Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,745
Re: Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....

Susurus wrote:

With RIII it was more ‘easy’ or at least I used 50mm f/1.4 more oftten without stepping it down so ‘far’. With RIV it is different. Waiting for some FW updates...Maybe it will change something.

That's an interesting view which takes into account the increasing resolution. Let's take it to a further level of progress. What would make photography not a subset of video, and what would it make it so fundamentally needed that it's not the obvious outcome that it ends up 100% gobbled as something that belongs almost exclusively inside a phone? Resolution may be one, as a phone...well, it will be hard to include a medium format sensor inside a pocket device, and first a new kind of lensing would need to exist. So may be 30 years ahead, or 100.

Movies offer images in time, primarily that's the job. I think photography must expand and explore the concept of images in space. The primary variable is space. So to survive as something that isn't a phone component, like GPS ended up being, it needs to work fast to cover elements of space that phones can't. It relies on things like "that horrible non creamy FAKE bokeh!" to try to captivate the attention of viewers. The moment one needs to be an expert to note it was not done with a phone, is the moment of reckoning that the market, like it is now, is DOOMED.

F0.75 will no save camera market. Nor will swirly bokeh, o being less fake than what we have now, which will rapidly advance in camera makers to be amazing 5 years from now, using more information from the scenes and new sensor ideas (eg, like it already relies on ToF and multi cameras)

The obvious solution is to make it an amazing experience to explore a short moment in time IN SPACE. That's what photography, professional photography, could offer. Moving the goalpost.

At that point, f-stop may be a moot concept from the photo making point of view, and be more a concept of the viewer experience. The idea being, the goal of the camera would be to make a high resolution 3D map (or as close) and all the information about the incoming light (real dynamic bokeh). And the exploration of these live "frozen in time" images (maybe with a little Live Photo into them too, but short) to be a delight.

Resume with whatever means technology allows, exploring dinamyc focus such as was possible with Lytro, which was way ahead of its time to be useful then. Explore very high resolution (even if it needs to be bulkier), like 500 MPx. Explore dynamic aperture, ways of capturing a scene in all f-stops, and make a cube of this information. Like recording a burst that registers every f-stop available.

Make the photo exploration something more than a tiny static rectangle inside a phone or a print. Make it a dynamic experience, where bokeh or DOF is a user exploration choice, where the 3D component is there (stereo), where the focus plane is something to be explored.

Has anybody seen Bladerunner? I think it gives a hint of photography being something else, when the protagonist explores the photo, and has it take a ...turn. See that move for some inspiration.

I would not mind paying $`0,000 for a large format camera with some Lytro-like ideas, high resolution, dynamic cube that the photo registered the image in an "f-stop sweep" capturing a moment in the most advanced, detailed, varied combination of ways and using advanced software, state of the art, making phone software like like the real toy thing they would be.

But...ok, for a static scene...the reason I increasingly use a higher f-stop is that, at f1.4 I always find myself losing to much information I later regret. Including parts of eyebrows, sections of the left side of the eye, or equivalents in many other contexts.

An all the apparent progress, and at the same time the lack of real innovation, is because the photography market is really driven in part from the billions made in cel phones, and the billions made in more profitable applications. And the needs in both cater or have different drivers. For example, let's take security industry. They need anything that is ok to run computer vision algorithms. Take cel phone users, they seek pics like the more expensive models, of course, without having to have any of them. Like vanilina is to vanila. Let's take medical, may need very specific precision and attributes, and sensors for different wavelengths, etc. Or space, which is high precision and resolution. Or movie industry, which requires other things, usually high bandwidth 8K, etc. Camera market is an intersection of what is financed through OTHER industries. And we get a sum of better everything that is always almost the same-but-better.

But if they where leading, if they though about the viewer of photos, the digital age viewer, they'd be pursuing the most breathtaking, dynamic and immersive experience for consuming a short moment in time visually.

And who's thinking about the future of exploring short moments in time? Lytro failed. And it was alone. with tech that was primarily meant for photographers. It could not compete with the billions of tech in sensors being financed by all the other industries, that had no use for the Lytro features.

But some company WILL venture, and at that time, it will be again a very exciting time for photography. And the photography winter we live now will be over.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow