2016: a glut of cheap high quality digicams that nobody wants???

N

noimmunity

scratch my niche
Local time
4:50 AM
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
3,102
Location
Lyon/Taipei
View My Gallery
Imagine the number of really excellent, yet not "latest-greatest" digital cameras that will be around in 2016. The numbers of Canon 5Ds and Nikon 700/800s alone just boggles the mind.

Has anybody seen any articles that describe what the manufacturers' long term strategy will be?

I suspect that the future innovations will not come in terms of IQ upgrades, but rather in terms of redefining IQ and the way in which people look at things. The phenomenon of "pixel-peeping" zoom is an example of what I mean, but I guess it is just the tip of the iceberg or the crest of the wave.

Is there anybody else contemplating ways of training visual perception to resist the "latest-greatest" cyclical surge?
 
I can't wait for this time to come... though I have a feeling a few of the more elegant examples will keep their value. I wouldn't mind picking up a RX1 and a D800 in 2016... for a fraction of the price. 🙂 That said, I still think we may be in the golden age of the digital camera.
 
IMO, we're getting close to the golden age of digital cameras. Just a couple or few more generations to go and they will be there.
 
This is a fascinating thought. I'm afraid I don't have much to contribute, but I thank you for bringing this up.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the innovations were in smaller cameras, like those found in cell phones. Makes me think about the idea of full frame compacts, too. Maybe we it's not our technology, but the potential hit to high end camera sales that's preventing them from being developed.
 
FrankS said:
IMO, we're getting close to the golden age of digital cameras. Just a couple or few more generations to go and they will be there.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right. On one hand we have models coming out every 6 months, so its prosperous time for manufacturers... but there is still a lot of innovation on the horizon I'm sure.
 
PKR said:
Yes, and I think the Mfgrs will have to increase the build quality in the better ones in order to sell them.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130936
Click to expand...

Yes, that may be the next step, an increase in quality, once digital technology becomes more mature. To this point, it would be silly to build a super high quality digital camera built to last a few decades, when it will surely be left in the dust due to technology advancements. I think the M8 and M9 are such examples that just don't make sense to me.
 
You could have made the same statement five years ago. We are already way past the point of diminishing returns.

For $500, a Nikon D5000 can deliver results that are undiscernable in print from just about any other digital camera, even at high ISOs. Everything beyond that level is essentially overspecc'd for all but a tiny percentage of specialized pro photographers. Any great photographer of the past -- Avedon, Nachtwey, whatever -- could have built a career with that camera.

Which means that when 2016 rolls around, the same group of people are going to be fantasizing about being able to buy that year's camera -- 80MP, ISO 1,000,000, whatever -- in 2020.

And that's what camera manufacturers now rely upon -- not the reality of photographers' needs, which were exceeded years ago, but a perceived need, a psychological need to keep up.
 
For the past ten years the technology has changed fast enough and improved signficantly enough that you had to buy the latest and greatest every couple of years or you were left behind in file size and image quality. The manufacturers are already knocking on the door of the end of "possible" with physics there, so the trend is to try to market widgets and make us think we need them... face recognition, art filters, fancier and more gimmicky auto focus, and more and more "control" over tailoring the bodies buttons and output, but there really isn't much going on in break through advances in the technology of imaging itself.

That means that your D800 or your M9P will be a competitive image-maker for some years to come. There may be more bells and whistles advertised as "must-haves" but as far as I'm concerned they're just gimmicks. The market is going to flatten soon if it hasn't already.
 
FrankS said:
Yes, that may be the next step, an increase in quality, once digital technology becomes more mature. To this point, it would be silly to build a super high quality digital camera built to last a few decades, when it will surely be left in the dust due to technology advancements. I think the M8 and M9 are such examples that just don't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Frank, you don't buy the M8 or M9 for the same reasons you buy a digi-CaNikon. And the guts may not last any longer than any other digicam. The draw of the Leica digi-Ms is twofold; first they allow you to use your film M glass on a body that is similar in operation and feel to your film M. Second, if you're used to and like working with a bright line rangefinder there's nothing else on the market that you can get. The only thing that's crazy is the prices... but if you shop hard, there are good buys to be had.

There is, of course, the argument that there are a slew of competent digi bodies to use M lenses on now, but if you like the simplicity of operation of the M, none of them even come close. The bright-line coincident rangefinder brings a different perspective to making images that you either embrace as "right" or you don't understand it at all. And that's ok. It's not right for a majority of photographers, actually. So is buying a digi-M system irrational from a "value" perspective? Perhaps, but I've spent forty years shooting M bodies now and they just feel "right" to me. I know them inside and out, and using one is like walking. It just happens. So they have value and make sense for me.
 
DWScarpa said:
Which means that when 2016 rolls around, the same group of people are going to be fantasizing about being able to buy that year's camera -- 80MP, ISO 1,000,000, whatever -- in 2020.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that... and I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is going to be the advantage of 80mp? The prints that will take advantage of this will be way too expensive to make... but I guess there are different presentation methods. Hmm, billboards you can get up close to and see every little details still.

And that's what camera manufacturers now rely upon -- not the reality of photographers' needs, which were exceeded years ago, but a perceived need, a psychological need to keep up.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure of this... dynamic range and ergonomics are still being hammered out. AF speed and accuracy are still an issue.
 
hepcat said:
FrSecond, if you're used to and like working with a bright line rangefinder there's nothing else on the market that you can get. The only thing that's crazy is the prices... I've spent forty years shooting M bodies now and they just feel "right" to me. I know them inside and out, and using one is like walking. It just happens. So they have value and make sense for me.
Click to expand...

I think this is THE RFF QUESTION. But soon the prices (for used) won't be so high (but still really high for several years' old technology).

I got into photography when digital was just taking off, but opted for film RFs. Did some SLRS, but RFs are really incomparable for capturing human-sized relationships. Now film has become unworkable for me, I'm trying to figure out how much I want to pay to prolong the RF experience into the digital world. I think we need a separate thread for this!
 
Build a camera with a full frame foveon sensor that can produce clean files up to 6400 and it's all over as far as I'm concerned. I personally wouldn't care what they made after that! 🙂
 
The DSLRs then will have incamera photoshopping. They will be voice activated. You'll just say "turn on wetplate collodion filter" or "turn on instagram 1965 Kodak" and shoot a "different" camera and era for each shot. What else can they do to resolution?
 
jsrockit said:
I wonder about that... and I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is going to be the advantage of 80mp? The prints that will take advantage of this will be way too expensive to make... but I guess there are different presentation methods. Hmm, billboards you can get up close to and see every little details still.
Click to expand...

The new Canon 1D is rumored to have something like 47MP. Why? Because the Nikon D800 has 36MP, and it's been getting all the attention. So at the current rate, we get to 80MP pretty soon. 80MP is not going to be that easily distinguishable from 47MP anyway, so we're nearly there.

Is there any practical value to any of this? No, not even for billboard photographers, because at some point you hit the resolution limits of the lens. But there's not much use for 36MP for most photographers either.


jsrockit said:
I'm not so sure of this... dynamic range and ergonomics are still being hammered out. AF speed and accuracy are still an issue.
Click to expand...

Ergonomics aren't really a technological issue, they're a matter of personal taste. Some people will tell you a 50-year-old M3 has perfect ergonomics, others will tell you they're terrible. And, of course, the $7000 Leica M has no AF at all.

Either way I don't see any huge ergonomic barrier that's going to be broken in the near future that is going to enable us to take photos we can't take on a Nikon D5000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom