# Future of DLSRs??



## domromer (Jan 2, 2008)

What changes do you think will come to digital slrs in the next 5 years? Which technologies will become standard on all digital slrs? What features would you like to see? How will pro digital slrs surpass pro 35mm slrs in terms of features?


----------



## ScottS (Jan 2, 2008)

domromer said:


> How will pro digital slrs surpass pro 35mm slrs in terms of features?


 
I do believe they already have. 

And as for whats to come... No one knows really. Who would have guessed the features on the D3 5 years ago? Or i saw a post several years back when someone was guessing that we would be up to 50MP in 2008. 

Soo, I think ill leave it to the professionals.


----------



## domromer (Jan 2, 2008)

Which features would you like to see?


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 2, 2008)

Heck I don't know jack - maybe built in bluetooth or WiFi, adoption of LMOS sensors, HDR enabled sensors, incredible frame rates and affordable huge solid state storage? 

-Shea


----------



## domromer (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd like wireless transfer to be standard.

I'd also like a smart Auto ISO that can sense what focal length is being used and adjust accordingly.

Thanks all I can think of for now.


----------



## ScottS (Jan 2, 2008)

Wireless transfer would be nice to have standard, but I hope the thing they focus on the most is expanding the dynamic range of the sensors.


----------



## astrostu (Jan 2, 2008)

Things I'd like to see and that I think only make sense to add (eventually) in no particular order ...

(a)  More pixels (duh).

(b)  Less noise per pixel.

(c)  Better quantum efficiency.

(d)  Larger, 32-bit, dynamic range options.

(e)  Faster and longer duration fps, which will be a consequence of a larger on-camera memory buffer, faster processors, and faster memory (the faster memory already exists, but the camera components can't keep up).

(f)  Better build construction even at the lower end.

(g)  Full-frame sensors at the low-end.

(h)  Introduction of (cheaper) medium-format-like digital cameras, though this may be a non-issue as the pixel number increases and noise decreases.

(i)  Better battery technology for longer life and less of a capacity problem at cold temperatures.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 3, 2008)

Surprised you didn't mention the ability to take extended exposures (beyond an hour) without either the sensor or the photo going totally crap.

/Edited for political correctness.


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 3, 2008)

The 35mm format DSLR will be limited by the lens technology we have. The very best glass that can be mass produced will not resolve much past 22-25 M.P. Maybe 30 tops. I look for higher ISO at lower noise. Any thing past 10 FPS I feel is a waist. Maybe faster update on live view. But the fact is the D3 does more than I would in practice use. Wireless is already practical and being built-in would be good.  The fact of the matter is, I don't look for much more in a D4 than what the D3 has but more resolution. And about 1,000,000 noiseless ISO would be cool to. The fact is what my eye sees is one thing. What the camera can record at 6400 at f/2 is so much brighter, it's unreal. It will be hard to improve on except resolution. I do think a lot of the high end technology will filter down to the consumer and pro-sumer market, everyone will benefit in the long run.


----------



## Fate (Jan 3, 2008)

i dont get why people want more FPS than like 10 in a camera. Does it not get to a point where your simply holding a video camera, if it shoots at like 50fps.

I want it to get to a point where the ISO is so high you can shoot handheld in almost every situation with no noise, that would make me happy


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jan 3, 2008)

Built-in GPS could be useful - exact location becoming embedded into the EXIF. No more forgetting where you took the shot.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 3, 2008)

Some features are nice, some are useless... but all in all I do not care about most features, not even sensor cleaning.

Image quality comes first for me, hence more dynamic range for the sensors please, less noise at high ISO, better algorithms for interpolating colours on BAYER-pattern sensors please.

Anything from 3 fps is enough (for me), a bit more weather protection would be nice, long lasting batteries.

All else belongs to toys'r'us IMHO


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 3, 2008)

domromer said:


> What changes do you think will come to digital slrs in the next 5 years? Which technologies will become standard on all digital slrs? What features would you like to see? How will pro digital slrs surpass pro 35mm slrs in terms of features?



It seems like there are a few things that get introduced as a sort of gimick on an otherwise run of the mill dSLR, and eventually becomes an industry standard. When I was considering my first dSLR, I remember seeing a few features like anti-dust and optical stabilization that peaked my interest in the off-brand dSLR's. 

Features that are bound to become industry standards (atleast start showing up on the consumer model Nikons and Canons):

-Anti-dust sensors
-In camera optical stabilization
-Full frame sensors

Some things I think get omitted by manufacturers (like weather sealing, magnesium bodies, etc.) to maintain sales of their higher end models.

I also think the Megapixel race is slowing down, and companies will start focusing on different areas. For example, Nikon's new high ISO's. I'm sure the next five to ten years will yield some interesting technology.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 3, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> The 35mm format DSLR _will be limited by the lens technology we have_. The very best glass that can be mass produced will not resolve much past 22-25 M.P. Maybe 30 tops.



Well said! :thumbup:


----------



## photogincollege (Jan 3, 2008)

Id like to see the full 10 stops of latitude between shadows and highlights that film has, correct me if im wrong but dont dslr's still only have 5 stops?


----------



## astrostu (Jan 3, 2008)

Fate said:


> i dont get why people want more FPS than like 10 in a camera. Does it not get to a point where your simply holding a video camera, if it shoots at like 50fps.



I don't want >10 fps.  It's the idea that you can shoot x fps but only for maybe 1-2 seconds before the camera slows down and it's more sporadic.  I want more endurance. 




Garbz said:


> Surprised you didn't mention the ability to take extended exposures (beyond an hour) without either the sensor or the photo going totally crap.



(If you were referring to being surprised that I didn't say this ...) it's because this is more a function of ambient light causing saturation and the sensor noise.  I addressed this in my points (b) where I want lower sensor noise for any given ISO, and (d) where I want more dynamic range so that you don't reach saturation so soon (among other things).  Otherwise, for things like star trails, you're limited a lot by the brightness of the sky (clouds, city lights, etc.) that will saturate your sensor rather than actual inefficiencies with the sensor.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 3, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> Id like to see the full 10 stops of latitude between shadows and highlights that film has, correct me if im wrong but dont dslr's still only have 5 stops?



would not argue about +/- one stop here ,but you are right that at least most small format dSLRs are still slightly worse in this respect than even the narrowest slide film. 

the main problem of today's small format dSLRs.


----------



## astrostu (Jan 3, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> Id like to see the full 10 stops of latitude between shadows and highlights that film has, correct me if im wrong but dont dslr's still only have 5 stops?



Film gives you about 9-10 stops, consumer CCDs maybe 6 stops (early ones 3-4 stops).  Astronomical CCDs have 10-11 stops. 

My understanding is that the A/D converter in modern DSLRs are either 12- or 14-bit, which give you a range of 0-4095 or 0-16,383 in brightness.  I'm not sure how it then opens the RAW in 16-bit, but I'm guessing there's some interpolation.  A true 16-bit detector and A/D converter (which I believe is what the astronomical CCDs use) will give you a 0-65,535 range.  However, I do not know what the conversion is to f-stops.


----------



## photogincollege (Jan 3, 2008)

As to the asronomical ccd, sorry i dont have 30000 to drop on the 30 mp hassleblad.


----------



## astrostu (Jan 3, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> As to the asronomical ccd, sorry i dont have 30000 to drop on the 30 mp hassleblad.



Good ones are more than that.   But my point was that the technology _is_ out there and improving, it's just a matter of time before it makes its way into the consumer cameras.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with Alex, better bayer interpolation.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 4, 2008)

astrostu said:


> Otherwise, for things like star trails, you're limited a lot by the brightness of the sky (clouds, city lights, etc.) that will saturate your sensor rather than actual inefficiencies with the sensor.



Depends on your camera. I can say with 100% certainty that a 1 hour exposure on the D200 will be mostly purple thanks to thermal noise on the sensor causing a weird pink purple bleed which starts at the edges after about 10 minutes, and on top of that the standard sensor noise on top of that probably causes about 2-3% of the pixels to die hot. 

But the point is we don't want it :thumbup:



Fate said:


> i dont get why people want more FPS than like 10 in a camera. Does it not get to a point where your simply holding a video camera, if it shoots at like 50fps.



These people are the same people who are unable to predict what will happen next. Classic case is when a friend of mine spent a good 10 minutes trying to take a picture of a snake with it's tongue out at 5fps and a lot of cursing. I went in noticed the snake would stick it's tongue out about every 2 seconds or so and while moving. I got it on my second shot. A lot of people want 10+ fps for sports or whatnot, but they fail to realise good sports photography happened long before 10fps motordrives came out. You just need to watch the game and push the button rather than push the button and look at the game after.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 4, 2008)

Garbz said:


> sports photography happened long before 10fps motordrives came out. You just need to watch the game and push the button rather than push the button and look at the game after.




There are applications where 10+ fps make sense, this is when you want to capture several snapshots of one motion/process to document it and analyse later. But this is then used in science more often and not so much in sports photography, I agree.

 Also for sports I shoot with a 3fps camera, and I mostly use it in single shot mode.


----------



## 391615 (Jan 4, 2008)

maybe in 20 years we will be able to take 10mp shots at 100fps.
What about the ability to take several shots at the same time with different focus points, then to chose your focus later, I'm pretty sure Ive heard something about that.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 4, 2008)

391615 said:


> maybe in 20 years we will be able to take 10mp shots at 100fps.
> What about the ability to take several shots at the same time with different focus points, then to chose your focus later, I'm pretty sure Ive heard something about that.



I think with some training everyone is able to get the focus where he/she wants it.

What can be done however, for mor or less static scenes even today already, is to increase depth of field by combining shots of different focus. not in camera, but there is software to do it after you did several shots with varying focus.

Useful for macro photography.


----------



## nicfargo (Jan 7, 2008)

High ISO without noise.  As far as long shutter speeds (over an hour) Canon has something built into their cameras that helps combat this.  It is extremely inefficient though and I'm not sure how well it works.  Say you take a 30 minute exposure, you have to wait another 30 minutes before you can use your camera again...I can't remember what it does exactly, but I remember reading something about it somewhere.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 7, 2008)

nicfargo said:


> High ISO without noise.  As far as long shutter speeds (over an hour) Canon has something built into their cameras that helps combat this.  It is extremely inefficient though and I'm not sure how well it works.  Say you take a 30 minute exposure, you have to wait another 30 minutes before you can use your camera again...I can't remember what it does exactly, but I remember reading something about it somewhere.



it does a second exposure of the same length, but with the shutter closed. then the hot pixels and all the other rubbish of that dark exposure is sort of subtracted from the image you took.

and with my 5D it jst works extremely well for night exposures! it is just a bit of a pain that after a 5 minute exposure you have to wait 5 minutes to do the next one


----------



## nicfargo (Jan 7, 2008)

yeah, that's what I've heard.  I haven't used it yet with my 5D...but I'm sure I'll get around to it sometime...not like you have to be right there next to the camera when It's working.


----------



## RKW3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Super powered batteries that last a few decades. (I actually heard something like that for laptops)

+

some pacman games or something. What else are you supposed to do when you take really long exposures?


----------



## rom4n301 (Jan 7, 2008)

i would like the camera to move around on its own and make perfect pictures for me that would sell like crazy


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 7, 2008)

I really want THE perfect lens. 10mm-500mm f/0.5 FX format under 2 lbs and resolving power better than 100 LPMM with no CA, barrel or pincushion distortions. Oh, and pro quality build w/AF-S, VR, no plastic. Wow, what a lens that would be.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 7, 2008)

Fate said:


> i dont get why people want more FPS than like 10 in a camera. Does it not get to a point where your simply holding a video camera, if it shoots at like 50fps--


 
To get the ball coming out the finger or shoe tips, now it takes a bit of luck


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 7, 2008)

Improved auto focus when panning to eliminate background focusing, why because I have tons of ski shots of a rider coming off a kicker where the first few short are in focus but next 2 or 3 have background focused, why should any camera ever go from 25 ft to infinity focus within 2-4 seconds   

Zone auto focus also to eliminate background focusing, same reason as above, to be able to set min and max focus, not for DOF but to force camera only to focus with in the zone 

Larger buffer for sequencing

High ISO with no noise

A good digital back for old Hassy for fewer than 5K


----------



## JonnyGEE (Jan 8, 2008)

One day it will get to the point where ANYONE can take an outstanding picture by using a 100MP camera with infinity aperture (but as sharp as f11 - no diffraction) and then crop in 1000% (for example) to the part of the image that is actually interesting and then edit the background to be blurred and create pleasant bokeh to give the impression of a high quality fast lens. When this day comes, i'll be leaving this joint!



However, i would love the ability to change from full-frame sensor mode, to 1.5x crop or even 2.0x (with the megapixel capability of just a wee bit more than 5mp on the D3!) just to get the extra reach in different situations (although of course this would result in higher noise but i would be aware of it and use it only in light situations or use the noise to my advantage).


A good estimate for the future?




Jonny


----------



## domromer (Jan 8, 2008)

I'd love a flip out LCD like a lot of the Canon p&S have. I think it's such a great feature.


----------



## skieur (Jan 8, 2008)

The current trend in the midrange digital cameras is 2 megapixels per year from 8 to 10 to 12.  This will continue.  Approaches are being taken with new chips  and workarounds to reduce noise at higher ISOs.  This will also continue. The top range of ISOs is 6400 and this will also climb higher.  Dynamic range optimizers in cameras are working in the direction of bringing the hdr function into a one shot menu function.  Dual camera processing chips are coming in which will increase speed, internal focus, and other functions.  Colour needs to go beyond 16bit to be the equivalent of film at around the equal of 42bit in digital terms.

The above improvements lead to other problems that need to be solved.  Multi-megapixel images with 42bit colour and high dynamic range require multi-megabyte storage.  Memory cards will need to go multi-gigabyte toward 20 and higher.  Recording the more complex image will need to be at the same speed as current smaller images in the cameras.

Postprocessing will need to handle larger picture files with the same speed and efficiency as the current smaller ones.  That means faster computers and faster hard drives and other storage devices.

Batteries will also need more power to handle faster microprocessing action and larger amounts of photographic data.  At the same time they will have to last at least as long as the current ones, if not longer.

Progress will probably continue at the current rate because so many areas of technology are involved and inter-related.

skieur


----------

