than the other way around--the learning curve is much less from video to still. That's if we're talking about a real video artist and not just a video camera operator (basically a Director of Photography vs. a cameraman).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
change, day, device, film, movie, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hope and Change , "Hey mister can you spare some change?" seacapt General Talk 19 04-13-2010 05:56 AM
Photographic Bravery Rondec Photographic Technique 30 09-07-2009 07:53 AM
A philosophical question wildman Photographic Technique 12 02-03-2009 07:21 PM
Photographic portfolio MrA Photographic Technique 7 04-21-2008 12:11 AM
Photographic accidents Chako Post Your Photos! 5 09-02-2007 09:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top