cunim
Well-known member
People here seem to know what they want in a next-gen camera, so I am hoping we can put some thoughts down in one place where they are easy to find. I will make a few comments to get things rolling but I am not particularly well qualified to do that. I spent much of my professional life developing systems for quantitative imaging, but my knowledge of photography is that of a simple hobbyist.
1. Sensor improvements.
This is entirely dependent upon what the sensor manufacturers do. If Sony or someone else comes up with an improved sensor, it will be in our next cameras. If not, what we already have is pretty good. We are always looking for more dynamic range but that is difficult to engineer. DxO provides extensive measurements of DR for various cameras (thanks @dchew for the citation) and things don't seem to change much year-to year. Readout can be multiplexed to extend range - sort of a built in bracketing and HDR re composition - and maybe we can do more with that. The traditional approaches to high DR (slower readout, active cooling) are not very relevant to portable devices. Once you get beyond a certain level of task difficulty (e.g a true 14 stops of DR), it is not the sensor that is the primary practical limitation. It is various forms of flare.
2. Coded functions and UI. If you can't be better, improve user access to what you already have These are what will really sell the new cameras to me.
a. Frame averaging is the single easiest way to improve SNR. Some cameras already offer it (eg IQ4) but it is clumsy. Make it easier to use. Now, P1 make you go into a special mode that must be set up each time. Instead, we should be able to siimply turn on averaging and the system will use that mode until it is turned off. It would be like switching ISO or exposure compensation. Set it and the rest of the user interface remains the same.
b. Improve computer integration. Tethering should present the user with the same set of functions and user interface as they camera uses. Is there some reason we have to set up some functions withing the back and others on the computer? Silly. When you are tethered, the back should vanish and we deal entirely with the computer.
c. User manipulation of the input response function. Scientific cameras can be set to respond optimally (with greater precision) within a part of the input flux range. Film also does this in that it compresses response as the silver saturates. Our CCD and CMOS sensors, in contrast, are linear. You may want to optimise camera response for deep shadows or highlights. and now that involves various strategies that combine actions in camera and in post. Give us better ability to tune in-camera response in the field. For example, select film-type response, linear, shadow+, run 'n gun etc. from a menu. In each case, the system would would optimise itself by adjusting bit depth, selecting readout speed and so forth. Stuff like this is already going on (looking at you Fuji) but users have no real control over it. Provide a UI for it and make it into a feature.
c. The big one. We need better focusing. Improve our ability to compose and to maximise our keeper proportion. The 100 and 150 MP Sony sensors are already at the limit of my ability to achieve critical focus with any viewing method I have. We may stuff more pixels into the same space (not really recommended) but we will be unable to take advantage of that density without better ways of achieving critical focus. Above all, we need focusing displays that are not useless in sunlight and that make the task easier for older eyes. After all, it is the established professionals and hobbyists that have the funds for new MF cameras. Many of these people are not eagle-eyed 20-somethings. We are talkin' next gen EVFs here. They exist. Interfacing needed.
Now I have to mention the one that we are all wistful about - a larger version of MF. Like other sensor improvements, this is not up to the camera companies. Someone in the senosr industry must see a major market for a larger sensor. When (if) that happens we will be here for it. The market is ready for smaller MF sensors and camera manufacturers are serving that end of things well. A different market segment is ready for a bigger sensor. I don't need to go into the benefits of larger format digital. Point is, the tech is doable for the chip folks (but challenging) and there are industrial, institutional and advanced professional clients willing to pay for cameras that use it. How big a sensor? I would say 250 MP over a full 6 x 9 format would do nicely and, with those fat pixels, we'd see a resurrection of lens manufacturing as the old designs get refreshed and reissued. This is the grail.
OK, that's enough from me.
1. Sensor improvements.
This is entirely dependent upon what the sensor manufacturers do. If Sony or someone else comes up with an improved sensor, it will be in our next cameras. If not, what we already have is pretty good. We are always looking for more dynamic range but that is difficult to engineer. DxO provides extensive measurements of DR for various cameras (thanks @dchew for the citation) and things don't seem to change much year-to year. Readout can be multiplexed to extend range - sort of a built in bracketing and HDR re composition - and maybe we can do more with that. The traditional approaches to high DR (slower readout, active cooling) are not very relevant to portable devices. Once you get beyond a certain level of task difficulty (e.g a true 14 stops of DR), it is not the sensor that is the primary practical limitation. It is various forms of flare.
2. Coded functions and UI. If you can't be better, improve user access to what you already have These are what will really sell the new cameras to me.
a. Frame averaging is the single easiest way to improve SNR. Some cameras already offer it (eg IQ4) but it is clumsy. Make it easier to use. Now, P1 make you go into a special mode that must be set up each time. Instead, we should be able to siimply turn on averaging and the system will use that mode until it is turned off. It would be like switching ISO or exposure compensation. Set it and the rest of the user interface remains the same.
b. Improve computer integration. Tethering should present the user with the same set of functions and user interface as they camera uses. Is there some reason we have to set up some functions withing the back and others on the computer? Silly. When you are tethered, the back should vanish and we deal entirely with the computer.
c. User manipulation of the input response function. Scientific cameras can be set to respond optimally (with greater precision) within a part of the input flux range. Film also does this in that it compresses response as the silver saturates. Our CCD and CMOS sensors, in contrast, are linear. You may want to optimise camera response for deep shadows or highlights. and now that involves various strategies that combine actions in camera and in post. Give us better ability to tune in-camera response in the field. For example, select film-type response, linear, shadow+, run 'n gun etc. from a menu. In each case, the system would would optimise itself by adjusting bit depth, selecting readout speed and so forth. Stuff like this is already going on (looking at you Fuji) but users have no real control over it. Provide a UI for it and make it into a feature.
c. The big one. We need better focusing. Improve our ability to compose and to maximise our keeper proportion. The 100 and 150 MP Sony sensors are already at the limit of my ability to achieve critical focus with any viewing method I have. We may stuff more pixels into the same space (not really recommended) but we will be unable to take advantage of that density without better ways of achieving critical focus. Above all, we need focusing displays that are not useless in sunlight and that make the task easier for older eyes. After all, it is the established professionals and hobbyists that have the funds for new MF cameras. Many of these people are not eagle-eyed 20-somethings. We are talkin' next gen EVFs here. They exist. Interfacing needed.
Now I have to mention the one that we are all wistful about - a larger version of MF. Like other sensor improvements, this is not up to the camera companies. Someone in the senosr industry must see a major market for a larger sensor. When (if) that happens we will be here for it. The market is ready for smaller MF sensors and camera manufacturers are serving that end of things well. A different market segment is ready for a bigger sensor. I don't need to go into the benefits of larger format digital. Point is, the tech is doable for the chip folks (but challenging) and there are industrial, institutional and advanced professional clients willing to pay for cameras that use it. How big a sensor? I would say 250 MP over a full 6 x 9 format would do nicely and, with those fat pixels, we'd see a resurrection of lens manufacturing as the old designs get refreshed and reissued. This is the grail.
OK, that's enough from me.
Last edited:
