[Jussei]

So, I've decided I'm going to take photography a little more seriously as a hobby (which Head-Fi is more than a little responsible for - thanks for getting me involved in another endless money pit hobby!

)
Anyway, my question concerns how much further digital photography can progress. I've got a Sony A700 DSLR with a decent lens and flash, certainly not the end-all when it comes to photography, but I'm unsure how it could get much "better".
When I view the pictures I've taken, they are as close to 'reality' as I've been able to get.
Other than crazy new features like the new 3D type lens/software that Adobe is prototyping or making extremely large prints with very high rez pictures, can/will cameras get much better? That is, in terms of the final product that is produced.
What would be improved? What is lacking in today's DSLRs?
It seems that digital cameras are a technology that is advancing more quickly than most other technologies, but are significant improvements being made or is it basically incremental resolution enhancements?
I'm interested in input from those who actually know what they are doing when it comes to photography. Although I've owned a lot of digital cams (starting with the first Sony Mavica with the 3.5" floppy), I certainly know very little.

 

[Arainach]

Photography is 5% equipment and 95% eye. Buying better equipment will never make you a better photographer. Ansel Adams with a Point & Shoot will kick the crap out of anyone on this forum with a Nikon or Canon DSLR and any lens in the world. Your setup will last you quite nicely.

That being said, there's plenty of range for improvement. I'd like to see the High ISO performance of the Canon 1Ds/5D and Nikon D3 moved into their more inexpensive models. Having a usable ISO3200 or higher could all but eliminate the need for flash in most photography. As well, increased dynamic range (i.e. maintaining shadow detail and not blowing out highlights) has a long way to go.

 

[DNA Doc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Photography is 5% equipment and 95% eye. Buying better equipment will never make you a better photographer. Ansel Adams with a Point & Shoot will kick the crap out of anyone on this forum with a Nikon or Canon DSLR and any lens in the world. Your setup will last you quite nicely. That being said, there's plenty of range for improvement. I'd like to see the High ISO performance of the Canon 1Ds/5D and Nikon D3 moved into their more inexpensive models. Having a usable ISO3200 or higher could all but eliminate the need for flash in most photography. As well, increased dynamic range (i.e. maintaining shadow detail and not blowing out highlights) has a long way to go.

While I certainly agree that the ability to "see photographically", as Feininger put it, is much more important than having the best equipment, the Ansel Adams quote is over the top, in my opinion. Yes, he was good at what he did, but he was hardly the end-all be-all of photography. (In fact, his photography was fairly limited in terms of style and technique. Where he really excelled was in the darkroom.)

And having written that equipment isn't as important as a good eye, it still must be admitted that one always needs the proper tool for the job, and many times that tool is not a P&S. No-one's going to do consistently well at, say, low-light action photography with a P&S, no matter how good their eye is.

Regarding the OP's question, I agree with you- the two things you mentioned are exactly the two things most important to me (increased DR and lower noise). I love low light shooting with fast lenses, and would welcome advances in both of these.

Then of course, there's all the usability issues that people have been asking for for years. These aren't really digital issues, per se, rather they are just features people want but have not yet been given. For example, one-button mirror lock up on Canon dSLRs with an option for self-timer. Why does Canon (as an example) simply refuse to give us this? Proper auto-ISO throughout manufacturer's entire product range. Better wide-angle performance (though this is improving, especially with some of the new Nikon and Oly offerings, and to a lesser extent with Canon). The list goes on.

Still, for people not selling their work or printing large, who are just looking for a good camera, today's dSLRs are probably more than "good enough". Most of my "non-serious" photography buddies people are getting results much better than they ever did with film.

Since the OP was concerned with advancements driving final output, I would offer that in the near term, that will probably have more to do with improvements in things like printers and RAW converters than it will with the cameras themselves. There are also improvements to IS systems that will show up in the not-too distant future, which would improve usability (and output) when shooting static subjects with shorter shutter speeds.

Regardless, to the OP I would say that if you enjoy your output now, don't worry about it. My father, a fine art photographer, combat photographer, and lifelong photography/art teacher, used to tell his students that they should be spending twice as much time learning how to see as they do learning about their equipment. Understanding the principles of photographic composition will ultimately allow you to enjoy your photography much more than anything else. (And I'm not talking about slavishly following something like the rule of thirds).

Well, I see I'm starting to go off on a tangent, so I'll end here.

 

[Jussei]

Thanks for the input you two. I'm more than happy with what I've got now and I was actually happy with the original DSLR (Sony A100) I had, but I couldn't shoot tethered with it so stepped up to the newer model.
As I stated originally, I know little and I'm just starting to get into photography semi-seriously and I just wondered what I'd expect to see in terms of improvements in the near future.

 

[intoflatlines]

I think that digital photography can advance a lot. I haven't paid much attention to cameras in the past six months or so, but I would say that the main (beneficial) upgrades are buffer size, continuous shooting speed, VR/IS (either lens or sensor), auto features, write speed, and noise reduction. When I say noise reduction, I'm not talking about the post-shooting/processing stuff that you can do in camera that takes some extra time, I mean better designs of the electronics and such to prevent noise in the first place.

There's always room for improvement, in my opinion.

Even if you argue that the technology itself won't improve, it can always get cheaper.

 

[GAD]

Increases I'd like to see:

Increased dynamic range
Full sized sensors in P&S cameras
Higher ISO without over-plastic-looking effects

For the record I have about 10 cameras. My main rig is a Canon 1DsM2. I see little reason to upgrade it to a 1DsM3. The dust features, bigger screen and lighter battery are nice, but they don't help me take better pictures.

I used to shoot an Olympus E-10. I shot a lot - about 20,000 frames a year. When I moved to a DLSR (Canon 10D), I realized very quickly that my skills had surpassed the E10 and that it was holding me back. I had grown to a point where I wanted to do things of which the E10 was not capable. The 10D did not make me a better photographer, I had become a better photographer that was capable of feeling the limitations of my instrument.

It's like a musical instrument. If I hand an Ibanez Gem Steve Vai guitar to someone who's only been playing for a year, chances are he won't play like Steve Vai.

Damn - now I'm digressing too...

GAD

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Full sized sensors in P&S cameras

Unlikely. It's been tried; remember the P&S Film Cameras? A P&S Digital with an FX sensor wouldn't be much smaller. People want small and portable with their Point & Shoots; larger sensors require larger bodies and MUCH larger/heavier lenses.

 

[lan]

Besides small, P&S are usually cheaper. That is opposite of having a larger sensor and lens.

Sigma DP1 is estimated at $1000 which is too much for most people wanting a small camera. It's not that large with APS-C sensor though but that's just because the lens isn't that fast either.

I'd like to see more dynamic range in sensors and less distortion in lenses and that's about it. The possibilities in photography are still so great, I cannot imagine outgrowing the camera for now.

 

[GAD]

Sigma is already doing it:

Sigma DP1 official statement: Digital Photography Review

We'll see if it sells, but for someone like me that want's quality in a small package, this is an exciting development.


GAD

 

[GAD]

posted at the same time.

GAD

 

[OverlordXenu]

Digital cameras that come close to touching medium-format are upwards of $20,000. There is no digital equivalent to large format.

 

[Roam]

I'd like to see more colour & film style presets. I'd love to have a camera where I could instantly switch between the super rich colours of Fuji Velvia film to Kodak Portra or Kodachrome.

 

[GAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Digital cameras that come close to touching medium-format are upwards of $20,000. There is no digital equivalent to large format.

That's a matter of opinion. Many of the billboards in time square were shot with digital cameras. There are medium format digital cameras, and there are (admittedly clunky) large format cameras.

Many people feel that the Canon 1DsM2/3 approaches medium format detail. Others do not.

Remember - all generalizations are false.

GAD