Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Why bother with all that, when you can just open the image up in a proper Raw converter like Capture One 7 or Lightroom 4.2, and do all the tone-mapping you need using just the highlight/shadow recovery sliders? It looks more natural and takes seconds.
chez wrote:
We'll see what you say on this topic in 5 years from now. Wasn't 12mpix enough just a little while ago?
Not for me. 12 was adequate but not enough.
But it's simple maths. My print requirements are 18" generally and 24" max. That isn't going to change because tech moves on. Albums aren't going to get bigger because people aren't going to get bigger and prints aren't because houses aren't.
macrobild wrote:
Canon are so inconsistent, whom can not remember when Canon bragged about theirs superior resolution and their APS and 24x36mm sensor cameras.
Now it's a different message when they have been left behind by a number of manufacturers as Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Aptina
But this is the story of technology, and it's a quite common one.
Canon got ahead early using their own proprietary or exclusive sensors. Digital Rebel vs. D70, etc. Canon had a clear edge. But they pretty much kept it to themselves, using it to benefit their own line rather than licensing it or selling it to everyone else who wanted to use it.
Eventually Sony came along, they had already been selling their CCDs to most companies and when their larger sensors improved somewhat, they became the de-facto suplier of pretty much the rest of the industry.
And it wasn't long before Canon's more exclusive sensors were eclipsed by Sony's. If you follow technology, this is a pretty common trend.
macrobild wrote:
Canon are so inconsistent, whom can not remember when Canon bragged about theirs superior resolution and their APS and 24x36mm sensor cameras.
Nikon is so inconsistent. Who can't remember when Nikon swore up and down that 1.5x crop factor was all that was needed or would ever be needed?
Steady on, man! Such fervor! Relax. Your Nikons, Leicas, Hasseblads, and Sinars haven't stopped working now that your Canon cameras are suddenly useless.
Access wrote:
And it wasn't long before Canon's more exclusive sensors were eclipsed by Sony's. If you follow technology, this is a pretty common trend.
Monito wrote:
Nikon is so inconsistent. Who can't remember when Nikon swore up and down that 1.5x crop factor was all that was needed or would ever be needed?
Steady on, man! Such fervor! Relax. Your Nikons, Leicas, Hasseblads, and Sinars haven't stopped working now that your Canon cameras are suddenly useless.
Yes they where, but at that days they had nothing to chose between.
Today there are at least 4 companies, Renesas, Sony, Toshiba, Aptina.
what is the probability that Canon would have better research and come up with a better sensor than Renesas, Sony, Toshiba, Aptina. Panasonic, Omnivision etc etc ?
None. I would say
macrobild wrote:
what is the probability that Canon would have better research and come up with a better sensor than Renesas, Sony, Toshiba, Aptina. Panasonic, Omnivision etc etc ? None. I would say
OK, you've given up on Canon as a lost cause, out of it, so far behind they'll never lead again. Selling your gear?
Monito wrote:
There are always tradeoffs. To assume that there would be no tradeoffs for some advanced 18 year hence hypothetical super-duper DR sensor is to make the hypothetical worth less than the barely above zero value it has already.
The "shoot now, think later" hypothetical assumes no parallel advances in camera systems that would offer working photographers more advanced choices in the field than available now. Those systems would tend to be chosen by many or most working photographers over the "shoot now, think later" systems even if "think later" would benefit some other working photographers over "think now" for their line of work....Show more →
The other side of that coin is you are assuming new technology will not entirely supplant DSLR-type of cameras in the future. There is no reason to believe that traditional DSLRs will keep improving indefinitely and stay ahead of other techological advances. We have plenty of examples of where new branches of technology makes something else obsolete.
It is entirely possible that a Lytro-type camera could evolve to the point where it meets the image quality of its contemporary DSLR type cameras. It is entirely possible that as of yet unknown technologies could create a camera which provides uncompromised image quality with superior functionality and the ability to adjust all characteristics later, without relying on the user to apply settings at the time of image capture.
There's no way to predict what camera technology will look like 20, 30, or a 100 years from now. But it's an interesting hypothetical to think about because it makes us consider what is the true essence of being a photographer? What happens if you advance technology to the point where you can remove all the technical barriers, all the so-called "skill" in photography? All the compensating for dynamic range, setting shutter and aperture, focusing...what if all that was gone?
Currently, technical skill is not what makes photographs good--it's just what is required to facilitate translating the photographer's vision from imagination to reality. No matter how technically proficient a photographer, if they don't have a vision, if they aren't able to imagine or identify an interesting photographic scene, then it doesn't matter. Sure, we can pride ourselves on technical mastery right now if it makes us feel better. But the inevitable trend is as technology advances and we get more tools to make the technical stuff easier, being technically proficient will become less and less important.
artd, again, if they can solve the 'being there' problem, that would be a revolutionary leap.
Changes to the camera itself; sure it will evolve some. But I don't think it will bring fundemental change, not to the vision, not to what makes a good photo, or such. Not as much as what you put the camera on, and/or how you control and interface with it from afar.
I think more and more, ie. from the early days of automatic metering and auto-focus, we've seen technical mastery become less and less prominent than it once was. There is no reason this trend won't continue.
Where photography will be in 20, 50, 100 years, what I imagine is probably far different than the things a lot of people here think.
Access wrote:
artd, again, if they can solve the 'being there' problem, that would be a revolutionary leap.
I'm not sure why that's considered it a problem. I'd call it more of a prerequisite
Although, I think it is conceivable that maybe far into the future even that will not be a necessity if constructing photorealistic virtual environments with computers becomes commonplace. The concept of "being there" might simply be a matter of telling your computer where it is you want to be.
artd wrote:
I'm not sure why that's considered it a problem. I'd call it more of a prerequisite
Because when you no longer need to physically be there to take the photo, then you have a fundamental leap in terms of the pictures you can make as a photographer or photography in general.
The remote systems today have several fundamental failures, they're designed for surveillance (not taking good photos), most are immobile, the control interface (if any) is nowhere up to par with what a serious photographer wants, etc.
My point is mainly that it's not so much the camera itself that is going to be transformative as much as the technology that goes around it. The delivery end too, of course.
macrobild wrote:
what is the probability that Canon would have better research and come up with a better sensor than Renesas, Sony, Toshiba, Aptina. Panasonic, Omnivision etc etc ?
None. I would say
Canon has chosen to serve first those who need ISO above 3200. I dont understand that decision! Now with their beautiful IS glass it would make a great match to have a camera with a better sensor for low ISO.
I still wouldnt discount them yet, they can come up with a solution anytime. Even if they have to buy 3party sensors, they could make a lot of money and sell a lot of lenses
Hulot wrote:
Canon has chosen to serve first those who need ISO above 3200. I dont understand that decision!...
I'm sure they do though - they probably canvassed a large number of working and amateur photographers before choosing their current direction. And i'm pretty sure the 5D3 is selling like hot cakes (as the 5D2 did before it), so they haven't made a bad decision here.
Hulot wrote:
Canon has chosen to serve first those who need ISO above 3200. I dont understand that decision! Now with their beautiful IS glass it would make a great match to have a camera with a better sensor for low ISO.
I still wouldnt discount them yet, they can come up with a solution anytime. Even if they have to buy 3party sensors, they could make a lot of money and sell a lot of lenses
I think you are being a bit influenced by what you read on the internet.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the low ISO image quality on the 5D3, 5D2, 6D etc etc.
Hulot wrote:
Canon has chosen to serve first those who need ISO above 3200.
You can't really blame them as the number of people complaining about low ISO DR is minuscule compared to the number of people that want better high ISO. I have no doubt that it will come eventually but it hasn't been Canon's priority.
15Bit wrote:
for the much better AF compared to the 5D2 maybe, certainly not for the better DR. I actually do some publicity for the 5D4, so it will sell even better
