RFs = The Future?

[keithwms]

There has been much discussion of late on the impact of DRFs such as the RD1 and the M8, and now the dp1 has been released and I think it poses questions about the future of RFs and of cameras in general.

I thought it might be fun to have a thread in which we discuss our prophetic visions of the camera of tomorrow. "Tomorrow" = a decade or so from now.

Here is my own version of what is to come...

(1) Foremost I think that SLRs will fall out of production within a decade. The most-cited advantages of reflex mirrors are no longer exclusive to SLRs. TTL composition, in some rudimentary form, is now possible with an electronic viewfinder (EVF). Though some [justifiably] question the quality of EVFs, what is on the market is only the beginning: there are ultra-high res LCD-like screens that are far better than anything we have now. These screens will offer resolution far beyond "high def" and will feature antiglare and auto-brightness features, while also consuming less power than today's LCDs.

(1b) The disappearance of the reflex mirror will be greeted warmly by camera engineers who like the idea of less moving parts. It should also be greeted warmly by all of us RFers because we will quickly realize that camera operation will feel a lot more like a traditional RF, and camera bodies will be comparably lightweight and pocketable.

(1c) Also, on this point of EVFs, let me point out that many Olympus users are already finding a lot of use for their live-view capabilities... even though it is far lower res than what is actually possible. But fear not, more traditional accessory VFs will be available for a very long time and may always have some advantages for low-power / low profile shooting.

(2) How will the EVF look? Well I think the EVF will look like a cross between ground glass and a heads-up display in a fighter jet! There will be options to display AF points, control focus tracking, WB and all that... all via touch screen. So, imagine that you are holding a picture frame or a PDA, and you control everything via your thumbs, or you can go to manual focus with the lens, just like manual RF users do now.

Regarding AF, the tracking / metering algorithms are already sufficiently good to delight any sports shooter. Let me also point out that the dp1 has 9 AF points... just the tip of the iceberg. It's not your grandmother's p&s.

(3) Interchangeable lenses will always be the firm demand of professional shooters, and that will continue. However, once sensors reach a certain point and mostly exceed the resolving capabilities of the lens, most consumers and some more serious shooters will be content to crop electronically. Note that some sports shooters are already quite happy "high speed cropping" into the D3's full frame, as an alternative to shooting with much longer, heavier lens.

(4) Size/feel: well, the d1 is a sign of things to come. With reflex mirrors finally abandoned, the bulk of the camera will be the lens, which can be quite small indeed. I hope that more 4/3 or squarer-format sensors start to emerge, I have never quite seen the reason to build long aspect-ratio sensors when lens image circles are... well, circular.... and most people crop to squarer ratios. Ratios like 4:3 or 645 will eventually be widely accepted.

(4b) Consider that a perfectly square (or circular) sensor might be the very best possibility: you may no longer have to rotate the camera at all. Optimal use of the image circle. N.b. I have my own perosnal axe to grind on this topic because I like squares and don't like to crop into them at all.


So.. what do you think the future holds? Let's discuss it.

All I ask is that we not malign each other's ideas... this is a wide-open dream thread. How would your concept camera look?

 

[bmattock]

I like most of your ideas. I am willing to give up my slappy mirror box on the proviso that manual focusing on any future LCD or OLED, etc, be at least as accurate - and at the moment, they are not. However, as you say - the future may hold more capability.

I admit, I did not think of a square sensor to be cropped both directions and thus avoid having to turn the camera. At the moment, most people are loathe to give up pixels in any direction, but I see your point.

Don't forget uber-low light sensors which far surpass film in terms of latitude may be on the horizon. True available-light photography - at f/8. Wow.

 

[Tuolumne]

Display? It will be heads up. No finder. Period.

/T

 

[ferider]

I mostly agree with you. An RF-style combo of viewfinder and LCD is the future.

Square format is cool, anyways.

Roland.

 

[Tuolumne]

I think the 16:9 HD format will win out, as few images are printed in the future and more displayed on high res, but inexpensive digital frames. You make the assumption that cameras will change completely, but that traditional methods of displaying them will continue. There is no reason to think that. Traditional prints clearly are being replaced by people sharing them on the web and on large screen LCD TV's and monitors.

Yeah, like the paperless office. Now where is my mouse, so I can submit this? Seems to be lost in a pile of papers. 😛

/T

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think the direction that the Panasonic FZ50 has taken is a good one that needs improvements. I like the ability to manually zoom and focus the lens but manual focus is hindered by an EVF that is not quite good enough yet. The capability to interchange lenses would be nice as would a better sensor with lower noise. It is basically a nice camera to use combining old style analog ways with modern technology.

Bob

 

[ferider]

One of Keith's major points was an optical finder (ground glass, viewfinder, whatever), overlayed with LCD/EVF type information (like an RF patch, zoomable framelines, numbers, or similar). For this the current EVF quality is more than sufficient.

 

[photogdave]

These are very cool, and very practical, predictions. I do agree with sitemistic about the aspect ratio. Most consumers will not understand the square format or the ability to crop. They will want the native format to fit their TVs and computer monitors.
Remember trying to explain letter boxing to people when you were trying to watch wide screen movies on your 4:3 TV?
"What are those stupid black bars doing there?!" :bang:

 

[ferider]

... Put everything else on the LCD on the back

Agreed.

 

[keithwms]

I recently read a bio on Edwin Land. His motivation for an entire lifetime's work on instant films may have been a response to a little girl's simple question: why can't we see the pictures right after we take them?

Similarly, my motivating question would be this: when we take a picture, why should it be any less transparent a process than holding up our hands to frame the shot?

So, much of what I said above is motivated by that goal. If LCD-like screens can attain that level of "transparency" - so that framing a shot is like holding up a picture frame - then we will reach photography in its purest, least device-encumbered form.

In terms of resolution, a feeling of true "transparency" could be achieved somewhere below 300 dpi. That's not hideously far off. There are no fundamentals blocking that. It's "only" sh*t expensive right now...

 

[Charly]

I wish I agreed with you, I really, really wish I did.

In the early-ish years of digital, DSLRs were out of the price range of amateurs. To cope with the demands of high end users not making an income from their gear, a new niche emerged, "bridge" cameras such as the Minolta A2, Sony 828 and Canon Pro 1 using EVFs, small sensors and superzoom lenses. To me, someone who hates the bulk, weight and noise of SLRs, these were something a real step in the right direction - however, the EVFs didn't cut it and I went with an Olympus E1 instead.

Then Canon released the 300D and Nikon the D70 and suddenly, SLRs were affordable and people went with what they had before. Sony released the R1, using an APS sized sensor but it wasn't popular.

If the FZ 50 is the camera my friend has, I would quite agree - it is a really wonderful example of how technology can change things. However, are they still made? And will Panasonic PLEASE realise that chip design is NOT their forte and get someone else to do it - their cameras seem hopeless above ISO 200 - and being a nocturnal sort, this isn't any use to me!

 

[sjw617]

The cameras of the future?
I guess they will look like an iPhone - mainly screen with touch controls, auto focus as the default, live view without a view finder, "fixed" lens that is capabe of digital zooming.
The saphire cover will be an option.

Steve

 

[Trius]

These are very cool, and very practical, predictions. I do agree with sitemistic about the aspect ratio. Most consumers will not understand the square format or the ability to crop. They will want the native format to fit their TVs and computer monitors.
Remember trying to explain letter boxing to people when you were trying to watch wide screen movies on your 4:3 TV?
"What are those stupid black bars doing there?!" :bang:

Nah ... the display screens (TV, digital frame, monitor, whatever) will have electronics built in to automatically re-format the source material to the aspect ratio of the user's choice. I.e., the default will be to fill the screen ... most people won't really care for something else. Us old codgers who print to hang on walls will be the only ones concerned about framing and aspect ratios.

There will always be at least two types of cameras ... the mass market P&S sector, and the cameras directed at the pro and advanced amateur market.

 

[FallisPhoto]

So.. what do you think the future holds? Let's discuss it.

In about five years the new 1,200,000,000 terrabyte molecular holographic cameras will come out and everyone will want one. Digital cameras will become worthless overnight. Two days later, the internet will be utterly and completely overwhelmed by extremely annoying "Please help us, Obiwan Kenobi; you're our only hope" messages. Many people become raving homicidal maniacs after being subjected to thousands of these messages. Two weeks later, when all the governments of the world launch their nuclear missiles at the main offices of Microsoft, Nikon, Canon and Pentax, in a last-ditch effort to save the last vestiges of sanity in the human race, the resulting EMPs ruin everyone's new cameras, as well as the few remaining digital ones, and the few survivors have to go back to film. Sanity will be restored. Mentioning the name "Obiwan Kenobi" will, however, remain a capital offence for the next 10,000 years.

 

[wayneb]

My impression from people that represent the typical point and shoot camera user (and this applies to some that have moved up to the DSLR packages) is they like looking at the screen and picking out frames to save.

Agree with the comment about traditional shutter going away and 16:9 format, as there will be some convergence with the HD video camera, where people will always be shooting video and perhaps the software will be help choose keyframes (now that it can detect faces and whether eyes are opened or closed).

I have to disagree that SLRs are going to go away, there are simply too many people that use them and have the lenses and there's just too big of a market not to continue producing bodies.

 

[Larky]

The camera of the future will have a phone on it! 😉

The camera of the future will have EOS 5 style eye control, touch screen menu system, be made of cling film (seran wrap) and will produce a dreadful picture made up of 10 gazillion squillion pixels from a sensor the size of an ant's toe.

And we will all be using our 100 year old RF's 🙂

Tech is moving too quickly for us or anyone else to know what will happen. Everything used in current cameras is very old technology. Sure, the marketing says it's new but we all know better. Storage is slow and small. Sensors are cheap and small, the software that drives them is mickey mouse. The ergonomics involved are poorly thought out, and the system is designed to work for 5 years maximum.

16:9 is here to stay (which is good as 4:3 is horrible) for the main reason that it's practically law to shoot 14:9 upwards to 16:9 if it's to be broadcast on British TV.

I think there will always be 2 types of system, cheap stuff for grandmother and expensive stuff for us lot. The cheap stuff will have all these touch screen gimmicks, our stuff will have metal dials!

But this is all my opinion only, and currently I'm grumpy, cold and tired.

 

[keithwms]

I guess my feelings about this are somewhat guided by the device engineering part of my brain. My feeling is that cameramakers really want less moving parts... while consumers also want a svelte, do-it-all pocketable camera. These two forces favour an RF design over SLR.

I do realize that dSLRs are a dime a dozen now, but looking ahead... the cost of the sensor will be the determinant of the price point of the camera. If it isn't already. Thus the risk that cameramakers assume when introducing a new body will be dominated by sensor development costs. And the cameramaker will be less inclined to invest heavily in non-sensor related expenses.

I think the sensor development costs have so much of their own market inertia that they are going to push us toward a completely new style of shooting in which there is far greater transparency between the subject and the eye side of the camera.

I think reflex mirrors will begin to disappear just as soon as the mass market decides that there is lighter, less expensive alternative that still gives similar TTL functionality. Pros will be the last to accept this change... but they will eventually accept it. Just like they accepted little viewfinders in the early 1900s. (Yes I realize that some of us still use ground glass, and happily! Myself included! But I am talking about the market here.)