TEN YEARS FROM NOW.
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
I do not know what will be the camera market in 10 years. But I know that the EOS system is the more stronger today because in 1987 Canon had the courage to completely change your line of lenses and cameras. At that time, users cried and mourned the inconpatibilidade of new with existing equipment, but it allowed current lenses and cameras achieve the performance we know now. Nikon has good cameras and lenses, but risks with niche projects such as D800E, and the "new" Nikon DF. On the other hand, Sony has taken bold attitude with A7R why has not the most important in the long run: A solid line of lenses. If I had to choose which company to invest my money, would be Canon. The market of domestic cameras can change dramatically in 10 years, but professionals and serious enthusiasts will keep buying cameras and lenses that do a good job together.
Upvote
0
Thanks EML, for my laughter. ;D When I think of something organic, I think the vision afforded by film grain. I think that technology will evolve in the direction of simulating film grain, as opposed to "clean up" the noise at high ISO.eml58 said:AmbientLight said:
Manure, a lot of Manure is needed to grow Organically
Upvote
0
10 years from now, as long as my 6D is still working, I'll still take a lot of pictures with it. If it breaks, then I'll just get another camera. For me it's rather all about skill and not about gadget progression...
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:
I'm not certain I can agree that the EOS system is stronger because of Canon's decision to orphan all their previous owners. Since they felt the need to start with a (mostly) clean slate, they could have chosen the flange distance such that a high quality adapter for the FD mount lenses would have been reasonable (and profitable). They took a calculated risk that they wouldn't drive all their customers to Nikon (and remember they did hedge their bet by make a very special adapter for those few customers who had invested in the really expensive telephoto lenses), and it paid off.
They tested the waters (unsuccessfully) with their autofocus FD lenses, analyzed the market trajectory, made some strategic decisions, and were eventually proven to have chosen correctly.
But we'll never know what might have been if they had made the decision to make their new design adaptable to their old lenses. Perhaps they might have been even stronger. (although then Ed Mika wouldn't be in business)
But given their demonstrated lack of loyalty to the installed base, one has to wonder what 10 years will bring.
Upvote
0
TAF said:
I can't imagine the uproar if the same thing was done today... but I suppose it's possible.
I wonder what technical aspects made the 2 systems incompatible.
Upvote
0
verysimplejason said:
+1
That is a very powerful, yet simple statement.
A photography friend of mine says "Learn the equipment you have and learn it well." We may not always agree with the upper-ups at Canon but unfortunately, THEY are the ones making the cameras, not us. All we can do is dream and wonder what they might be coming up with next.
In the meantime, all of us find ourselves trying to find a niche in the photography world and we use what we can afford. I plan on using my 7D until it breaks and then I will probably replace it with another 7D, even if a 7D2 replacement is available. Why?
Even if the 7D2 is (and very likely will be) a show stopping, class-leading, state of the art camera, it will be in the area of (guessing) $2000 ~ $2400. You can get a NEW refurbished 7D from Adorama with a 1 year warranty for under a grand ($919.99) at the moment. (I've seen it as low as $1300 for a new body during sales, it's $1399.99 right now.) And, very likely, the 7D will be even lower in price after the 7D2 comes out.
That is an amazing price for a camera body that does so much. It is a tank and a very fast one at that.
I have shot with the 5D3 and honestly? I wasn't 100% convinced that it was worth (to me) the $3200 price tag. When I can get the 7D for almost 2 GRAND less? Doesn't make much sense to me.
I am not a pixel peeper and yes, there are those on here that use Canon's for work, so YES they NEED the 5D3 or 1DX. I don't.
I don't have a problem with the high ISO photos my camera takes. I think they look amazing viewing them NORMALLY. Sure, take an ISO 1600 photograph from the 7D and BLOW it up, yes you can see "hot pixels" BUT, you view it within the size of your computer screen or make a 11 X 14 print and it looks amazing. You don't even notice the "hot pixels". Now, someone who makes building-sized prints, the 7D high ISO photos won't work for them and that's fine. It does NOT mean the 7D is crap and that anything less than a 5D3 is garbage.
They are allowed to not LIKE a particular camera, for whatever reason, but it does not make that product useless. I don't care for the EOS M and I feel that Canon could have done a better job, that's my OPINION, it does not mean the M is a crappy camera and that someone shouldn't use it.
I am looking forward to what Canon comes out with next. Personally, I hope the concentrate more on low noise high ISO photos and image quality than anything else, but that's just me.
D
Upvote
0
danski0224 said:
I believe it was because the AF motor was inside the camera body and not in the lens like the EF lenses are now.
Current DSLR Nikon's are backward compatible with all Nikkor lenses but certain bodies (Like the D7000/D7100) can AF older lenses while others cannot. (Like the D5300)
At this point in the game, I think Canon would have a munity on their if they changed the camera lens mount again. I know I wouldn't stick around.
D
Upvote
0
In ten years I hope I still have the passion like today.
New tools?
Yes please! Whatever it may be.
(the radio triggered flashes from Canon where a surprise and very welcome- something like that I hope!)
New tools?
Yes please! Whatever it may be.
(the radio triggered flashes from Canon where a surprise and very welcome- something like that I hope!)
Upvote
0
As I am not much into tech: I've heard taht pixel binning adds to noise reduction. So, is it theoretically possible to cram 80 MP on a waver and get a 20 MP pixel binning sensor? But I guess, that with these tiny pixels cannont collect enough photons either, so an endavour like that will turn obsolete as well. My 0.5 cents of knowledge.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Low light and low iso capabilities are sometimes mixed up in this forum. As far as low light is concerned, the paper mentioned above is a really complete and well founded explanation of whats possible and what not. the theoretical limit of information contained in a photo, is to count all photons and detect their color. This perfect image will be noisy as hell. This perfect image will be limeted by lenses, diffraction, sensor efficency, and by additional noise added anywhere between the incoming light and the photo arriving on the chip card (readout noise).
where sony/nikon are better than canon at the moment is low iso area, where canon is limited by readout or other noise. the way to better IQ would be to have lower native iso capabilities, but i dont know where the actual limitation near 100 is coming from.
maybe there will be more progress in postprozessing, to get the best out of an existing raw file, example here may be astronomics, where not only bigger instruments are build but also better results are obtained from existing instruments.
and the biggest limitation was forgottenuntil now.... most of my bad pictures are bad because of bad composition, to slow camera handling (missed opportunity), or just undone pics, because the camera was at home. But the existing equipment at least allows me to practise my skills, until the really good camera is out, which will compensate for my failures as far as possible....
Upvote
0
Richard8971 said:
Interesting. I haven't really researched the AF tech available back then for the FD equipment.
Guess I lucked out choosing an EOS 620 way back when...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
