What the future is going to bring
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Flowers
Next: What have you photographed with your camera so far,that's helped you solve a mystery ?
From: RichA on 11 Jun 2010 23:38 Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors. Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron- multiplying sensors.
From: Ray Fischer on 12 Jun 2010 02:26 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors. >Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron- >multiplying sensors. Since that is already the present it seems that you're just a tad late in your (ahem) "predictions". -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: SMS on 12 Jun 2010 09:12 On 11/06/10 8:38 PM, RichA wrote: > Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors. > Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron- > multiplying sensors. Uh, isn't nearly all of that already here? The problem is that contrast focusing, smaller systems, and mirror-less systems give demonstrably much poorer results than the phase focusing, larger systems, and mirrored systems. Maybe you mean that the future is going to bring systems where all those things work as well as the current alternatives. You might think that it's a conspiracy--Canon and Nikon have a vested interest in keeping P&S cameras significantly worse than D-SLRs, but even the manufacturers with no D-SLR product line have been unable to overcome the inherent limitations of contrast focusing, smaller bodies, electronic shutters, and lack of mirrors. It's rather amusing to see how they try to overcome these limitations, often by selling add-on accessories. Great marketing since now they get to charge extra to naive buyers. Even CHDK, the freeware software for Canon P&S cameras that adds many useful features of D-SLRs to P&S cameras is an attempt to overcome many of the limitations of P&S cameras, which are caused by the items in your list. CHDK is very useful, but it can't fix the problems with contrast focusing, small sensors, etc.. I use it a lot when I don't want to carry along my D-SLR and since I helped write the documentation for it, I like to promote it, but I don't want anyone to think that is somehow turns the P&S into a D-SLR in terms of capability.
From: Robert Coe on 12 Jun 2010 09:23 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors. : Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron- : multiplying sensors. Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers. Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater commonality of RAW formats. Bob
From: RichA on 12 Jun 2010 10:31
On Jun 12, 9:12 am, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > On 11/06/10 8:38 PM, RichA wrote: > > > Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors. > > Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron- > > multiplying sensors. > > Uh, isn't nearly all of that already here? The problem is that contrast > focusing, smaller systems, and mirror-less systems give demonstrably > much poorer results than the phase focusing, larger systems, and > mirrored systems. Maybe you mean that the future is going to bring > systems where all those things work as well as the current alternatives. > > You might think that it's a conspiracy--Canon and Nikon have a vested > interest in keeping P&S cameras significantly worse than D-SLRs, but > even the manufacturers with no D-SLR product line have been unable to > overcome the inherent limitations of contrast focusing, smaller bodies, > electronic shutters, and lack of mirrors. It's rather amusing to see how > they try to overcome these limitations, often by selling add-on > accessories. Great marketing since now they get to charge extra to naive > buyers. The same reason a Covette ZR1 clobbers most Ferraris on the straights is the one that will prevent P&S's from ever matching DSLRs, you can't beat size (cu in in their case, sensors for the camera). What some, like the LOL idiot don't realize is that sensor technology has not fundamentally changed in 20 years, hence the limitations and the reasons P&S's still suffer, even at low ISO with image quality issues...Plus, as we've seen with the Sony NEX, there are inherent cost-related limitations to close proximity lens- large sensor compatibility that can only be overcome by spending money and charging more money. A whole new means of lens design will be needed (and I hope Nikon at least meets the challenge with larger sensors, the micro 4/3rds people did with theirs) when they stuff a FF sensor into a tiny body (Leica did it) and it won't be cheap if people want the quality. But, size reductions, even I believe in the pro end are inevitable. Otherwise, video cameras threaten to fully displace still cameras for professional use. |