Has digital camera development hit the wall?

well the only way I could get a new thread started using an iPad was to act a bit surprised, or some other emoticon, or type everything in bold/italic.  But now that I am here ... (grin)

I expect an argument about my topic heading.  The obvious answer is "no, look at Fuji, Sony and Leica - some tasty new gear on issue, surely more to come".  However I look at this gear as well and the old excitement for new product is more an excited pulse than a big base drum.  Surely I would really like a Sony RX100, RX1, NEX6 as much as one of the new Fuji offerings. The Olympus OM-D seems a pretty nice camera and I thought for a short moment when it first released that I should make room on my camera shelf for one, but the moment passed.  I have a pretty little straight-forward (superseded) NX10, but I have not exactly been looking over hard for a peek at a NX20.  Panasonic? what in tarnation is their current model line up?  They seem to spray out new models like tar chips surfacing a new road - pick your own tar chip - Panasonic fans would know them all but this ex-Panasonic fan is simply confused.  Sony is getting much the same way, I can just keep track of Sony's multiple offerings, for now but it is getting harder to do so.  At least their model numberings make a little more logical sense than those from Panasonic.  Guaranteed: that anyone buying a Panasonic or a Sony will have it three times superseded before Ricoh can even manage a single model cycle.  At least your GXR will be the "latest model" for a few years ...

Canon bring out a workmanlike half-model digital body that struggles to work out whether it is a compact on steroids or a true dslr replacement.  I am not sure whether Canon know either.  Nikon busy themself with a big-Q and Pentax has the little-Q.  The majors struggle along refining their dslr offerings, but they have been pretty good anyway for quite a while now.  A new one would be nice when the old one wears out in some years time.

Ricoh is still thinking about something.

Therefore I can reasonably ask - there might be some nice gear on offer but surely it is getting harder to give up a perfectly good working camera in hand to plonk down a fistfull of money for something with a new feature or two?

I agree that sensors get better, cameras get smaller, (maybe) lcd displays can get better, certainly there is room for a better evf.  But surely we are increasingly at a situation where if you have yesterday's wonder camera then at the very least it will remain acceptable until it wears out rather than being ditched for a new camera with capabilities now becoming beyond our abilities to fully utilise them?

My answer probably is - "no, digital cameras have not hit the wall, but increasingly many users will find that their present shutter squeeze is lovingly familiar enough not to be divorced for that promising new flirtatious model with bigger sensor and no intuitive "brains" that has been beckoning".

Are we in truth coming back to the future where you saved for the best film camera you could afford and kept it for a lifetime?  Where masses of snapshots were made on Box Brownie and Instamatics, prints made for friends and relatives, ooh-ed at a bit then shoved in a drawer and forgotten?  It is a brave new, but shallow, world and my GXR looks prettier every day.

--
Tom Caldwell

>> Ricoh is still thinking about something.

Are you sure??? For me it looks as if they have already gone to bed...

Best regards, Gerd

Perhaps, I should also provide a more "serious" comment.

It's not the first technology where I started as a pioneer (for digicams this was around 1996) and over the years technology matured in such a way that is reached a plateau and left little room for pioneers.

I think that current improvements are indeed -- maybe not minimal -- but beyond what I really need. Of course, we all like to buy new gear, but it's no longer really necessary...

My first digicam, a Kodak DC 100, was indeed "bad" for today's eyes (the DC 50 that I was able to borrow from my company even more so...), but already my second digicam, a Nikon Coolpix 900, had an acceptable image quality -- albeit at 1 Megapixels only. One might say that all the improvements over the years was stepping up from 1 MP to 16 MP (with my A16). That's, of course, a gross oversimplification...

Best regards Gerd

Sometimes the best moments of inspiration happen when you wake up in the middle of the night (grin)

--
Tom Caldwell

Gerd

I came "late" to digital photography, my first try (I did not want to spend too much money) was with a Canon Ixus which may have had 1 Mp.  Not sure any more.  But it was certainly good enough to make me move away from film.  Anything since then was a bonus.  Now with Canon dslr kit for sure fire (but heavy-weight) production and the GXR and GRD for proper capture enjoyment I am pretty well set.  I read about new product with interest.  I wold really like to own some of what is offered but the "inner-man" tells me that I would be unlikely to make better captures despite all this extra technological help.  And I quite like the user-feedback that the Ricoh gear gives me.

If I were to buy a Sony "whatever" tomorrow then there will certainly be a Sony "whatever II" the day after and before I can blink they will be up to a "whatever IX" .  Meanwhile my sleepwalking GXR will still be the "latest model" and taking great images and I will have saved a whole lot of money.

--
Tom Caldwell

> Sometimes the best moments of inspiration happen when you wake up in the middle of the night (grin)

Hopefully you can remember your inspirations in the morning... (or do you take notes?)

On the other hand, all the "great" ideas that came up during dreaming proved to be nonsense when I took a closer look at them in the morning (provided that I remembered them at all)...

At the moment, I will stick to Ricoh whatever they do -- just to save money and to get more experienced with what I have.

I invested a lot in M-mount lenses but that money does not seem to be wasted -- maybe, one day, I will win a Leica in a lottery...

Tom, To be honest the GXR is feeling dated. It has indeed hit a wall simply by the fact that it is an older sensor. To supplement the GXR and GRD I bought a Pentax K30 and a kit lens (it's my family snapshot, "soccer dad" camera). That sensor is better in all the right ways. The A12 units still work fine of course, but they could work just a little better, and I'd be a lot happier.

That said, I just bought a new GXR body because one of mine broke and the screen on the other one is all scratched up. I'm not giving up yet. Presumably, any new units can be used on the current body. I also want to see a new body with built-in EVF, though.

I'm pretty much done with the Mount unit. I have trouble focusing accurately and it's just easier for me to use the A12s. I may sell it and the Leica 28mm lens. I know some believe that the Mount unit is the best GXR unit and is what really makes it a viable camera, but IMO that's not true. The A12 50mm is a gem and the A12 28mm is very, very good.

Besides the K30 I'll wait to see if and what Ricoh does next. Their silence is odd - either show that you are at least working on something or state that you are done.

But no, digital cameras have not hit a wall - Ricoh has.

* At least the K30 is still in the Ricoh family And it's a great camera, and it's nice to have an OVF again.

Couldn't agree more Tom. I think the market is changing to reflect this too.

Lenses are where the real investment should be for the long term.

Most of us don't shoot at extremely high ISO's on a normal basis. So does it really matter that much if the new batch of sensors are a little less noise? Software noise removal is so good, that unless you're printing at a huge size, this type of thing only matters if you pixel peep a lot.

Do we really need more than 12-16 megapixels?  With that many megapixels you can already print very large.

How often do we use the 3-10fps on our cameras? How much use is it if the new model can do 12fps?

I'm sure the list could go on, but i'm not going to be too worried if the next model has wifi and apps and 15fps.

To be honest, I would rather take a GXR M module with a last generation Nikon D700 full frame sensor in it than any other upgrade to the GXR!

Some people do not need a dslr, but the dslr does not need 'replacement'. When I see the gymnastics and contortions some go through to find some way to (try and) compensate in a mirrorless camera for what a DSLR does effortlessly I wonder 'why?'. If they stick an add-on EVF (still inferior) onto the camera it is no longer very compact.

Personally I'm not about the gear, I'm about the results, and I can't use anything mirrorless to shoot action and expect to have very much properly framed. Fortunately the only camera I can afford with a large sensor is what I have; I would have to spend more to get a lesser (for my purposes) camera.

--
Do people really spend $700 on a camera so they can take a picture of a squirrel or a duck?

Tom,

i don't think digicam development has stopped,

i think it actually has just begone, as cellphones and tablets are fishing in the same pool now.

Sensors are getting better, higher pixelcount, yet less and less noise,

new type of sensors pop up, different sizes (1, FF Sony), different types pop up(Monochrome)

software is getting better and better (most cams can now make jpegs with all known chemical bath failures included, such as bleach bypass, cross process),

the never stopping quest for the perfect camera has come to a same point as cellphones a few years ago;

nobody could believe a cellphone could be made, which combined phonefunction, GPS, computer, yet this is what a smartphone is.

One of these days, a few brands will make the perfect digital camera, it will be extremely expensive, and it will have a vast amount of buyers. And one or two years later, most will realise that this perfect camera  simply can do so much, that you are actually using only like 5 to 10 % of its capabilities.

At that moment you will see people grasping back to more simple type of camera's, can't do it all, but you darn well know what it can.At that time my friend, evrybody will look at RICOH,as i really rthink Ricohs can do it exactly what is needed, or you can cofigure it to do so.

The only problem now with Ricoh is, its time to catch up with technology, every 6 months at most, a new generation is born, and the CX, PX, GXR are really using outdated hardware.

Jokes aside, it is said that one of the great early canal builders in the UK (I forget his name) used to take to his bed when he came up with a great problem in construction and only got up when he had solved it.  I presume that he just wanted peace and still-awake quiet to think.  Myself, I have often gone to bed whilst thinking about a problem that I had to solve and woken up knowing the answer.  I certainly did not "dream" the solution but perhaps the subconscious keeps working once asleep?  The process was not remembered of course.

--
Tom Caldwell

Who knows?  Maybe even Ricoh might make a FF GXR mount module and the Leica might not be necessary?

--
Tom Caldwell

Right -- who knows... Seems to apply to both the lottery and a potential FF module from Ricoh.

Best regards, Gerd

I learned a litle bit about the human memory when I worked at a psychological department at the university. Definitely our brain does a lot of processing on its own. For example, whenever I cannot remember something, I ask it to so a search on its own, and after half an hour or so it may come up with the answer.

And as you said, rest (and incubation) is a good means for sorting our thoughts. I am not at all a fan of all these "blitz" design meetings in my profession where people design at high speed. In the end and in my opinion, most of those ideas will not meet the constraints of real life...

Best regards, Gerd

I can't argue with the older sensor proposition.  I think the A12 was an "older sensor" by the time it hit the A12 mount module.  However where I am coming from is that it still works and works well enough.  I supplement my camera kit with some "really aging" Canon bodies and some "forever young" Canon lenses, which remain, as expected, to be very good.  Nevertheless the Canon equipment and the GXR share the "older, dated' tag but both work well enough for my purpose.  The Canon "things" remain better for some areas where the GXR just can't make the cut.  But the camera of choice for general use is the GXR these days.  Even the GRDIII does not get as much use as it deserves.  My deep appreciation of the GRD however is undiminished.

I agree that the GXR needs at least one new body and one of them should have a built in evf.  It seems that there are a number of emerging technical advances (digital cameras have not hit the wall ) that Ricoh could consider.  Evf screens have taken a quantum leap recently, led based flash is being talked about, the sensor in the new Sony NEX-6 has phase detect sensors built into it. When the M mount module was being designed Ricoh seemed proud of the new focal plane shutter they designed for it.  Apparently it was a real achievement and took some time.  If in fact a FF mount module was an objective then perhaps  new, larger focal plane shutter would be necessary and it might be more than just scaling up the present one.

Thankfully we all have different needs in cameras and manufacturers generally can come up with something that satisfies those needs.  I find the manual focus issues on the A12 mount frustrating at times.  When you are in a hurry sometimes there is enough contrast/focus-latitude to get the focus right very quickly.  At other times it is fiddly slow.  However using focus peaking, magnification and patience it is often possible to get precision selective focus  that is outstanding.  Certainly not soccer-dad stuff unless you are a masochist.  I don't have the A12 primes but your recommendation has started me wondering.

I noted a while back that I had "discovered" the Enna tele-ennalyt 240mm f4.5.  I am warming to it as a telephoto lens for the A12 mount.  Probably not the most wonderful telephoto in the business but it surely is compact and light.  Effectively a 360mm on the GXR-M it weighs just 365gm with both caps and a Kipon M42->LM adapter fitted.  At this weight it is very easy to handle on the GXR.  Compare the brilliant but heavy Meyer Orestogon 300mm f4.0 at over 2 kg with it's very necessary built in tripod adapter.  Therefore what I am saying is that with the GXR-M you can roll your own combination of camera need from the smorgasbord of old lenses on offer.  No need to stick to the wide RF primes.  In fact on a bright enough day you might just get enough light, shutter speed and dof at (say) f5.6 on the Enna 240mm to get some soccer shots on pre-focus.  The lens is certainly light enough to wave around with gay abandon on the GXR-M.  I must find some moving targets and give mine a go.

The silence is uncanny, nothing is coming out, no plans, not a whisper, and yet every time someone with authority at Ricoh is persistently questioned they say that they are not abandoning the Ricoh camera brand.  Hardly something that is done when everything is "steady as it goes" with the consequent built up expectation that something extraordinary is brewing away in the background.  The longer it goes the greater the need for something ultra-radical or otherwise future products might be damned as too little too late.

Ricoh  are still patenting camera parts (lenses at least) but this could just as much be a design studio exercise where handy royalty revenues can be raised from other companies use of your patents.

I might modify that - the lens mount modules for the GXR have ceased to become state of the art whilst still being as effective as they ever were.  The GXR plus M mount module can be expanded and tweaked every which way as much as the owner might desire.  The sensor is the A12 which is not the most current one, but it works just as well as when it was first released and raved about.

If I had not made such a big investment in Canon gear then the Pentax dslr would have been an obvious choice for me as well.

--
Tom Caldwell

Gerd, at the risk of slipping further and further "off topic"

I think I am a lateral thinker, I put it down in some way to playing chess when i was young.  After a while a chessboard in action becomes a "pattern" of good and bad positions and no longer a series of possible moves (at least for me), but I never became a really good player.

I admire those who can only concentrate on a single purpose and exclude all side issues.  A lateral thinker is beset with all those "what if" situatations that are consequent on the first major decision.  I often have to deal with all the minor surrounding events before I can completely focus on the major issue in hand. Programming is another case of this issue, you have to consider the linked consequences of changing that bit of code lest it create a huge "bug" somewhere else.

Both thought processes have their place.  The direct thinker gets things done but can screw up because associated side issues are overlooked.  The lateral thinker can seem indecisive and slow but the thoroughness usually means no stuff ups and everything gets done.  Hardly the one to be leading the charge ....

So do we have a case of lateral thinking from Ricoh?  More direct thinking would be to keep making product to satisfy market demand even though it is increasingly less competitive in a hardening market.  Just make middle of the road stuff in relatively small quantitiies for a market that is becoming increasingly dependent of cheap and everywhere branding?  Or do they go off and have a good look at what they are doing and make a long term plan to be a smaller company selling select state of the art product at a small premium price structure?

Frankly I have no idea what is going on back at Ricoh HQ, nor do I need to do, but this forum might be the longest death-bed soliloquy ever for all we know.

--
Tom Caldwell

I think that we agree - that digital cameras have not hit the wall but if the gear you have does the purpose for what you need then why worry?

Gone are the days when every new digital camera had useful and very desirable features, enough to make your then present camera seriously deficient.  No longer can anyone say "my camera takes awful images" therefore I must buy the next generation.  Not happening any more.  New cameras might improve but not enough to render the product of your present one an embarrassment at the photo-swap meet.

Strong words from a gear aquisition freak.

Cameras must progress in two main streams:

1) Simpler to use but effective (by popular demand)

2) Greater depth of control intuitively laid out (for the camera geeks)

Such things as better sensors, evf/ovf, lenses, etc, etc are only "by the way" hash-noise to keep everyone interested.

--
Tom Caldwell

I think that you have just defined the "Excel Spreadsheet" or "Adobe Photoshop" conundrum.  People want these products because they are so powerful and can "do everything' but lack the wit or necessity to use more than 5% of the features contained.  Yet they want the product and will not accept a more basic product that will do just what they need.

Same thing with cameras and smartphones - we all want the very best and then either take our images on "automatic" or just use the phone to make calls or text.  Much like the stories of dslr cameras being used for point and shoot. In the end development gets a life of it's own and the only thing available is one of these super-products and we still thirst for the upgrades.  Maybe we just get bored?

--
Tom Caldwell

For one thing if you don't shoot JPG then a lot of the settings found in most cameras are no longer needed. I've always wished that there was a menu setting that hid the JPG-related settings if you chose to shoot RAW only.