Sports ... BIF ... Events ... No more need foe back button focus ... ? What role may Canon play in this new game ... ? Will this be the 1DxIII ... ? Will PetKal & IM retire ... ?
I doubt Peter would retire unless you can attach a 800L to that thing. And Tony won't retire unless that gives you 50MP or larger files...at 12MP that might not even be usable!
It can’t quite yet move itself between distant shooting locations due to its dependency on an old fashion tripod. As such it’s still dependent on primates and perhaps other members of the animal kingdom to schlep it around however that could change at any time in the near future.
The camera does not keep pace with the action as well as a human. Plainly evident from the video (GIF-like on the home page at link). You'd get fewer shots and fewer usable shots.
Very limited application at best. Only good on level ground for level action. No riders on horses jumping fences. No skateboarders in half-pipes.
Monito wrote:
The camera does not keep pace with the action as well as a human. Plainly evident from the video (GIF-like on the home page at link). You'd get fewer shots and fewer usable shots.
Very limited application at best. Only good on level ground for level action. No riders on horses jumping fences. No skateboarders in half-pipes.
Lenses?
In the near future, cameras ... designed as a "drone" platform" will cover all subjects within the design parameters of the lens(s). A "super Dx* camera and the help of advanced AI in control, this system will soon be able to cover more ground ... more efficiently ... and predictably ...
Imagine BIF photography with the camera able to photograph the bird while both are in flight ... the AI recognizing the subject and it's habits and predicting the subjects next moves.
i can't speak for other types of photography,but when it comes to wildlife, for me it's 60-70% about being in the wild, the woods, the etc, among the spectacular nature, and 30-40% about the photographic process....
And I'm sure there are others that share my feeling...
I know the future holds many surprises and I couldn't care less about a Phantom DJI 4, 5,6,7,8 that can track a bird,animal and predict whatever it wants to predict
adrianb wrote:
i can't speak for other types of photography,but when it comes to wildlife, for me it's 60-70% about being in the wild, the woods, the etc, among the spectacular nature, and 30-40% about the photographic process....
And I'm sure there are others that share my feeling...
I know the future holds many surprises and I couldn't care less about a Phantom DJI 4, 5,6,7,8 that can track a bird,animal and predict whatever it wants to predict
You can always set up your "base camp" in the wilderness and enjoy the ambience while sending the Camera out to explore. Of course there will be Live View ... on a monitor or holographic image generated around you ... in your living room ... at the neighbors' ... local Pub ...
I agree with adrianb. After all, while astounding to look at, who really gets that excited about a photo of a bird or other creature in the long run. For me, its all about getting out into nature and then later showing what I have seen with some of my friends and others. Occasionally I get a great shot to frame or print, but for me, the journey is more than the destination if I may be so cliche'.
I shoot NFL football. A lot of the photography I do at games is isolated player on-field action. It's only a matter of time before automated camera platforms start appearing there, able to follow specific players, the ball, etc.
I have a video from around 2012 of a Japanese university's camera platform that analyses scenes at 1000 fps in real-time. It moves a mirror in front of the camera/lens, which is a lot lighter than moving around the entire camera... It's able to keep a bouncing ball fixed in the center of the frame, follow a ball spun in a circle on a string, project an image onto a bouncing ball...., etc.
Some technical photographic capture tasks, such as my sports photography, will eventually be automated in this way, but I believe there will remain a place for the creative eye. It's 'simple' documentation of action, such as sports played in a defined area that probably lends itself to this. With the big budgets of pro sports leagues such as the NFL, I would be surprised if they're not already looking into how they can put this type of technology around the field.
I suppose that I must be a little odd but I have always had the strange idea that it was personal aesthetic judgement about things like composition and suchlike that made images special.
But of course I am being old and silly aren't I ? The computer control will be able to analyze the photographers mental approach and aesthetic preferences about art, photography and life and then direct the shooting accordingly to produce perfect interpretations of what we would have intended to shoot the old fashioned way but probably would not have been able to because of our human limitations and thus provide us with the ultimate shots that we had been seeking for all those years .... what pleasure, what satisfaction ... Nirvanha achieved at last !
Jefferson wrote:
In the near future, cameras ... designed as a "drone" platform" will cover all subjects within the design parameters of the lens(s). A "super Dx* camera and the help of advanced AI in control, this system will soon be able to cover more ground ... more efficiently ... and predictably ...
Imagine BIF photography with the camera able to photograph the bird while both are in flight ... the AI recognizing the subject and it's habits and predicting the subjects next moves.
IMHO the realization of such technology is far off (like 10-20 years at least) for the faster and less predictably moving wildlife (especially flying wildlife like birds and dragonflies), and within a reasonable budget.
To really follow/track a dragonfly the drone would need to be of similar size/weight and still carry a good camera and powerful propulsion system for fast acceleration, not going to happen in many years .... Bigger drones could possibly 'intercept' the subject to take a few close shots (similar to birds that catch dragonflies), but that is unlikely to provide great pictures. And that's not even considering the risk of scaring / hurting the subject.
Apart from that, I agree with adrianb that being in nature is a big part of the fun, plus I like the challenge. People haven't stopped playing checkers or chess now that a computer program can beat almost anyone ...
Afaik the Soloshot requires you wearing a tracking device (they call it "Tag").
Kinda tough to convince wildlife, athletes or event participants to hold on to that...
I don't know about wildlife photography, but as the technology improves, it will be well tailored to sports coverage. For pro sports, it will be part of the collective bargaining agreement between the leagues and players' associations, that players will wear tags as part of their equipment.
Something like this would allow a league, a TV network or a wire service agency to increase coverage without increasing the number of photographers. It likely will allow a reduction of staffing. There will always be some camera operators/photographers because of their ability to understand the sport and create relevant, creative storytelling images. This technology will free them from the more technical aspects of game coverage. I think it's just a matter of time. Already compared to 15-20 years ago, sports sidelines are much less crowded by photographers. And it will continue probably to the point where coverage will be provided by a single entity, whether it's the league, the team or a designated photo agency. The news industry will protest their exclusion and cite the loss of independent reporting... but then will fold anyway, as they typically have done, in part due to the convenience and lack of their own resources (as well as the possibility to further reduce their staffing)....
rscheffler wrote:
I don't know about wildlife photography, but as the technology improves, it will be well tailored to sports coverage. For pro sports, it will be part of the collective bargaining agreement between the leagues and players' associations, that players will wear tags as part of their equipment.
Something like this would allow a league, a TV network or a wire service agency to increase coverage without increasing the number of photographers. It likely will allow a reduction of staffing. There will always be some camera operators/photographers because of their ability to understand the sport and create relevant, creative storytelling images. This technology will free them from the more technical aspects of game coverage. I think it's just a matter of time. Already compared to 15-20 years ago, sports sidelines are much less crowded by photographers. And it will continue probably to the point where coverage will be provided by a single entity, whether it's the league, the team or a designated photo agency. The news industry will protest their exclusion and cite the loss of independent reporting... but then will fold anyway, as they typically have done, in part due to the convenience and lack of their own resources (as well as the possibility to further reduce their staffing).......Show more →
Agree, a lot of the current work will be automated at some time and some (predictable or very fast) events could probably be covered even better with robots. Many sports have advantages here because e.g. the area to be covered is relatively small, the shooting time is defined (important for autonomous power), there are rules for where the players are and what to cover etc. The customers/viewers also have a relatively predictable preference for the shots they want. It means photographers have to prove they can offer something extra, much of the less creative current work might disappear.
For wildlife this is further away if only for practical purposes (getting a robot out there with the required support, power supply etc), but lately I'm seeing more interesting images from fully automatic cameras including e.g. small cameras strapped to birds or other animals.
And even 'creativity' can be automated to some extent, just look at all the programs pretending to recognize artistic images or perform artistic image manipulation without human input. It should not be too difficult for robots to weed out the really crappy shots based on some relatively simple rules ;-)
