Sensor Breakthrough--Where Are We Headed?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A story in the NY Times this morning caused me to think about the changes digital imaging has brought to photography in the last 10 years and to wonder where it will take us in the next 10. It's not difficult to extrapolate from the information in this article that in 10 years the camera market, as we now know it, might be completely dead--having been replaced by cell phone cameras that resolve better than dSLR cameras do now. This could also have a rather significant impact on photography as a profession since vast numbers of people would be constantly carrying devises capable of producing superb images.

 

Mobile Phones Eliminate Single-Serving Devices - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com

[dpattinson]

I don't really buy this... 20 years ago, people had access to small 35mm cameras that had precisely as good sensors (film) as the best professional cameras.

 

Pro's didn't suddenly stop using SLR's or medium format cameras then, and I doubt they'll be giving up DSLR's or MF digital for phonecams anytime soon.

 

Despite the digital hype, a camera is a lot more than its sensor... just like a car is a lot more than its engine

[jaapv]

Sensor resolution is not really relevant. Cellphones will always be slim, so short focal lengths, so minisensors. Which means a very limited number of photons per pixel, Thus immense DOF and a very small dynamic range. A no-go.

[luigi bertolotti]

Well, they are 2 different issues, plus a 3rd, imho :

 

1) As the author writes, probably in few years the "traditional" Point-and-shoot can have no more sense... I agree, and after all it is not so different from the '50s ... when my father and other amateurs discovered that their 6x9 foldings (Ikonta or so)could be more than decently superseded by "supercompact" 35 mm like Contina or Vito... But in tech terms any small sensor will have always the well known limitations.

 

2) Professionals will be always professionals... people that earn their lives taking pictures, using the tools more apt for the work they are paid for. Again, after all there have been always lot of people with devices capable of taking excellent images : we Leicistes are a good example... .. even if a rather small group... but think of the thousands of people with the very good SLRs of the '70/'80s... ; my cell phone has a camera... I almost never use it... would it be an excellent taking device, I don't think I would "steal" work to professionals... both for I am not a rather good photographer and for, above all, it's not my job: even if it would happen that having my cell phone camera with me, for pure chance, I document some special event/accident or so... It's uneven I try to SELL my pics (unless it happens I see and photograph, say, the landing of an UFO...).

 

3) But there is the general problem, in professional terms, of the FINAL DESTINATION (the "market") of the pictures... it would be interesting to know, nowadays, the ratio between PRINTED pics (in magazines, ads, newspapers, books... apart amateurs piics) and DIGITALLY ONLY delivered pics (Net Publishing)... for me this can be the real problem for professionals... a picture that has to be printed MUST have a certain qualitative level... a picture that is simply "wired" can be of a lower technical level: I wonder if this will mean that the professionals are going towards times in which their skill will be less valued into a growing share of the market... I do not know nor is an issue for myself... but am curios to have their opinion about.

[fotografr]

I don't really buy this... 20 years ago, people had access to small 35mm cameras that had precisely as good sensors (film) as the best professional cameras.

 

Pro's didn't suddenly stop using SLR's or medium format cameras then, and I doubt they'll be giving up DSLR's or MF digital for phonecams anytime soon.

 

Despite the digital hype, a camera is a lot more than its sensor... just like a car is a lot more than its engine

 

Sure, they had access to the cameras, as they do now--IF they wanted to spend the money. With the technology going into cell phones, that limitation will no longer exist. I think it is entirely possible that digital zoom technology will explode as quickly as sensor technology and in a very short time people will be able to get images with cell phones that look like those taken now with a dSLR equiped with a 400/2.8 lens.

 

I've always quietly chuckled when seeing set, costume and lighting designers shooting with their little P&S cameras while I'm doing theatrical photography because I've known their image quality would be so inferior to what I get with my dSLRs that they would ultimately still come to me for their images. With these new sensors, it's possible they'll soon get exactly what they need. I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I'd be wondering about my future considering that most of the people in attendance will be able to take high quality images with cell phone cameras and give them to the bride and groom at no charge.

[fotografr]

Professionals will be always professionals... people that earn their lives taking pictures, using the tools more apt for the work they are paid for. Again, after all there have been always lot of people with devices capable of taking excellent images : we Leicistes are a good example... .. even if a rather small group... but think of the thousands of people with the very good SLRs of the '70/'80s... ; my cell phone has a camera... I almost never use it... would it be an excellent taking device, I don't think I would "steal" work to professionals... both for I am not a rather good photographer and for, above all, it's not my job: even if it would happen that having my cell phone camera with me, for pure chance, I document some special event/accident or so... It's uneven I try to SELL my pics (unless it happens I see and photograph, say, the landing of an UFO...).

 

 

Some will argue that pros will still be a necessary part of the equation because of their ability to compose, use light and react to situations that make good pictures. I would argue that with the technology being so readily available to the masses, people with a unique vision who have previously not demonstrated their abilities due to lack of access to high quality equipment will begin to inundate the market with great images.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sure, they had access to the cameras, as they do now--IF they wanted to spend the money. With the technology going into cell phones, that limitation will no longer exist.

 

You can't fight physics.

 

Small sensors with large pixel counts mean fewer photons per pixel. That in turn means more noise. We all might want a 50 mpix phone with a 12-500 zoom, but wanting it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[fotografr]

Sensor resolution is not really relevant. Cellphones will always be slim, so short focal lengths, so minisensors. Which means a very limited number of photons per pixel, Thus immense DOF and a very small dynamic range. A no-go.

 

Back in the mid-1990s, I was arguing that digital images would never match the quality of film images and that I'd work through my entire career without ever having to shoot a digital image. I've learned my lesson about second guessing technological advances and would be very careful about making the kind of statment you made above. What is a "no-go" today could likely be commonplace tomorrow.

[fotografr]

You can't fight physics.

 

 

1950: "Nothing can exceed the speed of light."

 

2007: "Oops, maybe it is possible to exceed the speed of light."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html

[dhsimmonds]

Sure, they had access to the cameras, as they do now--IF they wanted to spend the money. With the technology going into cell phones, that limitation will no longer exist. I think it is entirely possible that digital zoom technology will explode as quickly as sensor technology and in a very short time people will be able to get images with cell phones that look like those taken now with a dSLR equiped with a 400/2.8 lens.

 

I've always quietly chuckled when seeing set, costume and lighting designers shooting with their little P&S cameras while I'm doing theatrical photography because I've known their image quality would be so inferior to what I get with my dSLRs that they would ultimately still come to me for their images. With these new sensors, it's possible they'll soon get exactly what they need. I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I'd be wondering about my future considering that most of the people in attendance will be able to take high quality images with cell phone cameras and give them to the bride and groom at no charge.

 

Many people can "look" but very few can really "see".

Many people can take a photograph, but only a good photographer makes pictures with his/her camera.

 

Whatever the photo capture technology of the future, these same maxim's will still apply.

[fotografr]

Many people can "look" but very few can really "see".

Many people can take a photograph, but only a good photographer makes pictures with his/her camera.

 

Whatever the photo capture technology of the future, these same maxim's will still apply.

 

I will only repeat what I wrote above: "Some will argue that pros will still be a necessary part of the equation because of their ability to compose, use light and react to situations that make good pictures. I would argue that with the technology being so readily available to the masses, people with a unique vision who have previously not demonstrated their abilities due to lack of access to high quality equipment will begin to inundate the market with great images." Just my opinion. Time will tell.

[dpattinson]

Sure, they had access to the cameras, as they do now--IF they wanted to spend the money.

 

Actually - a kodak instamatic had an identical sensor to the F3 at the time... and it cost almost nothing.

[wizard]

Brent,

 

even if you give everyone an iWonderphone (hey, I should register this as a trademark ), which may or may not have the capabilities you were speculating about, that does not make everyone a good photographer. With what I have seen of your work, I would not worry at all. They need your talent, skill and expertise, which is why they will always revert to you regardless of the equipment that you use or that is available at a given time.

 

One of my friends, he is also a member of this forum, is a professional photographer whom I envy for the quality of his photographs (both in a technical and an aesthetical sense), and he still uses an M3 and several Leicaflex SL and SL2 cameras for his work regularly, in addition to a R8/DMR. In the end it is the result that counts, not the equipment.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[adan]

With any sensor technology - a larger sensor will have "more of it" than a small sensor. If a small sensor can do ISO 10,000, a large sensor with the same technology can do ISO 500,000. If a small sensor can do 20 Mpixels, a large sensor with the same technology can do 200 Mpixels.

 

If 110-format Kodachrome looked good - 120-format Kodachome looked 10 times better. That pattern will never end.

[fotografr]

Actually - a kodak instamatic had an identical sensor to the F3 at the time... and it cost almost nothing.

 

Right--with an optional 400/2.8 and a fast 20mm?

[fotografr]

With any sensor technology - a larger sensor will have "more of it" than a small sensor. If a small sensor can do ISO 10,000, a large sensor with the same technology can do ISO 500,000. If a small sensor can do 20 Mpixels, a large sensor with the same technology can do 200 Mpixels.

 

If 110-format Kodachrome looked good - 120-format Kodachome looked 10 times better. That pattern will never end.

 

Sure it will. It ends when the sensor resolution exceeds the resolving power of the lenses. Beyond that, it's all wasted pixels.

[h00ligan]

Sure it will. It ends when the sensor resolution exceeds the resolving power of the lenses. Beyond that, it's all wasted pixels.

 

That hasn't stopped the megapixel race for many companies, even though it's already been hit.

[dpattinson]

Right--with an optional 400/2.8 and a fast 20mm?

 

haha - which phone cam is that?

[h00ligan]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/08/iphone_telescope_mtlsc003300_01_l.jpg - $19 and available now!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[John Thawley]

I kind of chuckle that the conversation assumes we're only talking about sensors as "film" -

 

When the folks involved in MICRO microrobotics and geonomics / engineering cells, tissues and robots get done, having the equivalent of the human eye mounted into a cell phone won't be a big deal. Though I doubt we'll be using cell phones.

 

So... whatever you're worried about replacing photography will systematically become a moot point.

 

I'm guessing it will be more a process of "look," "think," "record," "optimize," "transmit" - all processed and downloaded into whatever device we're "connected" to.

 

Mechanical will be a term that probably goes away.

 

I'd urge you to watch this:

 

Juan Enriquez shares mindboggling science | Video on TED.com