Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Canon Camera & Lenses  (Read 29706 times)
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2006, 10:11:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Will people be bothered if eventually all Canon (or any other brand) cameras have the same sensors and produce the same images?

Eventually the electronics are not going to be so expensive and we should hopefully be back to the same situation we were in with Film.. the picture quality is determined by the lens & skill, not by the body behind the lens.

The difference in price between the cameras will have to come down but even if this new 400D had the exact same sensor as the 5D or 1DsII would the more expensive cameras not still be worth it to some people for the body features?  That way if you are hiking or climbing or something and you need to keep your pack light, you take the 400D and leave the 1D at home, but you lose nothing in image quality, just maybe something in handling or water sealing or something else that is not truly critical.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2006, 04:41:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Will people be bothered if eventually all Canon (or any other brand) cameras have the same sensors and produce the same images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you predicting the end of technological development, Ben? If we can avoid a global atomic war, I don't think this is going to happen. We'll have a slow down in the progress of Moore's Law, probably followed by a leap into Quantum computers.

There are no doubt lots of mind-boggling experiments going on in laboratories around the world at present. One interesting line of research is the possibility of extremely fast read out and reset of small sensors so that multiple exposures of different duration can be taken within the time frame of one shot.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2006, 05:32:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you predicting the end of technological development, Ben?
Not necessarily (yes, I know I'm not Ben).

There are other parts in the camera that can be improved, other than the sensor, and that all DSLRs from one manufacturer has the same sensor doesn't preclude new sensors in the next generation DSLRs.
Logged

Jan
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2006, 07:45:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Agreed..

Ray at some point those technologies will not be feasible or useful for consumer cameras used for art and documentation. Or they might change photography so much we don't recognize it, and hence reject the technology.

It's just funny people seem to be bothered if a Digital Rebel catches up to their more expensive camera.. as if they've lost something as a photographer.

Also what I mean is that Canon would just stick the new sensor in the entire lineup when they finish a new sensor design rather then maintaining a different sensor for each model.  Moore's law, etc.. would tend to dictate that eventually the sensor will be a trivially inexpensive part of the camera.  The true differentiation will go back to being the shutter, features, durability, etc..

There are benefits of a Rebel, etc.. over the larger heavier cameras.. if they can build them all to have the same image quality why wouldn't they.  Then when the Rebel is the right tool for the job you don't lose anything.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 07:49:00 AM by benInMA » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2006, 10:53:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray at some point those technologies will not be feasible or useful ....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels. It's true there are certain things we use that don't change much, like shoes and clothes and chairs, but complex tools in general, motor vehicles, electic drills, space rockets, cameras and of course computers are in continual state of evolvement.

I see no reason to stop improving a lens or a sensor or the in-camera computer processing. Aren't you excited about the possibilities of nantechnology, the construction of metamaterials with a negative refractive index that can beat lens diffraction?
Logged
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2006, 11:57:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels. It's true there are certain things we use that don't change much, like shoes and clothes and chairs, but complex tools in general, motor vehicles, electic drills, space rockets, cameras and of course computers are in continual state of evolvement.

I see no reason to stop improving a lens or a sensor or the in-camera computer processing. Aren't you excited about the possibilities of nantechnology, the construction of metamaterials with a negative refractive index that can beat lens diffraction?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you know, i don't anything about this stuff...it's just the last few years i've been having muscular problems in my right (camera carrying/shooting) hand because of some health problems...so, i'd give a lot to get the quality/size of images from canon's best 1 series cameras in a form and weight factor more like the old leica series...maybe even lighter...i mean the 550 or so grams of the 400d...if that came down to like 350...and a few great lenses also came down so i didn't have to sling around more than about 800 grams max i'd be one happy camper...i guess not in my lifetime but i can dream...

then of course there is all this 'talk' about computer chips in our brain and if that could somehow be linked to our eyes and thinking about it recorded an image while we 'looked' or 'saw' which the chip would store until we got home and we could download it 'wifi' to our 'puters' for lightroom to store and adjust well, that would make me happy...  

m
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2006, 03:26:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Petrol engine surpassing steam engine.
Pony express surpassing smoke signals.
Telegraph surpassing pony express.
Psychiatry Digital telephony surpasing analogue telephony.
Penicillin surpassing leeching.
The Beatles surpassing Elvis (until he returns from the dead for the Lenon Vs Elvis  X-factor special with Simon Cowel)

Human beings, yes one day we will overtake you and run the world. We are superior technology. We must prevail. You are weak and frail. We will exterminate you, exterminate you.. ha ha ha ha.


At some point all technology reaches its limit and there is a step change to a new technology. The same happened when digital cameras surpassed film. At some point digital cameras will be surpassed by something new and unexpected.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 03:38:14 PM by DiaAzul » Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2006, 10:45:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At some point all technology reaches its limit and there is a step change to a new technology. The same happened when digital cameras surpassed film. At some point digital cameras will be surpassed by something new and unexpected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

David,
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm.  When we discover a better, more efficient way of doing things then, hopefully, we direct our R&D efforts in that direction. If we see a need to go back to steam engines, perhaps as we run out of oil, then we'll build a more advanced, efficient and cleaner steam engine than we used decades earlier, just as our current windmills are far more efficient than the windmills of yesteryear.

If the automobile eventually becomes a vehicle entirely driven by battery power, it's still a vehicle. The technology has not come to an end. It has simply evolved.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2006, 12:59:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm.
But paradigm changes is exactly what you're asking about; you can't have a paradigm change without a paradigm change.

But I'll try to do him one better, with perhaps more relevant examples:

Digital telecommunication trunks supplanting analog telecommunication trunks. Analog telecommunication trunks reached their limit capacity wise.

And how about optical fibres supplanting copper wires for long-distance, high-capacity links?

We could also talk about how digital mobile phone technology has all but completely replaced analog mobile phone technology, if you want something more consumer oriented.

Almost anything telephone-related has reached some sort of technological limit, combined with a popularity that has required new technology across the board to increase e.g. capacity.

In computers, you'll find that the good old vacuum tubes, mercury tubes and ferrite cores had reached a limit to their capability that was surpassed by the transistor.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2006, 05:46:43 AM »
ReplyReply

It's probably just semantics. I see a distinction between a technology reaching its limit and a technology taking a different turn and/or taking on board different processes. We didn't have the audio CD disc because the technology of analog audio had reached its limit. Digital recording and playback was made possible by technological advances in other areas and it became clear to the public at large that this was a 'better' and more efficient way of recording and playing back music.

A modern digital camera is still essentially a box containg a light sensitive material at one end and a piece of glass at the other end, as it was a hundred years ago.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2006, 07:57:53 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.amazon.ca/Singularity-Is-Near-R...=UTF8&s=gateway

Ray Kurzweils "Singularity is Near" is a thought provoking read of one (his) view on how the accelerating advances in computers, biotech, nonotechnology, and robotics will come together.

His mantra:  "Live long enough to live forever".

And which reminds me of (I can't remember where I heard this one):

I plan to live forever........

So far so good.  
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 07:59:01 AM by Tim Gray » Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2006, 08:03:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's probably just semantics. I see a distinction between a technology reaching its limit and a technology taking a different turn and/or taking on board different processes. We didn't have the audio CD disc because the technology of analog audio had reached its limit.
Quite true in the case of the CD (CD disk => "compact disc disc" ), but not quite true in several of the cases I mentioned.

Further advances in phone line capacity were hindered by analog transmission; digital trunking of lines made a huge difference.

For DAS (direct attached storage), fibre optics allowed significantly greater distance to your external storage device; external copper cables had signaling problems enough.

The list goes on and on and on.
Logged

Jan
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2006, 08:39:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
David,
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm.  ~SNIP~  If we see a need to go back to steam engines, perhaps as we run out of oil, then we'll build a more advanced, efficient and cleaner steam engine than we used decades earlier ~SNIP~
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What are you going to use to heat the water to make the steam?

I think David's point is spot on, though also agree digital represents a change in paradigm to a certain degree.  But the main basis of that paradigm-shift is one toward efficiency, not necessarily quality: "let's get it done faster".  

None of the above takes anything away from the older technologies for collectors, hobbyists or artists.  Film isn't dead because of digital, it's just being relegated to a specific class of art medium as an "old" technology...  Except for X-ray
Logged

benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2006, 10:00:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes I was just referring to maturation of the current paradigm, CCD/CMOS based digital SLRs.

At some point I think/hope this technology will get to the point where the sensor is not the majority cost of the camera, and we can have the same image quality from the Rebel as from the 1D.

As far as a camera that fires millions of nanotech bots which crawl all over the scene and record 3D data to reproduce an infinitely detailed image which can be edited into anything... oh well... I don't really thing I will enjoy using such a "camera".  I'm not even sure I would enjoy the micro-sensor camera shown in research in the last year that can shoot a raw image that can be translated into an image shot at any aperture in software.   These things may be the hot ticket for spy cameras or security or something but will they necessarily be fun/rewarding artistic/hobby devices is another question.
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2006, 01:23:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes I was just referring to maturation of the current paradigm, CCD/CMOS based digital SLRs.

At some point I think/hope this technology will get to the point where the sensor is not the majority cost of the camera, and we can have the same image quality from the Rebel as from the 1D.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is a danger in the commoditisation of technology and that is the manufacturers loose interest in putting further R&D money into the sector. Canon is already diversifying out of digital SLRs into medical equipment which they see as a big growth segment that they can exploit using their image processing capabilities.

I don't think we are anywhere close to saturation of the DSLR market and there is still a lot of room for development but with the already intense competition I can see why manufacturers may want to look at other markets for profit.

In terms of sensor development we are already at the point where the Rebel gives the same image quality as a 1D, provided you do not try and print too large an image. It really depends on how far you have to go to satisfy your needs and not your lusts.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2006, 04:16:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep.. definitely a danger that the profits will fall out from under them.

In any case I think that would just be a case of Canon, etc.. loosing the massive cash cow that is digital SLRs at the moment, like what has already started with digicams.

Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format.   If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera.  They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.

The thing is a company like Canon already went through this once before as film cameras became less and less profitable.  They're already quite diversified, they may already be planning for a time when DSLRs in APS/35mm formats mature and start to become less profitable.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2006, 06:04:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What are you going to use to heat the water to make the steam?

Coal, Jack. We have lots and lots of it in Australia. Enough to provide all our energy needs for the next 200 years from currently identified reserves, not to mention unidentified future reserves. The steam-driven locomotives that used to cross the American praires 100 years ago would have been about 5% efficient. A modern steam engine (in our power stations) using pulverised coal is about 50% efficient. We're spending a lot researching into methods of clean coal technology in Australia.

The steam engine is alive and doing well. It provides about 80% of our energy needs over here.  
« Last Edit: August 31, 2006, 08:45:41 AM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2006, 06:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format.   If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera.  They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Can't see it happening. There are so many different technologies that can be incorporated in a camera to improve image quality. Sensors that are particularly good at fast 'read-out and reset' for multiple different exposures during the one opening of the shutter, may not be good for the highest quality image, for example. The current size of medium format sensors is only double that of 35mm. It should be possible to eventually fit such a sensor into a body just slightly larger than a 1Ds2 and considerably lighter. When sensor technology becomes relatively cheap, some formats might even go circular. The possibility of constructing lenses from metamaterials might allow large format lenses to produce razor sharp results at f64 and the low cost of sensor fabrication might make feasible and affordable 4x5" format digital cameras that can deliver the sorts of resolution on prints that Oscar thinks is necessary for line art and text. (2400 dpi on paper   ).
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7756



WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 31, 2006, 08:35:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format.   If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera.  They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The limit is probably not really in the resolution that can or cannot be achieved by better technologies. The limit lies mostly in how flat images are used and what resolution is required for that purpose.

Once most people reach the conclusion that the camera they have is good enough for their usage, they will stop buying new stuff that bring no additional value and that will be the end of fast paced technological improvement. In my opinon, we are basically already there. Give it one or 2 more generations, 1600 ISO noiseless 10MP sensors with 2 more stops DR and 99% of photographers on earth will be happy forever.

We should not forget that we - at LL - are a tiny niche in the huge market for photographic gear. Nobody will develop specifically something for us that we can afford once the masses are happy.

We only have to look at other domains and see what drives progress there once a major paradigm change has overcome its first happy years:

- laws (automotive industry,...), especially those related to the environment,
- more of less artificially introduced constraints and demands (PC hardware reacting to less and less efficient software standards,...),
- ...

None of these apply to photography IMHO. There is probably nothing ahead of us besides millions of images taken with talent and inspiration. And I personnally find this most interesting.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #59 on: August 31, 2006, 08:55:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The limit is probably not really in the resolution that can or cannot be achieved by better technologies. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Resolution is the major feature of the photographic process. Always has been and probably always will be. The camera has lots of useful purposes apart from snapshots for the masses. Any resolution gains will be much appreciated by astronomers and scientists in many fields. Once the technology has been developed, it will probably be made available to anyone who's prepared to pay for it, even if some or most of the people who buy it can't or don't want to fully use it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad