The Future of Digital Photography

[LEE]

Another thread got me wondering whether the manufacturers are struggling to find ways to tempt us into buying new cameras.

Some people seem willing to part with £600 for an ever so slightly better iPhone, Galaxy...etc. but are they doing the same with cameras?

"Mirrorless" was going to be the saviour but a mirrorless system is still quite an investment.
A high-end mirrorless camera can cost more than a perfectly adequate DSLR. (I realise that mirrorless has advantages).

The image quality difference between a £130 camera and a £600 camera has narrowed significantly.
£130 gets you an excellent pocket camera now (Eg. Canon SX610)
I don't think many people part with £600 for a camera as quickly as they do for a phone.
£200 gets you into the world of superb quality compacts.

I'm still not convinced that Smartphones are in the same ballpark as even a £130 camera but they fill the "any camera is better than no camera" role perfectly for 95% of the people now (and some are superb in a (literally) "Sunny day scenario"). 

I have a "pro level" pocket camera and an "enthusiast/entry level" DSLR.  I'll upgrade my DSLR at some point, there are features I really want (flip out screen and better focussing system) but even that won't cost much more than an iPhone.

20Mp is enough.  If you run into pixellation issues when you crop a 20Mp image then you probably didn't take the original photo correctly.

When I read the spec of newly released cameras I tend to think "Meh...no point in upgrading".
That's entirely different to the period between 2001 - 2011, when there were quantum leaps annually (in pixels, meaningful features and performance).

The physics of lenses mean you are stuck with small sensors if you want large zooms on compact cameras.

I was looking to upgrade my 2001 2.1Mp Fuji (£300) within a year but I can see me sticking with my 2014 Canon S120 (12.1Mp & £220) for quite a while.

4K Video could do it I suppose.  4K TV will be ubiquitous in 5 years and neither of my cameras have it (my Wife's Smartphone does).

3D video could do it I suppose.  2016 sees the introduction of a variety of commercial 3D headsests (Occulus Rift..Sony Morpheus...etc).
Smartphones could be perfectly positioned to deliver 3D footage (just put a lens at each end of the phone, eye-distance apart).
Highly specialised feature for a camera though.

Both of the above are video-centric of course.

Are they just tweaking around the edges now or are there genuinely some features that will make people trade in their £130, 20Mp, 20x, CMOS, WiFi, pocket cameras?

What new features would tempt you to spend serious cash on a camera upgrade? Would we notice in the final image?

I suppose the ability to run Android Apps, with Wifi, would make sharing images easier.  That's the only reason I'd grab my Smartphone for a photo if it were laying next to a camera.

Canon don't do the greatest WiFi/Sharing solutions right now.

[DDCyclist]

In my experience even a moderate digital camera is adequate for most purposes - images for the Internet, small images as filler on leaflets and in documents, - even small images for large format books or full page images for small- to medium- format books.

When Mrs C and I have a commission for a book I do carry a 'proper' dSLR. Generally, though, I find the camera on my smart-phone is all I need.

I wouldn't go out and buy another camera just because something 'better' has become available. I would only do that if my requirement changed (unlikely) or if my current camera was lost, stolen or broken. The one 'better' that might attract me would be a further reduction in size and weight - unlikely for the reasons already stated by Lee.

In general I think it's correct to say that camera makers are just tweaking with detail that won't significantly influence potential buyers who already have a camera that does, near enough. everything they want.

PS. Another feature that would persuade me to buy would be an automatic people and car remover. I take a lot of outdoor photographs that have to be free of people and cars. I don't think it's a feature that'll appear soon ...

[Woofage]

For the general public (ie not pros or hobbyists), isn't a camera just a black box for producing photos? Most users just keep it in auto mode and click (and are perfectly happy with the result which, let's face it, is usually pretty good from a fitness for purpose PoV). Therefore, what's the point in upgrading to a newer device that, on the face of it, does exactly the same job? Smartphones have more obvious features (and are advertised more) and TV's get bigger. Cameras sort of stay the same.

I take your point about the "early" years of digital. Sensors got better (more pixels, sharper images) but another important development boosted sales and upgrades: display technology (an honourable mention should also go to improvements in batteries). Early digital cameras has terrible rear displays by today's standards. Even my oldest digital camera (Panasonic GF1 c. 2009/10) has a bright, crisp display that's as big as will fit on the rear of the device.

In the summer my son (12 at the time) and I saw a series of ads for the latest Apple phone (6?) and they were all aimed at its photographic capabilities. However, despite the images all looking good, the scenes were still and taken in good daylight. Although a a bit of a technology buff he just looked at me and said "Photoshop". What he really meant was it was the PP built into the device that is impressive, not necessarily the actual camera.

[Charlotte]

Exactly.  Most of my work is currently shot with a 2009 camera that 'only' has a 12MP sensor.  Cameras are now all so good that it really doesn't matter what you use, it's all about how you use it.

Same rules apply though; the most important thing in determining whether your photo is any good is always, always, always the subject and your composition.  Then after that, what's important is the quality and direction of the light falling on it.  After that, have a care about the lens that focused it and after all that, worry about the camera you're using.

[Jaded]

Two of the Three of the Many of the areas I am interested in photographing get benefit from the better sensor, better lenses, better reaction times and better control of a DSLR. Possibly a mirrorless would hack it, but I'm not convinced about the low light capabilities of the smaller sensors. The iPhone camera is brilliant, but it is a fixed lens, tiny sensor camera that takes good photos in good light. It and similar devices are the replacements of the Box Brownie and the Instamatic.

I've gone full-frame and there was a progression - better sensors, better viewfinder, (high shutter count meant one retirement) yada yada. Full frame made the biggest difference. Two things stood out, the quality of the sensor, and the lenses behaving like I expected, having grown up with 35mm. I don't see any need to upgrade again, other than breakage, loss or failure.

[Kim]

For the general public (ie not pros or hobbyists), isn't a camera just a black box for producing photos? Most users just keep it in auto mode and click (and are perfectly happy with the result which, let's face it, is usually pretty good from a fitness for purpose PoV). Therefore, what's the point in upgrading to a newer device that, on the face of it, does exactly the same job?

That's where the big improvements tend to be - getting better pictures under poor conditions when operated point-and-shoot by someone who doesn't care about all that photography stuff.  There's only so much they can do to make things easier for a skilled photographer taking their time with a decent piece of glass, but there's real progress to be made improving cameras that are fully automated and small enough to fit in an iThing - and a lot of that progress will be software.

I suppose the common ground is mostly sensor noise and image stabilisation (particularly for video).  And of course since cameras are computing devices, the usual Moore's Law improvements apply to things like data storage, processing speed and power consumption.  How much that matters to you will depend on what you're shooting.

[Polar Bear]

I had three slr cameras but stayed away from the digital revolution having read in a camera mag that dslr images would be close to rivalling film for the average amateur whn 10mp was reached.   A Sony Alpha 350 (14mp) was bought and remains the dslr.    A decent Metz flashgun and Sigma glass has enhanced the experience significantly.   We had a Minolta so could use some old glass which made the transition less painful financially.

We see no reason to upgrade so I guess that the 350 will remain our camera of choice until it expires.   It has over 10,000 actuations under it's belt now but seems as good as it was on the day that we bought it.   Enlargements up to A4 and even to canvas seem to be excellent, certainly meet our needs and expectations so why bother upgrading?

UI acquired a secondhand Lumix LX2 recently for the barbag which is great but I do notice the difference in image quality between that and the Sony.   In turn, I can also see the difference between the Lumix and my Samsung S4 smartphone.   Sometimes though it's all about the image, not abut the ultimate quality.

[T42]

The main gain since ~2010 has been in low light performance, which is pretty phenomenal nowadays.  Dunno how phones stack up there.

Phones, though, sell on chic as much as utility.

[clarion]

I didn't buy into digital for a long time, as the sensors were improving so fast.  I first got on board with a Fuji bridge camera of some description, moved to my trusty Minox DC5211 (5MP), and then the Olympus E-400 DSLR (10MP), which I didn't really get on with.

There are still constant improvements.  The Pen E-P5 I lusted after a couple of years ago has now been superseded by the E-M1, which is as close to a pro camera as CSCs are likely to get.  But recently, the E-M5 Mkii was launched, which had a lot of the features of the 1, while being more compact.  Gosh, I never will have the money to upgrade to what I want...

However, since the 'all-important' MegaPixel count has pretty much plateaued, and been replaced by more esoteric qualities such as dynamic range etc, there isn't a FAB!  NEW!  EXCITING!  big number for Curry's staff to wave at customers.  Digital is pretty much established, but is at a bit of a crossroads now, and has lost the mass appeal.

Looking back, I recognise that film cameras went into a shocking decline (with few honourable exceptions) in the late 80s and 90s.  Most offerings were plastic tat, tossed off as if the manufacturers really didn't care.  And they didn't, really.  APS was an expensive distraction, although the freedom of design led into digital manufacture.  Digital is pretty much ubiquitous now, and getting a new film camera ever more difficult.  Maybe that's not a bad thing, if it means that companies can concentrate on their digital offering and not spread themselves too thinly, although the multiplicity of similar models from most manufacturers could be a bit of a gamble.

[Jaded]

Yes, apart from auto exposure and auto focus, better designed zooms, and smaller systems like the gorgeous OM System, 35mm didn't really progress after the early 60s.

[perpetual dan]

Dynamic range (within an exposure) is the only thing that I think would tempt me to upgrade.  But that's so far off the radar that I've yet to see it listed as a standard bit of the spec. Needs a well understood consumer friendly metric.
Bizzarely bright light performance has slipped in making low light work  .. I used sub 100 iso film from time to time.
End user swappable sensors  anyone?

[Kim]

Bizzarely bright light performance has slipped in making low light work  .. I used sub 100 iso film from time to time.
End user swappable sensors  anyone?

Wouldn't a neutral density filter suffice?

[perpetual dan]

Bizzarely bright light performance has slipped in making low light work  .. I used sub 100 iso film from time to time.
End user swappable sensors  anyone?

Wouldn't a neutral density filter suffice?

Yes, except filters are less convenient and naje it easy to loose contrast etc.

[nicknack]

Dynamic range (within an exposure) is the only thing that I think would tempt me to upgrade. 

Absolutely.

[LEE]

Bizzarely bright light performance has slipped in making low light work  .. I used sub 100 iso film from time to time.
End user swappable sensors  anyone?

Wouldn't a neutral density filter suffice?

Yes, except filters are less convenient and naje it easy to loose contrast etc.

My Canon S120 has a built-in 3-stop ND filter.  I'm not sure how it actually works though. 
I assumed it turned down the sensitivity of the sensor but then why wouldn't they just give me a lower ISO option instead? 
Is there really some dark glass inside?

[Charlotte]

Is there really some dark glass inside?

Quite possibly.  My x100s slides a real filter in the way of the sensor when I toggle the ND setting.

[T42]

Posed the qu. on DpReview. It's a physical filter.

[LEE]

Posed the qu. on DpReview. It's a physical filter.

Thanks. On very close listening I can here a "ping" when I select it (and see something move at the rear of the lens.)

What will these crazy scientists think of next?

It's actually an essential feature on a camera that only goes to f8 minimum and ISO 80 minimum.

[geraldc]

3D photos and selective focal points will be next. As will always on cloud uploading.
Selfie Drones, lighting drones are being developed too.

[rogerzilla]

Digital was great for manufacturers because they could sell you a new camera every few years as the sensor tech improved.  With film there was never any reason to upgrade until AF (the upgrades came to everyone, automatically, in the form of better and better films) and then not much else happened until digital.  Matrix metering and 6fps motordrives* weren't all that exciting for most people.

I do think the tech is beginning to plateau now although cameras have irreversibly become throwaway consumer junk rather than optical instruments that were designed to last indefinitely.  That makes me sad.  How much will a Nikon D810 be worth in five years' time?  £100?  You won't even get a nice F3 for that.

*digital cameras still haven't surpassed the admittedly souped-up Nikon F3 High Speed for framerate...and it was sold in 1998!  13.5fps...that's a roll of film in less than three seconds.

[Wombat]

My Sony SLT does 12fps, which I've used two or three times, for the rather obscure desire to get exactly the correct configuration of steam cloud out of the front of a locomotive which was starting off with it's draincocks open.  It does have the downside of reduced controllability, in that it restricts certain things.  "Normal" frame rate is about 2 or 3 fps, I think.  I'll have to look at the manual to find out!

All that complexity doesn't help overcome my confusion at C's studio when trying to see why I couldn't get a flash signal to the radio trigger.  I was thinking it was because the camera has wireless flash triggering built in anyway, but the reality was that the trigger cable was plugged into the wrong hole...

[LEE]

Digital was great for manufacturers because they could sell you a new camera every few years as the sensor tech improved.  With film there was never any reason to upgrade until AF (the upgrades came to everyone, automatically, in the form of better and better films) and then not much else happened until digital.  Matrix metering and 6fps motordrives* weren't all that exciting for most people.

I do think the tech is beginning to plateau now although cameras have irreversibly become throwaway consumer junk rather than optical instruments that were designed to last indefinitely.  That makes me sad.  How much will a Nikon D810 be worth in five years' time?  £100?  You won't even get a nice F3 for that.

*digital cameras still haven't surpassed the admittedly souped-up Nikon F3 High Speed for framerate...and it was sold in 1998!  13.5fps...that's a roll of film in less than three seconds.

The Samsung NX1 is very fast, 15fps (for 21 RAW images.  I think we need to use RAW as the benchmark against film SLRs.) 
It's mirrorless which helps of course, they are only constrained by how quickly you can transport electrons around the camera. 

[Ivo]

Yesterday I used my 'old' K20D during my DIY permanent. At the end the camera was struggling with the low light (combined with a rather slow pancake zoom) while I knew that my 'new' K5 II would have handled this situation perfectly. So in reality this would mean that for the same performance I could carry the K5II with the pancake zoom or the K20D with a 2.8 standardzoom. That is a difference in my book. OK, for a summer DIY this wouldn't count but for a winter DIY with extensive nightriding this is an issue.

[mike]

rather depressingly [because I'm awful at it] I think new cameras will be pushing their video capabilities more than their stills. 

If you can already export decent size pics from a 4k video, what comes next? and do I still need to take pics any more for events, or do I just video everything and export pics from it?

[clarion]

8K, apparently...