Future of DSLR - speculate please

[snberk103]

I agree and disagree. Camera phones are advancing quickly and you're right in that they posses enough quality for the majority of consumers, the shoot and upload to facebook type.

But where I disagree with you is that is replacing any level of DSLR sales. Camera phones are replacing the point and shoot, not DSLR. The people buying DSLRs (at any price point) are looking for more in a camera package. A camera phone is not going to fill that void.

Most of the non-pro users I know who use DSLRs use them primarily for two things. Higher MP files, and the range of focal lengths DSLRs offer.

The new Nokia 808 phone [Link] has got to have the Nikons and Canons worried. Not this particular phone, particularly... but the technology behind it that allows it to zoom digitally with (supposedly) optical zoom quality.

Moore's law predicts that we could have a sensor with twice as many pixels in a couple of years (though admittedly I don't know that photo sensors follow the same law... this does indicate what's coming down the pike).

So in a couple of years we have phone cams with high MP images, and a fairly decent zoom range. And glass made by Carl Zeiss.

Yes, the hard-core DSLRers will still insist on their feature rich cameras.... but the ones who can just barely afford a DSLR are going to be mighty tempted.... especially when their phone could have the same zoom range as their friend's DSLR with (2 lenses) and the files are big enough to print 16x20s. Heck... I'd use it. Even if I never used it as a phone, it gets tempting.

 

[Designer Dale]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but everything you've listed is already available in most current DSLR models, including the histogram preview.

What I mean is that these are the only features I would like to see on a DSLR. The dial on my XSi has 12 positions and I would like to see only the three that I use. My camera is full of features that I don't use and I see them as being in the way more often than not. My camera gives me a histogram after the shot but not before. Live View might do that, but that's another thing I don't use. If Canon sold a simplified full frame camera, I would be all over it.


Dale

 

[Phrasikleia]

What I mean is that these are the only features I would like to see on a DSLR. The dial on my XSi has 12 positions and I would like to see only the three that I use. My camera is full of features that I don't use and I see them as being in the way more often than not. My camera gives me a histogram after the shot but not before. Live View might do that, but that's another thing I don't use. If Canon sold a simplified full frame camera, I would be all over it.


Dale

Oh, I see. Well, most of the full-frame cameras do away with the array of consumer features like scene modes and whatnot. Mine has only 10 positions on its mode dial, and three of those are for custom settings. If you feel that your camera is fussy to work with, it's probably because the XSi forces you to sift through a lot of menus on the screen to get what you want. It lacks the top LCD and many of the buttons that are standard on other models. Maybe one of the many simplified rangefinder cameras would be more pleasing for you to use, if you want a more minimalist set of features. I once owned an XSi, but now I've forgotten how its Live View worked. For tripod photography, I find Live View invaluable and would never again want to be without it. At any rate, yes, Live View is where one can see a live histogram (i.e. a preview before taking the shot).

As for the topic at hand, the OP said "near future," so I'll throw my speculation into the ring: not much will change. The radical changes will be taking place in the mirrorless market over the next few years, while DSLRs will slowly see refinements in sensor technology, video functions, auto-focus, and probably flash control (radio instead of optical). That will cover the next generation or so of models. What will happen after that is anyone's guess.

 

[Designer Dale]

Oh, I see. Well, most of the full-frame cameras do away with the array of consumer features like scene modes and whatnot. Mine has only 10 positions on its mode dial, and three of those are for custom settings. If you feel that your camera is fussy to work with, it's probably because the XSi forces you to sift through a lot of menus on the screen to get what you want. It lacks the top LCD and many of the buttons that are standard on other models. Maybe one of the many simplified rangefinder cameras would be more pleasing for you to use, if you want a more minimalist set of features. I once owned an XSi, but now I've forgotten how its Live View worked. For tripod photography, I find Live View invaluable and would never again want to be without it. At any rate, yes, Live View is where one can see a live histogram (i.e. a preview before taking the shot).

As for the topic at hand, the OP said "near future," so I'll throw my speculation into the ring: not much will change. The radical changes will be taking place in the mirrorless market over the next few years, while DSLRs will slowly see refinements in sensor technology, video functions, auto-focus, and probably flash control (radio instead of optical). That will cover the next generation or so of models. What will happen after that is anyone's guess.

Rangefinder?? Excuse me while I remove the dagger from my heart... A Leica would make a nice pocket camera, though. I'm currently walking the 7D/5D fence.

I agree that remote electronic controls built in would be nice in a near future DSLR. If a BlueTooth controller was built into the camera, you could sync remote flash guns with a phone app.

Dale

 

[handsome pete]

Most of the non-pro users I know who use DSLRs use them primarily for two things. Higher MP files, and the range of focal lengths DSLRs offer.

The new Nokia 808 phone [Link] has got to have the Nikons and Canons worried. Not this particular phone, particularly... but the technology behind it that allows it to zoom digitally with (supposedly) optical zoom quality.

Moore's law predicts that we could have a sensor with twice as many pixels in a couple of years (though admittedly I don't know that photo sensors follow the same law... this does indicate what's coming down the pike).

So in a couple of years we have phone cams with high MP images, and a fairly decent zoom range. And glass made by Carl Zeiss.

Yes, the hard-core DSLRers will still insist on their feature rich cameras.... but the ones who can just barely afford a DSLR are going to be mighty tempted.... especially when their phone could have the same zoom range as their friend's DSLR with (2 lenses) and the files are big enough to print 16x20s. Heck... I'd use it. Even if I never used it as a phone, it gets tempting.

The lossless digital zoom that they're talking about with the Nokia is basically just taking a crop from a 41 MP sized image. Of course this can and has been done for years. It's not like you're taking the 41 MP size and then zooming in further without loss of quality.

Carl Zeiss glass is nice, but there's only so much you can get out of such a small footprint when it comes to optics.

Also, there is a lot more to a sensor than just how many pixels you can cram into it.


Of course camera phones are constantly getting better, but despite the advancements I just don't believe they will serve as replacement for a DSLR on any level.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Rangefinder?? Excuse me while I remove the dagger from my heart... A Leica would make a nice pocket camera, though. I'm currently walking the 7D/5D fence.

I agree that remote electronic controls built in would be nice in a near future DSLR. If a BlueTooth controller was built into the camera, you could sync remote flash guns with a phone app.

Dale

Dagger in your heart?! Oh my! Are rangefinders that bad? Sorry, your description of a camera that does away with fussy features and hearkens back to the simplicities of the film era pretty well describes some of these new rangefinders that are coming out. Don't one or two of them even have a full-frame sensor now? Anyway, I certainly didn't intend to lob any daggers in your direction. Nothing on the list you wrote would make a 7D/5D come to mind over a rangefinder, but I don't know your particular needs very well.

 

[Designer Dale]

Dagger in your heart?! Oh my! Are rangefinders that bad? Sorry, your description of a camera that does away with fussy features and hearkens back to the simplicities of the film era pretty well describes some of these new rangefinders that are coming out. Don't one or two of them even have a full-frame sensor now? Anyway, I certainly didn't intend to lob any daggers in your direction. Nothing on the list you wrote would make a 7D/5D come to mind over a rangefinder, but I don't know your particular needs very well.

Figure of speech. I don't actually expect any camera company to make what I mussed about. I'm just going to suck it up when I upgrade my camera...


Dale

 

[compuwar]

Figure of speech. I don't actually expect any camera company to make what I mussed about. I'm just going to suck it up when I upgrade my camera...
Dale

Noooo- you're *supposed* to say "Why won't $manufacturer make a 3D video producing 22fps ISO 16bazillion ISO camera for $19.99?????"

Paul

 

[snberk103]

The lossless digital zoom that they're talking about with the Nokia is basically just taking a crop from a 41 MP sized image. Of course this can and has been done for years.....
Of course camera phones are constantly getting better, but despite the advancements I just don't believe they will serve as replacement for a DSLR on any level.

I don't expect this Nokia phone to take that big a bite out of DSLR sales, but the OP did ask us to speculate into the near future. Nokia and Carl Zeiss are going to want to leverage their R&D and I think we are going to see more and more powerful phone cams coming out in the near future. Which will be very tempting to some DSLRers.

It is now just a number of months away before we see a phone cam with high quality images at 10 MP or 12 MP (instead of Nokia's 808 at 5 MP) and with an effective 7x zoom range (so something like 20mm to 150mm [35mm equivalent]).

It's not the specs that will sell this cam phone... it's the price. It will be "good enough" for 80% or 90% of the photography many DSLRers do... for free - if you buy it for the phone.

Full featured DSLRs don't need to worry... but the entry levels models that are aimed at price-conscious consumers, imho, are going to see a hit.

 

[Zoreke]

OK on top of better ISO performance and higher MP count, I really think the next DSLRs will have a 3G chip and you'll be able to put your photos on dropbox, email them or post a small one on FB or Twitter.

When I only have my iphone to shoot I really love that you can send the photo everywhere but as a camera it is so limited so a real camera wiht 3G and wi-fi will be awesome!

I'd buy one...

 

[compuwar]

OK on top of better ISO performance and higher MP count, I really think the next DSLRs will have a 3G chip and you'll be able to put your photos on dropbox, email them or post a small one on FB or Twitter.

When I only have my iphone to shoot I really love that you can send the photo everywhere but as a camera it is so limited so a real camera wiht 3G and wi-fi will be awesome!

I'd buy one...

3G won't happen- the carriers are already having issues with bandwidth- modern DSLR files are simply too large.

Paul

----------

Carl Zeiss glass is nice, but there's only so much you can get out of such a small footprint when it comes to optics.

Carl Zeiss doesn't make glass anymore. They design lenses and license their designs and name.

Paul

 

[TheReef]

I'd like a sensor-based ND grad feature.

Lower the sensitivity for pixels at the top of the sensor (eg ISO 10) and gradually increase it to the set ISO (eg ISO 100) at the bottom of the sensor.

Despite using them all the time, I don't really like filters. They get scratched, dirty, have horrific flare control, uneven colour cast, make composing and focusing more tedious, something that would let me do away with them would make me happy


I'd also like metering for more than 30 seconds without needing to use bulb.

 

[thekev]

This is why the NEX-5N was so appealing to me.

I agree with your list except for CF (large, bulky & expensive). SDXC is commonly supported in modern cameras and Mac hardware, it's also built into a handful of small NAS's.

PS IMHO traditional flip up mirror DSLRs will become a strictly high end option in the next couple of years.

We'll see. Rangefinder type designs actually have more freedom in terms of lens design, especially for wide angle lenses. Not having to accommodate a mirror function removes a couple design restrictions such as having to build wide angle lenses by using a reverse mounted telephoto design as a starting point. It wouldn't be so bad if a live view type function could update really quickly, and you'd ditch that mirror slap that you have on heavier cameras, although some of them have heavy shutters too.

I Used the Nikon 1 as an example of where I think the industry is heading and how even with these new cameras existing lenses will work

Specifically talking about Nikon, since they're making huge profits on DSLR, they purposely kept the Nikon 1 under spec'd so that it wouldn't cannibalize their entry level DSLR cameras.

Bleh that sucks. Their top cameras (can't think of the names at the moment) produce very nice quality. The detail is much cleaner than earlier dslrs when you zoom way in. If I buy a new camera even though mine are fairly old, I want an option without a damn anti aliasing filter. Many of the medium format digitals have employed interesting designs for passive cooling there or sleeping the sensor until you're about to take the shot.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but everything you've listed is already available in most current DSLR models, including the histogram preview.

You know histogram previews annoy me. I wish there was one that gave some indication of floating point values so that you could see what is truly cut off, rather than feeding it to you as it would be with settings applied. I don't mind that they show it with settings applied, as a linear histogram would be hard to read, but some kind of extended portion showing what is also picked up by the camera in areas of deep shadow or bright highlight would be nice. Speaking of which, how did the computer purchase work out? Your profile still mentions the older laptop. Also I wanted to ask you a couple questions about your technique (not silly questions either, my background is sort of a combination of photography and post work with some 3d, but lately I just use photography for textures and I've stuck with an older 1ds as I don't spend as much time shooting).

 

[Phrasikleia]

Noooo- you're *supposed* to say "Why won't $manufacturer make a 3D video producing 22fps ISO 16bazillion ISO camera for $19.99?????"

Paul

LOL. You left out thought-controlled auto-focus.

I'd like a sensor-based ND grad feature.

Lower the sensitivity for pixels at the top of the sensor (eg ISO 10) and gradually increase it to the set ISO (eg ISO 100) at the bottom of the sensor.

Despite using them all the time, I don't really like filters. They get scratched, dirty, have horrific flare control, uneven colour cast, make composing and focusing more tedious, something that would let me do away with them would make me happy

Sensor-based ND grad...BRILLIANT idea! I don't know why nobody has attempted that yet. Seems straightforward enough to me, but then my understanding of sensor tech can be summarized with a dead pen.

You know histogram previews annoy me. I wish there was one that gave some indication of floating point values so that you could see what is truly cut off, rather than feeding it to you as it would be with settings applied. I don't mind that they show it with settings applied, as a linear histogram would be hard to read, but some kind of extended portion showing what is also picked up by the camera in areas of deep shadow or bright highlight would be nice. Speaking of which, how did the computer purchase work out? Your profile still mentions the older laptop. Also I wanted to ask you a couple questions about your technique (not silly questions either, my background is sort of a combination of photography and post work with some 3d, but lately I just use photography for textures and I've stuck with an older 1ds as I don't spend as much time shooting).

I'm with you 100% on the problem of JPEG previews determining histograms. I would LOVE for there to be some feature on an upcoming camera that would enable me to do away with UniWB, which is an awkward and tedious workaround.

Computer purchase: super, thanks in no small part to your help! I'm loving the mini with its 16GB of RAM and dual drives. One is a dedicated scratch disk, but it's a mechanical drive; so far I haven't felt the need to ditch it for an SSD.

As for your questions about my technique...fire away, but obviously not in this thread. If you think it's something everyone might want to discuss, maybe start a new thread here; otherwise, just PM me.

 

[fitshaced]

It seems to me that when a point and shoot camera gets 1 step closer to a DSLR (such as megapixels or slightly larger image sensor), the DSLR goes another step further away. There is no reason why a current DSLR can;t be shrunk down into the size of a point and shoot in years to come. Technology always amazes me. However, the technology doesn't just shrink, it improves and goes in new directions. Thats why the DSLR will stay ahead of the game for sometime.

I'd like to see a bluetooth chip which can connect to an iphone to allow remote control/live view. Also GPS would be nice.

 

[compuwar]

There is no reason why a current DSLR can;t be shrunk down into the size of a point and shoot in years to come.

Sure there is: Lens size and balance.

Paul

 

[fitshaced]

Sure there is: Lens size and balance.

Paul

Yes but I mean even lenses could be shrunk down. Who knows. Who'd have thought 10 years ago that a mobile phone could have a pretty decent camera in it that the iPhone 4s has today?

 

[compuwar]

Yes but I mean even lenses could be shrunk down. Who knows. Who'd have thought 10 years ago that a mobile phone could have a pretty decent camera in it that the iPhone 4s has today?

Physics won't allow it without also shrinking the sensor size or going to completely new designs. Just like with sensel size on sensors, sooner or later physics comes into play. You can't have current DSLRs and smaller lenses without sacrificing reach and quality-- even the minimal "pancake" lenses trade some quality for size, and that's length, not width.

Paul

 

[fitshaced]

Physics won't allow it without also shrinking the sensor size or going to completely new designs. Just like with sensel size on sensors, sooner or later physics comes into play. You can't have current DSLRs and smaller lenses without sacrificing reach and quality-- even the minimal "pancake" lenses trade some quality for size, and that's length, not width.

Paul

Sooner or later physics doesn't come into play. Its also been there. It just requires new thinking. Perhaps glass is not the future. I'm no scientist or inventor but I know that major developments in lenses aren't going to be in how sharp or faster they can get or improvements in colour. They'll happen, no doubt, but won't be major. It'll be something else.

 

[Ruahrc]

Sooner or later physics doesn't come into play. Its also been there. It just requires new thinking. Perhaps glass is not the future. I'm no scientist or inventor but I know that major developments in lenses aren't going to be in how sharp or faster they can get or improvements in colour. They'll happen, no doubt, but won't be major. It'll be something else.

I applaud your forward thinking, but you're talking about some pretty indescribably radical advancements in our understanding of physics and EM theory, as well as materials, fabrication, etc.

We're talking like star trek levels of technology here, not 5-10 years worth of iterative advancements.

 

[fitshaced]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Sooner or later physics doesn't come into play. Its also been there. It just requires new thinking. Perhaps glass is not the future. I'm no scientist or inventor but I know that major developments in lenses aren't going to be in how sharp or faster they can get or improvements in colour. They'll happen, no doubt, but won't be major. It'll be something else.

I applaud your forward thinking, but you're talking about some pretty indescribably radical advancements in our understanding of physics and EM theory, as well as materials, fabrication, etc.

We're talking like star trek levels of technology here, not 5-10 years worth of iterative advancements.

I don't agree. I guess it's easy to think that something is vary far fetched when we can't see what's ahead of us. We might be 1 step away from seeing newer possibilities which would then give us reason to vision 'more realistic' inventions. But scientists are always a couple of chapters ahead of me . They're probably shooting razor sharp depth of field with their pocket knifes right now.

Anyway, just give me the bluetooth chip in the 7d mk II and I'll be happy.

 

[Ruahrc]

I don't agree. I guess it's easy to think that something is vary far fetched when we can't see what's ahead of us. We might be 1 step away from seeing newer possibilities which would then give us reason to vision 'more realistic' inventions. But scientists are always a couple of chapters ahead of me . They're probably shooting razor sharp depth of field with their pocket knifes right now.

Anyway, just give me the bluetooth chip in the 7d mk II and I'll be happy.

Well, as a scientist who I guess is a couple chapters ahead of you I can tell you that no, researchers are not running around with magical cameras as you describe. We have a long, long ways to go to start violating fundamental laws of optical physics (if it is even possible).

Getting back on topic, I think one of the next major advances in sensor technology, aside from the typical increments in dynamic range and high ISO performance we see now, will be to eliminate the bayer filter and move on to more advanced methods of collecting color information without losing spatial fidelity.

 

[fitshaced]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting violating laws of physics and I don't believe scientists are running around with fancy pocket knife cameras. Just saying that we are probably a move or two away from a major breakthrough.

 

[robbieduncan]

Dagger in your heart?! Oh my! Are rangefinders that bad? Sorry, your description of a camera that does away with fussy features and hearkens back to the simplicities of the film era pretty well describes some of these new rangefinders that are coming out. Don't one or two of them even have a full-frame sensor now? Anyway, I certainly didn't intend to lob any daggers in your direction. Nothing on the list you wrote would make a 7D/5D come to mind over a rangefinder, but I don't know your particular needs very well.

What rangefinders that are coming out? Leica make the only digital rangefinders in production or announced. The M9 does have a full-frame sensor.

None of the non-rangefinder but fake-styled to look like rangefinder mirrorless cameras have larger than APS-C sensors.

 

[snberk103]

Yes but I mean even lenses could be shrunk down. Who knows. Who'd have thought 10 years ago that a mobile phone could have a pretty decent camera in it that the iPhone 4s has today?

Physics won't allow it without also shrinking the sensor size or going to completely new designs. Just like with sensel size on sensors, sooner or later physics comes into play....
Paul

Sooner or later physics doesn't come into play. Its also been there. It just requires new thinking. Perhaps glass is not the future. I'm no scientist or inventor but I know that major developments in lenses aren't going to be in how sharp or faster they can get or improvements in colour. They'll happen, no doubt, but won't be major. It'll be something else.

I applaud your forward thinking, but you're talking about some pretty indescribably radical advancements in our understanding of physics and EM theory, as well as materials, fabrication, etc.

...

I'm with fitshaced here: I can't begin to think of how they're going get DSLR quality images from smaller and smaller cameras - like those being fit into phones.... but I do know that - for whatever reason - a lot of money is being invested in making cameras smaller and better. And my bet is on ... well, the money.

Could any of us have predicted 3 years ago that something like the Lytro (the camera that lets you focus after the exposure) could be produced?

I agree that we can't change the physics of how a lense works... but I think what can change the whole idea of how a camera works is software. Current digital cameras work on exactly the same principles as film cameras have for more than century. You use a lense to focus the image on the sensor/film. The projected image inside the camera has a direct relationship to subject. If you taped a piece of film over a digital sensor you could still capture a recognizable image. Crappy maybe because the camera is not tuned for film.... but no worse than a pinhole image, perhaps.

However, software allows a lense/camera makers to project an image into the camera that bears no resemblance to the scene in front of the camera. But, so long as the camera SW knows how to decode the info that the sensor senses ... then it can rearrange the bits of information into a coherent image. I think this is partly how Lytro camera works... it is using software to decode a mostly/entirely fuzzy projected image.

It's also sort of what the Nokia 808 camera is doing.... using SW to leverage the noisy sensor into producing fairly decent images. If I had the money I'd put the scientists at Lyrto and the camera scientists at Nokia together into a well funded lab.... just to see what they could come up with.