Where are we headed?

[Adrian]

A better light box – it's very simple

All we want to do is capture images perfectly at all times, even when there’s not enough light to see by and even when things are so far away they are a pin prick in the sky: we want them close up, enlarged and pin sharp and we don’t want to waste time processing either. We also want to do this with a device that is light, unobtrusive and dead simple to operate.

So all the stuff about sensors, focal lengths, pixels and so in is noise surrounding the objective.

Technology advancement is not about feeding consumerism – though that is a commercial driver. For camera manufacturers the holy grail is stealing a fundamental step ahead of the competition, that delivers massive market share and premium profitability.

We have seen the destruction of film in one generation and we are witnessing the early stages of a digital phenomenon as smartphones take over from smaller digital cameras. Storage is getting very cheap and data transmission rates are shooting up exponentially. Chip manufacture has come a long way in 10 years and sensor technology will do the same. Wearable or ultra portable technology is inevitable.

Glass is probably a bit of a constraint, but even that is just a means of pointing light where you want to concentrate it.

The real future will deliver what I put in the first paragraph. I’d give it 10 years.

[JR1]

I wonder how how many changing system to higher MP have the lenses to match the camera resolving power?

I think there is a problem here as stated

People especially new to photography go all out for the camera body and forget the lenses

I remember a fellow cyclist complaining that his £600 bike had been stolen because the Halfords £10 cycle lock was rubbish, well duh........ My cycle lock is £60 a reasonable investment for a very expensive bike.

Same with lenses, tripods, monopods, etc, buy the best you can even if you can only have one not the three you want, you get what you pay for.

And forget the "carp" about it's the person behind the camera that takes the photograph, not what you use, well you can't take a photo WITHOUT a camera and the better the gear the easier and more enjoyable if nothing else.

[JR1]

Well, I know where I'm headed! I have just traded in all my Nikon equipment for a Fuji X100T. Why, you may ask. Because I am in my mid 70's, and carrying a D7000 with whatever lens is no longer pleasurable. Not to mention the backpack full of stuff that I may or may not use. Ah, but will the little Fuji do everything that the Nikon outfit will do you may ask? Possibly not, but the question I asked myself was, will it do everything that I will want to do with it? And the answer to that is emphatically yes! Very sharp lens, choice of B/W or colour film rendering, high quality JPEGs straight from camera, very small and light and easy to carry around, the list goes on and on! Read the reviews of it's predecessor, the X100S, there are plenty on the web. These are 2 that I particularly like:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographe...ks-into-a-bar/
and
Http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...s_review.shtml
For those members who are in a simlar situation to myself, check out the X100T, or the XPro 1 if you need interchangeable lenses.

Perhaps a good option for you but I loooooove MY gear weight and all, horses for courses

[ajohnw]

I have gone to mirrorless to save weight but even though I make positive comments about m 4/3 I am under no illusion about the benefits of a real optical viewfinder in some cases. On the other hand periodically I find some method that gets round the problem. Some what should be relatively easy software upgrades would help even more.

People mention innovation. I would be inclined to say what innovation? Increasing pixel counts are not an innovation. In practice they are a relative cheap and easy upgrade for a manufacturer as it's the size of it that to a large extend sets it's cost. Smaller pixels increase iso ratings and in some cases reduce the lowest real figure that is available. On crop it wouldn't surprise me if the optimum pixel density for that sort of thing has been exceeded - some FF cameras offer a 2 stop improvement in the iso / noise relationship.

Mirrorless - in a basic sense compact/bridge technology. Nothing new at all. On sensor phase detect focus - believe it's been used in video cameras for a long time.

I suppose rear lit sensors are an innovation. They allow bigger pixels as less room is needed for the wiring. Bigger pixels can give better performance as there is more area to capture light.

It's the same in many areas - iPad etc. Mobile phone technology and actually remove the d on the end and replace it with a q and a similar item appears that was probably ahead of it's time. The processing power in that sort of thing has increased but only as far as technology allows and due to the need for them as more and more soft solutions are used to do what ever. Many things have been around for a long time. High volume uses bring the prices down. Innovation in this area is more a case of a manufacturer deciding to bite the bullet and do it - Pic processors for instance. More followed from many companies.

In real terms there are very few real innovations. I would say the last one was when cmos sensors could equal or better ccd as far as cameras are concerned. Olympus's 5 axis IS might be one but it's not clear how other cameras floated the sensor around so doubt if it really is. Semiconductor accelerometers have been around for a long time too. Expensive until volumes go up. Down to a company deciding to go that way again.

The introduction or regular new models is based on an idea from a good few years ago now. Some companies started increasing the rate and were more profitable. I'm not so sure it works that well now. Taking PC's for instance, it's harder to get people to upgrade. I suspect the same is true of cameras really in many cases. What that area usually entails is a drift down of features from better models - more focus points etc and of course usually more pixels.

I thought the D7100 had some sort of crop facility to up the frame rate / produce smaller images? Different but not exactly new.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...All we want to do is capture images perfectly at all times, even when there’s not enough light to see by and even when things are so far away they are a pin prick in the sky: we want them close up, enlarged and pin sharp and we don’t want to waste time processing either. We also want to do this with a device that is light, unobtrusive and dead simple to operate....

Well and simply put.

[charzes44]

P[QUOTE=Adrian;466301]A better light box – it's very simple

[All we want to do is capture images perfectly at all times, even when there’s not enough light to see by and even when things are so far away they are a pin prick in the sky: we want them close up, enlarged and pin sharp and we don’t want to waste time processing either. We also want to do this with a device that is light, unobtrusive and dead simple to operate.]

Something like a Fujifilm X100T really!