DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Cameras of the future - How will they be?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 74, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/09/2007 07:31:27 PM · #1
Then again, we get a little carried away by the noise issue. If images are essentially noise free at up to iso 400, then a camera will be fine in most circumstances.

And, yes, Iceland seems very photogenic.
02/09/2007 07:29:34 PM · #2
Originally posted by jonr:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by jhonan:

I'd just get my replicator to make a camera for me, and then ask Scotty to beam me over to Iceland for a day.


Id love to shoot in iceland.


You are all welcome any time. :)


I won't stay long your town doesnt get dark enough at night. Its bad enough in the city i have to black out my windows just to sleep
02/09/2007 07:25:16 PM · #3
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by jhonan:

I'd just get my replicator to make a camera for me, and then ask Scotty to beam me over to Iceland for a day.


Id love to shoot in iceland.


You are all welcome any time. :)
02/09/2007 07:23:11 PM · #4
Originally posted by jhonan:

I'd just get my replicator to make a camera for me, and then ask Scotty to beam me over to Iceland for a day.


Id love to shoot in iceland.
02/09/2007 07:23:07 PM · #5
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

JONR

Last I checked the E-330 is an E-300 with Live View... but the E-500 following it once again doesnt have it?


Could this be because the live view saps power? Or maybe it's just because real photogs cannot live without a viewfinder??

The E-1, whilst being innovative, does not seem to have garnered a massive following. I have to admit that I have not read any reviews, yet.

Too quick for me RainMotorsports - I too had heard about nasty noise issues with the E series.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 19:24:34.
02/09/2007 07:22:53 PM · #6
Originally posted by jonr:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

JONR

Last I checked the E-330 is an E-300 with Live View... but the E-500 following it once again doesnt have it?


E-500 successor will have live view
And E-400 and E-1 successors too... (if the rumors are right) :)


Its not a hard technology to incorporate but it takes a bit of redesigning. I have an Olympus and looking at every DPReview Review of an Olympus theyr image noise is HORRIBLE. Ive seen Nikon's do Hi Boost +1 (3200) at the same image noise a decent Olympus does at iso 800 (or my cruddy cruddy Olympus at IS 400.)

Im guessing its msotly their image processor but i mean i cant say theyr cant get over the slup they can. But even the FUji F30 has better noise at ISO 3200 then myne has at ISO 400.
02/09/2007 07:21:44 PM · #7
I'd just get my replicator to make a camera for me, and then ask Scotty to beam me over to Iceland for a day.
02/09/2007 07:18:34 PM · #8
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

JONR

Last I checked the E-330 is an E-300 with Live View... but the E-500 following it once again doesnt have it?


E-500 successor will have live view
And E-400 and E-1 successors too... (if the rumors are right) :)
02/09/2007 07:17:27 PM · #9
Originally posted by raish:

Gotcha. I had to use manual focusing for this: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' as it's all reflected square on in a mirror. The auto-focus reacted to the mirror surface.

My main problem (I've always thought) is that I can't trust my own eyesight to focus properly. I couldn't do that in 1980, either. The lower the ambient lighting, the less reliable my own eyesight.

I'm not dismissing (or trying to dismiss) what you say and I may well have a go at making the comparisons you talk about. I could never do a proper test though, as I don't see clearly enough.

Live view makes manual focusing fun again. 2.5" screens with built-in 10x "loupe" makes manual focusing a real enjoyment. Also, modern focusing screens are optimized for brightness, not accuracy.
02/09/2007 07:13:23 PM · #10
JONR

Last I checked the E-330 is an E-300 with Live View... but the E-500 following it once again doesnt have it?
02/09/2007 07:10:32 PM · #11
Originally posted by skewsme:

Originally posted by Almilan:


But seriously, a decent liquid lens may be useful and may remove the need to change lenses.



Compared to all the techspeak, this may be a crude observation but I can't believe how clumsy lens changing is for dSLRs, particularly when it's so dangerous to clean your sensor and so difficult to remove dirt from within a lens. I can't be the only one to juggle lenses and body caps in the wind or rain, or over sand or mud? It's ridiculous.

What I'd wish for is a revolving nosepiece with different lenses attached, as on a microscope. Or, if lenses really must be removed, there should be a curtain or dust guard in between the camera body and lens attachment.

Oh, you mean lens turret? It was common on TV cameras some decades ago.
And one DSLR manufacturer has solved the dust-on-sensor problem. And Live view cameras are available now. I believe that all future Olympus cameras will have Live view. Next step is to get rid of the noisy,heavy and bulky mirror/prism/shutter mechanism.

02/09/2007 06:08:01 PM · #12
Lots of interesting takes on where things are going to go here. I like the idea of a type of video device which will take a high number of frames, a bit like a video cam, but with a much much higher frame rate, from which the photog will be able to choose the best frame. This would make action photography much easier, but is really quite similar to the idea of high speed motor drives.

I also reckon that photos will be transmitted by wireless connections straight to a pc. This would mean that a photojourno simply takes a series of photos and an editor will decide what he or she does or does not want. Although I suspect we will see remotely controlled drones using AI to photograph certain events before too long. This may keep formerlee happy! And we all know about the Predator drones.

For those with less than perfect eyesight - most of us over a certain age, a) we will all have laser surgery to keep our eyes working well and b) focusing systems will become so effective that as long as we can see what we want to focus on, the camera will do the rest. And we will have a bokeh setting which will allow us to keep the background out of focus.

I agree with fotomann re p&s cameras - they are certainly going to get dented as more sophisticated camera phones come out, although I don't think they will ever match the capabilities of a dedicated photographic device.

Has anyone mentioned 3d photography? I don't think so, but maybe I've missed it. Anyway, this is something I think will become big in the future. There may well come a day when we all look back at 2d photos and go 'How quaint'.

One thing that has not changed much is the overall size of cameras, but this is something that will happen and our children's children will wonder just how on earth their grandparents managed with all that heavy gear they lugged around.

As for the viewfinder thing - why is it that we all feel that we need to have the things?

02/09/2007 06:07:04 PM · #13
Originally posted by raish:

Gotcha. I had to use manual focusing for this: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ...

I'm not dismissing (or trying to dismiss) what you say and I may well have a go at making the comparisons you talk about. I could never do a proper test though, as I don't see clearly enough.

Peter, since you cannot manually focus on your own I can understand your opinion. But believe it or not, some people are not so restricted.

I used manual focus on this ribbon winning image:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/161/thumb/48550.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/161/thumb/48550.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

You did not tell us how many trials it took to get the focus right but I can tell you this... it took me 4 or 5 times to get mine right and that is under good lighting using a tripod mounted camera of a non-moving subject before this image was focused properly. And I had to check that on my computer and not just the camera to get it correct.

With a rangefinder/pentaprism focus equiped camera (that is in the camera, not the lens) way back in 1980 that would not have been necessary nor even possible.

My point is that with all the improvements that come with digital imaging that we have unfortunately lost a fundamental control that should never have been lost in the first place and which can and will be re-incorporated into camera technology again.

Currently it is near impossible to easily focus a camera where there is nothing the autofocus can adjust to when you want focus between two elements in a composition so that both can be brought into sharp focus using DOF. That need will be rediscovered when enough photographers complain.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 18:07:43.
02/09/2007 05:27:49 PM · #14
Gotcha. I had to use manual focusing for this: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/539/thumb/380953.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' as it's all reflected square on in a mirror. The auto-focus reacted to the mirror surface.

My main problem (I've always thought) is that I can't trust my own eyesight to focus properly. I couldn't do that in 1980, either. The lower the ambient lighting, the less reliable my own eyesight.

I'm not dismissing (or trying to dismiss) what you say and I may well have a go at making the comparisons you talk about. I could never do a proper test though, as I don't see clearly enough.
02/09/2007 05:24:38 PM · #15
Originally posted by theSaj:

I just can't understand why they don't put a high quality magnifier on the viewfinder so that the image is larger?


Amen.
02/09/2007 05:20:54 PM · #16
I just can't understand why they don't put a high quality magnifier on the viewfinder so that the image is larger?
02/09/2007 05:14:18 PM · #17
Originally posted by raish:

Originally posted by stdavidson:


*snip*
Technology lost that I wished we had today:

1-Rangefinder/pentaprism focusing.
It pisses me off that I cannot easily manually focus today's cameras in manual mode. That is a HUGE step backward. Who decided that auto-focus is better than manual? I look forward to the re-introduction of rangefinder and pentaprism focusing that allows photo artists to regain a fundamental control of imaging they once had and is essential to good photography.
*snip*

Switch to manual focus, look through viewfinder, twiddle focusing ring on lense. Problem?

Obviously you've never manual focusing 'modern' cameras much before. It is nearly impossible to get focus correct. I've tried many times before with poor success.

Turn off your autofocus for indoor closeup shots in anything but very bright lighting, take a few frames and then come back and SHOW all of us how easy it is.

When you can do that successfully on a regular basis without trial and error come back an tell me your secret. I'd be thrilled to know how that can be done now. I could easily do that with 'old' rangefinder and pentaprism capable cameras but find it next to impossible with today's cameras.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 17:14:57.
02/09/2007 04:13:38 PM · #18
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I predict that consumer P&S cameras are going to fade away as they get more integrated into multi-use devices, such as the new Ipod Phone. Who needs a camera when your phone/portable PC can shoot 20 megapixels (I know it doesn't YET).

Pro cameras will continue to be SLR style cameras for a long time and will not shrink significantly in size (although weight may decrease). Although their lens system will have to change soon to keep up with the megapixel race.


Its not an iPod phone.... lmao it is but it isnt its not based off the ipod at all.

They betetr not get smalle ri wanted to buy a D40 but its too freakin small.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 16:14:05.
02/09/2007 04:12:52 PM · #19
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:



The sensor in a Digital camera is not digital. Its an analog charge device. A scanner uses a CCD (in many but not all cases). The sensore itself is not what makes a digital camera digital. It is how the image is processed that makes it digital.



I imagine one could argue that the presence of discrete photosites renders it a digital device on one level or another.


You could try but the data coming fromt he sensor is analog in all digital cameras. It is not until it goes through a 12bit Analog to Digital Converter.

But i mean its not like your gonna convert it to film or anythign lol so why not call it all digital. VCR's are analog and so is that Super8 Camcorder you own.
02/09/2007 04:07:30 PM · #20
Originally posted by stdavidson:


*snip*
Technology lost that I wished we had today:

1-Rangefinder/pentaprism focusing.
It pisses me off that I cannot easily manually focus today's cameras in manual mode. That is a HUGE step backward. Who decided that auto-focus is better than manual? I look forward to the re-introduction of rangefinder and pentaprism focusing that allows photo artists to regain a fundamental control of imaging they once had and is essential to good photography.
*snip*

Switch to manual focus, look through viewfinder, twiddle focusing ring on lense. Problem?
02/09/2007 03:56:51 PM · #21
I want a camera that takes perfect shots everytime, never blurred or wrongly exposed with pin sharp focus. One that follows where I look and predicts the focal length and settings before I touch the shutter button. A camera that goes out on a cold day and takes the photos I want for a challenge while I sit by the PC and watch the perfect photos being downloaded, ready for submission to DPC.
02/09/2007 03:54:17 PM · #22
I predict that consumer P&S cameras are going to fade away as they get more integrated into multi-use devices, such as the new Ipod Phone. Who needs a camera when your phone/portable PC can shoot 20 megapixels (I know it doesn't YET).

Pro cameras will continue to be SLR style cameras for a long time and will not shrink significantly in size (although weight may decrease). Although their lens system will have to change soon to keep up with the megapixel race.
02/09/2007 03:47:48 PM · #23
Laser assisted focusing with servo grip mount.
02/09/2007 03:30:20 PM · #24
idnic

Great minds think alike.
02/09/2007 03:28:23 PM · #25
Originally posted by idnic:

My future camera will be implanted in my brain with the optics aligned with my eyes -- I will be able to process the images by thinking of the processing steps -- I won't mention where the printer will be..... ;)


Until a hacker comes along and you find creative "self-portraits" of yourself all over www.cindicam.com :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 02:53:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 02:53:13 AM EST.