Why does it seem like photography technology isn't making

making quality glass is expensive - try a quality lens vs a kit lens and even there you can see the difference.

You also have to appreciate that the full frame sensor is simply not big enough to render huge high res images. You have to start at medium format, which means bigger cameras and bigger lenses.

Plus you have to consider pricing - you have to have a way of tempting people into buying more expensive glass. You do that by telling them that more expensive = more image quality.

Because you're an impatient little faggot.

>>2974788
Ever heard of a Lytro camera?
Dual Pixel raw?
Pixel Shift focus?

But while we are here, what exactly needs progression in photography? People still use film, and nobody has "progressed" that technology for decades.

>>2974802
>Ever heard of a Lytro camera?
>Dual Pixel raw?
>Pixel Shift focus?

all literal memes.

how about bringing real development?

>>2974804
Define "real development"

>>2974805

images that dont look like plastic garbage, for starters?

>>2974807
So you have no idea what you are talking about?

Ok, just making sure

>>2974809

I mean, he created this very thread. Was there ever any hope he knew what he was talking about?

On a similar note, has anyone else noticed movies shot with the Alexa 65 and other new large format digital cameras don't look all that great?

>>2974811
thats why i shoot everything on my iphone 5s

>>2974812
you joke but the picture quality on my iphone 5s comes out better than most of what i see posted on /p/

>>2974788
low demand
once cell phones reached the acceptable threshold of quality, interest in standalone cameras dropped like a stone. the digital camera boom is over, further growth will be incremental.

>>2974862
In the past, even if what you wanted to take was snapshots with no standards, you still had to purchase a specific camera device. These days, smartphones not only take pretty damn good snapshots but also enable you to make your photos more meaningful by sharing them. That's powerful enough that a lot more people are doing photography than in the past even if camera sales are down. The increased base of entry level or hobby photographers _could_ very well mean that there's a whole new generation of enthusiast photographers who could be interested in better gear, but whose needs the current market isn't matching, and for whom the barrier to entry to a different workflow is needlessly high. The state of the art method of getting your pictures out there is still via an amazingly convoluted dance of "extract memory card, batch process photos on separate device, export to cloud drive of choice, dig up cloud drive app on mobile phone, find picture you wanted, send it to instagram, publish." The first manufacturer to crack this will make big bucks in an emerging market, and I bet it's not going to be one of the current incumbents.

File: 6606B9A5-370A-4C74-B179-E9F43376F35F-1714-0000029568C5300A_tmp.jpg (155KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x683px

There was a gilded age of photography, but it has passed.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683

>>2974923
Is that film?

>>2974788
Picture quality is already pretty much a 1:1 representation of reality.

What other improvement is there apart from ultra high ISO and dynamic range?

>>Ever heard of a Lytro camera?
meme

>>Dual Pixel raw?
meme

>>Pixel Shift focus?
super meme

>>2974788
People that can afford a bunch of hundred USD got quite a few options for much better camera bodies and lenses recently.

IQ is improving at almost the rate at which sensor MP count increases.

You're just not buying the cool new gear, apparently.

>>2974788
Because cmos has its limits, and we've just about maxxed them, like we did ccd.

There will be new sensor technologies that bring a jump.

>>2974805
Better dynamic range and colour rendition.

because your photos would still be shit even if you got some kind of incredible camera

>>2974886
Isn't the lack of interest in low end dedicated cameras a good thing? Won't this mean that Canon and Nikon can concentrate on their better cameras while closing most of their P&S divisions and eliminating entry level DSLRs?

>>2975027
There will always be need for entry level DSLRs just not at todays Canikon idea of entry level where you get artificially gimped features and software restrictions. Just look at what Pentax been doing since the K-50 and you will have an idea what a good entry level should be.

update your eyes faggot

>>2974788
Because megapixels is a selling point to stupid consumers.

They keep jacking up the megapixels on cameras/phones because normies think
high megapexels = high quality

Its like when 4k exploded with popularity and people were spending insane amounts of money on 4k tvs despite the fact that there was hardly any 4k content available.
Its just a numbers game to make some money.

>>2975027
It could be, yes! Leaving the low-margin, sales volume driven entry level market in favour of a more premium enthusiast market would be an attractive proposition, I bet. However, I understand that in current manufacturer strategies the higher end models are more like ads for their entry level p&s gear. The premiums are not high enough and the volumes keep going down. The trick to making a market position like this desirable would be in being able to foster a healthy ecosystem where enough of the enthusiasts (who in this scenario would be using mobile phones for their p&s needs) are situated so that they can be converted to your premium customers. I think Fuji could be seen as attempting something like this, but in terms of market dynamics they are currently more likely to be merely eating into the shares of the existing enthusiast segment. So who would have the best market position to start converting the IG, Snapchat generation en masse, I wonder.

>>2975033
What is generally considered entry level will of course depend on competition in the market, as you say. It should be also useful to consider what kind of expectations and needs a possible buyer of entry level products has. A customer's _entry_ to a market segment would preferably, from the manufacturer's point of view, be likely to convert into more sales. Regrettably, as you said, one option in doing this is to gimp entry level models such that they are simply unsatisfactory. This is what manufacturers with well-defined products and customer bases tend to do. However, a manufacturer could also look towards opening new segments of entry level products and provide eg. mobile phone users something they didn't know they wanted, based on their conception of the existing market for photography.

>>2975027
>Won't this mean that Canon and Nikon can concentrate on their better cameras while closing most of their P&S divisions and eliminating entry level DSLRs?
Sony already kinda owns this market segment. And the sensors it needs.

>>2975058
> The trick to making a market position like this desirable would be [...]
Seems almost certain that Sony is succeeding with this strategy right now. It's not hypothetical.

I just don't think there's room for too many other players.

>>2975057
>Its like when 4k exploded with popularity and people were spending insane amounts of money on 4k tvs

Why wouldn't you want a future-proof purchase?
I could understand if you're talking about when they first came out at prices higher than they should have been.

>>2975027
no. not at all. it means the big money is in developing new phone-format sensors now, not full frame or even crop format. the days of huge improvements between dslr generations are over.
>>2974886
you're right about workflow, but that's going to be improved in software. people aren't going to start shelling out for standalones again just because it's mildly inconvenient to transfer your phone pictures in order to edit them. and that certainly won't lead to an improvement in prosumer gear.

>>2975065
Interesting. I wonder if you could help me understand your point better. So you say Sony has cornered the p&s market? How is that - does the rx100 series have dominant market share, or what? And are you also saying that Sony dominates in the premium enthusiast camera segment? I'm a bit confused because I can't see Sony as having opened new market segments or otherwise making the cake bigger, which was the untapped possibility I've been trying to expound on. You probably had a point I missed here.

>>2975058
>However, I understand that in current manufacturer strategies the higher end models are more like ads for their entry level p&s gear.

That could be true. to an extent.

but Phase One and Hasselblad are able to make custom MF sensors for their bodies in order to serve an extremely niche market segment while keeping the price ~$25,000
It's no doubt that Canon can keep making the 1D series for $6,000 or even cheaper since many sports and wildlife photographers rely on it almost exclusively.
In order to keep or lessen the current prices of the xxD series, we will probably see slightly less frequent updates. That is, if the 6D series doesn't replace it.

>>2975079
> So you say Sony has cornered the p&s market?
No. They own most of the sensor market. For high-end sensors... on both smartphones and DSLR.

Also they more or less own the higher-end of MILC at this point. Which is slowly but steadily eating part of Canon / Nikon's high end.

> I can't see Sony as having opened new market segments or otherwise making the cake bigger
They aren't really? They're just the company that is apparently succeeding the most in this contracting enthusiast camera market. The one whose profits and market share went up whereas most other's seems to have gone down.

>>2975077
> the days of huge improvements between dslr generations are over.
Those generations took like 3-4 years each. Feels like we are going quite a bit faster right now.

Sure, it's happening more on the side of MILC, but still.

>>2975077
>the days of huge improvements between dslr generations are over

There's still Foveon and MF digital.

>>2975089
MF digital will take off as MILC, I'm pretty sure.

But someone first has to hook up more srs bandwidth to those sensors so a srs computer can be used.

Current burst rates on MF cameras are sad.

>>2975089
>foveon
lol
>>2975089
>MF
they've found the price point and niche for MF, most people are not interested in bigger sensors than aps-c
>>2975087
sensor improvement isn't going faster, and they're not going to make them bigger anytime soon so technical improvment will be slow

>>2975099
> sensor improvement isn't going faster
They did rapidly add AF improvements to sensors, and I guess they went at about a normal pace for upgrades to color / ISO sensitivity and total resolution and bandwidth (burst rates)...

Still far more improvements to cameras in total in this brave new MILC world than in the past 3-4 year DSLR iterations.

IBIS improvements, lens improvements, software improvements... it's not little. Of course it's also not exponential growth or anything, just a fairly quick pace right now.

>>2974802
>Lytro

Is this a joke?

>>2975020
already 16.5 stops, while top negative film is only 12

>>2974802
>People still use film, and nobody has "progressed" that technology for decades.
Ever heard of a little thing called Cinestill?

>>2975258
from when repackaged to standart 135 and 120 spools cinema stock started to be viewed as "progress"?

>>2974788
nowadays most research is being done in phone camera sensors, put for example the 41 megapixel lumia 1020, or any other phone that has come out recently, even the video capabilities are pretty good compared to dslrs and considering the size of the sensor and lenses that is pretty damn impressive

>>2975258
Cinestill? The best thing you could come up wiht is repackaged film? IMO film doesnt have any way to go in terms of improvement, if grain was reduced even further it would loose all the appeal, and the only way I could see some improvement would be in development time, something like Polachrome would be cool to see again

>>2975005
There is still a need for a CMOS or new sensor type that can do global shutter, and finally get rid the rolling shutter that has palgued cameras since CCD was replaced.

>>2975061
i just want interchangeable lenses and full manual. as long as it doesnt have any flaws, i would be fine with very few other features as long as the price represented the quality of the camera.
obviously it needs good quality glass, sensor, and build quality, which are the most expensive things.

>>2975073
Early 4k tellies were worse for the price than current ones are. So there was only silliness to blame for people who bought 'em without there being much to look at on 'em.

>>2974788
pixels do not make a picture better its about the amount of light you let in on top the quality of the sensor

Because people shat on Lytro and lightfield Photography

>>2975638
People shat on Lytro and their gimmick because the only way they provided to look at a light field photograph was with some gay-ass web browser plugin. Like it was literally 2000.

Obviously their technology is so extra secret and proprietary that they can't even file for patents and then standardize the file format & processing methods. Consequently, no support in Lightroom, Darktable, or anything in general. Not even a Lytro-branded tool that'd turn a light field capture into a regular NEF (or some such) at certain camera settings.

This latter bit in particular suggests to me that the Lytro was a total gimmick, and that the web browser plug-in uses demo scene trickery to hide how this "light field" photography doesn't actually do all it's marketed to, namely, allow the photographer to fine-focus freely afterward.

Also the lenses were extremely slow. No future for a company that doesn't overcharge for glass; even Sigma makes clone lenses for other companies.

>>2975645
The Lytro Cinema camera seemed neat. No need for greenscreens or similar since the camera "knows" which objects are how far away.
I think We will see a resurgence of a similar Technology when VR and Cinema will try to have a few one-night-stands

>>2977202
I agree, i think its a pretty neat idea, just with a terrible implementation. We will see it again in the future

>>2977202
I read a lot of the publications on kight field. After the Lytro scam, I really don't know if we will see this tech developed too much more for handheld cameras. Not for a long time. The physical limitations are huge when you scale resolution up.

----

Overall, when the advances in cameras take blowhards like Lloyd Chambers and testing labs to detect and explain the differences... the market stops really caring.

In the boardrooms they are not plotting camera advancements as much as plotting efficiency measures and manipulating consumer perception.

Canon probably laughs at Sony while they flog the cash cow.

Tell me a good reason to keep improving technology by now?

The actual market already made a choice with it's 'vintage' standards. Edition software were more possible to real upgrades than cameras tech.

cameras technology that really make some difference: autofocus; dynamic range and ISO noise.

It's all about market, do you like it, or not...

>>2974788
Who is that fucking ugly bitch in your pic?

Why isn't there a 3 dial camera for full manual?
Why do shutter speeds give up flash sync at /250? I know Nikon has a solution but the flash freaks out at higher speeds.
Why are zoom lenses still shit with bad range?
Where are my lenses with built in ringlights?

These are all areas that need improvement. I'm ready you should be ready.

File: 1480271013609.jpg (40KB, 400x402px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x402px

>>2977293
>Why isn't there a 3 dial camera for full manual?
because a retarded niche market doesn't demand attention. Also that wouldn't be progress so much as a return to earlier technology.
>Why do shutter speeds give up flash sync at /250? I know Nikon has a solution but the flash freaks out at higher speeds.
Again there really isn't any demand.
>Why are zoom lenses still shit with bad range?
Zoom lenses are fine and the progress made with them impressive.
>Where are my lenses with built in ringlights?
no

File: fujifilm-xt1-top-800.jpg (144KB, 640x534px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 640x534px

>>2977293
>Why isn't there a 3 dial camera for full manual?

>>2974788
>higher dynamic range
>ibis
>electronic viewfinders
>electronic shutters that can go up to 1/32,000
>Insanely high iso's
>digital medium format becoming more common

The technology is getting really advanced, don't blame your gear for the fact that you take shit photos

File: R0024109.jpg (300KB, 662x1000px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 662x1000px

>>2977324
Panny LX100 too.
>>2977293
>Where are my lenses with built in ringlights?
That Canon 28mm Macro. Has IS too.
>>2977293
>Why do shutter speeds give up flash sync at /250? I know Nikon has a solution but the flash freaks out at higher speeds.
Mostly because any faster than that and you need an in-lense leaf shutter, and that's its whole own pain in the ass. But also because any faster than that and you're starting to get faster than a full power flash pop happens, and you lose flash effectiveness.
Play with a GR some time, they sync up to 1/8000, but you're only getting a tiny portion of your flash power at that speed.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:02:26 18:50:34
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	662
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>2977293
ring lights are a joke and really shitty, a lot of people use them because they're misinformed. also the catchlights are horrendous, can't count how many "YouTubers" that VLog with disgusting weird ring catchlights that looks like they're in a surgery ward.

>>2977324
>>2977436
>3 dial camera
Almost all of Panasonic, if you Count the picture-mode selector.
They have 2 wheels (thumb and Index) on the right side for SS and A as Well as Navigation.
I got so used to it I wouldnt have it any other way.
Most other Tech: yeah, We have more Common IBIS, better noise behaviour, cheaper sealing, better EVFs, better AF, and the Video-focussed-MILCs are a whole new World in and of themselves. Can't say Technology isn't advancing, it's Just that Nikon and Canon continue to cuck their buttfuck-retarded-loyal customers, while Fuji, Pana, Oly and Sony are fighting an actual feature-war

>>2977479
the customers aren't retarded, they've invested money in glass

What I'd like to see a camera with 6-axis stabilization. The only axis missing is the linear forward-backward axis.
No I don't think that IS needs that stabilization but consider the following:
If the sensor could move on that axis, we could have IN BODY autofocus. At least to a certain degree. When using manual lenses, the sensor could shift a tiny bit to get the subject into absolute perfect focus.
Similarly, the other stabilization-axis could be used to achieve like a tiny tilt-shift effect.

>>2977288
threemilk t

>>2977293
> Why isn't there a 3 dial camera for full manual?
There are. Not such an important feature when your automatics work fine and you only occasionally need to adjust settings, though.

> Why do shutter speeds give up flash sync at /250? I know Nikon has a solution but the flash freaks out at higher speeds.
Because HSS flash works fine and offloads the "incredibly fast" part to the things that we can make incredibly fast without many problems: Electronics. Not moving matter.

> Why are zoom lenses still shit
They are better than most people need. Or more importantly, care to pay for or carry.

> with bad range?
Optics, I imagine. Not designing lenses myself, though.

> Where are my lenses with built in ringlights?
Nowhere, hopefully. This idea is retarded.

>>2974788
>megapixels keep going up
I mean, that usually means greater detail, more color depth and the opportunity to print larger with less quality loss. That right there is an improvement.

>>2978956
lol

>>2975238
It might suck now, but its a pretty serious step forward in camera tech.

Check out their cinema camera that they developed, it might be the begining of a hugely important tech 20 years down the road

https://www.lytro.com/cinema

https://vimeo.com/161949709

>>2975645
>>2977277
I really think you're looking at it the wrong way. Yeah it sucks now, it takes up a lot of space, its unwieldy files aren't great quality, and its just not feasable right now. But neither were early digital cameras.

There will be a time in the future, maybe 10-20 years from now where it MIGHT be important. I think it's important to embrace the new tech, and not think it will always suck because it does at this moment

>>2978956
It's okay anon, I agree with you.

>>2978969
that's all kickstarter tech bullshit
show me some real footage coming out of that thing not 10 minutes of the lytro employees hyping their fake camera

>>2978970
It's definitely the future. Canikon auto-focus will take a backseat because you can always fix it in post. The only problem is that if Lytro is the only company allowed to make cameras using this technology, then it's just going to keep on sucking.

People like neat shit like lightfield and foveon, just not on Lytro and Sigma cameras!

>>2979027
They're going to be letting real film makers use it to show it's capability. So I'm sure we'll see what it can do pretty soon.

>>2979034
I agree they need to open it up. But obviously they won't do that, they've probably dumped an unbelievable amount of money into develping that camera and they want to keep it to themselves. I do agree though, it needs to be opened up

>>2975302

film is still preferable to digital for posterity, but let's be honest, a 22MP image printed on canvas is gonna be more important to people than a 35mm negative.

>>2979034
Lytro are not the only lightfield camera company. They just happen to be the only company stupid enough to release it in the form of consumer products at this early stage. Other companies make lightfield cameras and Lytro do not own the technology.