The next Game changer

sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
edited May 2014 in Other Manufacturers
100 years ago today, Oskar Barnack, working for Ernst Leitz, designed a real game changer
1959 saw the Nikon F and the word press, started to say good by to their Leica's
But the first DSLR the Kodak DCS 100 does not seemed to considered a game changer
are we going to any more true game changers or is progress be progressive ?
Post edited by sevencrossing on
«1

Comments

  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    Do you mean a completely new technology or just an alternative to the Bayer array? Its a little hard to guess about a technology that hasn't been invented yet but as these things seem to go, new applied technologies are frequently adaptions of discoveries made in fundamental research. On the other hand, DSLR is really an adaption of emulsion photography hardware and not a quantum leap. So what will the device for capturing images look like in a hundred years- who knows, but I think the DSLR pathway is coming to its end.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    Fritz Do you mean a completely new technology

    The Leica did not use any new technology but Barnack got it right fist time and it changed photography big time

    The F used no new technology but when combined with zoom lenses and motor drives interchangeable view finder it was again a game changer

    for some reason no particular camera seems to be associated with the DSLR
    What will down in history as the camera that killed the DSLR?

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    There seems to be a consensus amoung people that the DSLR is somehow dead.

    Is this consensus warranted? (Is my assumption that there is a consensus even warranted? Perhaps not, but let's assume yes.) We are all dead eventually, but let's assume a reasonable timeline - say 25-50 years.

    Is there a technology that we are sure can beat the DSLR at the telephoto end? Nope. There are maybes, but no sure things. And one has to wonder if the maybes will run into their own physical limitations well before they truly compete with the DSLR. We often assume that things will persistently improve, but I think that is a flawed assumption as well.

    At the wide angle end. That is probably inevitable. DSLRs have an inherent disadvantage in the flange to focal distance and the consequence of increased retro-focus requirements, which makes quality wide angle lenses big and heavy (think my 14-24). Also, depth of field is very wide, which makes focusing technically easy.

    So I don't think that the consensus is warranted. Indeed, is perhaps fatally flawed (but perhaps only to investors that gamble wrong).
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    No I am not saying the DSLR is dead.

    Between them Nikon and Leica did kill off the Speed Graphic and the MPP Press.

    Leica still has a cult following and I think the F mount will still be around in another 50 years

    Photography did not kill painting. Neither film or video killed still photography

    The smart phone and the mirror less have not killed the DSLR

    I am just interested in the next big change

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    I think the point is more how new image creation technologies will eventually change photography. Of course there will be folks who value obsolete technology, but they will most likely be a sub culture.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,096Member
    Stereo cameras?
    Aka, 3D cameras. Already been done, and never took off.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    Where is it written that the only way there will ever be to create an image is by bending light through a prism to a photo reactive surface? Game changer as in television or the internet.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    www.lytro.com
    The new $1600 illum looks pretty cool, I'm thinking about pre-ordering one. I have the original, and this is truly game changing tech. At least we can stop discussing DoF :P
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Stereo cameras?
    Aka, 3D cameras. Already been done, and never took off.
    I know and am tempted to make the same prediction.

    However, you could have said the same thing about many components of an IPhone until Steve Jobs integrated them into a package that took off.

    If stereo monitors ever take off, then cameras may not be far behind.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    All of my HD tv screens support 3-D. Last time I was in best-buy I had a hard time finding one that didn't have 3-D. BTW, the Lytro light field sensor is inherently 3-D. One more interesting lytro illum fact is that the minimum macro focus distance is 0mm:
    https://support.lytro.com/hc/en-us/articles/201825730-What-are-the-specs-on-the-Lytro-ILLUM-camera-
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/lytro-announces-illum-light-field-camera
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,117Member
    You have 3D TVs and 4K TVs, but there is no real support I think for 4K and probably only minimal support for 3D.

    Honestly, I think we're at the peak of camera tech. There will probably be advances in autofocus and other things, but they will be incremental.

    It's like the car, how could you possibly perfect it any more?

    If my D7000 lasts me, I think I'll be shooting it for quite some time.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    I would say two things.

    1. Digital was a game changer although maybe around the time of the D3 sensor: whenever you could say digital is better than film. Film is dead, except for specialty applications. Film to digital "changed the game."

    2. Perhaps mirrorless bodies will be the next game changer. Advantages? faster fps and faster focusing and narrower bodies? When the mirror box is eliminated bodies can become thinner. Will we then need a completely new line of lenses or will all the legacy lenses still be used with a spacer to added the distance once taken up by the mirror box?
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I would say two things.

    2. Perhaps mirrorless bodies will be the next game changer. Advantages? faster fps and faster focusing and narrower bodies? When the mirror box is eliminated bodies can become thinner. Will we then need a completely new line of lenses or will all the legacy lenses still be used with a spacer to added the distance once taken up by the mirror box?
    There is no inherent reason for a digital camera to have a swinging mirror and optical finder.
    Current EVF's, and sensor based autofocus are not good enought to challenge DSLR's for sports or wildlife, but they are much better todat (eg: fuji xt-1) then they were last year, and in 2-5 years, will likely improve enough so that the additional build cost of DSLR mechnicals, and size, weight and optical penalties such as requiring retrofocus WA lenses, can no longer be justified.

    The only reason low end DSLR's are cheaper than comparable mirrorless is much higher production volume.

    Although beyer sensors are an inherently flawed design, (like piston engines), they have become so refined, and inexpensive because of production volumes, that replacing them will have little benefit.

    .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    I Will we then need a completely new line of lenses or will all the legacy lenses still be used with a spacer to added the distance once taken up by the mirror box?
    That has to be the big question for Nikon and Canon
    would reducing the flange to "film" distance make it easier to design wide angle lenses?
    It should certainty allow some full frame, pancake lenses
    could the guts and features of D4 be squeezed into Camera the size of a Leica ?







    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    DSLR lenses can be retrifitted with adapters to work on mirrorless, but lenses designed for mirrorles will have too short a flange to focal plane distance for the reverse.

    Look at what Olympus has done to fit FT SLR lenses to MFT.

    If Nikon and Canon do not adapt their SLR lenses, they will create a 'discontinuity' and probably lose the mirrorless market.

    I have a good collection of FT glass and bodies. Olympus was too slow to properly adapt the FT glass and I am now committed to Fuji for mirrorless.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited May 2014
    If I was Nikon I would be tempted to bring out a medium format sensor at least four times the area of FX in a mirrorless body when a body could be produced for less than $8,000ish. The focus would be wide angle where it has a natural advantage.

    Marketed to pros and serious enthusiasts at first due to the price and size, the price would come down, Nikon would be the market leader as a first mover, and would be able to less expensively attempt to exploit the tele end in the event that the focussing gap closes with SLRs (it may not be possible).
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Panasonic GH-4 huh? Best so far?

    At some point we will see a full frame with the same or better performance than the D4s. This will be the game changer…...
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    If I was Nikon I would be tempted to bring out a medium format sensor at least four times the area of FX in a mirrorless body when a body could be produced for less than $8,000ish. ).
    In day of films, there were lots "budget" Medium format cameras some reasonably successful but none could have been called "game changers"

    A bigger sensor is gong to expensive, requiring a bigger body, more expense and bigger lenses, even more expense

    Computers, phones, cars, cameras, are getting smaller, not bigger



    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • rmprmp Posts: 539Member
    I think the next real game changer will be talked about in new terms. Fore example "Sensor size" will be replaced with "maximum print size". Hopefully new sensors will be smaller and allow larger print sizes. if sensors really advance, HDR software would not be needed on the computer or in the camera. ISO advances are well underway, but hopefully will continue to get better as sensors get smaller. "Smaller and lighter" rules the day and the market.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,096Member
    The next game changer I think will come in terms of optics, as in moving away from big, heavy optical glass to something different. Whether it be liquid lenses or something else that doesn't matter.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited May 2014
    ...Between them Nikon and Leica did kill off the Speed Graphic and the MPP Press. ...
    Nikon and Leica didn't kill anything off - but what did make them popular probably does speak to what is important to see what changes could come that will be the "game changer."

    Consider the Barnack's Leica, the first full-frame 35 mm camera, was released in 1925. Nikon F was 1959 (? I believe.) Almost 35 years of refinements and that much time to "kill off" the speed Graphics and other PRess camera's. Only the Rolli twin lenses remained longer.

    What did knock off the old press cameras and what made Nikon, Pentax, and a few other 35mm cameras was primarily the increase of the quality of 35mm film. KODAK introduced fine grain and higher ISO films in the mid 50's like TRI-X, High Speed EKTACHROME, and Panchromatic line that surpassed the minimum subjective quality barrier for news media. (Other brands of film also created better products as well.) This really mirrors when digital SLRs overtook film. I agree with @donaldejose - Nikon's D3 (And Canon's equiv.) matching and overtaking most film was a huge day for photography. And even the D300 for it's price matched and surpassed the quality of the previous "pro" D2xs as well as matched most films for noise controol.

    The other features that SLRs added were, pentaprism viewfinder (through the lens), instant-return mirror, TTL metering, faster shutters (beyond 1/250th) and down the line auto advance of film, auto focus, multiple flash sync speeds, flash controls etc. Pentax's auto exposure feature (A) was enormous. Canon knocked Nikon and Pentax to the ground due to their auto focus system.

    So what does that mean?

    Pentaprism view finder = EVF in today's terms. When will it match real-time viewing? (Fuji and Oly are really close in the X-T1 and Omd-em1/10s). Once that is accomplished that major hurtle is crossed. But the Mirror...

    Instant return mirror = Most overlook that the mirror is used for Auto Focusing, Metering and Viewing.
    Metering is basically mastered without the mirror.
    Viewing is just about there, and it is
    Auto Focusing that has been the mirror's last stand. Olympus and Nikon 1 series have shown that they are very close to overcoming that last hurdle. When all of those have crossed/met the threshold of current DSLRs, the mirror is gone. When the last Mirror is dropped from Nikon &/Or Canon, that will mark a day in history for camera's.

    I think the next thing for camera's will be removing the last mechanical part - the Shutter. It is obviously still needed for reasons I don't fully understand, but once and Mirror and Shutter are removed, camera's are no longer mechanical. When everything becomes electrical with no moving parts with the highest end systems, that will mark a major day.

    But with all of that, which mimics in various ways why 35mm format film camera's overtook the market, is just the natural progression of the original major game changers from the 20's through the 60's.

    It still all began with the quality of the reproduced image. That is why many talk about medium format systems, or why the Nikon 1 should have a larger sensor, why so many want FX. Megapixels, color depth, resolution, and dynamic range - all has to do with the reproduced image. Everything else just supports it.

    The next game changer will be a new sensor design of some sort that we haven't seen yet. Everything will naturally progress to being reliant on the main sensor. Everything else is just noise and will evolve naturally.

    I'm guessing a non-Bayer design, direct color recording based (so there is no "guessing/calculating of color",) with auto-focus, metering, full time EVF support that can be turned on-off without limits, and probably have some heat-less design that holds it's dynamic range capabilities throughout it's ISO range. Yeah that would do it! ;)



    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Really when you look around, what Olympus OMDs and the Nikon 1 system is probably the beginning of what systems will be. Everyone would flock to them if the image quality was that of a FX D4s. Forget about current sensor size, their physical size, design and all the marketing BS noise, but look at just how they work - that is what future camera's will be. Their crutch is their image quality. It's why 110, disc, 6mm, aps-c, and all the other smaller film formats died - image quality.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member

    I think the next thing for camera's will be removing the last mechanical part - the Shutter. It is obviously still needed for reasons I don't fully understand, but once and Mirror and Shutter are removed, camera's are no longer mechanical. When everything becomes electrical with no moving parts with the highest end systems, that will mark a major day.
    The last mechanical part will be the Aperture. There are already many cameras without mechanical mirrors or shutters. E.g., the Nikon 1 (except the V-series) and of course most P&S cameras.

    A mechanical shutter is typically required because typical CMOS sensors do not have global shutters, causing "rolling shutter" artifacts if there is subject motion while pixels are being read-out from the sensor. There are CMOS sensors with global shutters (and other shutter arrangements) -- however they are still cost prohibitive for most consumer uses.

    Light-field cameras like the Lytro can theoretically be completely electronic... but they still use a mechanical shutter because of the CMOS sensor.
Sign In or Register to comment.