Are we witnessing the end of some camera evolution period?

003tvd said:

As an industry, we no longer have any "sizzle" in the average consumer's eyes. Sure, avid photo buffs and pros get sweaty palms when the majors release details on a new product, but photography is no longer cool (if it ever was) to average Joe. The buzz is all about smart phones. It's the "phone guys" selling the sizzle, and subsequently, most of the "steak". How do we (those of us in the photo industry) get consumers, especially the young generation to take notice of photography as an interesting hobby or career?

Click to expand...

Totally wrong. Photography is as cool as ever. It's just that we now have so many other tools and means for taking photos and doing photography. Notice that all the latest cell phones are emphasizing the quality and improvements in their cameras. It was a particularly important feature highlighted in the latest iPhone 4S. Furthermore, you forget that photography isn't just about capturing the "still" photo. Now with videography becoming an influential and integral part of image capture, there's the new genre of the "moving" photo...photos in video form, if you will. Today's imaging artists aren't just picking up a DSLR camera to produce a static, still photo. They are using them to make images, both static and moving images. The days of just taking a pretty picture to print and frame on your wall are over. Sure, people still do that. But imaging has gone far beyond that. Today's DSLR shooters are just as likely to have their captured "images" up on youtube or a high def television as a mini movie, not some boring slide show running through a slide projector.

There's no need to encourage "the young generation" to notice and do photography. They are doing it on their own. And they are already taking it well beyond where the previous generation ever took it. Clearly, you're not up to date on what's happening amongst the latest generation of photographers. Plus, you have to be an idiot not to notice that there are photos all around us..probably more photos than ever. Who do you think are producing all those images? They aren't magically producing themselves, you know. And there certainly is NOT a scarcity of photographers trying to break into the industry. On the contrary, I'd say there's actually a glut of photographers! The photography industry is definitely not in danger of losing "sizzle"! LOL

T3 said:

The 1D X is basically designed to be an all-rounder camera.

Click to expand...

Something tells me that an all around camera wouldn't likely cost 5K.

T3 said:

To take a camera like this and assert that its mainly something for the sports crowd is rather silly.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it!
Yet this is how it goes...

Granted there are the odd few who like the feel of a 5lb kit around their neck for street photography. But in most cases, the prosumer products end-up in designated applications(studio, track etc).

T3 said:

As for the question of "where does that leave us?"...it leaves us where photography has always left us...it's left us to be photographers capturing great images.

Click to expand...

Nice answer though completely irrelevant to the question.

T3 said:

The pursuit of pixels and resolution for resolution's sake isn't really what photography is about. That's merely been an obsession that has gained strength in the pixel-peeping digital era, to the point that some "photographers" seem to think that that's all that matters. There's more to photograph than just pixels, pixels, and more pixels.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately... I think you've dug yourself into this hole all on your own. No one stated that resolution was the only thing that matters. However, the other extreme to such an exaggeration would be to conclude that it doesn't matter either(see). - the key here it to strike a balance and keep sight of the big picture

Marcin 3M said:

1Dx is a step backward in terms of pixel count.

Click to expand...

Pixel count is a compromise.

Many pixels means sharper images, but slower camera with more megabytes per image. If you want a super fast journalist camera you cannot have lots of pixels. Smaller images also speed up handling in editors and sending on phone lines.

But if you put your camera on a stable tripod - use super sharp lens and ISO 100 and take some fine arts landscapes. Then LOTS of pixels is king.

And somewhere i between - you have something in between.

What happens is that they get better at controlling low light noise. This means that you can have more pixels with the same pixel quality each year. So - I think pixel count will continue to go up.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

TrapperJohn said:

Sure, it's fun to play the spec game, but in terms of capturing better photographs for web display (how most photos are displayed) or A3/A4 print, is the 1Dx really that much better than the original 5D or a 1DsII? Does it open the door to a lot of photos you'd like to capture, but can't?
...

Click to expand...

This is often said. But - why are my panoramas so nice looking then? I stitch lots of images and the quality of the result is much better. The resulting image can be 200 MP and it looks fantastic when printed. Why is that?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Marcin 3M said:

I will be surprised, if rumoured 39MPX will be any better than 24MPX... Hopefully we will se it in a near future. But if there will be no or marginal difference it will be a sign of a dead end in megapixel race.

Click to expand...

This has been said many times now. I remember when cameras broke the 10 MP wall. Lots of people were then claiming that it was time to go back to 6 MP - that was optimum. I wonder how many still believe that?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

...if you want to print large and edit. They probably matter more to less skilled photographers who are more likely to crop and straighten more. They also matter more to people who want to use stacking effects like HDR or focus stacking.

Every form of editing reduces resolution. Even color saturation causes details to smear away, especially in reds.

ISO performance is equally cool, so if in the future we are presented with two similar quality cameras, one with more resolution and one with better low light performance, I don't know which way I will go.

In the mid range DSLRs, they all seem close enough in all aspects of IQ that I chose based on glass and ergonomics. What will we do with a real choice in IQ characteristics? Does anyone think there is a big difference now?
--
Ed Rizk

Marcin 3M said:

1Dx is a step backward in terms of pixel count. It means that - like in good film days - this kind of cameras are dedicated to A3-A2 sized printouts. The ISO game started, but we will see its results in a near future ( comparing D3s with new Canon sensor). Only new feature is video - i'm not sure of it's importance for most users.

There was a time, when in a relatively short period of time a number of camera brands vanished from 35mm. Mamiya, Konica - to name the few. In some way it was a result of lack of market's interest. And the market is the same in terms of "new toy hunger". Just observe DPR forums in times, when no new cameras announcements for a longer period of time. In such cases we see 15 post a day, comparing to 30..50 after announcement of new product.

Click to expand...

I think Canon Dx is a sideway step into a dead-end for Canon. Nothing really significant, no flip-out screen ( I hear pros scream), thick and heavy as a brick.

I was sort of waiting for a 5dMKIII but since getting Fuji X100 have started appreciating portability.

I think DSLRs are doomed anyway, except for some uses , but not for general population. You can't continue improving a steam engine, so to speak.

I also think that a pixel race begins to stop making sense, sure, we can go higher and higher. But, we'll we see the difference? Will lenses be able to resolve it?

What I would like see addressed is finally some universal and working White Balance solution. Current state of different settings, is really crappy and way behind level of development in other areas. Something simple, like a split optical viewfinder, with one half actual through the glass view, and the other half EVF with a thumb-wheel adjustable WB. Match the two and bingo, you're home.

Perfectly adjusted to your eye and to how you see colours under current conditions.

A wearable lens/glasses with a small recording unit i yr pocket would be nice too, no need to constantly raise the camera to yr eye. Who knows, may be its crap thinking, may be one day we'll have it.

But this, 1Dx, spin around and you are nowhere different, same place, is no true progress. Not to me anyway.

Pozdrowienia dla Gdanska.

Rgds

johnbee said:

T3 said:

The 1D X is basically designed to be an all-rounder camera.

Click to expand...

Something tells me that an all around camera wouldn't likely cost 5K.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense that a camera costing 5K should be able to handle everything you throw at it, whether it's a portrait shoot, or a wedding, or sports, or extreme low light, or landscapes, or wild life, etc. One camera to rule them all.

Member said:

Unfortunately... I think you've dug yourself into this hole all on your own. No one stated that resolution was the only thing that matters. However, the other extreme to such an exaggeration would be to conclude that it doesn't matter either(see). - the key here it to strike a balance and keep sight of the big picture

Click to expand...

Wow, you are completely missing the point. It's not that resolution "doesn't matter". Resolution does matter, but at a certain point enough is enough. That's exactly the point of the 1DX's full frame 18mp sensor. And Canon has basically stated this...and probably is doing so based on the input and feedback of their huge pool of pro Canon shooters. Furthermore, the 1DX's 18mp FF sensor does "strike a balance" between resolution and other aspects of image quality, like high ISO performance, diffraction, etc. And it does "keep sight of the big picture": that there's more to a camera and to photography than cramming as many pixels as you can onto a sensor!

You may not realize this, but Canon has a very large pool of sponsored pro photographers from which they get a lot of feedback regarding future camera development. They're called Canon's Explorers of Light, and it includes many of the world's top photographers:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/dlc/contributors/explorers.spr?currentPage=1

And it's no doubt thanks to these photographers' inputs that we have a camera such as the 1DX that does "strike a balance and keep sight of the big picture" and that does acknowledge that resolution matters but that at a certain point, enough is enough for the vast majority of photographers. And that's how they end up with a great all-rounder camera like the 1DX.

T3 said:

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense that a camera costing 5K should be able to handle everything you throw at it, whether it's a portrait shoot, or a wedding, or sports, or extreme low light, or landscapes, or wild life, etc. One camera to rule them all.

Click to expand...

Not when we can do the same thing with a 1500 dollar camera

T3 said:

Resolution does matter, but at a certain point enough is enough.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I doubt it's going to settle at 18mp

~

I think Roland Karlsson said it best. We've seen and heard such arguments before; 6mp, 10 & 12mp and now 24mp. Each of which were presented with every bit of conviction as your own. But the question(which you refused to answer btw) remains... have they proven to be true? And the answer is obviously no.

And so the only thing those people(yourself included) could ever claim in the end is that whatever MP they believed was enough, was enough for them(no more no less). And were right back where we started.

Have a nice day and good luck.
JohnB

Wielkie dzieki. Pozdrawiam Kanade pachnaca zywica

--
Marcin_3M

Marcin 3M said:

Wielkie dzieki. Pozdrawiam Kanade pachnaca zywica

--
Marcin_3M

Click to expand...

Dzieki
Tks and Rgds

johnbee said:

T3 said:

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense that a camera costing 5K should be able to handle everything you throw at it, whether it's a portrait shoot, or a wedding, or sports, or extreme low light, or landscapes, or wild life, etc. One camera to rule them all.

Click to expand...

Not when we can do the same thing with a 1500 dollar camera

Click to expand...

This, like all 1-series cameras, is a high end pro camera built to withstand the worst conditions, delivering the highest levels of performance. Please show me the $1500 camera that has 18mp, a full frame sensor, the most advanced intelligent auto focus system, 61 AF sensors, 12fps, 252 zone metering, 400,000 cycle carbon fiber shutter blades, three separate DIGIC processors, and a standard ISO range of 100-51,200 but with high ISO going up to 204,800! You just don't get it, do you? LOL. If you really did get it, you wouldn't say something as foolish as "we can do the same thing [as the 1D X] with a 1500 dollar camera." This is a full tilt pro camera. Whether you're shooting the Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or doing a high end wedding, or shooting raptors in flight, or roughing the worst landscape-shooting conditions, or covering some foreign war, this is the camera you want with you, not some $1500 consumer camera.

Member said:

Member said:

Resolution does matter, but at a certain point enough is enough.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I doubt it's going to settle at 18mp

~

I think Roland Karlsson said it best. We've seen and heard such arguments before; 6mp, 10 & 12mp and now 24mp. Each of which were presented with every bit of conviction as your own. But the question(which you refused to answer btw) remains... have they proven to be true? And the answer is obviously no.

And so the only thing those people(yourself included) could ever claim in the end is that whatever MP they believed was enough, was enough for them(no more no less). And were right back where we started.

Have a nice day and good luck.
JohnB

Click to expand...

What you don't get is that unlike these previous megapixel benchmarks, which consistently rose, this time the megapixel count went down from a previous high water mark. It's like what happens with a lot of autofocus systems: the focus system overshoots the point of focus, then brings it back to the point of focus, thus being able to gauge which focus position is too short and which focus position is too far, making it be able to find the focus position that is just right. That's what the 1DX's 18mp is: just right. Think of the 16mp 1D MKIV as the "too short" and the 21mp 1Ds MKIII as "too far", with the 1D X as "just right". And just as importantly, it's just right for the broadest range of shooters and applications. That is not to say that there is never going to be a need for higher resolutions for some people and some applications. But clearly, these are going to be outliers, as in the real world there are always outliers. However, that doesn't take away from the realization that 18mp is enough, and plenty, for the overwhelming majority of uses and shooters. It hits the central region of the bell curve, where 90% of pro users are. It's not a camera for the outliers who need 40mp. Clearly, you still just don't get it.

T3 said:

johnbee said:

I think Roland Karlsson said it best. We've seen and heard such arguments before; 6mp, 10 & 12mp and now 24mp. Each of which were presented with every bit of conviction as your own. But the question(which you refused to answer btw) remains... have they proven to be true? And the answer is obviously no.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As for the issue of "6mp, 10 & 12mp and now 24mp", I've had 6mp (I owned a Canon 10D), 8mp, (I owned a 20D), 10mp (I own a Canon 40D), 12mp (I own a Canon 5D), and now 18mp (I own a Canon 60D), but I shoot probably 90+ percent of all my images at M-RAW, which is 10mp. Based on experience, I know that's all I need. I only switch to full size 18mp RAW for the portraits and large group shots. And even then, I don't typically really need it. I can still deliver a gorgeous large print with just 10mp. Still, I'll switch to 18mp for these shots just for the heck of it. So in answer to your question of "have they proven to be true"...I'd say from my experience and from my choice of shooting primarily at 10mp even though I have 18mp in my camera, I'd say yes it has proven to be true.

Every one of these weddings I shot (below) were shot at no more than 12mp because I was using either 8mp, 10mp, or 12mp DSLRs at the time (I typically shoot with multiple bodies). Never had any issue of delivering enough resolution, even for large prints. So in answer to your question, for me, yes it has proven to be true. Frankly, I think most working pros are tired of chasing the megapixel dragon. It's become a needless and pointless chase, with ever diminishing returns.







Furthermore, the fact that Canon has chosen to go with 18mp for the 1D X further proves it true. Furthermore, 24mp is not a standard resolution level of the overwhelming majority of today's DSLRs sold today. Cameras that have 24mp, or higher, of resolution make up only a small fraction of the DSLR market. They are definitely outliers. This further adds to the conviction that more modest megapixel levels are enough...in other words, it has been proven to be true. So I am answering your question. And I'm pretty sure the 1D X is going to be hugely popular in the pro segment, adding further credence that 18mp is a defininte sweet spot for resolution, and certainly enough for the overwhelming majority of pro DSLR shooters.

T3 said:

This is a full tilt pro camera. Whether you're shooting the Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or doing a high end wedding, or shooting raptors in flight, or roughing the worst landscape-shooting conditions, or covering some foreign war, this is the camera you want with you, not some $1500 consumer camera.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like you're contradicting yourself;

T3 said:

T3 said:

I've seen stunning prints shot with a 5D with only 12mp, LOL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

T3 said:

T3 said:

People have been able to produce and sell gorgeous prints from cameras with far less resolution.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

T3 said:

T3 said:

To put things into perspective for you, when Joe McNally shot the very first all-digital National Geographic Magazine story, he was using a 5.4mp Nikon D1X. He was able to produce stunning images, including five double trucks and a four-page gatefold in the magazine. In addition, he printed up beautiful gallery prints that were put on exhibition. All from a 5.4mp DSLR back in 2002:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And so now... were saying that it takes a 5K camera to cover the Super Bowl, weddings, BIF and landscape-shooting and the likes of foreign wars etc? Should we even wonder how everything else was done prior to this?

TBH. I really can't see how anything beneficial could ever come out of this conversation do you? :|

And I say this based on the fact that we all know it doesn't take a 5K camera to get the job done. And I base that statement on the fact that we've seen(as you yourself mentioned) STUNNING... output from all of these area's with all makes and models(digital and film) of camera's. And so I would add that anyone needing a 5K camera to fulfill the above mentioned list could benefit from learning how to take picture(remember that?).

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from right?

This thread is getting too long, but some info.

What I can hear, a Canon rep is saying that there very well could be two product lines one for video and one for still images. I hope still image version has video too, when or if it arrives.
http://vimeo.com/15549122

I found it here. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=37482824

By the way, a comment to those who say that piksels do not matter. I have somewhere an old 0.7M camera, they have terrible sharpness and their noise keeps the neighborhood awake at nights.

Why dont you make print with one. It really is best when looked further away, I'd prefer from 100km away that is 500 miles or more.

does that make every kid with an Ipod an audiophile? Or just a kid who takes music with them because they can? Is a kid with a cell phone who takes a picture of their friend "goofing", now a photographer? Yer right, people are now taking more pictures than ever, because the hardware is readily available, but I don't think that makes them photographers any more than driving a car makes one an automobile enthusiast.

Ed Rizk said:

ISO performance is equally cool, so if in the future we are presented with two similar quality cameras, one with more resolution and one with better low light performance, I don't know which way I will go.

Click to expand...

For FF or APS-C cameras, you today get good performance up to at least ISO 25K today, even for sensors with lots of pixels. So - a 50 MP, good at ISO 25K is soon going to be made by Sony.

Do you need more ISO then 25K ?

In that case, you will probably want to look at sensors with less pixels.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Roland Karlsson said:

Ed Rizk said:

ISO performance is equally cool, so if in the future we are presented with two similar quality cameras, one with more resolution and one with better low light performance, I don't know which way I will go.

Click to expand...

For FF or APS-C cameras, you today get good performance up to at least ISO 25K today, even for sensors with lots of pixels. So - a 50 MP, good at ISO 25K is soon going to be made by Sony.

Click to expand...

My 60D is pretty grainy at 3200.

Roland Karlsson said:

Do you need more ISO then 25K ?

Click to expand...

I would love to have as high an ISO as I can get with good quality.

Roland Karlsson said:

In that case, you will probably want to look at sensors with less pixels.

Click to expand...

It would be a hard call if they started making both higher resolution sensors and lower resolution ones with better high ISO performance. Up to the point when I bought, it seems you just get the new one or the old one and the new one was always better at both.

Roland Karlsson said:

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Click to expand...

--
Ed Rizk

Ed Rizk said:

Ed Rizk said:

Do you need more ISO then 25K ?

Click to expand...

I would love to have as high an ISO as I can get with good quality.

Click to expand...

I found the K-5 to hold up quite well up to about ISO6400. It wasn't quite as clean as the D700, though I rarely found myself having to do anything with the files in most cases. Having said that, I use to mess around with Topaz Denoise and see how far I could push the sensor;

K-5, ISO51200, RAW



Anyways, my guess is that most 3'rd party manufacturers will find new ways to push Sony's new 24MP sensor which looks every bit as good as the 16MP variant in the K-5. And so I'd say the prognosis looks very good for the crop sensor market in the near future.

johnbee said:

T3 said:

This is a full tilt pro camera. Whether you're shooting the Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or doing a high end wedding, or shooting raptors in flight, or roughing the worst landscape-shooting conditions, or covering some foreign war, this is the camera you want with you, not some $1500 consumer camera.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like you're contradicting yourself;

Member said:

Member said:

I've seen stunning prints shot with a 5D with only 12mp, LOL.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

People have been able to produce and sell gorgeous prints from cameras with far less resolution.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

To put things into perspective for you, when Joe McNally shot the very first all-digital National Geographic Magazine story, he was using a 5.4mp Nikon D1X. He was able to produce stunning images, including five double trucks and a four-page gatefold in the magazine. In addition, he printed up beautiful gallery prints that were put on exhibition. All from a 5.4mp DSLR back in 2002:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And so now... were saying that it takes a 5K camera to cover the Super Bowl, weddings, BIF and landscape-shooting and the likes of foreign wars etc? Should we even wonder how everything else was done prior to this?

TBH. I really can't see how anything beneficial could ever come out of this conversation do you? :|

And I say this based on the fact that we all know it doesn't take a 5K camera to get the job done. And I base that statement on the fact that we've seen(as you yourself mentioned) STUNNING... output from all of these area's with all makes and models(digital and film) of camera's. And so I would add that anyone needing a 5K camera to fulfill the above mentioned list could benefit from learning how to take picture(remember that?).

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from right?

Click to expand...

You still don't get it, do you? You may not realize this, but the 1D X is simply yet another generation in a long line of pro 1-series bodies that Canon has produced over the years. And yes, these 1-series bodies existed right alongside cameras costing much, much less. And in spite of this, the 1-series bodies have been the go-to cameras for working pros throughout the world. The existence of lower cost bodies has never diminished the demand and need for the 1-series bodies amongst pros-- pros who do indeed know very well how to take pictures, contrary to what your condescending comments imply. Grow up, pal. You may not understand the 1D X (based on this conversation, I wouldn't expect you to understand much at all, LOL), but I can assure you that there are plenty of users out there who do.