Where Are Digital Cameras Headed?

[2002p51]

Since we're on the subject, I saw this at a race I was shooting over the weekend:

She was shooting video with her iPad. I went over and talked to her and she showed me the video. Image quality was surprisingly good! (and no, she's not taking pictures of the light pole! )

[Dr. Cranky]

Drew, I love that picture. My wife has an iPad it does take some great quality pictures, but of course it feels strange as a camera.

[2002p51]

It looks pretty strange to see somebody using it that way too!

[Dr. Cranky]

And Drew, the bigger surprise is that they would allow someone (who doesn't look like a prof. photographer) get that close to the track.

[cartpix]

Jeff- Thanks for the response, but I still don't see any advantage to having an SLR mechanism on any digital camera. If you build a camera body with a professional CMOS and bayonets to fit the current crop of optics, why do you need the SLR mechanism? Even the cheapest digital camera is giving you the same "through the lens" view that the SLR is. In point of fact the digital is doing a better job because you are actually seeing the image that will be recorded. The flip up mirror to the view finder adds nothing to the equation as far as I can see. SLR's were orignally created to correct the variance of what you saw in a range finder type viewfinder and what the film was recording through the lens. Since the question was where are digital camera going, would it not make sense to get rid of this relic of the film era or am I missing something?

It's a great question, but not being a camera designer, I really can't answer with any authority. It may be that they think dyed in the wool SLR users wouldn't accept it & they would loose buisness. I've only shot SLRs for many, many years. I had a point & shoot digital, a couple years ago, to have a light weight travel camera. I could never get used to it. I didn't like the feel of it. I went back to my back up camera, which is more of a consumer level SLR with cheaper, lighter lenses. Even it drives me nuts because it's so much slower than my pro body. I'm just spoiled.

Jeff

[cartpix]

It's almost an insult when somebody says; "Gee, your photos are great. I bet you have a really nice camera!"

That one kills me, too. When I shot Champ Car, at the photo meetings, the media relations person would hol up his cell phone & in a booming voice would say, "this is not a camera". I am amazed at how man spectators are trying to get pictures with cell phones. I've never tried, so I don't know it would turn out. The words, "this is not a camera", would haunt me if I even took it out.

[Rob Hall]

That one kills me, too. When I shot Champ Car, at the photo meetings, the media relations person would hol up his cell phone & in a booming voice would say, "this is not a camera". I am amazed at how man spectators are trying to get pictures with cell phones. I've never tried, so I don't know it would turn out. The words, "this is not a camera", would haunt me if I even took it out.

Yeah, as a fan in the stands at the Indy 500, Long Beach GP, NASCAR races, etc I take most of my pics w/ my cell phone and some w/ my Sony Cybershot digital point-and-shoot. Definitely not professional quality photos, but good enough for Fotki and Facebook...

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rob Hall

[SoCalCarCulture]

Funny thing, I just received this Industry Publication which discusses the same thing.

You guys with a strong interest in this might enjoy reading through it... 6Sight

It's a pdf so give it time to open!

[2002p51]

And Drew, the bigger surprise is that they would allow someone (who doesn't look like a prof. photographer) get that close to the track.

Well, this is Saturday night short track racing, it's a whole different world from the so called "big time". The sign on that light pole in front of her says "Do not go beyond this point when cars are on the track." so she's okay.

[cartpix]

Funny thing, I just received this Industry Publication which discusses the same thing.

You guys with a strong interest in this might enjoy reading through it... 6Sight

It's a pdf so give it time to open!

Great article, thanks for the link.

Jeff

[Pete J.]

Yea Pete, I think you are missing something. As you know, like Jeff, I'm a professional motorsports shooter and one thing I can tell you is that panning with a 200 mph race car while you're holding the camera at arm's length trying to get a critical view in that little screen is nearly impossible. And while it's true that I've been shooting with SLRs for 30 years now and I'm too used to it (i.e. too old ) to change now, I think the traditional SLR system will be with us on the pro side anyway for many more years.

I also echo the previous comments about the camera only being a tool. It's the photographer that makes a great photo, not the camera. It's almost an insult when somebody says; "Gee, your photos are great. I bet you have a really nice camera!"

Having said that however, I've become really impressed with some of the "cheap" cameras that are out there now. It used to be the worst camera you could have was the one on your cell phone. Most of the early ones were simply awful. I would see people using them at car shows and such and just feel it was a waste of time. Last year I got my first "smart phone", an HTC, and I'm using the camera in it more and more. Not for my racing of course, but I now think of it as being able to have a decent camera with me at all times. And that's a big step for me!

So, before I ramble on anymore I'll just say that the choices on the camera market today may seem confusing but you just have to really think about what you want to use it for and find the right camera for the job. Just don't fall into the "more megapixels, the better" trap. That's a whole 'nother rant!

Drew - Good to hear from you again! I absolutely agree with you about the megapixel trap. I have a early Nikon digital camera that is now about 10 years old. The optics are typical of Nikon. In short great. It has far fewer pixels than the average cell phone but still takes exceptional photos. Clear and sharp. I replaced my Minolta SLR with it way back when. The thing that the newer cameras do that this one doesn't is work well at the extreams of photography i.e. high shutter speeds and low light situations. None of which have anything to do with the lack of a mirror/SLR mechanism. In addition to the small display on the back, this one has a "view finder" style display that you look through like a standard SLR but without the machinery. When I use it, I am looking at a very small video screen. I will continue to use it for studio shots because it works. My question and point is still why do you need the mirror mechanism. If a Pro digital camera can be built with the speed and light sensativity required to shoot all situations then the only thing the SLR provides is a view reflected by a mirror. If an internal electronic view finder is provided instead of a mirror, what differance would it make? I just find the mirror mechanism to be a bit like an appendix. Everybody has one and it really doesn't provide any improvement.

I have told may of my friends that megapixels are similar to the old style grain count in film. The finer the grain/pixels the more detail the film/ccd can capture. The problem is that to take advantage of a fine grained film/high pixel ccd you need great optics. High mega pixels with ###### optics is like puting expensive film in a Kodak Brownie(only the old guys will get that one ).

Edited June 20, 2012 by Pete J.

[Pete J.]

Great article, thanks for the link.

Jeff

I agree.