Lifespan of a digital camera...

[Mike_PEAT]

In the thread http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7098 titled "Poll: How many digital cameras do you own?" there was the following comment:

Originally Posted by marokero

Digital cameras in my hands see a long useful life - I expect the D100 to be my main camera for at least three years or so, as long as it captures what I want to portray, I will keep on shooting with it

It's funny (not to pick on that message) but here we are talking about three years being a long life for a digital camera, whereas I used my SLR for 20 years without a problem or thinking about getting another one in that time period, and it was still working perfectly when I made the switch fully to digital last summer when I bought my Olympus C-700UZ...I'm already thinking what I want in my next digital camera.

I admit that early on I went through a few cameras before I got to the SLR (including an Agfa Isolette, and a few pocket 110's), but once I got the SLR I stuck with it because it was built well and lasted forever. Will I get to the point that I find a digital camera that I will be happy with now and for the next 20 years?

Next one though will be a dSLR, not that there's anything wrong with the Olympus, but I'm just happier with a more traditional camera style.

[lwhitney]

>Will I get to the point that I find a digital camera that I will be >happy with now and for the next 20 years?

I don't think that day will come any time soon. Think about all the things that can be improved on the best DSLR's today.

How about the ability to take 10 pictures a second any time you want, with no recovery time. I have no doubt this will come and people will desire it but it will take years.

How about a 250 megapixel sensor, so you can take a group photo of 20 people and crop out a single head shot that will print with beautiful quality?

It would also be nice to have a highspeed wireless connection so that as I'm taking pictures on a vacation they are being uploaded to a web site in real time.

[geof]

I agree with Mike on the point of a loved slr or Dslr, and I will also get a Dslr as my next camera from my oly5050.
At the same time, the argument of the better and more powerful hardware is valid.
The difference is the medium: the slrs of past have been using an upgradable medium (film). The better the film got, the better the results, but all 35mm cameras can take all 35mm film made. Here, the hardware IS the medium. Upgrades take place within the body.
Unless someone comes up with a modular system where you can change the inards of the body only (like the boards, HD, mam etc in a PC) upgrades will require new cameras.
You may want to follow the news in the HASSELBLAD group; I dont have a link yet, but I saw their new system, that takes a lot of backs, from the kodak to the phase one system. :lol: Interesting...

[jasm]

We are at the cutting edge of high powered marketing just as I moved on as CPUs advanced with better graphics memory and so on dg cameras are now approaching market peak with new models at least monthly so it is there and we want,Ido anyway.

jasm

[BillDrew]

Originally Posted by lwhitney

...How about a 250 megapixel sensor, so you can take a group photo of 20 people and crop out a single head shot that will print with beautiful quality?...

Doesn't the quality of the lens in a 35mm size camera limit the resolution well before that? Lens technology is fairly mature so there isn't likely to be a big increase in that limitation real quickly.

[lwhitney]

I agree lens technology is likely to improve slower than things like flash memory speed, capacity, and sensor quality.

However keep in mind that the best canon prime lenses can approach 100 lp/mm, which should allow for significantly higher resolution than the 12MP cameras already coming out.

Sure this type of glass is not cheap, but high volume production and time have a way of changing that.

It's surely not possible today, but I don't want to fall into the same boat as Bill Gates when he said a long time ago that no single user would ever want more than 640k memory .

[geof]

Doesn't the quality of the lens in a 35mm size camera limit the resolution well before that? Lens technology is fairly mature so there isn't likely to be a big increase in that limitation real quickly.

Wneed to think outside the box :!: So far, only olympus and Fuji seem to so, with their 4/3 R&D. The reason we use 35mm is because it has been the standard. We dont have to keep this standard if it will prohibit technology leaps.

It's surely not possible today, but I don't want to fall into the same boat as Bill Gates when he said a long time ago that no single user would ever want more than 640k memory

Author Message
lwhitney is right: maybe the 35mm lens format should not stay with the digital one in the future...

[NHL]

My 2c

I believe a standard when I see one. Hey they can't even agree on a flash card let alone a lens mount.

I'm sure Nikon and Canon will agree to this 4/3! ... and redo all their lenses where they have a strong position. Why fight an uphill battle and come up with a new system when they can easily retrofit existing bodies?

[BillDrew]

Originally Posted by geof

... lwhitney is right: maybe the 35mm lens format should not stay with the digital one in the future...

I agree, there is no reason to stick with 35mm format, but size was the issue I was refering to. I think as the physical size of a lens gets smaller, the resolution gets smaller as well. There certianly are lenses that are able to match a 250Mp sensor - the one on the Hubble is one example, and the typical Schnieder lens on an 8x10" view camera would likely do the job, but neither of those could be put on a camera that would be very good for hockey games. Would be a bit hard to fit in your pocket as well:-)

Originally Posted by geof

Wneed to think outside the box So far, only olympus and Fuji seem to so, with their 4/3 R&D. The reason we use 35mm is because it has been the standard. We dont have to keep this standard if it will prohibit technology leaps.

That is a lens smaller than the standard 35mm and thus (I think) lower resolution.

Originally Posted by lwhitney

It's surely not possible today, but I don't want to fall into the same boat as Bill Gates when he said a long time ago that no single user would ever want more than 640k memory.

That statement was made about 25 years ago. About the same time I was upgrading the memory in my poor old CoCo from 4K to 64K. Given that the lens will be about 35mm size or smaller, I think getting something like a factor of sqrt(10) (assumes current lenses have resolution to match a 25Mp sensor) or so increase in lens resolving power to match a 250Mp sensor isn't very likely in 25 years. Possible, but unlikely.

[geof]

Billdrew you may be right on the 4/3 system, but when I saw pictures of it the lens seemed at least as lerge as a 35mm.
But if the physical size does matter, how can a nikon 5000 run the same quality as, say an E20 or even a nikon5700?
I dont know enough about lens resolution power to detrmine if it is primarily governed by size or manufacture quality, but we'll see i guess.

I'm sure Nikon and Canon will agree to this 4/3! ... and redo all their lenses where they have a strong position. Why fight an uphill battle and come up with a new system when they can easily retrofit existing bodies?

According to the 4/3 camp, the design of the film lenses is not optimum for ccd sensors (in the light path guidance among others). If, or I should say WHEN we get to fairly high rez CCDs that flaw will become quite evident; to the point of prohibiting the camera to get the most out of the CCD. Then, they will have to redesign. This has happened in the 35mm world a long time ago, when the introduction of the ILFORD and AGFA low iso films showed the llimits of lenses.