Photography - Where we are going

[Jeremy Ordan]

Thom Hogan, a reknowned photographer, writer, and Nikon expert recently got into a massive discussion regarding the industry, Nikon, Canon, new technology, and when we will finally see sensors out resolve any glass created.

Very interesting discussion but I would recommend just reading Thom Hogan's comments

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=22750136&page=1

[Digigenic]

Very interesting discussion but I would recommend just reading Thom Hogan's comments

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1000&thread=22750136&page=1
haha, I rarely enter the DPreview forums through the main portal anymore, for the last few months I've just been going directly to Thom's posts or a few others who are official pros and/or insiders. They always set the record straight and keep things from spiraling out of control in some of those firey threads.

[MattinSTL]

Linky no worky... Dpreview says they know about the problem so I guess I'll stop typing my letter.

I'm curious about that point... the one about glass and sensor resolution. Isn't that a TRIP! Man I remember when people argued that film would be superior to digital for decades... it's almost like the CD versus vinyl debate.

The scary thing is that I also thought film would be the supreme image for a long time. I used to shoot film and laughed at the latest 2mp cams... once they hit around 5mp (and I saw the images) I stopped laughing... and finally I entered the digital world.

2 days ago I shot some birthday pics alongside a friend who still shoots film... I feel really bad for the guy because he's one of those nostalgic types that can brainwash himself... because for years now I will see some of his shots... and his best prints (from film) barely touch my current average shot... and he'd be lucky to get one of my better shots from 10 rolls of film.

It's crazy how photography has changed in the last 4-5 years isn't it? I'm curious how long it will be before the playing field is level by default? Markets tend to address necessity first and luxury second... therefor I expect the expansion to continue, but the higher models will most likely be differentiated by the ability to take 3 exposures in one shutter-push... and things like that... you know, built-in HDR and processing... etc.

EDIT: Link works again.

[Petrus]

About sensors outperforming lenses, that has alresy partly happened. Canon 5D and DsMkII at 12 and 16 Mpix perform about equally as normally used lenses do not resolve good enough. For 39 Mpix midformat backs new "digital" lenses had to be made, which are difrection limited at f5.6!!!

Making sensors even sharper really serves no purpose, diffraction is one thing, loss of sensitivity is another. What I would like to see is more latitude, less noise, faster file transfers & raw processing.

[Jeremy Ordan]

What I would like to see is more latitude, less noise, faster file transfers & raw processing.


I think you hit the nail on the head right there. For me the MP race has been dead for a long long time. My main cameras are D200's (10MP) while I use a D50 as a backup/loaner camera. I also have a D1 just because, well, they are dirt cheap but even these 2MP cameras deliver great speed and a workable image. The MP race doesn't really matter to me.

I want an improvement in the latitude of dynamic range, far less noise at higher ISO ratings (Canon is really leading the race in this regard with Nikon lagging way far behind), and higher FPS ratings (once again, Canon really has raised the bar).

Things like in camera image stabilization, full frame sensors, and in camera processing don't appeal to me (let me rephrase, I already have VR lenses that I have invested in, I have wide angle lenses and don't worry about the 1.5x crop factor, in fact, I like it for telephoto work, and when I had the D80 I never used any of the nifty functions the camera offered). Personally I just want more range captured in the digital file (maybe a different brand of matrix metering, which of course comes back to dynamic range.

These concepts, of course, directly can relate back to video. If you look at what RED is doing and the possibility for dynamic range, there really are some hopeful things on the horizon... the horizon is always just too far away.

[HorseFilms]

I never used any of the nifty functions the camera offered.

Same here. I don't own any automatic lenses. Everything is manual and that's the way I like it. I basically wanted a digital version of the 35mm SLR that I had been using for 10+ years. I kinda have that and I'm a happy guy.

[Jeremy Ordan]

Same here. I don't own any automatic lenses. Everything is manual and that's the way I like it. I basically wanted a digital version of the 35mm SLR that I had been using for 10+ years. I kinda have that and I'm a happy guy.

Well I will use AF, AE, metering, aperture priority... I meant the in camera things :)

You're much more of a manual guy than me then :)

[HorseFilms]

Actually, I use the metering function, but that's where it ends.:thumbsup:

[Steve_Arm]

What are you talking about, I, all the time discover that I have shot all my images at 1600 ISO. Must make a sticky (check ISO) and put it on the camera.

[MattinSTL]

On page 6 of that review Thom says in one post that the noticeable differences in mp res aren't significant at desktop printer resolutions... but a couple posts down he says that sensors may get to 24mp FF, up to 45mp before they will truly out-resolve GOOD glass... he says that current 10-12mp sensors are already outresolving poor glass.

Tell me if I read that wrong... page 6... about half-way down.

I'm hoping I read that right... I fantasize about a 45mp cam that you can snap an ultra-wide with... and later see crisp details that are way deep into the image. I'm a cropping guy for about half of my shots... portraits are framed more carefully. I also see mp res as a free stop or extender... meaning that for a given glass you can get a sharper shot at the wide end (if shooting at a slower speed), regardless of mm... and for glass w/o a constant f you can use the faster end (wide) of the glass and get your close-up later.

If all that comes to pass, my addiction to photography could get out of hand.

[Jeremy Ordan]

What are you talking about, I, all the time discover that I have shot all my images at 1600 ISO. Must make a sticky (check ISO) and put it on the camera.

That is the worst thing about the D50, no ISO in viewfinder. It is a pain the ass.

I actually shot an entire wedding at ISO1600 without realizing it (and when I shoot weddings I only shoot JPG). Post processing on that project went way past 70 hours simply because I changed the ISO on that one camera and never changed it.


I'm hoping I read that right... I fantasize about a 45mp cam that you can snap an ultra-wide with... and later see crisp details that are way deep into the image. I'm a cropping guy for about half of my shots... portraits are framed more carefully. I also see mp res as a free stop or extender... meaning that for a given glass you can get a sharper shot at the wide end (if shooting at a slower speed), regardless of mm... and for glass w/o a constant f you can use the faster end (wide) of the glass and get your close-up later.

I agree that extra MP can be an extender, but I think that this comes back to whether you are an in camera person or a post production person.

Here me out on this one.

With photography as well as film / video production you have certain people who want to capture exactly what they will edit later, for example, they apply filters and compose exactly the shot they will print.

Other people want a clean signal so they can drop their photograph into photoshop or Vegas and just go to town and make exactly what they want during the post phase.

For me, I personally would rather have the longer lens rather than using the MP crop technique, but both can work (also, DOF and field of view can't be cheated with the MP technique) but I use filters constantly when shooting digital photographs (then again, everything I shoot goes through post processing, but just not that much).

Ultimately, it comes down to preference, so while I think your point about the huge sensors and the ability to digitally zoom without sacrificing quality (that is what we're talking about) is coming if not already here, That seems like a lot more work to me.

I like this line of thinking though

[Petrus]

I would catch 1600 ISO mistake fast because the exposure values would not feel right...

AF is really not autofocus for me, it is AAF (auto assisted focus), I have to deside where the camera focuses but electronics do the pulling...

Midformat sensors are about 45x33 mm or something, and there 39 Mpix is defeating practically all the lenses available, and that is not bad quality, it is the laws of nature. This means about 20 Mpix would be the absolute sensible limit for 36x24mm FF sensor. Then, of course, somebody would come up with much more, there is 24/96 audio recordigs after all even though nobody can hear any better than 16/44.1...