How far will Digital go.

I really would like to hear some others opinions on this.
Will digital keep improving or do you think it has peeked and will continue on this level.
I hate the thought of buying a new body ever 3 yrs because there's always something better on the market.

[verdesardog]

Like all other electronics, digital photography is far from peaked out....

[Take12]

Well, if the history of the west's industrialisation process is anything to go by you may expect this to continue for another 2 centuries at least, D....

Have fun!

Originally Posted by Take12

Well, if the history of the west's industrialisation process is anything to go by you may expect this to continue for another 2 centuries at least, D....

Have fun!

thats a lot of cameras..

Maybe I should elaborate more. do you think image quality has plateaued.

[matthewlrigdon]

We might have hit a plateau here, but at some point this will change. dpreview's recent review of the Canon 50D led them to believe that the pixel size on that camera may be too small, sacrificing some image quality. Now it could be that they got a bad camera, but it is true that smaller pixels don't perform as well. Canon did a lot of fancy engineering to get those 15 mpx into an APS-C sensor and it may be costing them image quality (however, the dpreview may be an outlier, as well. anecdotal evidence seems to have people preferring the 50D to the 40D ).

That's not to say that there won't be some fundamental change to the way CMOS sensors are designed (or even some replacement for those sensors) that jumpstarts the whole process again. It does appear that we may have hit the point of diminishing returns in megapixel counts.

There is still room for processing improvements, however. The recent crop of cameras only just offered 14-bit processing so advances in the image processors in the cameras (DIGIC) should give us some room to produce better images from those sensors. These additional bits do seem to help extend dynamic range for digital cameras. Again, the results aren't leaps-and-bounds now, but there still seems to be some headroom in this area.

The biggest change is liable to be the addition of features that aren't typically still camera features. Most people on this board are poo-pooing the HD video on the 5D mk2, but there's an entire community of videographers who have been begging and pleading for something exactly like this who can't wait to get their hands on the camera. There's always going to the need for high-quality still images, but we really do live in a multimedia world. There's a need to communicate and one day video will be as ubiquitous as stills are now (when a video camera comes standard on every cell phone, we'll have reached this point). We'll see more and more of this because Canon and Nikon can't sit still while companies like Red come along and try to crash the party. As storage space proliferates (we're up to 32GB CF cards, which ten years ago was the size of the largest desktop hard drive) and we get faster processors in cameras, we're liable to see digital "still" cameras that shoot 4K video. Film users always had high speed motor drives and it's been somewhat expensive to buy in digital, but figure that video is the ultimate motor drive. You'd never miss a shot again. In fact, there was a photographer here in Culver City who used to shoot stills with 35mm film reels in his own custom-made camera. Digital is finally catching up with that.

[korman]

Originally Posted by D.Rodgers

I hate the thought of buying a new body ever 3 yrs because there's always something better on the market.

Don't be stupid and let yourself be fooled by marketing. Show some spine and decide what you want out of your camera, then check whether the camera you already have does what you expect. If it does, stay with what you have until it's broken and use your money on things that give more fun for the buck.

The current crop of cameras is good enough to make good prints for most situation in life. As this goal is reached, I don't expect that to be increases by future generations. We see this already with the slow-down in the megapixel race.

In the next years, cameras will get more wonderful, and perhaps they will even improve in useful areas, like smoother colour gradients, more dynamic range or better performance in low light. But will those improvement be worth to spend money on them, if you already have a camera that capture good images? For a hobbyist, probably not.

If you live from photography, the decision will be even easier: Just check how much more you're going to earn because of the new features or how much money you'll lose by not having them. Then compare with the cost of upgrading.

Korman

[Take12]

Originally Posted by D.Rodgers

Maybe I should elaborate more. do you think image quality has plateaued.

(That's more elaborate?).
Anyway: of course image quality has plateaued. Until the next step (plateau) up. And then the next. And so on, and so forth.
The first cars in 1885 had a top speed of 5mph. Your current car probably easily does 100mph. While Richard Noble c.s. are gearing up to do well over 1,000mph on 4 wheels. All plateaus...

[KmH]

The human eye is the limiting factor for print resolution. (about 300 ppi)

However many MP a particlar camera has basically controls the maximum, high resolution, enlagement size possible from that camera.

There are medium format cameras (645 sensor size) on the market today that are at 40 MP.

The other factor pushing MP's is sensor speed, for lack of a better term. There are full size 35mm sensors out there capable of over ISO 25,600 as an example. I can remember being blown away by ISO 800 filmbn .

In astronomy they use cooled (liquid helium cool) CCD's that make images at light levels so low most photographers would simply drool.
Imagine making images at midnight, hard overcast, no moon or stars, chimping, and having them look like they were exposed at high noon with no cloud cover.

Digital imaging is still in it's infancy. Stay tuned.

[Ed Shapiro]

If one wants to be negative, suspicious and cynical about the marketing of digital equipment and bandy about phrases such as built in obsolesce and things like that, they are welcome to do so if it makes them happy but a little insight into the science of digital imaging many change their mind and see things from a different point of view.

From an engineering point of view there are so many existing problems that are being addressed every day so that great progress in the image quality in digital photography is sure to improve by leaps and bounds as time goes on.

There are issues such as noise suppression; the software that is used to correct noise actually causes a bit of blur which does eliminate some of the "granularity" of the noise but cuts down on the all over image sharpness. This phenomena is being investigated by engineers as to using different methods to preclude noise. There is a component called an aliasing (sp??) filter which is installed in front of the digital sensor- this component helps put the color into the pixels but when it not used, the sharpness increases. Some Lica models were manufactured without this filter for the shake of added sharpness but a filter had to be retrofitted to the lens to remove some kind of fringing or color distortion that resulted when removing the aforementioned internal filter. Manufacturers are experimenting and improving things all the time. I have no formal background in optical or electronic engineering so my nomenclature and explanations my be very rudimentary at best. I do, however, read up on theses matters and ask questions of people who are more scientifically involved with theses issues in order to gain some insight into what is going on.

I still use film for certain jobs at my studio only because I like the "look" better than what I would achieve in digital imaging. Knowing a little bit of the science helps me realize why and makes me aware of the improvements to come.

I am a professional photographer and therefore want to be advised of the latest gear so that I can analyze whether or not some of the improvements will help me produce a better product in a more efficient manner. If I were a hobbyist, I wouldn't worry at all- a decent DSLR will provide long service and good images as long as one knows how to use the thing properly.

In a free enterprise society, where competition rules, it is silly to think that any technology will level out, not improve and set new goals and achieve them in a timely manner.

Ed

[Dirk]

Offcourse Digital will evaluate .. in 2009 we will see 12MP as a basis resolution and ipod abn=nd photo in one , in the year 2010 we will probably hit the 20MP as a basis resolution, with VR MK XI and Auto sensing FX/DX/XD/XF/CF/SDHC and of course 48 hrs battery running time on 20mp !

wisedom of the year (Copy right D 70freak)
there is always something better , today's geek is old tomorrow, ancient the day after and the 3 day out of production.. when you always want something to be bettter and better and better , you have forgotten the real life .. not every body has either the money to buy new stuff and in my humle opinion a guy or girl that buys what he really wants and enjoy's it nows hoe to cope with life as it is to day.. "

[matthewlrigdon]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

There is a component called an aliasing (sp??) filter which is installed in front of the digital sensor- this component helps put the color into the pixels but when it not used, the sharpness increases. Some Lica models were manufactured without this filter for the shake of added sharpness but a filter had to be retrofitted to the lens to remove some kind of fringing or color distortion that resulted when removing the aforementioned internal filter.

Anti-aliasing filters. One of the big reasons to use them is to avoid moire effects in images. They do this by blurring the image, basically. A few years back, American Photo did a comparison with the Canon 1D mk2 and a medium format body. The medium format body didn't have an anti-aliasing filter (at the time, there were quite a few medium format bodies that didn't have them, I don't know what the situation is now) which resulted in a much sharper image than the Canon. However, you'd have to locate and fix problematic areas of the image.

They thought that if you could purchase a 1d without the anti-aliasing filter, you'd have a camera that was capable of medium format quality. In fact, that extra bit of sharpness was the medium format body's biggest advantage. However, Canon doesn't seem too keen on removing the filter because the loss of sharpness was preferred to introducing moire effects. If you're shooting medium format, presumably you aren't shooting the same volume as a dSLR user is expected to, so the additional effort to fix it in post isn't such a big deal.

Different sensor types are more or less susceptible. I saw a note that Foveon sensors are far less susceptible to aliasing effects. In many ways, the Foveon sensor is far superior to CMOS, but the additional cost has put most manufacturers off. CMOS has taken us quite a long way and it's cheap.

It is possible that one day we'll reach some limit to what CMOS sensors can do and we'll have to jump over to something like the Foveon. It's also important to keep in mind it isn't just about the light-gathering sensor, but also the image processor it's paired with. I believe that Sony still manufactures most of Nikon sensors, but the cameras perform differently because of the processor that's paired with it.

I think that most of the big improvements over the next few years will be on the processor side, rather than the sensor side. And the better the processor gets, the better it handles the edges of the performance envelope. If you shoot in a studio with adequate lighting at ISO 100, every camera gives fantastic results. It's the high-ISO situations, for instance, that a new camera will really give you a leg up. If you don't deal with that, the camera upgrade is less critical.

[Rense]

Scroll a bit here to see why digital is dying

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by Rense

Scroll a bit here to see why digital is dying

The 1st problem with this is the website it came from.

But the main reason Digital will not die is that no longer can we do Kodachrome as the development is no longer possible as the last one closed recently so we can now throw away our K64 K25 film we have been storing in fridge.

Film has to be processed and no one wants to wait for this even if it is 1 hour.
50mp cameras are here yes they cost but the quality is WOW

Also if you take nude/semi-nude/glamor photos you may not want anyone else doing the development, at least I would never.

[Take12]

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

if you take nude/semi-nude/glamor photos you may not want anyone else doing the development, at least I would never.

Which begs the question: when are you going to post 'm here?

[korman]

Originally Posted by Take12

Which begs the question: when are you going to post 'm here?

Probably he doesn't post those people aren't supposed to see.

Korman

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

If one wants to be negative, suspicious and cynical about the marketing of digital equipment and bandy about phrases such as built in obsolesce and things like that, they are welcome to do so if it makes them happy but a little insight into the science of digital imaging many change their mind and see things from a different point of view.

Or you can join the rest of us on planet earth and understand that products that are designed to fail are not a reality, but THE reality.

Planned obsolescence is neither negative, suspicious nor cynical; it's how product designers and manufacturers stay in business.

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

50mp cameras are here yes they cost but the quality is WOW

Who is making them i would like to check it out

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by D.Rodgers

Who is making them i would like to check it out

H3DII-50

Even the Brochures for the Nikon D3 were taken with a Blad. wonder why?

[Take12]

Originally Posted by D.Rodgers

Who is making them i would like to check it out

Here's a a 56mp back for you.

But you'll need a whole system.

Not to mention another 100 grand for a fully equipped studio, a lighting system, and a whopper of a workstation* to process those ginormous image files.

*e.g. a Mac Pro Octo core with 32GB RAM, 2x 30" Cinema Displays, and 3x 1TB harddisks...

Have fun, D.!