A Photographic Philosophical Change is Coming ?

Photomy · 05-14-2009, 09:34 AM

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.

OregonJim · 05-14-2009, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by yurihuta

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).

wll · 05-14-2009, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Photomy

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

txsbluesguy · 05-14-2009, 09:53 AM

please provide examples

Originally posted by OregonJim

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.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 05-14-2009, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

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.

nosnoop · 05-14-2009, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by wll

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".

falconeye · 05-14-2009, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by wll

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

wll · 05-14-2009, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

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

TaoMaas · 05-14-2009, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by OregonJim

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.

breischl · 05-14-2009, 11:12 AM

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

Bill Stickers · 05-14-2009, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Photomy

...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.

Originally posted by Photomy

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

nosnoop · 05-14-2009, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Bill Stickers

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!

illdefined · 05-14-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

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?

cousinsane · 05-14-2009, 03:06 PM

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.

Originally posted by illdefined

i've always wondered why don't we? electronic shutters must be cheaper and infinitely more durable than mechanical?

Yohan Pamudji · 05-14-2009, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

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).

05-14-2009, 09:34 AM	#46
Photomy 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, 09:53 AM	#49
txsbluesguy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 103	privide examples please provide examples Originally posted by OregonJim 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.

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

05-14-2009, 09:37 AM	#47
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by yurihuta 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	Originally posted by Photomy 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, 10:05 AM	#50
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by falconeye 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
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by wll 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
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by wll 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	Originally posted by falconeye 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
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by OregonJim 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
breischl 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
Bill Stickers Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 32	Originally posted by Photomy ...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. Originally posted by Photomy 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
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Bill Stickers 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
illdefined Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NYC Posts: 929	Originally posted by nosnoop 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
cousinsane 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. Originally posted by illdefined 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
Yohan Pamudji Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 184	Originally posted by TaoMaas 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).