technic
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Will Canon engineers ever "shrink the lens"? | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I look forward to the day when I can spot/document (and automatically recognize) birds, dragonflies etc. at a distance with just a smartphone; probably a realistic option within 5 years.
Why would you want that? The way I understand it, a part of the fun of birding is doing the work yourself and trying to identify the birds - with whatever capabilities of eyes, brain and field craft you have. If you buy the identification capability from a shop, why go out there at all?
Why? Because sometimes this isn't just about hobby/recreation but scientific research. If the smartphone helps with auto ID that can save a tremendous amount of time compared to manually recording all observations (time, location, species, gender etc.). Part of my photography is for scientific purposes (and no, I don't think an App always is better at identification, but even if ID is sometimes wrong it still saves a lot of time).
___________
For photography contest quality pictures or real action photography, it will take much longer (if ever) to get there with much smaller cameras but how often is that needed?
Static images of wildlife are inherently boring and because we are inundated with them from every site, to pick the public's interest, the image has to have something special. Special light, special subject, special behavior or moment in time. Birds fly - that's their special thing, and so in-flight images are more interesting than static ones. Trying to catch food is interesting. Courtship and fighting with rivals is interesting. Trying to catch a moment where one bird grabs food from another's beak in the light of a golden sunset is interesting.
No disagreement here.
I have seen some very convincing examples for e.g. removing motion blur, camera shake
You can do these things on a computer as well, and arguably use much better algorithms and because computers are equipped with much larger screens, you can see when the approach works and when it fails due to algorithms.
But real improvement isn't going to happen until we have FAR more computing power available in-camera
I don't see why this has to happen in the camera. I'd much rather work on the images using a computer and monitor the results on a large screen to ensure quality.
PP is boring, especially if it needs to be applied to a huge amount of images (like with stacking). It isn't fun and photography should be about fun. That is why this technology is now applied to smartphones: it works without the hassle. At some point hopefully the same will be true for cameras with bigger sensor.
|
