Toronto Photography Meetup Group

My Wednesday morning (no so coherent and cohesive) photograholic pondering...
...have we reached the peak of what can be done with a digital still camera?
It seems to me that there really isn't much more that can be done.
We've had the megapixel race, the high ISO race, the frames per second race...what's next?
The cameras coming out now can pretty much shoot a hockey game at midnight by candlelight and still get amazing pictures that can be blown up to 6' x 6' prints and be sharp edge to edge with no visible noise.
Pretty much.
The average photographer doesn't need more.
And never will.
Most of us don't need most of what is offered now.
(but it is fun to have - myself being an admitted gearaholic )
It seems to me that the big guys have realized there isn't much more to do that will lure us consumers into investing in another expensive digital body.
This might be why they've decided to go the HD video route.
By combining the HD video capability with the digital slr bodies, they now have another technology to develop and sell us.
But if you just want still photographs...is there anything more we can expect in the future that we will need or want?
Really?
Thoughts?

already made my friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back

A while back there was a company called SiliconFilm. They were designing a 35mm film replacement/adapter that would fit into your 35mm film camera just like film and convert it into a DSLR. Unfortunately I think funding ran out and the project got scrapped.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=we ... wGdWcbT25g

I've said it here before but the biggest challenge is bringing high dynamic range imaging to smaller camera platforms.

Medium format backs already operate in the 24-bit range, allowing 2 or more stops of play on either size of an exposure.

Bringing that kind of functionality to the 35mm sensors would be a huge boon to image quality and performance.

I remember a post at FM years back to a link to a photo contest with an Italian shooting with an XT Rebel in JPG. What was insane was all the settings were done in camera and no PP involve and yet he's images were good. He actually won with his XT trumping pro gear. I'll try to dig it up.

The thought is similar to what Z Arias said about photography being derivative. I have a problem accepting this and basically cuts off the possibilities and I'm not to give up just yet.

Artificial intelligence that won't let you take a photo unles the composition is good. It will have 2 modes. This would analyze the scene and a voice that tells you:

In Beginner mode:

"Are you sure thats what you want? It might be better if you moved a bit to the right and used flash fill"

In Expert mode:

"If you take this shot you might consider a new line of work as you clearly don't know what you are doing"

Super Expert Mode:

Doesn't say anything it just doesn't bother taking the photo if it doesn't consider it's not up to standard.

Wifi/3G so when I'm not taking pictures I can surf the internet, check/send emails or do my banking on the big LCD. The joystick on the 5DMk2 is perfect for moving the cursor around. Have apps like iPhone/Blackberry that allows the user to immediately post pictures to twitter, facebook, flickr and etc. Would be perfect for uploading G20 protests as it happens straight to blogs and other social media sites.

I'm not a video guy. Haven't used the video feature on my Mk2 yet.

Definately!

Just to add to the mix -- I would love to see DSLR's of the future have functionality of HDR built into them. It would be amazing to build in software like Photomatix into a DSLR, with controls in-camera for the creative output of the image. This would elminate so much post processing.

Faster flash syncs would be nice . This topic is why I like strobes more creative outlets

Don't forget the lcd battle which is over now since cameras now have 3inch 1Mp resolutions. I don't think the high iso battle is over yet .. I still want to be able to shoot in complete darkness. I agree with the sentiment of increasing dynamic range in sensors -- that battle has yet to be won. The autofocus battle has been done.

So realistically and I think I will only have to buy maybe 1 or 2 more body advance cycles in the future to have a camera with no shortcomings.

No, there will always be innovation to keep things moving along.

Agreed, but there is a reasonable limit to innovation where it becomes superfluous.

For example, with my 20D the 1.8inch low rez lcd made it difficult to view settings, images, etc. Now cameras have fabulous 3 inch high rez lcds. Do we need 4inch lcds on cameras, no. For me, the battle for better lcds is over.

This argument can be paralleled with the arms race of computers

The thing is, there are still many options we'd want in our cameras. Just that they aren't necessities.

Besides, you haven't seen the shrinking of cameras while retaining quality phase yet.

Right now, they have had the EVIL cameras (low power computing), megapixel race (clock speed), iso performance (cpu pipelining), fps race (multicores).

I still want an articulating screen for my DSLR. and lighter zooms. And still better ISOs. And GPS and other stuff. I don't think we'll ever be done with feature creep.

Don't forget a phone so we can order pizza while waiting.

The ultimate camera would be one that could perceive the way our eye/brain does. It's amazing how we can compensate for a very bright background with a dark foreground.

this was my thought as well.. when they can make a sensor with human eye capabilities, there would be no where else to go

A realistic HDR would come somewhat close.

That's my kinda camera or more like Deletes the picture right after taking because it is crap

Our eyes iare constantly adapting in real time so it is unlikely a static image could duplicate what we see, it is kind of like a HDR but with an ever changing tone map.

And the above is voiced by Ken Rockwell

Then it must be right

leica-sized dslrs would be what i'd want.

Right now the king of DR is the Nikon D3x. It has a little over 12 stops, exceeding all the MF Digital backs on the market.

MFDB's are 16-bit, not 24 bit. The D3x is 14 bit, but the difference is in quantization rather than dynamic range.

at Olympus prices

most people don't know what they need so they allow the manufacturers to confuse features with needs... the concept of adequacy is lost in the noise...

Exactly - I concur

I remember canon made a film camera that detects where your eye is looking...EOS-5

Why did they take off that option?

I would love to use that instead of the D-pad...

Maybe ECF is the never before seen feature for the next body. 3D?