Would be interesting to see you elaborate on those ideas.
Neil
Neil, I think you're right when it comes to what standards have been raised and now included in almost every brand or body. ie: for a relatively small entry fee a buyer can accomplish much the same as a buyer who spends lots more.
But I think where your idea doesn't hold is in the specialty market: Weddings for instance. I know if I were still shooting in those cracker boxes ( Churches without windows), instead of simply selling my D700, I'd have had to up-grade to the D3S, just because of it's high ISO capabilities: they are THAT much better.
As to the Flagship Models' passing. No way. I think if you take a moment out of time, you might be convinced that this is the case. But I don't see it that way. The flagship is alive and well. It is where you find new tech implemented that sometimes filters down, sometimes not. The idea behind the flagship and it's selling point is not in price as much as in function. Sure I know they labor over the price, they have folks dedicated to that. And they use price (to attract or not offend), but that too can be considered a function of the whole. Most Camera Manufacturers feel that their improved tech is worth the upgrade, and many Shooters agree.
I would suggest that anything in tech-land is hardly mature. It would only be mature if we lost interest in going forward.
Neil, I think you're right when it comes to what standards have been raised and now included in almost every brand or body. ie: for a relatively small entry fee a buyer can accomplish much the same as a buyer who spends lots more.
But I think where your idea doesn't hold is in the specialty market: Weddings for instance. I know if I were still shooting in those cracker boxes ( Churches without windows), instead of simply selling my D700, I'd have had to up-grade to the D3S, just because of it's high ISO capabilities: they are THAT much better.
As to the Flagship Models' passing. No way. I think if you take a moment out of time, you might be convinced that this is the case. But I don't see it that way. The flagship is alive and well. It is where you find new tech implemented that sometimes filters down, sometimes not. The idea behind the flagship and it's selling point is not in price as much as in function. Sure I know they labor over the price, they have folks dedicated to that. And they use price (to attract or not offend), but that too can be considered a function of the whole. Most Camera Manufacturers feel that their improved tech is worth the upgrade, and many Shooters agree.
I would suggest that anything in tech-land is hardly mature. It would only be mature if we lost interest in going forward.
I would agree with NeiL that, at least the $8,000 flagship is going the way of the dinosaur. I predicted this once before, just moments before Nikon *attempted* to join the $8K club with their D3X, but I was wrong because Nikon had planned the D3X *BEFORE* the recession hit. But now that the global economy STILL hasn't picked up in YEARS, I think that both Nikon and Canon are going to spend a generation or two with their most expensive camera costing no more than $6800. Maybe in a few generations, with the help of inflation, we'll see another $8K camera. But I get what NeiL is saying about how the previous model is getting out-dated. Now that DSLR's have saturated society and consumerism, there may be less need to over-price a "flagship" body in an effort to recoup costs, and (more excitingly) ...there may also be more opportunity for sensors and other technology to trickle down to more affordable price brackets. Heck, we've already seen that happen with the D700 and 5D mk2, BOTH sensors were actually BETTER performing than their "parents", the D3 and 1Ds 3!
My only caveat is once again, Canon's stubbornness to include MANY features in it's mid-class full-frame body. The 5D mk2 sensor was stunning, and the 5D mk3 could possibly be the "$3000 flagship replacement" for wedding and portrait photographers, ...but that still remains to be seen and Canon's track record is not good when it comes to trickle-down of certain features such as autofocus. For now, we only have the vastly improved 7D AF system to give us hope for 2012.
Certainly, the technology itself is never going to be fully "mature". It is the MARKET that has reached a mature state, in a sense, and I would argue that most computers and hard drives have also reached a mature state, although some things such as solid-state technology have not. But in general, if I can build a computer for $1000 that beats the pants off a $10,000 computer from just a few years ago, I'd call that pretty mature.
Either way, I am indeed excited for 2012 because, as NeiL said, I may finally be able to feel that just because I don't have the absolute most expensive model in a lineup, doesn't mean I don't have the BEST TOOL FOR MY JOB. The D800 or 5D mk3, if they have the right specs and functionality, would certainly be that "best tool for the job" camera. Namely in addition to the currently rumored specs, give me (worthwhile) sRAW in the D800, and give me dual card slots and 45-point AF in the 5D mk3 / "5DX", and I could shoot either camera for the next ~5-10 years of my career if I had to.
Would be interesting to see you elaborate on those ideas.
Neil
Sure. First of all, look at Lytro, a technology that's in its infancy. The convergence of still and video imaging is nowhere near mature. 3D imaging is also an emerging technology. In camera image processing and wireless transfer capabilities are also improving. Then of course, the continued research into improved resolution and color in the current crop of recently announced dslrs.
If you want to make a broad statement like "the technology is mature" then I think you need to come up with some reasons why you think that. Especially given some of the technologies you used in your reply are probably more mature from a technology and industry standpoint than imaging is today (at least in my opinion).
Had you said the trend in consumer imaging is toward more convenient devices, like smartphones, I could agree with that. But I don't believe for a moment that dslr technology has matured or is it likely to mature for many years to come.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
A couple of clarifications. First, I don't think digital camera tech has nowhere to go. Recall that I said that at the higher end of the scale development would be in specialisation (eg weddings, Tom), modularity and integration(/networking). The clue to this is plainly to be seen in what is happening in MF and video. The idea of specialisation and modularity is already parodied with dslrs in the current trend for using multiple bodies, not just to facilitate a change of lens, but to tailor camera to subject-situation in sophisticated ways. No place for the old idea of a single flagship model here. But your iPhone has a place!
Second, digital camera body tech is distinct from, say, computer, digital image display, digital storage techs, in fundamental ways. Unlike them, digital camera body tech is bound to one only physical input source - visible light, and one only physical operator and receiver - the photographer's body and mind, and the human viewer's. Consequently it is under a plethora of immovable constraints. On the other hand, those other techs I gave for example are relatively open ended - to illustrate, computing input can be in a possibly infinite number of forms, processing materials likewise (semiconductor, optical, atomic - graphene, subatomic - quantum, biological), and the operator/receiver could be another computer, or slime mould on some exoplanet yet to be discovered. Camera body tech is much more like automobile tech, and just as I am skeptical about flying cars, I'm also skeptical about "flying" cameras (such as the Lytro). It's open slather when it comes to masses-and-energies, so getting to the far corner of the universe is not a problem, but when the whole point of the tech is visible light, human eyes, bodies, minds and values, as in photography, the limits of the tech are quickly reached. In that sense digital camera tech is mature. Sure, there will be finessing of things like sensor sensitivity and fidelity, AF, processing capabilities, software manipulation - and specialisation, modularity and integration(/networking), as I have already mentioned. There is not a car on the market now in which you feel you have to take compromises and handicaps, and there is a car for every and all seasons, so to speak, and a huge range of prices. So it is now with digital camera bodies. Mature technology.
A couple of clarifications. First, I don't think digital camera tech has nowhere to go. Recall that I said that at the higher end of the scale development would be in specialisation (eg weddings, Tom), modularity and integration(/networking). The clue to this is plainly to be seen in what is happening in MF and video. The idea of specialisation and modularity is already parodied with dslrs in the current trend for using multiple bodies, not just to facilitate a change of lens, but to tailor camera to subject-situation in sophisticated ways. No place for the old idea of a single flagship model here. But your iPhone has a place!
Second, digital camera body tech is distinct from, say, computer, digital image display, digital storage techs, in fundamental ways. Unlike them, digital camera body tech is bound to one only physical input source - visible light, and one only physical operator and receiver - the photographer's body and mind, and the human viewer. Consequently it is under a plethora of immovable constraints. On the other hand, those other techs I gave for example are relatively open ended - to illustrate, computing input can be in a possibly infinite number of forms, processing materials likewise (semiconductor, optical, atomic - graphene, subatomic - quantum, biological), and the operator/receiver could be another computer, or slime mould on some exoplanet yet to be discovered. Camera body tech is much more like automobile tech, and just as I am skeptical about flying cars, I'm also skeptical about "flying" cameras (such as the Lytro). It's open slather when it comes to masses-and-energies, so getting to the far corner of the universe is not a problem, but when the whole point of the tech is visible light, human eyes, bodies, minds and values, as in photography, the limits of the tech are quickly reached. In that sense digital camera tech is mature. Sure, there will be finessing of things like sensor sensitivity and fidelity, AF, processing capabilities, software manipulation - and specialisation, modularity and integration(/networking), as I have already mentioned. There is not a car on the market now in which you feel you have to take compromises and handicaps, and there is a car for every and all seasons, so to speak, and a huge range of prices. So it is now with digital camera bodies. Mature technology.
Neil
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited January 3, 2012
Ithink that if anything has reached maturity, it is like I said- the DSLR market itself, though maybe not 100% of the technology, has grown quite close to maturity. Just 6-7 years ago, we paid $999 for a Canon 300D or Nikon D70, and they were earth-shatteringly new. Now the per-generation updates are so under-whelming, or at least predictably incremental, ...I'm actually considering how I could survive without upgrading for the next 1-3 generations.
The technology may still have some maturing to do, and the market may have a LITTLE bit of maturing left in it, but as far as NEEDING to upgrade to the next generation is concerned, I think that feeling has dropped exponentially all across the board, thanks to 1-2 generations of "affordable" full-frame cameras, ...and also thanks to a new generation of crop-sensor cameras with zero compromises. (Heck, the 7D and D7000 are even better than the first generation of Canon FF sensors!)
Ithink that if anything has reached maturity, it is like I said- the DSLR market itself, though maybe not 100% of the technology, has grown quite close to maturity. Just 6-7 years ago, we paid $999 for a Canon 300D or Nikon D70, and they were earth-shatteringly new. Now the per-generation updates are so under-whelming, or at least predictably incremental, ...I'm actually considering how I could survive without upgrading for the next 1-3 generations.
The technology may still have some maturing to do, and the market may have a LITTLE bit of maturing left in it, but as far as NEEDING to upgrade to the next generation is concerned, I think that feeling has dropped exponentially all across the board, thanks to 1-2 generations of "affordable" full-frame cameras, ...and also thanks to a new generation of crop-sensor cameras with zero compromises. (Heck, the 7D and D7000 are even better than the first generation of Canon FF sensors!)
=Matt=
Yes!
But I wouldn't like sight to be lost of where the tech *is* going! If you are a sports photographer you will have a body the like of nothing before, specialised for your needs, in ways still to be developed, which nevertheless does not represent superiority - less compromises, less handicaps - over, say, a future specialised body for a landscape photographer, or a more generalist body... or an iPhone! The whole tech is more democratic, and no one who knows will feel like the poor cousin to the pro. Just as no Hyundai owner feels like the poor cousin to the Audi owner!
But I wouldn't like sight to be lost of where the tech *is* going! If you are a sports photographer you will have a body the like of nothing before, specialised for your needs, in ways still to be developed, which nevertheless does not represent superiority - less compromises, less handicaps - over, say, a future specialised body for a landscape photographer, or a more generalist body... or an iPhone! The whole tech is more democratic, and no one who knows will feel like the poor cousin to the pro. Just as no Hyundai owner feels like the poor cousin to the Audi owner!
Neil
I don't see any evidence of this at all, in fact the 1DX is the opposite, as it combines 2 previous models into 1.
I don't see any evidence of this at all, in fact the 1DX is the opposite, as it combines 2 previous models into 1.
Kind of... and maybe the better to differentiate it from what is coming? The most common reaction was disappointment from the people who felt that it wasn't in their line. But its appearance didn't have a whole lot of impact on a mass of photographers, who felt that their 7D or D700 was doing just as good for them already.
The Nikon D4, which is slated for February availability at a $6,000 suggested retail, will offer a full-frame 16.2-megapixel full-format CMOS image sensor that will shoot full-resolution images at up to a 10 fps rate.
The camera is also one of the first to support the new XQD Compact Flash memory card format, and will also offer a second card for more conventional CF cards.
The Nikon D4 has improved low-light performance, with an ISO range from 100 to 102,400 which can be expanded to 50 to 204,800 for both movies and stills.
The D4 also improves on the D3's color matrix metering system with a third-generation 91,000-pixel RGB metering sensor.
The unit takes the AF mode select switch from the D7000 and uses improved 51-point AF points with 9 cross-type sensor and a beefed up AF module allowing focus with an f/8 lens and faster (up from f/5.6). The AF detection range is now down to EV-2.0
The viewfinder features a full pentaprism with a 100 percent field of view.
The video section will record pixel-for-pixel Full-HD 1080p resolution with selections for 30p and 24p frame rates in this iteration, and 720p at up to 60p for slow-motion work. The camera now includes support for the H.264 B frame compression scheme.
The camera uses contrast detect AF in movie recording and features a low-pass filter optimized to maximize sharpness of HD video, meaning greater noise reduction when shooting full-frame movies.
Function buttons are illuminated this year, and a dedicated video button (user re-assignable) is added near the shutter button.
The D4 supports WTSA wireless control using the optional Nikon WT-5 wireless transmitter, and features an integrated Ethernet port and HDMI output enabling output of uncompressed video.
The D4 also introduces face detection/recognition into the flagship series
Another new feature is smooth aperture control for use while shooting video.
At the same time, the company introduced the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8G FX format lens ($500 suggested retail).
The company said the D4 is not being produced in Thailand will not have production issues from the recent flooding situation there. But whether the company will have enough supply to meet the expected demand from Nikon-aligned professional photographers and converts remains to be seen.
2012 International Press Telecommunications Council
Nikon D800, Pentax K1000
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Moore's Law Applies to Pro Cameras
I believe Moore's Law that "the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every 1.5 to 2 years" applies to professional cameras.
Because of that we will continue to see significant changes.
The rate of change and the higher price tags for continued enhancements for professional level cameras is a good thing as it provides a barrier to entry.
So, the fatter the photographer, the softer the light?
I've never gained weight for a better cause! Bring on the carbs! Or, you just have your assistant with another glow-in-the-dark shirt stand a few feet to your left or right, as a fill light. ;-)
Am I the only one who sees this? The whole top panel looks like a bloated Canon camera. Especially that "curvy" area around the shutter release, I dunno, it just looks like the D4 needs to hit the gym for a few months.
The more I see, (ISO 12800 native instead of ISO 102400) ...the more I'm pretty much just gonna spend the next year or three lusting after a used D3s...)
But, at least it competes well with the Canon 1DX, for those who can afford either!
That was from a most likely faked press release, though, so I'm doubting that. But of course yeah, visual size and physical weight are not directly related...
<IFRAME style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; TOP: -9999em" id=twttrHubFrame tabIndex=0 src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1324331373.html" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME><TABLE border=1 width=600><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD>Canon EOS 1D X</TD><TD>Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III</TD><TD>Nikon D3S</TD><TD>Nikon D4</TD><TD>Nikon D3X</TD></TR><TR><TD rowSpan=2>Sensor (effective resolution)</TD><TD>18-megapixel CMOS
(2-line, 16-channel readout)
14-bit</TD><TD>21.1-megapixel CMOS
14-bit
8-channel readout
14-bit</TD><TD>12-1-megapixel CMOS
12-channel readout
14-bit</TD><TD>16.2-megapixel CMOS
n/a</TD><TD>24.5-megapixel CMOS
12-channel readout
14-bit
</TD></TR><TR><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>36mm x 23.9mm</TD><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>35.9mm x 24mm</TD></TR><TR><TD>Focal-length multiplier</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD></TR><TR><TD>Sensitivity range</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/ 100 - ISO 51,200/204,800 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 1,600/3,200 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 100 (exp)/200 - ISO 12,800/102,400 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/ 100 - ISO 102,400/204,800 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 1,600/6,400 (exp)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Continuous shooting</TD><TD>12fps
n/a</TD><TD>5fps
12 raw/56 JPEG</TD><TD>9fps
n/a</TD><TD>10fps
n/a</TD><TD>5fps
n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Viewfinder
magnification/ effective magnification</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.76x/0.76x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.76x/ 0.76x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD></TR><TR><TD>Autofocus</TD><TD>61-pt High Density Reticular
n/a
21 center diagonal to f5.6
5 center to f2.8
20 outer to f4
</TD><TD>45-pt
19 cross type</TD><TD>51-pt
15 cross type</TD><TD>51-pt
9 cross type to f8</TD><TD>51-pt
15 cross type</TD></TR><TR><TD>AF exposure range</TD><TD>-2 - 20 EV</TD><TD>-1 - 18 EV</TD><TD>-1 - 19 EV</TD><TD>-2 - n/a EV</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Shutter speed</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync (est)</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD></TR><TR><TD>Shutter durability</TD><TD>400,000 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD><TD>400,00 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD></TR><TR><TD>Metering</TD><TD>252-zone RGB</TD><TD>63-zone TTL</TD><TD>1,005-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD><TD>91,000-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD><TD>1,005-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD></TR><TR><TD>Metering exposure range</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV (est)</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD></TR><TR><TD>Image stabilization</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD></TR><TR><TD>Video</TD><TD>H.264 QuickTime MOV
1080/30p/ 25p/24p; 720/60p/50p</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>H.264 AVI
720/24p</TD><TD>1080/30p/25p/24p; 720/60p/30p/ 25p/24p H.264 QuickTime MOV</TD><TD>None</TD></TR><TR><TD>Rated estimated max HD video length </TD><TD>4GB
(29m59s)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>2GB</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>LCD size</TD><TD>3.2 inches fixed
1.04 megadot</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
230,000 pixels</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
921,000 dots</TD><TD>3.2 inches
n/a</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
921,000 dots</TD></TR><TR><TD>Memory slots</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 7)</TD><TD>1 x CF (UDMA mode 6), 1 x SDHC</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 6)</TD><TD>1 x CF, 1 x XQD</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 6)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Wireless flash</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>n/a (probably no)</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Battery life (CIPA rating)</TD><TD>n/a
(2,450mAh)</TD><TD>n/a
(2,300mAh)</TD><TD>4200 shots
(1,900mAh)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>4,400 shots
(1,900mAh)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dimensions (inches, WHD)</TD><TD>6.4 x 6.2 x 3.3</TD><TD>6.1 x 6.3 x 3.1</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.4</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.6</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>Body operating weight (ounces)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>45 (est.)</TD><TD>43.7 (est.)</TD><TD>47.3 (est.)</TD><TD>43 (est.)</TD></TR><TR><TD rowSpan=2>Mfr. price</TD><TD>$6,800 (body only)</TD><TD>$6,999 (body only)</TD><TD>$5,199.95 (body only)</TD><TD>$5,999 (body only)</TD><TD>$7,999.95 (body only)</TD></TR><TR><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ship date</TD><TD>March 2012</TD><TD>November 2007</TD><TD>November 2009</TD><TD>January 2012</TD><TD>December 2008</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Though it retains the same number of autofocus points, according to Réponses Photo, Nikon supposedly has simplified the process of using the various AF options
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Comments
I did!
(You mustn't have been in the zone, man!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I disagree. To use your description, camera technology is in an adolescent state and definitely has a way to go before it's mature.
Would be interesting to see you elaborate on those ideas.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil, I think you're right when it comes to what standards have been raised and now included in almost every brand or body. ie: for a relatively small entry fee a buyer can accomplish much the same as a buyer who spends lots more.
But I think where your idea doesn't hold is in the specialty market: Weddings for instance. I know if I were still shooting in those cracker boxes ( Churches without windows), instead of simply selling my D700, I'd have had to up-grade to the D3S, just because of it's high ISO capabilities: they are THAT much better.
As to the Flagship Models' passing. No way. I think if you take a moment out of time, you might be convinced that this is the case. But I don't see it that way. The flagship is alive and well. It is where you find new tech implemented that sometimes filters down, sometimes not. The idea behind the flagship and it's selling point is not in price as much as in function. Sure I know they labor over the price, they have folks dedicated to that. And they use price (to attract or not offend), but that too can be considered a function of the whole. Most Camera Manufacturers feel that their improved tech is worth the upgrade, and many Shooters agree.
I would suggest that anything in tech-land is hardly mature. It would only be mature if we lost interest in going forward.
I'm with you. I'm waiting in the wings to pick up a gently used D3s to complement my D700. The prices should drop nicely once the D4 is announced.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I would agree with NeiL that, at least the $8,000 flagship is going the way of the dinosaur. I predicted this once before, just moments before Nikon *attempted* to join the $8K club with their D3X, but I was wrong because Nikon had planned the D3X *BEFORE* the recession hit. But now that the global economy STILL hasn't picked up in YEARS, I think that both Nikon and Canon are going to spend a generation or two with their most expensive camera costing no more than $6800. Maybe in a few generations, with the help of inflation, we'll see another $8K camera. But I get what NeiL is saying about how the previous model is getting out-dated. Now that DSLR's have saturated society and consumerism, there may be less need to over-price a "flagship" body in an effort to recoup costs, and (more excitingly) ...there may also be more opportunity for sensors and other technology to trickle down to more affordable price brackets. Heck, we've already seen that happen with the D700 and 5D mk2, BOTH sensors were actually BETTER performing than their "parents", the D3 and 1Ds 3!
My only caveat is once again, Canon's stubbornness to include MANY features in it's mid-class full-frame body. The 5D mk2 sensor was stunning, and the 5D mk3 could possibly be the "$3000 flagship replacement" for wedding and portrait photographers, ...but that still remains to be seen and Canon's track record is not good when it comes to trickle-down of certain features such as autofocus. For now, we only have the vastly improved 7D AF system to give us hope for 2012.
Certainly, the technology itself is never going to be fully "mature". It is the MARKET that has reached a mature state, in a sense, and I would argue that most computers and hard drives have also reached a mature state, although some things such as solid-state technology have not. But in general, if I can build a computer for $1000 that beats the pants off a $10,000 computer from just a few years ago, I'd call that pretty mature.
Either way, I am indeed excited for 2012 because, as NeiL said, I may finally be able to feel that just because I don't have the absolute most expensive model in a lineup, doesn't mean I don't have the BEST TOOL FOR MY JOB. The D800 or 5D mk3, if they have the right specs and functionality, would certainly be that "best tool for the job" camera. Namely in addition to the currently rumored specs, give me (worthwhile) sRAW in the D800, and give me dual card slots and 45-point AF in the 5D mk3 / "5DX", and I could shoot either camera for the next ~5-10 years of my career if I had to.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Sure. First of all, look at Lytro, a technology that's in its infancy. The convergence of still and video imaging is nowhere near mature. 3D imaging is also an emerging technology. In camera image processing and wireless transfer capabilities are also improving. Then of course, the continued research into improved resolution and color in the current crop of recently announced dslrs.
If you want to make a broad statement like "the technology is mature" then I think you need to come up with some reasons why you think that. Especially given some of the technologies you used in your reply are probably more mature from a technology and industry standpoint than imaging is today (at least in my opinion).
Had you said the trend in consumer imaging is toward more convenient devices, like smartphones, I could agree with that. But I don't believe for a moment that dslr technology has matured or is it likely to mature for many years to come.
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Second, digital camera body tech is distinct from, say, computer, digital image display, digital storage techs, in fundamental ways. Unlike them, digital camera body tech is bound to one only physical input source - visible light, and one only physical operator and receiver - the photographer's body and mind, and the human viewer's. Consequently it is under a plethora of immovable constraints. On the other hand, those other techs I gave for example are relatively open ended - to illustrate, computing input can be in a possibly infinite number of forms, processing materials likewise (semiconductor, optical, atomic - graphene, subatomic - quantum, biological), and the operator/receiver could be another computer, or slime mould on some exoplanet yet to be discovered. Camera body tech is much more like automobile tech, and just as I am skeptical about flying cars, I'm also skeptical about "flying" cameras (such as the Lytro). It's open slather when it comes to masses-and-energies, so getting to the far corner of the universe is not a problem, but when the whole point of the tech is visible light, human eyes, bodies, minds and values, as in photography, the limits of the tech are quickly reached. In that sense digital camera tech is mature. Sure, there will be finessing of things like sensor sensitivity and fidelity, AF, processing capabilities, software manipulation - and specialisation, modularity and integration(/networking), as I have already mentioned. There is not a car on the market now in which you feel you have to take compromises and handicaps, and there is a car for every and all seasons, so to speak, and a huge range of prices. So it is now with digital camera bodies. Mature technology.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
There you have it. We disagree.
The technology may still have some maturing to do, and the market may have a LITTLE bit of maturing left in it, but as far as NEEDING to upgrade to the next generation is concerned, I think that feeling has dropped exponentially all across the board, thanks to 1-2 generations of "affordable" full-frame cameras, ...and also thanks to a new generation of crop-sensor cameras with zero compromises. (Heck, the 7D and D7000 are even better than the first generation of Canon FF sensors!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yes!
But I wouldn't like sight to be lost of where the tech *is* going! If you are a sports photographer you will have a body the like of nothing before, specialised for your needs, in ways still to be developed, which nevertheless does not represent superiority - less compromises, less handicaps - over, say, a future specialised body for a landscape photographer, or a more generalist body... or an iPhone! The whole tech is more democratic, and no one who knows will feel like the poor cousin to the pro. Just as no Hyundai owner feels like the poor cousin to the Audi owner!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I don't see any evidence of this at all, in fact the 1DX is the opposite, as it combines 2 previous models into 1.
Kind of... and maybe the better to differentiate it from what is coming? The most common reaction was disappointment from the people who felt that it wasn't in their line. But its appearance didn't have a whole lot of impact on a mass of photographers, who felt that their 7D or D700 was doing just as good for them already.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
https://wellsfargoadvisors.mworld.com/m/m.w?lp=GetStory&id=587442381
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
What interests me is that it will hopefully be available a month before the Canon 1Dx and the fact that it will be significantly cheaper than the 1Dx
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
Does the D4 need ANY ambient light?
...Yeah, just wear a glow in the dark shirt!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
So, the fatter the photographer, the softer the light?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I believe Moore's Law that "the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every 1.5 to 2 years" applies to professional cameras.
Because of that we will continue to see significant changes.
The rate of change and the higher price tags for continued enhancements for professional level cameras is a good thing as it provides a barrier to entry.
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
You don't take a photograph, you make it. ~Ansel Adams
Blue Moon Originals
I've never gained weight for a better cause! Bring on the carbs! Or, you just have your assistant with another glow-in-the-dark shirt stand a few feet to your left or right, as a fill light. ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
It looks so overweight!
Am I the only one who sees this? The whole top panel looks like a bloated Canon camera. Especially that "curvy" area around the shutter release, I dunno, it just looks like the D4 needs to hit the gym for a few months.
The more I see, (ISO 12800 native instead of ISO 102400) ...the more I'm pretty much just gonna spend the next year or three lusting after a used D3s...)
But, at least it competes well with the Canon 1DX, for those who can afford either!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Rumors says it is lighter. Wait and see tomorrow.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
That was from a most likely faked press release, though, so I'm doubting that. But of course yeah, visual size and physical weight are not directly related...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
</OBJECT>
<IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 575px; HEIGHT: 240px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id=f1793c38b462312 onload=FB.Content._callbacks.f1148669df66e9() class=FB_UI_Hidden src="http://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?api_key=16995676698&app_id=16995676698&channel_url=https://s-static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect/xd_proxy.php?version=3#cb=f6df0b9ec957de&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fdgrin.com%2Ffc3419a8e1f729&relation=parent.parent&transport=postmessage&client_id=16995676698&display=none&locale=en_US&origin=1&redirect_uri=https://s-static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect/xd_proxy.php?version=3#cb=f155b43e8f51e76&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fdgrin.com%2Ffc3419a8e1f729&relation=parent&transport=postmessage&frame=f1793c38b462312&response_type=token,signed_request,code&sdk=joey" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency name=f270998586982a scrolling=no fbCallID="f1793c38b462312"></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; TOP: -9999em" id=twttrHubFrame tabIndex=0 src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1324331373.html" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME><TABLE border=1 width=600><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD>Canon EOS 1D X</TD><TD>Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III</TD><TD>Nikon D3S</TD><TD>Nikon D4</TD><TD>Nikon D3X</TD></TR><TR><TD rowSpan=2>Sensor (effective resolution)</TD><TD>18-megapixel CMOS
(2-line, 16-channel readout)
14-bit</TD><TD>21.1-megapixel CMOS
14-bit
8-channel readout
14-bit</TD><TD>12-1-megapixel CMOS
12-channel readout
14-bit</TD><TD>16.2-megapixel CMOS
n/a</TD><TD>24.5-megapixel CMOS
12-channel readout
14-bit
</TD></TR><TR><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>36mm x 23.9mm</TD><TD>36mm x 24mm</TD><TD>35.9mm x 24mm</TD></TR><TR><TD>Focal-length multiplier</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD><TD>1.0x</TD></TR><TR><TD>Sensitivity range</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/ 100 - ISO 51,200/204,800 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 1,600/3,200 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 100 (exp)/200 - ISO 12,800/102,400 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/ 100 - ISO 102,400/204,800 (exp)</TD><TD>ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 1,600/6,400 (exp)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Continuous shooting</TD><TD>12fps
n/a</TD><TD>5fps
12 raw/56 JPEG</TD><TD>9fps
n/a</TD><TD>10fps
n/a</TD><TD>5fps
n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Viewfinder
magnification/ effective magnification</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.76x/0.76x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.76x/ 0.76x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD><TD>100% coverage
0.70x/ 0.70x</TD></TR><TR><TD>Autofocus</TD><TD>61-pt High Density Reticular
n/a
21 center diagonal to f5.6
5 center to f2.8
20 outer to f4
</TD><TD>45-pt
19 cross type</TD><TD>51-pt
15 cross type</TD><TD>51-pt
9 cross type to f8</TD><TD>51-pt
15 cross type</TD></TR><TR><TD>AF exposure range</TD><TD>-2 - 20 EV</TD><TD>-1 - 18 EV</TD><TD>-1 - 19 EV</TD><TD>-2 - n/a EV</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Shutter speed</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync (est)</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>1/8,000 to 30 secs; bulb; 1/250 sec x-sync</TD></TR><TR><TD>Shutter durability</TD><TD>400,000 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD><TD>400,00 cycles</TD><TD>300,000 cycles</TD></TR><TR><TD>Metering</TD><TD>252-zone RGB</TD><TD>63-zone TTL</TD><TD>1,005-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD><TD>91,000-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD><TD>1,005-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II</TD></TR><TR><TD>Metering exposure range</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV (est)</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>0 - 20 EV</TD></TR><TR><TD>Image stabilization</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD><TD>Optical</TD></TR><TR><TD>Video</TD><TD>H.264 QuickTime MOV
1080/30p/ 25p/24p; 720/60p/50p</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>H.264 AVI
720/24p</TD><TD>1080/30p/25p/24p; 720/60p/30p/ 25p/24p H.264 QuickTime MOV</TD><TD>None</TD></TR><TR><TD>Rated estimated max HD video length </TD><TD>4GB
(29m59s)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>2GB</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>LCD size</TD><TD>3.2 inches fixed
1.04 megadot</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
230,000 pixels</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
921,000 dots</TD><TD>3.2 inches
n/a</TD><TD>3 inches fixed
921,000 dots</TD></TR><TR><TD>Memory slots</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 7)</TD><TD>1 x CF (UDMA mode 6), 1 x SDHC</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 6)</TD><TD>1 x CF, 1 x XQD</TD><TD>2 x CF (UMDA mode 6)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Wireless flash</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>n/a (probably no)</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Battery life (CIPA rating)</TD><TD>n/a
(2,450mAh)</TD><TD>n/a
(2,300mAh)</TD><TD>4200 shots
(1,900mAh)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>4,400 shots
(1,900mAh)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dimensions (inches, WHD)</TD><TD>6.4 x 6.2 x 3.3</TD><TD>6.1 x 6.3 x 3.1</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.4</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.6</TD><TD>6.3 x 6.2 x 3.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>Body operating weight (ounces)</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>45 (est.)</TD><TD>43.7 (est.)</TD><TD>47.3 (est.)</TD><TD>43 (est.)</TD></TR><TR><TD rowSpan=2>Mfr. price</TD><TD>$6,800 (body only)</TD><TD>$6,999 (body only)</TD><TD>$5,199.95 (body only)</TD><TD>$5,999 (body only)</TD><TD>$7,999.95 (body only)</TD></TR><TR><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD><TD>n/a</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ship date</TD><TD>March 2012</TD><TD>November 2007</TD><TD>November 2009</TD><TD>January 2012</TD><TD>December 2008</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Though it retains the same number of autofocus points, according to Réponses Photo, Nikon supposedly has simplified the process of using the various AF options
Read more: http://www.cnet.com/8301-33371_1-57352486/nikon-d4-obviously-imminent-as-leaks-turn-into-flood/#ixzz1idBlSeLW
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
... and the greater the impact!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Now, what I am waiting for with the batedest of breaths is the evolution of a photographer to ride these stallions(/mares?)!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Not going to recap it, read it and see more details on video
A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.
An opinion should be the result of thought,not the replacement of it.:scratch