| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2007 08:19:40 PM · #1 |
in the not-so-far future, what do you think digicams will evolved to, and why do you think that? some of my personal guesses are:
1. image-stabilizers will be obsolete - because sensor technology would have increased to super low-noise even at ISO 6400 that you can possibly capture anything without worrying about handshake/subject movement
2. bodies would have swap-able sensors - ultimately a standard/guideline was invented where all the manufacturers adhere to, and designed their sensors with common connection placements, much like how you can change microprocessors on different motherboards.
3. digital crop factor would have surpassed 35mm film. we'd probably be looking at 0.5x (135mm equivalent)
4. electronic shutter going mainstream - mechanical shutter would be replaced by highly versatile electronic shutter.
5. all cameras would have live preview - due to sensor technological enhancements
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 08:34:43 PM · #2 |
| I think one of the things they should be addressing now on a dSLR is mirror shock. Changing it from a mechanism to computerized may be the way to go. When the mirror moves it causes some movement and addressing this issue would give the dSLR a great leap forward. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 08:59:10 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
I think one of the things they should be addressing now on a dSLR is mirror shock. Changing it from a mechanism to computerized may be the way to go. When the mirror moves it causes some movement and addressing this issue would give the dSLR a great leap forward. |
i think that would be addressed by the invention of item #4 or #5 ? |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:08:39 PM · #4 |
all the ones you list are very good ideas however I have to disagree with #5. while the live preview on the screen is nice I have gotten used to not using it and am loving the extra battery life from that thing not always being on...of course I guess they would make it so you can turn it off but we'd also miss out on the fun when someone tries to use your camera and wants to know why it doesn't show up on the screen then tell you that's stupid, their little camera does it lol.
I would like to somehow see a faster recovery on the built in flash. I know that most use a slave but I don't always have it with me. Maybe this could be fixed by having a dedicated battery for the flash system...not sure. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:10:44 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
all the ones you list are very good ideas however I have to disagree with #5. while the live preview on the screen is nice I have gotten used to not using it and am loving the extra battery life from that thing not always being on... |
no, dont misunderstand my original post. i didnt say i WANTED those things in a camera, i was merely forecasting what will be in the future cameras designs. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:18:41 PM · #6 |
I predict two things:
1) Available storage space will continue to skyrocket.
2) And because of that, "still image" cameras will go away and will be replaced by video cameras. I really don't like video, but if the frame rate and resolution get high enough, nobody else will care. They will just "video" whatever they want (not caring about the size of the capture) and if they are geeky enough to still like "still images", they will just pull individual images out of the stream.
Do I want this? No. I'd rather stay back with the nerdy photographers that will hang onto their still image cameras kicking and screaming while the general population passes them by.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:27:56 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
2) And because of that, "still image" cameras will go away and will be replaced by video cameras. I really don't like video, but if the frame rate and resolution get high enough, nobody else will care. They will just "video" whatever they want (not caring about the size of the capture) and if they are geeky enough to still like "still images", they will just pull individual images out of the stream.
Do I want this? No. I'd rather stay back with the nerdy photographers that will hang onto their still image cameras kicking and screaming while the general population passes them by. |
i dont think a "still image" camera will go away entirely. i mean, you're right about frame rates and resolution going so high that you can grab a frame from a video, but as progress is a parallel thing, whatever a video camera can do, the still camera would be even further ahead (probably), and you know how it is, those who are nit-picky about sharpness, quality, bla... will continue pursuing the "best" for their still images (much like today, actually)
and i agree with your statement about the "nerdy photographers who hang onto their still cameras"... lol that was good.
.
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 21:28:33. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:51:51 PM · #8 |
| Still nice to have stabilization for slower shutter speeds, if you're panning for example. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:57:30 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by crayon:
2. bodies would have swap-able sensors - ultimately a standard/guideline was invented where all the manufacturers adhere to, and designed their sensors with common connection placements, much like how you can change microprocessors on different motherboards.
|
I like this one. The sensor cover would be made out of diamond titanium and unscratchable so you could take it out and rub it on your T-shirt to get rid of the dust bunnies!
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:45:15 PM · #10 |
I'm all for "unscratchable" sensors!
[/quote]
I like this one. The sensor cover would be made out of diamond titanium and unscratchable so you could take it out and rub it on your T-shirt to get rid of the dust bunnies! [/quote] |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:04:17 PM · #11 |
| camera's will never ever break after being dropped in the pool. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:15:28 PM · #12 |
I think that by 2050 you will be able to just scan your brain, and take whatever image that your eyes saw directly from there.
Cameras will be limited to applications that require higher shutter speeds, unless of course, there will be a way to get that directly from the retina.
That's a long time from now, so the tech will surely be in place by then. Remember, the first PC's are only about 25 years old now.
Looks like everyone is still thinking "inside the box" here.
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 23:17:01. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:19:24 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Do I want this? No. I'd rather stay back with the nerdy photographers that will hang onto their still image cameras kicking and screaming while the general population passes them by. |
Until there are no longer billboards or magazines, there will always be a need for quality still cameras and the photogs that know how to use them.
I'll be retired by then, hopefully with a couple of 18 y/o wannabe models :-)
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 23:21:30.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:23:48 PM · #14 |
| One thing no one seems to have considered. The need for interchangeable lenses will become completely redundant. All that will be needed is a single wide angle lens. For 'telephoto' images we'll just crop the hell out of the images produced by the GIGA pixel sensors. Maybe not a popular thought on a site dominated by DSLR users, but it's gotta happen. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:30:14 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
The need for interchangeable lenses will become completely redundant. All that will be needed is a single wide angle lens. For 'telephoto' images we'll just crop the hell out of the images produced by the GIGA pixel sensors. Maybe not a popular thought on a site dominated by DSLR users, but it's gotta happen. |
There may be no need but as long as Canon and company are able to sell them, long telephotos will be around. "Why waste millions of pixels?" us geeks will ask about cropping from gigapixel sensors.
I don't imagine a gigapixel sensor anytime soon in a consumer camera. Why? Physics. Just like processor manufacturers have turned away from the clock cycle race, sensor manufacturers will soon turn away from the megapixel race and focus on other features.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:34:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I think that by 2050 you will be able to just scan your brain, and take whatever image that your eyes saw directly from there.
Cameras will be limited to applications that require higher shutter speeds, unless of course, there will be a way to get that directly from the retina.
That's a long time from now, so the tech will surely be in place by then. Remember, the first PC's are only about 25 years old now.
Looks like everyone is still thinking "inside the box" here. |
But what your eye sees isn't what you see. I think something like what you describe will happen but not by 2050. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:57:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Qiki:
One thing no one seems to have considered. The need for interchangeable lenses will become completely redundant. All that will be needed is a single wide angle lens. For 'telephoto' images we'll just crop the hell out of the images produced by the GIGA pixel sensors. Maybe not a popular thought on a site dominated by DSLR users, but it's gotta happen. |
Maybe it will get down to one zoom lens, but never a single wide-angel prime (as I understand the above). focal length impacts more than just how much stuff gets onto the screen - it also has an imact on perspective, and therefore on composition. Anything that allows a photographer to impact composition will retain a demand. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 12:32:31 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by photokariangel:
camera's will never ever break after being dropped in the pool. |
if you are talking about a pool that's filled with water, there are already a few models out there, but non-dSLR though.
Originally posted by Qiki:
One thing no one seems to have considered. The need for interchangeable lenses will become completely redundant. All that will be needed is a single wide angle lens. For 'telephoto' images we'll just crop the hell out of the images produced by the GIGA pixel sensors. Maybe not a popular thought on a site dominated by DSLR users, but it's gotta happen. |
but you know how "greedy" people can be. telephoto lens will still be popular because people not only want to see the moon clearly on their 50mm prime (and their GIGA pixel sensor), but they want to see the man walking on the moon too, and so, they will buy the 500mm lenses! |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 12:40:40 AM · #19 |
i think cameras will move in a different direction.
all of the things already listed will probably happen at some stage. but once camera technology advances so much, they'll find other things to throw in them. here's a list of things i think are likely to see in dslr's in the future.
1. electronic shutters (already mentioned) but the big advantage will be the 50 frames per second capture rate! :)
2. atomic clocks which are able to include multi-regional times in the exif data.
3. internal full time gps that captures your exact location, lat-long-province-country, etc automatically with every shot.
4. mp3 player ... yeah, tacky, but i think once we're using 50 gig memory cards, or cameras have 100 gig of built in memory, people will dedicate a small percentage of that memory to music ... listen while you shoot. afterall, it's only a firmware upgrade! :)
5. batteries that will be good for a week's worth of photographing (a dream)
6. built in flashes that will cast no shadow (they'll use some kind of filter or computer designed dispersion technique to soften the light)
how's that??
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 12:53:40 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
I think one of the things they should be addressing now on a dSLR is mirror shock. Changing it from a mechanism to computerized may be the way to go. When the mirror moves it causes some movement and addressing this issue would give the dSLR a great leap forward. |
Me thinks the Olympus E-10 / 20 was ahead of it's time then.
One of the reasons much slower shutter speeds were able to be hand-held, as it used a beam splitter and no mirror to flop around.
With it's shutter sound effect turned off, it was quite the stealthy camera too. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 12:56:59 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
1. electronic shutters (already mentioned) but the big advantage will be the 50 frames per second capture rate! :) |
i think this is one of the most possible ones to come true, since you can only go so fast with a mechanical one, once the sensor breaks the noise-free ISO 6400 (or more) barrier! |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 01:20:35 AM · #22 |
just remembered about a feature someone proposed once in a mag and I always thought it would be cool but haven't ever heard more about it.
He suggested that a range finder of sorts could be added to the camera and when a camera is focused it would capture the distances of everything from you to the subject then also objects in the background. This info would be added just like most other data and could be totally ignored if desired. But with software, he proposed, you could modify the focus (DOF) depending on the distance of the objects in the image.
So say you photograph a person that is 6 feet from you, behind them 2 feet is a fence, then a tree another 4 feet back, then the farthest back is a mountain range. When processing it, you realize that you would have liked the fence more in focus but the tree and mountains more blurred. You simply open the DOF option and set your range to desired distance (8 feet here) and then adjust your blur level behind it. Set it again to the 6 feet range and reduce some of the blur and presto you are done. You could adjust the sharpness or blur level at any distance within your image. Maybe even have it where you can tell the system to desaturate everything past a certain point.
I know this is more or less easily done with layers and selection tools and stuff but think of the ease of having this ability to adjust certain distances with just a click or two and getting many different DOF options within one image.
Maybe more of a want then a plausible option but thought it was a cool concept.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:13:51 AM · #23 |
| i remembered having 8MB of RAM in my old computer. today, my computer have 4GB of RAM (heck, even my video card has 32x more memory than my old computer!)... so couple years from now, we could possibly be having 4GB pixel sensors on digital cameras, heh! |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:26:32 AM · #24 |
| A censor that can capture Gradient Fill colors per pixel instead of one color per pixel. Having the firmware to adjust the Gradient Fill to make colors on adjacent pixels align. (i.e. the left side of a pixel could start off being green and end up blue or red on the right side). The firmware could make the Gradient Fill center out. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 07:31:35 AM · #25 |
Thinking outside the box a bit....
What if... "old things become new again" and the entire idea of digital gets reversed back to analog? Instead of discreet pixels with discreet (and therefore, limited) values, goes away and is instead replaced by some kind of analog sensor? Infinite resolution, infinite colors.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 03:38:46 PM EDT.
