Prev: Flowers
Next: What have you photographed with your camera so far,that's helped you solve a mystery ?
From: RichA on 12 Jun 2010 10:31
On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Contrast focusing mostly.  Electronic shutters.  Back lit sensors.
> : Mirror-less systems.  Smaller systems, to a point.  Possibly, electron-
> : multiplying sensors.
>
> Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers
> (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers.
>
> Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater
> commonality of RAW formats.
>
> Bob

Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.
From: Allen on 12 Jun 2010 10:40
Ray Fischer wrote:
> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
>> Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
>> multiplying sensors.
>
> Since that is already the present it seems that you're just a tad late
> in your (ahem) "predictions".
>
Never-Never Land, where RichA lives, is on a different calendar. Perhaps
he will predict that a man named Columbus has discovered a new land
mass, and that people will be taking round-trip glider trips to Mars.
Allen
From: Bruce on 12 Jun 2010 12:53
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>The same reason a Covette ZR1 clobbers most Ferraris on the straights
>is the one that will prevent P&S's from ever matching DSLRs, you can't
>beat size (cu in in their case, sensors for the camera).


The reverse analogy is that of the Mini Cooper S team which took three
out of the stop four places in the 1966 Monte Carlo Rally well ahead
of the field with much larger engines. That changed rallying forever.
In film photography, the equivalent would be a Leica M camera and lens
giving better results than larger and heavier 35mm SLRs.

So it doesn't always follow that bigger is better.


>What some, like the LOL idiot don't realize is that sensor technology has not
>fundamentally changed in 20 years, hence the limitations and the
>reasons P&S's still suffer, even at low ISO with image quality
>issues...


However, they have the great benefits of being able to fit in your
pocket, of producing results that are better than any P&S film camera
using consumer-grade film, and hardly ever producing out of focus
results. Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
enhanced depth of field compared to Four Thirds, APS-C and full frame
"Micro" camera and SLRs. For the average camera buyer, they are a far
superior option than buying a DSLR or Micro camera.


>Plus, as we've seen with the Sony NEX, there are inherent
>cost-related limitations to close proximity lens- large sensor
>compatibility that can only be overcome by spending money and charging
>more money.


Olympus and Panasonic have had great success in designing
near-telecentric lenses specially for (Micro) Four Thirds. I agree
that Sony has made a huge error in basing the design of their kit lens
on mediocre optics for DSLRs.


>But, size reductions, even I believe in the pro end are inevitable.


Pros don't want smaller cameras, they want something that is sturdy
and stable that can be gripped firmly.


>Otherwise, video cameras threaten to fully displace still cameras for
>professional use.


It is more likely that DSLRs will evolve to displace video cameras.

From: Bruce on 12 Jun 2010 12:55
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.


So that's why the Sony NEX-3 is so much bigger than the NEX-5!

(Clue: it isn't.)

From: Robert Coe on 12 Jun 2010 12:56
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: On Jun 12, 9:23�am, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote:
: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Contrast focusing mostly. �Electronic shutters. �Back lit sensors.
: > : Mirror-less systems. �Smaller systems, to a point. �Possibly, electron-
: > : multiplying sensors.
: >
: > Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers
: > (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers.
: >
: > Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater
: > commonality of RAW formats.
:
: Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.

Perhaps it does. But then I never said I agreed with all your predictions.

Some photographers in these newsgroups, and even some reviewers, have already
complained that some cameras, notably Canon's Rebel series and some of the
smaller Nikons, are so small that they're uncomfortable to hold. (I'm not one
of them, but I have small hands.) Maybe serious cameras are already as small
as they need to be. Note that Ansel Adams and Arthur ("Weegee") Fellig would
have considered them tiny.

Bob
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Flowers
Next: What have you photographed with your camera so far,that's helped you solve a mystery ?