The Next Digital SLR Price/Performance Milestone

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Summer Wind, Dec 10, 2006.

  1. Summer Wind

    Summer Wind Guest

    What's the current thinking on when the next digital SLR price/performance
    milestone will be reached? In three years, will a Canon Digital Rebel have
    the same specs as today's EOS-1Ds? What is the limiting factor that's
    holding back the next price break? Will the gap between consumer and pro
    gear become more narrow in the future?

    SW
     
    Summer Wind, Dec 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Summer Wind

    Jim Townsend Guest

    The next milestone is a full frame DSLR for $1000 USD
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Summer Wind

    Dave Cohen Guest

    I'll tell you in three years if I'm still around. Just what is the point
    of this type of post anyway.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Dec 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Summer Wind

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Not sure what the next milestone is, but what I'd like to see is some
    simplification, and some variations on the current crop, with models
    designed for specific shooting styles and results. For example, how about a
    FF model similar to the 5D with three times the resolution? Yes, I know,
    noise will rise, but for studio shooting and landscapes where high ISOs
    aren't necessary, why not? And how about a return to buttons and sliders
    (I'm thinking of a control system similar to the Pentax 645 NII) for most
    major functions rather than the ridiculous menu systems that plague most
    digicams? What about a digicam that can shoot IR? Without needing major
    surgery? I like my SLR, but there's lots I'd like to see change.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 10, 2006
    #4
  5. Summer Wind

    Rich Guest

    The cardboard, one-use DSLR the size of a Sony P&S. The Nikon D40 and
    Canon Rebel XTi are a step in that direction.
     
    Rich, Dec 10, 2006
    #5
  6. Sigh.
     
    Charles Schuler, Dec 10, 2006
    #6
  7. Summer Wind

    daba6 Guest

    I kind of both agree and yet disagree with Kinon on the simplification
    issue - but maybe not in the sense that he/she is referring to. IMO,
    there are too many technology variants, and manufacturers going off in
    their own direction

    The milestone that I'd LIKE to see is a greater degree of industry
    standardisation, not just in the slr category, but in all digital
    cameras.
    For example, more manufacturers using the same sized sensor - not
    necessarily full frame (although would be nice) - but all with the
    same field-of-view factor, and same ISO-to-noise ratio characteristics,
    same no. of megapixels on the sensor, compatible lens mount. The
    Four-Thirds concept that Olympus, Panasonic / Leica, and Sigma use is
    sort of a step in the right direction.
    Given that 10 MP cameras can now pretty well reproduce more detail than
    what I would consider most likely hobbyist / casual camera users would
    ever need, and even 12 to 16 MP can pretty well satisfy most
    professionals, do we really need to keep pushing up the MPs ? (apart
    from being ahead of the competition)
    And why couldn't they all use the same media card type as well, instead
    of Sony running mainly memory sticks, some using Compact Flash, some
    using Secure Digital, some using X-media cards, etc, etc

    Look at the standards that film cameras had. All cameras of the same
    format type used the same size film, so any roll of 35mm film could
    fit in any 35mm camera, any roll of 120 film could be used in any
    medium format camera, any sheet of 4x5" film could be used in any 4x5
    camera.
    And the degree of interchangeability of lenses between 4x5 cameras -
    basically any Schneider / Rodenstock / Nikkor / Fujinon largeformat
    lens could be fitted to just about any brand of large-format camera
    lens board. And similar interchangeability in 35mm, by the use of
    adaptors - a la Tamron / Sigma / Novoflex etc

    Could there not be - if there is not already - a group of industry
    'gurus/ experts" to sit down and nut out a set standard of what ALL
    digital cameras should have and be able to do, (like with the EXIF,
    JPEG file standards) in terms of camera capabilities, performance
    (sensor size - and FoV factor, ISO-to-noise levels, one type of media
    card, White Balance setting performance, a realistically minimum amount
    of optical and digital zoom, ... ...).
    To me there seems to be a sad lack of industry consistency in these
    areas , making it too difficult for buyers to have to choose between
    one make / model and another , when the models are not all equal in
    their specs and capabilities.

    My main bugbear about digital is that to buy any one brand / model of
    digital camera, I basically have to restrict myself as to what lenses
    / memory cards / sensor capability and characteristics that particular
    model uses. Again, the Four-Thirds concept seems to be at least be an
    effort to improve what I'm talking about.

    In my opinion, with film cameras I had choice of models but there was
    more of a level playing field for comparison than with the current
    crop of digital cameras. There may have been plenty of brands of film
    camera to choose from, but I could be sure that most could achieve a
    comparable standard of picture quality, and could all accept the same
    film type in their respective categories, and to an extent, lenses
    could be swapped from one camera to another.

    I realise that there are both pros and cons for more standardisation,
    but in my opinion more pros. I am also aware that some standardisation
    is occurring through industry competitiveness, but we need more.
    I'm not trying to stifle competition, but increase it through quality
    and performance, rather than type /size / format of sensor.

    Any constructive arguments welcomed.

    D.B.
     
    daba6, Dec 11, 2006
    #7
  8. I would expect improvements in the ADC Pentax now has a 22 bit ADC so in
    three years, perhaps 48 bit. I expect improvements in the camera
    internal bus speed and processing to a point faster than the average 9
    mbps that dSLR now do. What's the point of 20 and 40 mbps CF/SD cards
    when the cameras only do 9 mbps.

    The Nikon D30 Canon XTiii might to live view and video to attract more
    entry level users.

    As for FF few FF cameras sell, The Canon 5D sits on the shelves for
    months, whereas the XTi D5, D40, K100D move out in days. Look at the D40
    to see the future.

    Remember it's the Marketing people that decide.
     
    Not Disclosed, Dec 11, 2006
    #8
  9. Summer Wind

    acl Guest


    But what improvements do you expect these higher bit depth rates to
    bring? 22bits would be enough to count more than 4 million electrons. We
    won't have sensors with this kind of full well capacities any time soon
    (unless they start using 64*64 micron^2 sized pixels). And if for
    processing, a) Could you show me the results of insufficient bit depth?
    b) If yes, do you believe that this could not be prevented by simply
    processing in (eg) 22 bits (but still using a 12 or 14 bit ADC)? In
    short, can you explain what the advantage of a higher bit depth ADC will
    be? (if possible, can you also explain why, eg "better tonal gradations"
    is ok but "better tonal gradations because blah blah" is better).

    Although I must admit I would not be surprised if the next race bet
    camera manufacturers would be 16 bit ADC, 22 bit ADC, 48 bit ADC and so
    on (throwing away lots of processing power all the while).

    I guess more bits could be useful to get rid of the need to change ISO
    when shooting RAW. We'll see.

    Thanks.
     
    acl, Dec 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Summer Wind

    Paul J Gans Guest

    With a decent sensor. One could probably do a FF DSLR for
    that in a year or two but the sensor might be crap.

    The problem is, I think, sensor yeilds at the required
    well density and well depth to do a decent job are not
    easily or cheaply come by.
     
    Paul J Gans, Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.