Five breathtaking technologies

[peterdoomen]

OK, we all read the Chuck Westfall interview (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=174168)

Basically, he mentions five new technologies that camera manufacturers are working on. Which one of these five would you really pay for?

P.

[grego]

Wavefront encoding (DoF to choose afterwards)

So we are just going to take the knowledge and skill out of photography, pretty soon, aren't we. :O

[Woolburr]

Based on current needs, the higher ISO is a winner for me. But I would also like to see them take it the other way too....would love to see ISO 25. That would give both sportshooters and landscape artists a big benefit.

[Carzee]

ISO noise/manipulation

[grego]

Heck, a more clear 1600 and 3200 would be a good upgrade.

[Jim G]

Gods above, if I had a useful 6400 ISO the things I could do...

Kind of scary though. If it can get to a good 6400, where to from there? 10, 20 years time... 12.8k, 25k, 50k, 100k ISO... Maybe they'll break some barrier and discover a formula which allows them to increase it indefinitely with minimal or no increase in noise :p

I wonder what such high sensitivities will do to photography. Suddenly f/1.4 lenses aren't quite the low-light kings they used to be.....

[Jesper]

Low noise, ISO 6400 would absolutely be #1 for me.

Liquid lenses - sounds strange, let's see if and when this gets real and what the quality will be, might be interesting.

Hydrogen-fueled cells - nice, but I recall the article said it will increase the capacity by 30%, that doesn't sound like much. My SterlingTek batteries already have 30% more capacity than the original Canon BP-511A (1800 mAh vs. 1350 mAh).

Wavefront encoding - Sounds like a gimmick, and currently the image quality is nowhere near the great, sharp, 12.7 MP resolution I get from my 5D. I think it will be a long time before this is going to be practical.

OLED viewfinder - No electronic viewfinder I know of is as good as an optical viewfinder. I doubt whether an OLED viewfinder will be much better than the current EVFs. What I would like is an optical viewfinder with a transparent EVF on top of it, to display information like a live histogram (which can be switched on or off, ofcourse). A hybrid viewfinder.

[Andy_T]

Hydrogen-fueled cells - nice, but I recall the article said it will increase the capacity by 30%, that doesn't sound like much. My SterlingTek batteries already have 30% more capacity than the original Canon BP-511A (1800 mAh vs. 1350 mAh).


I think that Chuck Westfall was actually talking about hydrogen fuel cells.

That would be a totally different technology to current batteries and maybe allow different handling (e.g. re-charging it from a small hydrogen tank/can instead of putting it on a charger).

Best regards,
Andy

[spencer87]

low noise iso 6400 gets my vote, though the others sound interesting as well

[jiggling_john]

I really dont like the idea of a digital viewfinder... So liquid lenses gets my vote. They should surely make lenses more compact if I understood it correctly.

iso 6400 would get my next vote, but thats gonna become standard so you wont really be paying a premium...

[peterdoomen]

I think that Chuck Westfall was actually talking about hydrogen fuel cells.


Best regards,
Andy

Right. However, he said that it would lead to an increase of about 30% in capacity. Which is not a big deal. I'd rather carry around 5 batteries and have low-noise ISO 6400 than having one super battery and ISO 100 or 200.

P.

[condyk]

Did he mention a good eye for an interesting shot?

Other than that essential 'enhancement' I quite like liquid lenses because it is a mildly funny notion and the on the fly Histo.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Doesn't seem like their high end bodies could end up with EVF's. Too many pros would b**** about it. I would, too.

[Lightstream]

Agreed. Optical VF still rules the roost. If I wanted EVF I'd buy a Canon S2, not a DSLR... nothing beats TRUE TTL.

ISO was my vote. I always seem to end up shooting in a black hole, the ability to use lower ISOs while still retaining IQ is a big deal to me. ISO is possible within a realistic timeframe.

Liquid lenses - only if they can pull it off with L quality or better and they don't freeze on me in cold weather as one poster has commented (very real issue if it's water). I am very skeptical at this point and it may take decades for the technology to mature. Look at diffractive optics - slammed by many, while I have some hope in the technology, I too am personally waiting for Canon's second-generation DO zoom (70-300 is first-gen DO zoom, but not the first DO ever - that honor goes to the 400 f/4) and hoping they solve the outstanding issues.

[liza]

ISO was my vote as well. I shoot a lot of low light sporting events.

[Rob612]

Another vote for the low/absent noise @6400ISO. The other options are really somthing I don't consider.

[sugarzebra]

A broader, functional ISO range gets my vote

[KevinG3]

My vote is for Low noise native 6400 ISO - but all sound nice.

[RJCONKLIN]

instead of all these exotic ideas; would it not serve canon and all other manufactures, to solve the dust in the viewfinder and on the sensor problem? when you spend $1500 to $8000 for a camera, thats the least you can expect. would you buy a car without a windshield?

[JMHPhotography]

I really like all of these new features, if they are truley possible. The liquid lens sounds pretty awesome. The wavefront encoding could sound like something that could take the knowledge and skill out of photography as Greg said, but... I'm sure that when AF and AE was designed in, it seemed that way also. I don't think any of these more advanced features will guarantee instant greatness with photography. You still need to know how to compose and expose your photograph.

A framing carpenter who uses a pnuematic nail gun doesn't know less about framing than the old school carpenter who relies on his trusty hammer. He still needs to know how to frame a wall, and make everything straight and to code. He will be a heck of a lot faster though. In other words... you can make the tools better all you want, but the craftsman still has to know his craft.

I look at the Wavefront encoding like this... Imagine that you do not have a lens capable of a shallow enough DOF for the given focal length, all of a sudden, my 28-105mm at 85mm would be capable of bokeh that can only be had with the 85mm F/1.2L. I think that no matter how much technology advances, a photographer can only be as good as his skill set. If he/she knows the image would look better with a more or less blurred background, what difference does it make if they achieve it with the aperature of the lens or with a software setting in the camera?

If an EVF looked as good as the OVF, would it really be that bad? The problem with this is that many of you think about LCD technology when you think EVF. THe OLED technology is supposed to surpass that of LCD by leaps and bounds. From my understanding on another article that I've read on OLED is that you are going to be very hard pressed to know the difference. It's supposed to be able to refresh way faster than the human eye can perceive.

Hydrogen fuel cells for digital cameras? Now that just sounds cool doesn't it? I'm for anything that provides more energy for longer periods of time.

[peterdoomen]

instead of all these exotic ideas; would it not serve canon and all other manufactures, to solve the dust in the viewfinder and on the sensor problem? when you spend $1500 to $8000 for a camera, thats the least you can expect. would you buy a car without a windshield?

I don't think it's that easy to protect the sensor from dust... after all, you won't want anything that (1) takes away valuable light and (2) gets dirty itself so that you have to clean it also.

For the time being, just regularly clean the sensor, like you regularly clean your lenses (I hope).

P.
PS. Not that I don't agree with you: sometimes small inventions can matter a lot. Like ISO in the viewfinder, or true spot metering.

[SWPhotoImaging]

I'd have to see a digital viewfinder actually perform well enough and sharply enough to allow manual focusing before I'd consider one. They can't even make small LCD screens on teh back of cameras that are high-res enough to tell if a shot is in focus, so how would they get it on a little-bitty OLED or LCD in a viewfinder?

I could occasionally use ISO 6400. It would sure be a lot more DOF friendly than f1.4 is.

[JMHPhotography]

I'd have to see a digital viewfinder actually perform well enough and sharply enough to allow manual focusing before I'd consider one. They can't even make small LCD screens on teh back of cameras that are high-res enough to tell if a shot is in focus, so how would they get it on a little-bitty OLED or LCD in a viewfinder?

I could occasionally use ISO 6400. It would sure be a lot more DOF friendly than f1.4 is.

It's funny that so many people have this mindset. I wonder how many people were blown away at the thought of having 6 GB of storage on a tiny 1" x 1" micro drive? I was talking with a colleague a couple of weeks ago at how amazing CF modules were considering the size and how much data you can put on them. He had (from his days of working in college computer labs... he's an old dude.. btw) a magnetic memory card that stored 1K of data. 1024 bytes. It was about 24 inches long and 16 inches wide. LOL.

Don't doubt the possiblities of modern technology. OLED is still in it's infancy... and it's very possible to get some serious resolution out of it as is. Let the technology advance before making your final judgement.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I voted for the iso, because often, the situation I am in calls for non-flash photography. So whats better than faster shutter speed from low-noise ISO's and fast lenses.

[Coda]

If Canon gave us noise free ISO 6400 they wouldnt be able to sell any more overpriced and heavy 2.8L zooms ;-)

[Di-MC]

I know electronic and can safely say that improving (low noise) sensitivity is relatively easy. But think about this... A high speed (f/1.0) lense which has no CA, low distortion, Zooms from 10mm to 500mm in a 400 gr (>1 pound) package and can be handheld at any speed... This I would pay big money for! Liquid lenses get my vote.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

If Canon gave us noise free ISO 6400 they wouldnt be able to sell any more overpriced and heavy 2.8L zooms ;-)

Ya they would, for the brighter viewfinders ,faster and more accurate AF and lastly, shallow DoF ;)

[Jaymz]

I vote for the ISO.

[adas]

Me too. I'll vote for the higher and cleaner ISO. And 14bit A/D, if you please. That meaning higher dynamic range, not only 2 more empty bits.

[grego]

ISO was my vote as well. I shoot a lot of low light sporting events.

Yeah, I feel yal. Although screw ISO 6400 or whatever. If they could perfect 1600 and 3200 so that there was very little noise, that would be great(meaning no need for noise software).

[Carzee]

I am a bit dissapointed, after all Chuck's "future tech" lecture omitted -once again (how long will we have to wait)- MLU buttons and Talent Mode (refined Auto mode with compositional capability).

And another thing! What about silver as a colour choice for the 1 Series?

[stupot]

haven't read any of the comments... but i dont like the sound of some of these. i want to take a shot knowing i got it right in camera - i want all the variables to come together for me at the point of capture, not in pp. pp just enhances a good image, it doesnt create it.

[Jon]

I'd like to see a better display. If OLED makes the display on the back readily viewable in the sun, so much the better. If it's fast enough for real-time capture, then we can have the quieter cameras some of us have been wanting. It may take a while, but that will make the biggest difference in how we shoot.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Now I might be nuts, but even though it isn't OLED, my 30D's screen seems much easier to see outside than my 20D's.

[The Hardcard]

ISO is most significant for me also. Especially since, currently Canon sensors get 3 to 4 stops of boost above native ISO with very little noise. If ISO 6400 becomes the new ISO 100, then ISO 51200 could become the new ISO 800 and ISO 102400 could become the new ISO 1600!

"When I was young, cameras used to have this light on top, it was called a flash, if I remember correctly.":D

[lon10c]

I really don't have use for any of the options you listed but manufacturers will probally give them (or something like them) to us anyway, therefore; we will have to pay for them one way or the other if we want a new camera.

[Keiffer]

Low noise 6400 I would choose, but they would lose a fortune in fast glass. Take your f4 into a low light area and shoot at your hearts content.

[grego]

Low noise 6400 I would choose, but they would lose a fortune in fast glass. Take your f4 into a low light area and shoot at your hearts content.

Well how much do you like your 3200 currently? I doubt they are really crying over that expensive glass. :p

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I don't get how 6400 ISO will kill f/1.4 etc. lenses. f/1.4 will perform like an f/1.0! Maybe even f/0.95! Imagine...being able to shoot in almost total darkness, with little noise, and get a proper exposure! Can we say "color nightvision"?

[Mr. Pickles]

I vote for better battery capacity, although I don't need it. I think those that "need" or demand cleaner high iso performance are in the same category as any that want to change DOF after the shot. Why?

Did you shoot film? Did you have clean 1600iso images? I think not. Becaus eof digital, we need to never ever see any noise or "grain" again? I liked it. Added character to an image. Heck, an oil painting has "grain" too, and nobody is complaining and wanting to sand the grain down to nothing. I like that an old Pentax K1000 or Canon AE-1 battery lasted for YEARS.

[calicokat]

all the other technologies sound so far fetched at this point, but so did cellular phones and hybrid vehicles fifteen years ago, so who knows what technology has in store for us

[grego]

I vote for better battery capacity, although I don't need it. I think those that "need" or demand cleaner high iso performance are in the same category as any that want to change DOF after the shot. Why?

Did you shoot film? Did you have clean 1600iso images? I think not. Becaus eof digital, we need to never ever see any noise or "grain" again? I liked it. Added character to an image. Heck, an oil painting has "grain" too, and nobody is complaining and wanting to sand the grain down to nothing. I like that an old Pentax K1000 or Canon AE-1 battery lasted for YEARS.

Well, noise in digital is ulgier/not as pleasant as noise in film, though. I really wouldn't care about this 6400 thing, but the 1600 and 3200 can use some refinement, since they are offered already.

[R_Metzel]

ISO gets my vote.

[Chris1le]

I don't get how 6400 ISO will kill f/1.4 etc. lenses. f/1.4 will perform like an f/1.0! Maybe even f/0.95! Imagine...being able to shoot in almost total darkness, with little noise, and get a proper exposure! Can we say "color nightvision"?

Umm... What are we going to take a pictures of in almost total darkness? Properly exposed it will still be dark wont it? ;) :lol:

[ibdb]

Umm... What are we going to take a pictures of in almost total darkness? Properly exposed it will still be dark wont it? ;) :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
My thoughts exactly!

[storeman]

I go for the ISO as well.

Although they still wouldn't have the same shallow DOF as the wide aperture lenses, this would in effect make all lenses effective in low light. As for liquid Lenses, sounds good but can they control the defraction and CA consistently. By definition, the substance that makes up the liquid would be able to flow even in a sealed container which could alter the properties of the lens on a second by second basis by minutely altering the defraction of the light passing through it. I expect that they will be controlling it electrically which could make the control of the liquid consistent but I think I would prefer to invest in that technology when it is tried, tested and proven. I'll let the rich kids with money to burn beta test those babies.

OLED - Nothing beats the real view through an optical viewfinder. My minute VF on the 350D beats any display at the moment. Until there is a viewfinder that looks as natural as an optical then I really only want it for previewing.

Hydrogen Cells. 30% more capacity. Well a higher capacity Li-ion battery can give you 30%+ more capacity already and for a lot less money. If they could give you say 500%+ more capacity then maybe it would be worth the investment. Carrying around a couple of extra batteries for the grip plus the extra one already in the grip gives me over 300% extra shooting time for a reasonable outlay and very small extra weight to carry around.

Wavefront encoding: Hard to understand how you can alter the DOF after the event in ways that cannot already be achieved in PP. It would be reasonably easy to encompass existing technology to decrease DOF but how can they alter the sharpness of an image shot with a 50MM f1.4 wide open to look as if it was shot fully stopped down?

I know the designers of these things are far more knowledgable in these things than I am but it seems hard to belive that wavegate encoding can bring that much extra to a camera. After saying that though, I remember when the first digital cameras hit the shops. Yes they were an amazing technology at the time but the resolution was horrendous and nobody thought digital could ever threaten the 35mm market. Both 35mm SLR or 35mm compact would reign supreme in the consumer market.

One thing for certain is that technology will evolve and when current techniques have reached their limits, another will spring up to furthe push the boundaries. The technologies of the future will make todays state of the art cameras as technologically advanced as pinhole cameras.

[Carzee]

...current techniques have reached their limits, another will spring up to further push the boundaries. The technologies of the future will make todays state of the art cameras as technologically advanced as pinhole cameras.

ok, what about online help thru the camera body somehow. yeah, the viewfinders get an IP address and we log on to "assist" members who tick the option. So then you're onsite shooting and looking for instant C & C from POTN..

"Go in tighter, open the aperature"
"Look its too wide, go for the 35 instead.."
"Get the whole scene, its gives context."

This would be especially useful on glam shoots. :) :)

[SmartImport]

My vote is for wavefront encoding. It's the only technology that would be a real breakthrough. It's not only choosing DOF afterwards, it is choosing the focus point.
Imagine the possibillities: no more focus tracking needed, no need for a complex 40+ focus point AF system, no more out of focus pictures, the possibillity of tilted focus planes without TS lenses - even bended focus planes could be possible, and so on....
I would pay a lot more for this than for extended battery life or high iso values.

Greetings
Helmut

[bonzaisushi]

*Drops lense*

"my water broke" :(

[chtgrubbs]

I'd much rather have moderately priced prime wide-angle lenses that are full resolution out to the corners. Seems to be a much more pressing issue than fuel cells!

[Mark Kemp]

50 or 60 years (maybe)

5000 or 6000 megapixel or more cameras the size of a button. Cheap, low quality plastic fish eye lens but who cares the software can fix it with all those pixels. 500x Digital zoom, again theres enough pixels to make it work and the software will do it on the fly. Focussing and DOF, wavefront and let the software work it out. Take 50 or 60 frames a second all the time and store say 10 years worth (technology should be up to it) The only skill might be in picking which ones to keep permanently.

[mbellot]

My vote is for ISO6400 (or higher) and also lower would be nice since I'm stuck at 100 for my bottom end without messing with EC.


Liquid/water lenses sound intriquing, but what about dust? Now instead of a fixed bit of dust that you may (or may not) need to PP out you'll have a dynamic image blemish.

Who's up for a round of where's Dusto? Only no red and white striped shirt to help out on this one. :lol:


I'd rather see a 17-70 (85) 2.8 IS (EF-S if need be) with build quality and IQ on par with the current 17-85 IS in the sub $1000 range.

Now that would be a breakthrough I would care about.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Umm... What are we going to take a pictures of in almost total darkness? Properly exposed it will still be dark wont it? ;) :lol:

Properly exposed, according to the camera, a picture in darkness will look like day. Like when you take a shot right after sunset at f/1.4 of someone, and it looks like middle of the day. Shouldn't be a hard theory to grasp. ;-)

[Chris1le]

Properly exposed, according to the camera, a picture in darkness will look like day. Like when you take a shot right after sunset at f/1.4 of someone, and it looks like middle of the day. Shouldn't be a hard theory to grasp. ;-)

Uh No! Properly exposed darkness would be dark. Not a hard theory to grasp at all! What I think you would be be doing is increasing amount of exposure to get a brighter image. Not the true dark image as seen. Again not a hard theory to grasp.

[Coda]

Uh No! Properly exposed darkness would be dark. Not a hard theory to grasp at all! What I think you would be be doing is increasing amount of exposure to get a brighter image. Not the true dark image as seen. Again not a hard theory to grasp.

Uh no. The PP said "according to the camera". The camera will try to lighten the scene to 18% grey, which will be more or less daylight.

Again, not a hard theory to grasp... :p

[ScottE]

It is amazing the number of people who will dismiss new technology without having actually seen what it is possible to develop. None of has seen the future of OLED viewfinders, but many automatically assume that optical will always be better. The same comments were made about digital photography ever being able to compete with film less than 10 years ago. Keep an open mind. The same goes for all the other technology. Some will succeed and some may never advance, but we cannot tell at this time what is possible until the scientists and engineers have had time to work on the end product.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Uh no. The PP said "according to the camera". The camera will try to lighten the scene to 18% grey, which will be more or less daylight.

Again, not a hard theory to grasp... :p

Exactly. Like when you have a lens cap on. Put it in AV mode. Your camera will probably get a shutter speed of about 4 seconds or more. Now...if it weren't trying to expose it correctly (by my theory), why wouldn't it pick a fast shutter and expose it for the blackness it is?

Think of people that may use, for example, a 135 f/2L at a basketball game. Now...you're probably not looking to expose the shot so that it looks that dim orange color like most gyms are. No..you want it exposed brighter and whiter, like daytime, so to speak. Certainly not dark. That's why we buy fast lenses. If we wanted it exposed how it looks to our eye, we'd buy 5.6 lenses and use slower shutter speeds.

Once again...not a hard theory. ;-)

[Jon]

Bad example Ronald. You're referencing white balance; the camera's always going to try (within the limits imposed by available shutter speed, aperture, and ISO setting) to give you a picture that averages to 18% grey overall. If it can't extend those far enough to collect enough photons, you'll get black, or very dark grey. The orange light is due to sodium lights or incandescents - that's what we white balance for. And most people are using the fast lenses to stop motion with a high shutter speed and to focus faster, not to get a brighter picture. Set a camera up on a tripod and take pictures with two lenses of different max. aperture but the same focal length and (lens quality aside) you'd need to check the EXIF to see which one took which picture. Say the 135 f/2 and the 28-135 IS (f/5.6 at the slow end). Or take two shots, one wide open and the other stopped down with the same fast lens.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Well, I more meant just dim...not orange. I just meant that it would seem you'd rather want a bright shot, to look as though it were lit quite nicely, than a dim, underexposed shot to show what it really looked like, no?

As for...
And most people are using the fast lenses to stop motion with a high shutter speed and to focus faster, not to get a brighter picture.

I completely agree. However, to get that bright, well exposed shot on a slow lens, you'd need a slower shutter speed. You only get one or the other with slow lenses. With a fast lens, you get a well exposed shot, as well as fast shutter speed. Fast will always win...for me, anyway.

[Jon]

Yes, "you'd want", but so far meters all assume 18% grey, so it matters not to the meter what aperture, shutter speed or ISO you use; it'll strive for that middle grey overall. It's the human element that they haven't gotten to duplicating in the camera yet; ISO 6400 in a coal bin at midnight will still be trying to give you a grey, not a black, picture.

[CyberDyneSystems]

ISO all the way...
And add In-Body IS :)

[Chris1le]

Okay let me get this straight. If I take a picture at night and the camera exposes it to look like mid-afternoon that is a proper exposure?

A higher ISO will simply help the camera properly expose the available light with faster shutter speeds and the added ability to use smaller apertures to increase DOF if desired. That is also the reason we now buy fast lenses for the increase in shutter speed in low light conditions. I'm for the increase in ISO. Hopefully an increase in Dynamic Range is also included.

I've understood your "theory" from the beginning. I just do not agree with it.:cool: :)

[Longwatcher]

I picked Liquid lenses because I want the best picture possible and I see that technology as giving it to me. The theory behind liquid lenses allows for basically having a zoom, but being able to configure the lens as you would a prime lens. Also being able to optimize the lens for each aperture (think near-perfect image in the corners at f1.2 - it could be perfect but there is a human involved in the process). If you could have a lens that was properly designed for each specific focal length and aperture wouldn't that make a difference. Essentially the MTF curves should be nearly flat and at the top. On top of everything else you could also optimize the lens for the camera it was on (an added bonus)
While in theory you would only need one lens to get from fisheye to over 600mm zoom, I suspect there will be three ranges of liquid lenses at least initially.

Wide (say 8mm to 50mm equivilant)
Normal (say 35mm to 200mm equivilant)
Long (say 85 to 500mm equivilant)
Although beyond about 400 it may be cheaper to just stick with what exists because of weight.

As to the others I list them in the desired order of want:

- Low noise native 6400 ISO: of course this is good as I get more good shots in low light.

- OLED viewfinder with on-the-fly-histogram: being able to see exposure via histogram on the fly would be very useful, but I can live without it for awhile.

- Hydrogen-fueled cells: I already get over 3000 images on a battery, like I need more. Also what hazards are associated with recharging hydrogen fuel batteries or are they expendables (You think your printer ink is expensive). Although if you just need to add hydrogen how much would the refill cost. If charged normally (like a conventional battery) then I am all for them extra power is extra power - I could leave IS turned on on my 100-400.

- Wavefront encoding (DoF to choose afterwards): While I like this technology, having read the white paper on it, while it looks promising eventually, the other four technologies are ready for development into practical applications, Wavefront encoding is still in the college experiment stage (think 15-20 years before it becomes practical and affordable - maybe less, maybe more)

So my first choice would be liquid lenses, but I suspect we will get ISO 6400 noiseless first because the marketing people will go to where they percieve the greatist market is at. Me though I want better lenses over lower light, even 6400 won't get me where I need to go in low light.

[superdiver]

#1 ISO at 6400 and no or little noise !!!! hands down...

#2 liquid lens cuz as I understand it it would give a very good telephoto lens and much smaller size and more affordable (Imaybe I am reading things into this, but it sounds good to me)

#3, 4, & 5 would be 6400 ISO for me....LOL

[CyberDyneSystems]

Okay let me get this straight. If I take a picture at night and the camera exposes it to look like mid-afternoon that is a proper exposure?

Yep.. if the camera was not trying to get all images to be uniformly lit,. we could set a single exposure setting for the shutter and leave it there forever,. if the environment were too dark,. then that's what the image would show.. too dark. if it were too bright,. then you'd get too brite..

This is what are eyes try to do as well..

[Ronald S. Jr.]

see? Simple theory. :lol: Ok, I'm done. Honest. I just couldn't explain it like CDS could. :p

[xepherys]

I had to go with hydrogen fuel cells, but only because the practicality of OTHER devices they'd also improve. For cameras alone, I'd go with the higher ISO.

[peterdoomen]

(think 15-20 years before it becomes practical and affordable - maybe less, maybe more)



That also depends on how much resources camera manufacturers are willing to spend... which in turn might be dependent at least partially on how many people are replying to this poll with "wavefront encoding"... I hope ;)

P.

[curryjc@ktc.com]

Hydrogen cells release water to work. Not the most compatible thing with electronics.

[René Damkot]

I choose a usable ISO 6400.
Then again, I'ld much rather have better (more accurate & faster) low light AF (say, down to EV -2), some CFn changes/ additions (like a CFn4b to decouple AE and AF completely).
Further wishes: Better rear display, built in wireless flash transmitter, ETTL3, built in IS (which won't happen), usable mirror lock up, and the return of DEP mode. Also some new lenses (50/1.2L, 24-70 /2.8 L IS ?) would be nice.
New batteries: lighter with the same capacity would be nice. As well as good low temparature performance and no memory effect.
Liquid lenses: Lighter is nice. As long as they are fast and good IQ. I don't need a 'megazoom f/5.6'
Wavefront encoding: This one will take a while I think. (At least if you want > 6Mp)
OLED VF: Never felt the need for an electronic VF. Then again, never came across a decent one...

[peterdoomen]

built in wireless flash transmitter

Good point. Couldn't be too hard to integrate into an SLR-sized body.

P.

[RJCONKLIN]

i would like liquid lenses and hydrogen fuel cell batteries! maybe 20 years from now? today i will settle for the mondane, like sonys anti shake built into the camera and ultrasonic sensor cleaner.

[rdenney]

The article sounded more like PC Photo's priority list than Canon's. But perhaps Mr. Westfall provided the questions.

Higher native ISO has real photographic implications, making higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures possible in more situations. That will open the door to getting better service from slower lenses, and that will bring down prices for good glass. Plus, I think it's a little more attainable than those other technologies in the near future.

I have no interest in a smaller camera, which was the object of several of those features. I prefer larger and heavier cameras because they are more stable.

What I want is not more technology. I want cheaper technology. Price the 5D and its logical successors at under $1000, and I'll upgrade more often.

Rick "who hopes technological improvement will give us bigger, cheaper sensors" Denney

[jsimon724]

Give me back eye-control focus and I'll be happy!

[peterdoomen]

Give me back eye-control focus and I'll be happy!

I sometimes think about that as well... though it seems that eye-control focus is not suitable for everybody. Some people's eyes simply move too fast and are difficult to track. It can also be a hindrance so you need to be able to turn it off.

P.

[CyberDyneSystems]

In the EOS cameras that had Eyecontrolled focus you certainly could turn it off..
The EOS 3 either operated exactly like the current 1D's AF system,. or that system with the eye control if you wanted it.

[petrolhead]

Star Trek style teleportation :mrgreen:

[DocFrankenstein]

Circular shutter which can make video as well as 16mp stills.

The hollywood cinama camera AND a 1Ds MkII in one compact package.

I'm not crazy about ISO 6400 - you can't shoot in the sun... of flash sync... I'd rather have natural ISO 50, but 16 bits of useful information in the raw file. :D

[karusel]

Imagine ISO 6400 + 85mm f/1.2.

[peterdoomen]

I'm not crazy about ISO 6400 - you can't shoot in the sun... of flash sync... I'd rather have natural ISO 50, but 16 bits of useful information in the raw file. :D

mmm... of course they would provide ISO 6400 as well as ISO 100-200, not?

Otherwise: time to buy some real slow lenses then!

P.

[DocFrankenstein]

mmm... of course they would provide ISO 6400 as well as ISO 100-200, not?
Not if the native sensitivity is 6400

They'd put an option for an ND filter though... Six stops of light cut off and voila - you're shooting in the sun again.

[peterdoomen]

Not if the native sensitivity is 6400

They'd put an option for an ND filter though... Six stops of light cut off and voila - you're shooting in the sun again.

Exactly what I was thinking. Kind of adjustable ND filter on a native 6400 sensor. Hey, why stick with stops? Why not an electronically adjustable, stepless ND filter right on the sensor?

Canon has some work to do to maintain their leader position... :)

P.