The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute

[design_freak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xxjiQoTp864


Can you imagine what it will be possible in 10 years?

[MrSmith]

"I really wish one of the companies would forget the other exists and just make a great, ground breaking,  f*&%ing camera, with no strings attached, no use to be photographer spokes people, no mine is bigger than yours sales points."

all the time they have to make do with whatever the sensor manufacturers think is suitable for the market that's unlikely to happen. 
if you can spec and manufacture a sensor to you and your customers demands you deserve to succeed, making do with what another company thinks is suitable for your products is not in the final customers best interests.

[KevinA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xxjiQoTp864


Can you imagine what it will be possible in 10 years?

Yup I hope to be sipping cold beer on a warm beach, letting others worry about Photoshop. Happy knowing I have the last box of film left in the World at home in the freezer, just incase I get the urge.

Kevin.

[hjulenissen]

Hi,

The new Sony cameras have very short shutter release lag, about 2 ms, due to non moving mirror and possibly electronic "first shutter courtain". The EVF will on the other hand alway have some lag, while photons in the SLR move with the speed of light.

All cameras today have live view and the option to record motion, so the sensors are capable of fast readouts.

Yes, I was thinking about the latency from scene to eye, not from scene to flash card (but interesting that it is so low).

Perhaps they could have been "better" in some ways if LV/video was not offered? (At least cooler).

Perhaps they will be worse in some ways if 120fps readout for improved contrast AF is implemented?

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The latency is from shutter finger pressed until shutter opens. The rapid response depends that no mirror needs to be moved out of the optical path. The A77 shots also over ten fps for the same reason.

There is probably a significant lag in the viewfinder. A77 does not have contrast AF. It uses a semi transparent mirror for AF. The exposure is made trough the mirror, so the camera looses some ISO.

The advantages I see:

1) The viewfinder image is the actual image

2) There will not be any alignment problem lens to sensor at the focus point. It's as good as it can be.

3) Viewfinder image can be at actual pixels

4) No vibration from the mirror, possible to shoot vibration free without mirror lock up if remote release is used.

5) No dust on sensor as it sticks to the mirror instead, further away not really visible at least normally

6) Flipping mirror cause air in the mirror chamber to circulate and redistribute dust, this effect will be eliminated.

7) Possible to use viewfinder enhancements like histogram, blinking highlights, peaking and virtual horison. Not all of this implemented on all cameras.

For me, live view focusing is the most crucial. I cannot focus reliably by eyesight. LV focus at actual pixels is dead accurate.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, I was thinking about the latency from scene to eye, not from scene to flash card (but interesting that it is so low).

Perhaps they could have been "better" in some ways if LV/video was not offered? (At least cooler).

Perhaps they will be worse in some ways if 120fps readout for improved contrast AF is implemented?

-h

[fotometria gr]

Canon built in GPS, ha ha bloody ha.
Can we really be bothered with yet more pixels in the 35mm camera, a bit more colour and DR would be much more useful.
With each new Canik, MF looks to make more sense than before. In anything other than resolution my Canon can't get close to my 40 year old Rolleiflex. I hope I'm wrong but we just get more of the same with a promise that the new AF will work  better and more frames per second. I bet the big new feature will all be based around big numbers regarding video. £5k throw away cameras are losing their appeal to me these days.

Kevin.

I think that there will prove to be different than what all web predictions show, at least with the new FF DSLR cameras we may very well be surprised! I believe that the market research has shown that the majority of photographers ask for better DR and further noise improvement, the resolution advance is not a priority anymore to the majority of photographers and the very thin video DOF of FF Dslrs makes video a secondary function for these cameras. My believe is that the new FF DSLRs will have only slight resolution increase that will on average stay (well) bellow 20mpx, emphasis will be on improved DR and noise, lighter or no AAs are to be expected and 16bit converters should appear! Things may be different with APS-c sensor cameras where the market is less uniform in its needs (needs?), I expect a good percentage of the market to address towards the "spec seekers" and a smaller, but still good percentage to have the same approach as the FF Dslrs. Surely If Fuji/Hass makes its move towards FF with a high end camera it will be very beneficial for this market and it will speed up things in a positive way, the expectation of the interchangeable sensor flagship and of another entry level FF DSLR from Nikon may also prove to be key factors for "wind direction" in the following years. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[BernardLanguillier]

Surely If Fuji/Hass makes its move towards FF with a high end camera it will be very beneficial for this market and it will speed up things in a positive way, the expectation of the interchangeable sensor flagship and of another entry level FF DSLR from Nikon may also prove to be key factors for "wind direction" in the following years.

Hum... I am not sure what Fuji/Hassy would be able to bring to FF DSLRs that Canon/Sony/Nikon are not already providing with extremely high levels of performance and sophistication.

I am also not sure what the problem is with current DSLRs. Neither in absolute performance nor in relative performance when compared to the actual needs of most photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bernard,

You certainly claim that Nikon D3X is better than the rest? So Canon and Sony needs to catch up? Sony on noise and DR and Canon on read noise?

One area Nikon needs to step up on is affordable 20+ MP. The D3X is awfully expensive compared to Sony Alpha 900 and Canon 5DII. A Nikon D800 with 36 MPixels is rumored to be around soon, and it will almost certainly outperform both D3X and D700, except possibly at high ISO. And the market will absolutely accept 36 MP, as long as the camera does deliver.

Best regards
Erik

Hum... I am not sure what Fuji/Hassy would be able to bring to FF DSLRs that Canon/Sony/Nikon are not already providing with extremely high levels of performance and sophistication.

I am also not sure what the problem is with current DSLRs. Neither in absolute performance nor in relative performance when compared to the actual needs of most photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

You certainly claim that Nikon D3X is better than the rest? So Canon and Sony needs to catch up? Sony on noise and DR and Canon on read noise?

One area Nikon needs to step up on is affordable 20+ MP. The D3X is awfully expensive compared to Sony Alpha 900 and Canon 5DII. A Nikon D800 with 36 MPixels is rumored to be around soon, and it will almost certainly outperform both D3X and D700, except possibly at high ISO. And the market will absolutely accept 36 MP, as long as the camera does deliver.

Hi Erik,

There are for sure some differences between top DSLRs, but they share in common what I see as much superior usability, speed and sophistication compared to what I have seen of the H series (granted my first hand experience is a few years old).

Canon has been a bit behind bodywise on most fronts for a few years, but an 1ds3 remains an excellent camera and is IMHO much superior to what I could imagine Fuji/Hassy would be able to develop. Just think AF speed/usability/accuracy, live view, screen quality, video, speed of operation,... just think also about the huge lenses line up available in EOS and F mounts.

So I don't get the excitement at the idea that Fuji/Hassy could perhaps enter the DSLR market, but I could be missing something. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

1) The viewfinder image is the actual image

Counter argument: the viewfinder image is the actual _jpeg_ image. Not the image that you will end up with after umpteen hours in front of <insert favourite raw developer>. For severe sensor clipping it is probably a good thing to see it in the viewfinder (EVF advantage). For clipping that can be salvaged from other color channels or general tonemapping, it _might_ be better to see the scene "as is" instead of however the camera manufacturer choose to render it. I'd be wary about in-camera automatic black-point and white-point setting.

Same with color rendition (although argueably that does not affect the choices made by the photographer in the field to the same degree as exposure).

7) Possible to use viewfinder enhancements like histogram, blinking highlights, peaking and virtual horison. Not all of this implemented on all cameras.

Important one. We havent seen this fully exploted yet, I believe.

I want to see an image overlay dividing the image into e.g. 10 blocks by 10 blocks, where each block has an alpha-blended overlay graph showing the local magnitude of the fft (folded down to 1-dimensional for visualization). I.e. an estimate of local spatial frequency content, and thereby some measure of sharpnes (multiplied by local content of course).

.-h

[ondebanks]

I want to see an image overlay dividing the image into e.g. 10 blocks by 10 blocks, where each block has an alpha-blended overlay graph showing the local magnitude of the fft (folded down to 1-dimensional for visualization). I.e. an estimate of local spatial frequency content, and thereby some measure of sharpnes (multiplied by local content of course).

.-h

Fast Fourier Transforms in the viewfinder? That's crazy talk! 
Seriously, it sounds terrific in theory, but how many photographers are able to interpret an FFT graph? And how many will mistake the Fourier signature of high-ISO noise as high image sharpness? There's a lot of education to be done (and I'm all for educating people in physics/engineering) before this technique becomes a runner.

Ray

[amsp]

I think I'm going to create a camera that doesn't take any actual photos but rather just creates a bunch of scientific data and saves it as a text file, alternatively a bunch of graphical charts for people to interpret to death. Looking at the demographic of internet forums and this one in particular there seems to be an untapped market! 

[yaya]

I think I'm going to create a camera that doesn't take any actual photos but rather just creates a bunch of scientific data and saves it as a text file, alternatively a bunch of graphical charts for people to interpret to death. Looking at the demographic of internet forums and this one in particular there seems to be an untapped market! 

  While you're at it, be sure it has a button somewhere with an option to post the data automatically onto whichever forum you're subscribed to

[hjulenissen]

Seriously, it sounds terrific in theory, but how many photographers are able to interpret an FFT graph?

I'd guess the same number as those able to interpret a histogram. Most of my family have never looked at or interpreted an image histogram. Basically: add the option for those that want it, make sure it does not stand in the way for those that dont.

-h

[cng]

While you're at it, be sure it has a button somewhere with an option to post the data automatically onto whichever forum you're subscribed to

Don't forget a "Like" button and geotagged EXIF data. That way everyone can vote on the shot, and reproduce it at the same location using identical lens and camera settings.   

[telyt]

I am also not sure what the problem is with current DSLRs. Neither in absolute performance nor in relative performance when compared to the actual needs of most photographers.

They're not new and shiny any more.  A new camera with additional features will give an early-adopter a leg up on the competition, until the competition buys the same camera.  Better IMHO to develop skills than spend on a new toy, the competition can't duplicate the photographer's brain and eye.  The disadvantage of this approach is that it can't be plotted and posted on an internet forum so nothing can be proven.

[ondebanks]

I'd guess the same number as those able to interpret a histogram. Most of my family have never looked at or interpreted an image histogram. Basically: add the option for those that want it, make sure it does not stand in the way for those that dont.

-h

Absolutely - options are always a good thing. When you have an option, some people will benefit, and the rest will not be harmed either way.

In fact, when I look back on the sort of gripes I've written about in photography, it's nearly always been because we have been denied a particular option:
- why isn't dark frame subtraction a de-selectable option with the PhaseOne backs?
- why is there no option of alternative viewfinders on the Mamiya 645AF line? [and the current Nikon line, Canon line, ...]
- why doesn't Nikon leave the bias level in its RAW files, giving us the option of using the negative side of the noise histogram?
- why haven't other MFD manufacturers offered user-removable IR filters, like Kodak and Mamiya did?
- why doesn't Hasselblad permit arbitrarily long exposures with the H4D-40 (the sensor is completely capable of it)?
...etc.

I know that someone will chime in - "because adding options often costs money". But key options can make the difference between someone buying your product or not - you can recoup that money.

Ray

[ondebanks]

Don't forget a "Like" button and geotagged EXIF data. That way everyone can vote on the shot, and reproduce it at the same location using identical lens and camera settings.   

I'm sensing an artists vs. scientists backlash in this thread.
In the event of outright war between the two camps, the scientists will of course have the more potent weapons 

Seriously, in a thread entitled "The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute", did anyone really expect that there would be no talk of possible technical improvements? 
If you are reading this thread, it must be because you are curious about such things. So I don't understand the mocking tone.

Ray

[Chairman Bill]

I'd like a small DSLR, about the same size as my old Nikon FM, with a full-frame sensor. No bells & whistles, I don't need/want HD video, I don't even need lots of fancy metering options & auto-exposure settings, auto-focus and the like. In fact, a digital FM would do just fine.

[telyt]

I'd like a small DSLR, about the same size as my old Nikon FM, with a full-frame sensor. No bells & whistles, I don't need/want HD video, I don't even need lots of fancy metering options & auto-exposure settings, auto-focus and the like. In fact, a digital FM would do just fine.

This deserves a "Like" button.