I understand that with current picture usage patterns, people are less concerned about high resolution/printing/etc., because the screens we currently use don't really require much resolution. But I'm leery of relying on this in the long-term because of an experience I've over the past couple decades.
I was involved in the creation of some of the early web sites for major companies, back when the internet bloomed after pictures were introduced popularly into HTML with the advent of the Mosaic browser. 72 DPI was the order of the day. We made lots of pictures, icons, etc. (all embarrassingly terrible, of course, when you look back on them). Then, some years later, with the introduction of larger screens, people started using higher resolutions, and our old graphics looked fuzzy and pixelated. By this time, a client had switched agencies once or twice since the first site went up, and due to internal turnover, etc., they couldn't locate the original files that created the graphics. So they went through an expensive production process to create a new site.
I saw this happen again when it became popular in the last couple of years to create sites that are sensitive to the technology viewing them - whether it be on a mobile screen, etc.
Point is, I don't need much more than 20 mp now, but I like the images I take of my family, and I want to be able to exploit the best printing methods/etc. 20 years from now for some of them. Pictures of my infant son won't get old for me (he was cute and couldn't talk!), but they too might start to look fuzzy relative to what we're using in 2035.
Conclusions:
- Investing in great glass will have rewards (big fan of Art series lenses, and those Canon cliches, like the 70-200 2.8 IS II).
- High MP coupled with great glass will have rewards, but some of those benefits might be deferred.
- The counterpart to the above conclusion is that when we have 20k monitors and better printing tech in the home, our older images may stand out as being a bit low-resolution.
- Those benefits will be apparent in shots that are lucky enough to have somewhat optimal conditions, such as environmental seeing conditions, light, stability, etc. Those benefits will likely NOT be present in the the many other pictures that don't have those optimal conditions. This will stretch out the continuum of the perceived technical quality among the pictures in our personal portfolios.
- And, finally, the shots that we will like the most 20 years from now are the ones that rely less on sharpness, clear representation and other technical issues (assuming these things are more taken for granted in the future), and more on the art of photography, which tends to stand up regardless of the tech used. Aside from the subject matter photographed, like family photos, the things that will signify will be composition, realized vision, creativity, etc.
Separately:
Especially important for Canon and Nikon is that the higher mp trend is one of the few things that really demands the DSLR camera type. It is unlikely that camera phones would be able to out-megapixel the mount types that allow for the interchangeable lenses with 50mm-100mm front lens elements. The physics of light may just demand that the camera phones sit this out.
I look at the telescope market, where you have lots of small primary mirror diameters in the casual hobbyist market, and then you need to spend a few thousand dollars to get something that can really resolve things - which demands significant glass and a bigger light bucket. Physics defines this, not just the marketing departments of the manufacturers. High megapixel cameras may prove to be a similar moat of protection for Canon and Nikon's high end segments. This implies that they will be trying hard to get to the 50mp-100mp level as soon as possible and make that advantage toll with better glass so as to give the market the impression that this matters, and that their iPhone isn't a solution. Canon may also see this as a printing market opportunity.
-tig
I was involved in the creation of some of the early web sites for major companies, back when the internet bloomed after pictures were introduced popularly into HTML with the advent of the Mosaic browser. 72 DPI was the order of the day. We made lots of pictures, icons, etc. (all embarrassingly terrible, of course, when you look back on them). Then, some years later, with the introduction of larger screens, people started using higher resolutions, and our old graphics looked fuzzy and pixelated. By this time, a client had switched agencies once or twice since the first site went up, and due to internal turnover, etc., they couldn't locate the original files that created the graphics. So they went through an expensive production process to create a new site.
I saw this happen again when it became popular in the last couple of years to create sites that are sensitive to the technology viewing them - whether it be on a mobile screen, etc.
Point is, I don't need much more than 20 mp now, but I like the images I take of my family, and I want to be able to exploit the best printing methods/etc. 20 years from now for some of them. Pictures of my infant son won't get old for me (he was cute and couldn't talk!), but they too might start to look fuzzy relative to what we're using in 2035.
Conclusions:
- Investing in great glass will have rewards (big fan of Art series lenses, and those Canon cliches, like the 70-200 2.8 IS II).
- High MP coupled with great glass will have rewards, but some of those benefits might be deferred.
- The counterpart to the above conclusion is that when we have 20k monitors and better printing tech in the home, our older images may stand out as being a bit low-resolution.
- Those benefits will be apparent in shots that are lucky enough to have somewhat optimal conditions, such as environmental seeing conditions, light, stability, etc. Those benefits will likely NOT be present in the the many other pictures that don't have those optimal conditions. This will stretch out the continuum of the perceived technical quality among the pictures in our personal portfolios.
- And, finally, the shots that we will like the most 20 years from now are the ones that rely less on sharpness, clear representation and other technical issues (assuming these things are more taken for granted in the future), and more on the art of photography, which tends to stand up regardless of the tech used. Aside from the subject matter photographed, like family photos, the things that will signify will be composition, realized vision, creativity, etc.
Separately:
Especially important for Canon and Nikon is that the higher mp trend is one of the few things that really demands the DSLR camera type. It is unlikely that camera phones would be able to out-megapixel the mount types that allow for the interchangeable lenses with 50mm-100mm front lens elements. The physics of light may just demand that the camera phones sit this out.
I look at the telescope market, where you have lots of small primary mirror diameters in the casual hobbyist market, and then you need to spend a few thousand dollars to get something that can really resolve things - which demands significant glass and a bigger light bucket. Physics defines this, not just the marketing departments of the manufacturers. High megapixel cameras may prove to be a similar moat of protection for Canon and Nikon's high end segments. This implies that they will be trying hard to get to the 50mp-100mp level as soon as possible and make that advantage toll with better glass so as to give the market the impression that this matters, and that their iPhone isn't a solution. Canon may also see this as a printing market opportunity.
-tig
Upvote
0
