Still waiting for true innovation

[feppe]

For years I've been dismayed at Canon and Nikon being stuck in the mindset of late 90s film cameras with their features. Their biggest innovations in digital have been a direct print button (Canon) and AF system with 14,725 focus points (Nikon). Sarcasm aside, of course there are new technologies, such as live view - which we all laughed at until we tried it -, and parametric auto-exposure. But by and large, dSLRs see only improvements to existing features which usually take generations to implement properly, while compact cameras from other companies pack in the truly new features.

Perhaps not surprisingly it seems to be Ricoh, Sigma, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony who innovate most, with pixel binning, expanded dynamic range by combining exposures in-camera, non-Bayer sensors, multiple aspect ratios, etc. Perhaps it is because they don't have a decades-long legacy with engineers stuck in another century, and aren't afraid to try something new.

But dSLR shooters are stuck with cameras with features from the late 90s, albeit much improved. Why aren't the features we see in compacts trickling down (up?) to dSLRs? Where are the new features? Where is automatic ETTR exposure? Where is truly smart parametric auto exposure control? Where is live view AF fast enough for handheld work? Dedicated sensor pixels to expand dynamic range (think older Fuji sensors)? Moire-less pictures without the softness inherent in high-pass filters? Automatic calibration of lenses?

While I'm afraid Sony S850's very low price point will force Canikon to accelerate the race to the bottom, perhaps they will instead race with new game-changing features, instead of a yet another generation of incremental improvements. Maybe G11 and S90 are a sign that at least Canon has finally "got it." Or the lower megapixel count might be just to protect their low-end dSLR market; their crippled movie-mode supports this notion.

I'm utterly disgusted by my Canon experience, with my soft 24-105mm f/4L, cryptic flash system, and the lack of innovation. I would sell all my lenses, the powerful but tedious 580EXII, and my bodies in a heartbeat if some other company showed innovation and dedication. Perhaps it will be Leica M9. Perhaps it will be Sony with the future A950; they are known for sticking to a long-term strategy - witness how they had pro-grade lenses long before they had a pro-grade body. Perhaps it will be Olympus with a truly astonishing follow-up to the EP-1.

[uaiomex]

Hi Harri:
I concour mostly with you, but I'm afraid that as long as they meet their sales goals , they won't innovate much.  
Best
Eduardo

For years I've been dismayed at Canon and Nikon being stuck in the mindset of late 90s film cameras with their features. Their biggest innovations in digital have been a direct print button (Canon) and AF system with 14,725 focus points (Nikon). Sarcasm aside, of course there are new technologies, such as live view - which we all laughed at until we tried it -, and parametric auto-exposure. But by and large, dSLRs see only improvements to existing features which usually take generations to implement properly, while compact cameras from other companies pack in the truly new features.

Perhaps not surprisingly it seems to be Ricoh, Sigma, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony who innovate most, with pixel binning, expanded dynamic range by combining exposures in-camera, non-Bayer sensors, multiple aspect ratios, etc. Perhaps it is because they don't have a decades-long legacy with engineers stuck in another century, and aren't afraid to try something new.

But dSLR shooters are stuck with cameras with features from the late 90s, albeit much improved. Why aren't the features we see in compacts trickling down (up?) to dSLRs? Where are the new features? Where is automatic ETTR exposure? Where is truly smart parametric auto exposure control? Where is live view AF fast enough for handheld work? Dedicated sensor pixels to expand dynamic range (think older Fuji sensors)? Moire-less pictures without the softness inherent in high-pass filters? Automatic calibration of lenses?

While I'm afraid Sony S850's very low price point will force Canikon to accelerate the race to the bottom, perhaps they will instead race with new game-changing features, instead of a yet another generation of incremental improvements. Maybe G11 and S90 are a sign that at least Canon has finally "got it." Or the lower megapixel count might be just to protect their low-end dSLR market; their crippled movie-mode supports this notion.

I'm utterly disgusted by my Canon experience, with my soft 24-105mm f/4L, cryptic flash system, and the lack of innovation. I would sell all my lenses, the powerful but tedious 580EXII, and my bodies in a heartbeat if some other company showed innovation and dedication. Perhaps it will be Leica M9. Perhaps it will be Sony with the future A950; they are known for sticking to a long-term strategy - witness how they had pro-grade lenses long before they had a pro-grade body. Perhaps it will be Olympus with a truly astonishing follow-up to the EP-1.

[frugal]

I think we're going to start seeing more of this. The issue was that for a long time the manufacturers could get away with simply increasing the resolution and maybe a couple other basic features (better battery life, bigger LCD).

I think we've reached a point where the resolution offered today is more than adequate for most users and we're hitting the limits of what 35mm format lenses can offer at the high end of resolution (e.g. diffraction limits, but also just resolution limits for the lenses).

What this means is that manufacturers are going to have to start competing on other features, and this should mean more innovation.

[Slough]

For years I've been dismayed at Canon and Nikon being stuck in the mindset of late 90s film cameras with their features.

Maybe, but my Nikon camera has marvelous flash, and good lenses albeit at a price. I can do things with a DSLR that I could not do with film e.g. shoot in mixed lighting, and get good white balance, or shoot long exposures and not suffer reciprocity failure, or colour shifts. (Remember Kodachrome?) It would be nice to have in camera stabilisation and an Olympus style sensor cleaner.

[Dick Roadnight]

I think the next major innovation will be the death of the DSLR - perhaps Red will lead the way to mirror-free pro cameras.

[BernardLanguillier]

There are for sure many areas where significant innovations could bring real world value for photographers, so what is preventing these innovations from surfacing?

I can think of several reasons:

- Priorities driven by perceived customers expectations focus resources on some other domains (more pixels,...),
- Technological difficulties make it expensive or impossible to implement some of the features,
- Manufacturers have agreed to control the pace of innovation in order to maximize the integral of the profit over time (the concurrent release of live view/video by all Japanese manufacturers could be explained by this), they want to make us buy one or 2 more generations of bodies before we decide that we can use our perfect DSLR for the next 10 years,
- Technological choices made at platform level make it hard to implement some features cleanly (interface between lens and body, physical packaging of body,...),
- All manufacturers rely on using some common supplier parts (chips,...) whose developement roadmap they don't totally control (live view comes to mind also),
- Some key thinkers inside the camera companies don't understand the need,
- They are stupid.

I let you pick which of mix of reasons is predominent for each of the features they didn't implement yet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[lisa_r]

I guess I don't feel like I miss many of these features you are discussing - pixel binning, etc. I look around and see the kinds of things people are achieving with their cameras, and I think if I am not able to achieve what I want with today's cameras, then it's probably my fault.

Just one example: see: http://www.mfilomeno.com/ and look at the gorgeous things this guy Javier Vallhonrat is achieving with whatever camera he is using! It's killer, IMO.

I mean really, if he is able to achieve those incredible tones, sharpness, d.r., etc. then I feel like I really have no excuses. I believe that If I can't achieve what he is achieving in terms of IQ, I am probably lacking in imagination, skills, or both.

Just my opinion, of course.

[feppe]

I guess I don't feel like I miss many of these features you are discussing - pixel binning, etc. I look around and see the kinds of things people are achieving with their cameras, and I think if I am not able to achieve what I want with today's cameras, then it's probably my fault.

I'm only partly talking about IQ. I agree that IQ is almost there already - but since low-light cityscape photography is one of my main interests, I am in serious need of much more dynamic range and lesser shadow noise. Outside of IQ, UI is lacking severely in innovation. For example, why can't I dial a bracketed 5 and 80 second bracketed exposure? Instead, until recently I had to use a remote and a stopwatch to get anything beyond 30 secs - now Canon at least provides a second counter.

And the ideas I discussed were not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a kickstart for brainstorming; that was not the intention of the post. Besides, I'm not even talking about the truly revolutionary prototype-level ideas, such as plenoptic camera, as most of the ideas presented exist already.

[Pete Ferling]

There's more to it that just a body with silicon in place of emulsion.  The entire system upgrade has been fairly significant in terms of what it takes to get a picture today vs. twenty years ago.  (i.e. Entire darkrooms have been replaced with a laptop and lightroom (or equivalent) software)).   To say OEMs are stuck in the 90's... well, that's the object model from which we've all came from and are familiar with, and it will continue until we change the entire approach to how we shoot images, and you might not like the end result, as it might be too different.

[EricWHiss]

True innovation for me will be tossing out the 3::2 rectangle.  Tossing out the mirror too.   Why DSLR's still use it is beyond me.

[Plekto]

To me, Bayer sensors are the biggest hurdle and leftover from the old original digital technology.  It's like trying to make a better and better incandescent bulb.  Eventually you need to move forward with modern technology.  As it is, it's at the effective limits of the technology and yet it still looks sub-optimal.   Because, while it's very very nice, it's inherently a kludge.

Moires, jaggies, color artifacts, AA filters... the list goes on and on with the hardware and software because of this.  Now I fully understand why they did it almost twenty years ago.  Because back then it was really the only viable option with the poor technology they had at the time.  But that was a LONG time ago.

Yet the makers of the new technologies that are the eventual future are way beyond "dropped the ball".  Sigh.  It's also why it's my greatest wish for modern photography.  Because the promise is there and we're so close - but still nobody's doing anything about it.

[BernardLanguillier]

To me, Bayer sensors are the biggest hurdle and leftover from the old original digital technology.  It's like trying to make a better and better incandescent bulb.  Eventually you need to move forward with modern technology.  As it is, it's at the effective limits of the technology and yet it still looks sub-optimal.   Because, while it's very very nice, it's inherently a kludge.

Moires, jaggies, color artifacts, AA filters... the list goes on and on with the hardware and software because of this.  Now I fully understand why they did it almost twenty years ago.  Because back then it was really the only viable option with the poor technology they had at the time.  But that was a LONG time ago.

Yet the makers of the new technologies that are the eventual future are way beyond "dropped the ball".  Sigh.  It's also why it's my greatest wish for modern photography.  Because the promise is there and we're so close - but still nobody's doing anything about it.

Currently, 99.9% of cars use combustion engines that use an architecture that many theoricians consider to be far from optimum.

Why? Because:

1. Huge amounts have been invested in this architecture, including a supply chain,... that make it a better option to stick to this highly tuned sub-optimal architecture instead of embarking on something new and risky.
2. The results are pretty good and it is unclear by when a new architecture with more potential would reach the levels of performance availalble today.

I agree that true RGB would be better, but the best Bayer sensors with AA filters (at the risk of getting negative comments I will once more put forward the d3x sensor) are pretty damed amazing in terms of sharpness and lack of articfacts. As of today, the impact of other imperfections in the image capturing system are typically a lot more important than the tiny imperfection introduced by the AA filter.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Sutton]

My first response is that sitting here and grizzling about what manufacturers do or do not offer is pointless and a waste of time. However on careful reflection on Canon's offerings I've become so annoyed and cross I'm going to toss in my 2 cents worth. Don't get me wrong, they are not bad cameras on the whole, but
1) why can't I save as a DNG
2) have a MLU button
3) have no stupid direct print button
4) have user programmable exposure compensation.  The list goes on. It's the feeling that the "features" I can have are decided by marketing department people bereft of souls that have never held a camera in their god-forsaken hands. This may well be true of other brands, but there is surely no need to be so obvious about it Canon. Having seriously considered Sony, if they can get better high iso performance and live view, it will be time to jump ship. Or even Pentax. They are interesting at least.
In the mean time, I shan't think about this again as it takes the pleasure out of shooting.
David

[Graeme Nattress]

"Moire-less pictures without the softness inherent in high-pass filters?" - if only....

Aliasing is an inherent problem to be avoided in any sampled system. It doesn't matter what type of sensor you use, bayer pattern, monochrome sensor * 3 + prism, Foveon, etc. etc. All have the same fundamental issue....

Now, perhaps we can improve OLPFs so that they have a sharper cut-off slope. However, to achieve a sharp slope with filters, we need negative lobes on the filter, and hence negative photons - and that's not going to happen soon. Negative lobes are easy with math, but not so in a real physical filter that filters photons.

But.... Do we want sharp filters, because sharp filters ring, and ringing is a nasty artifact too. You can have aliasing, ringing, or soft image. Pick any one!

Solution of course, is to run the sensor resolution right up into the diffraction / lens limits and omit the OLPF and keep increasing the resolution of the sensor until no aliasing is visible. This is not efficient, but should work quite nicely. At this point you don't need fancy Foveon like RGB sensors (you'd not actually want to use a Foveon as the colorimetry isn't great, and the increase in noise to realize a colorimetry isn't great either - silicon is not a good color filter) and Bayer is more than adequate, cheaper, effective.

Graeme

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks Graeme,

I wanted to make the same points myself, but you expressed it much better than I could.

Erik

"Moire-less pictures without the softness inherent in high-pass filters?" - if only....

Aliasing is an inherent problem to be avoided in any sampled system. It doesn't matter what type of sensor you use, bayer pattern, monochrome sensor * 3 + prism, Foveon, etc. etc. All have the same fundamental issue....

Now, perhaps we can improve OLPFs so that they have a sharper cut-off slope. However, to achieve a sharp slope with filters, we need negative lobes on the filter, and hence negative photons - and that's not going to happen soon. Negative lobes are easy with math, but not so in a real physical filter that filters photons.

But.... Do we want sharp filters, because sharp filters ring, and ringing is a nasty artifact too. You can have aliasing, ringing, or soft image. Pick any one!

Solution of course, is to run the sensor resolution right up into the diffraction / lens limits and omit the OLPF and keep increasing the resolution of the sensor until no aliasing is visible. This is not efficient, but should work quite nicely. At this point you don't need fancy Foveon like RGB sensors (you'd not actually want to use a Foveon as the colorimetry isn't great, and the increase in noise to realize a colorimetry isn't great either - silicon is not a good color filter) and Bayer is more than adequate, cheaper, effective.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

I personally have a very interesting understanding of this issue, being outside, and now inside camera development, and what really got me was the "nuances". What may appear obvious, is seldom so when you get down into the actual implementation details. Hence my "if only..." - "if only sampling theory worked that way..."

The art of camera design is the art of intelligent compromise, and I don't mean deliberately limiting quality or functionality, but the tricky balance between mutually exclusive parameters like the triangle I mentioned earlier - {alias free, ringing free, sharp image} -  you can have any one, or even some degree of combination, but you can't have a totally sharp image, with no aliasing and no ringing!

Graeme

[feppe]

The art of camera design is the art of intelligent compromise, and I don't mean deliberately limiting quality or functionality [emphasis mine], but the tricky balance between mutually exclusive parameters like the triangle I mentioned earlier - {alias free, ringing free, sharp image} -  you can have any one, or even some degree of combination, but you can't have a totally sharp image, with no aliasing and no ringing!

I mean exactly that. Companies deliberately limit the quality or functionality of otherwise identical products all the time. That's why you don't see proper bracketing in entry-level dSLRs, although it's just a software switch. It is disabled to justify the higher cost of mid- and high-price offerings which do include it. Economic term for this is price discrimination, which I'm perfectly fine with as a finance pro and even as a customer.

But as I was lamenting, we don't get many of the most exciting compact camera features in dSLRs. So even if I wanted to pay a premium to get hassle-free expanded dynamic range from dual bracketed exposures in a dSLR, I can't. I'd have to get a Ricoh CX-2 - or do tedious non-creative contrast masking in post since I prefer dSLR glass.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, I fully understand that type of compromize occurs. I wish it didn't. I much prefer trying to do the best you can!

Graeme

[ARD]

Some very valid and interesting points, enjoyed reading the thread. My take is that, a DSLR is just that, a Digital version of an SLR camera. Priority has been given to sensor developments to try and replicate film. The actual bodies have more or less been left alone, as have features wanted as expressed in other posts.

Thing is, would we loose sight of why we take photographs if a manufacturer produced a camera with every conceivable feature, thus, it might become a very expensive point and shoot, with the only thing left to the user being composition. Another point to consider, if more functions are included, the less thought is needed in taking a shot, would this make it slightly boring, I don't know.

Saying all that, I'm sure manufacturers have already created a feature laden model, but as others have said, whilst sales are still good, why would they release it.

[feppe]

Yup, I fully understand that type of compromize occurs. I wish it didn't. I much prefer trying to do the best you can!

It's not as bad as it sounds. The economic justification for it means that companies can extract money from consumers who would be otherwise unable to afford the product, or alternatively, willing to pay more for it. It's not all bad for us consumers: we get a product line which has something for every wallet, and features which otherwise would not be financially justified to put on the camera.