The camera of the future is NOT full frame with a prime lens

[Andrew Reid]

Isn't it time we saw the writing on the wall and got rid of our trad. optics and full frame sensors?

https://www.eoshd.com/news/the-future-of-cameras-is-not-full-frame/

I really do believe it is outdated.

It isn't needed to have such a large sensor or physically heavy big lenses any more.

The physical side of the camera and the advanced controls need to stay.

So how about we merge mirrorless with the smartphone camera world, at a very high level?

And we are the perfect people for the camera industry to consult on this...

Come on Japan let's work together and make it happen.

[MrSMW]

Makes sense and I am sure that is where we are heading and could be heading there a lot quicker other than for the fact that most people and most companies are possibly too conservative?

Anything like this would put a massive number of people (and businesses) out of work so there would be obvious resistance.

However, those factors aside, I’d love to get rid of a bag of lenses from this perspective.

It’s a direction I have sort of taken, especially in the stills side of my work with a bigger sensor in a smaller body and cropping, eliminating the need for at least what would have been my previous longest lens.

Plus compact powerful lights.

It’s not AI as such, but I have moved as much as I can on more of the physical side of ‘miniaturization’ as I realistically can.

A single camera/lens combo would be very welcome! 

If I could also be one of those flown all expenses paid to try out the AR-2030X in a few years time, I’d be up for it.

[Phil A]

The Light camera that was hyped a decade ago would have really hit this spot. Too bad that never panned out.

I used to shoot a Canon EOS 1Ds III with assorted L glass when traveling... now I am already frustrated by carrying a X-H2s with 2 lenses around on trips. Can't wait for the same results with smaller/less gear.

[Andrew Reid]

22 hours ago, Phil A said:

The Light camera that was hyped a decade ago would have really hit this spot. Too bad that never panned out.

I used to shoot a Canon EOS 1Ds III with assorted L glass when traveling... now I am already frustrated by carrying a X-H2s with 2 lenses around on trips. Can't wait for the same results with smaller/less gear.

The Light camera was a good example of the concept done badly.

It needs to be done in such a way that the traditional camera experience, with viewfinder and camera menus (NOT ANDROID) is preserved entirely.

All that changes outwardly is that the full frame sensor becomes 3 small ones with 3 modules (12mm, 24mm, 85mm), and AI does the rest. No more lenses. It would look like a normal Sony a1 with a pancake lens on the front.

[MrSMW]

And anyone remember this?

I thought it would be the answer to the single unit body zoom lens…except 4mp.

But 4” rear LCD!

These things always bomb.

Zeiss was another but ‘only’ a 35mm fixed lens killed that one for me, but internal SSD!

If it had something like a 28-70 zoom…

[zlfan]

on my YouTube channel, I did a rough statistical analysis on the upvotes, 80% from go pro 12, 15% from magic lantern cams, 5% from f3 and red m-x cams. 

when I use go pro 12, my style is very different, as I know the camera movements will not reduce the image quality. in almost every shot, I do panning, tilting, walking, etc. also the camera is so small, I can go closer as people accept this as a toy cam. many times I attend events that I will not bring bigger cameras at all, I bring go pro 12 in my pocket, and can get some shots. the end results actually are very compelling. 

magic lantern cameras are very good for color. f3 is also very good for color, just ergonomically not easy to handle. red m-x cameras may have film like rendering so that please people's eyes. 

in general, I think a small action camera with m43/43 sensor, so that the low light is borderline usable, with gh7's ibis and af, with a pancake lens at f2.8, I doubt people will have other cameras. at least this camera will be used much more frequently than other cameras. 

[zlfan]

from my use on Nikon v1, I doubt the notion that bigger sensor has better dr, as v1's dr is better than many apsc sensors. smaller sensor will have worse low light, that is for sure. bokur wise, I think m43/43 is good enough for most cases, maybe not enough for portrait and fashion. maybe a long lens at 200mm on m43/43 is fine. I use 43 55-200mm hg at 200 mm f3.5, out of focus is actually very nice, and you don't need to worry about half face is out of focus. I think 43/m43 for shallow depth of field seems an optimal format if background still needs to keep some information.  

[sanveer]

Like I mentioned in one of the threads, Nikon was on the path of making THE SENSOR, about 3 years ago. Which, incidentally, happened to be a 1inch sensor. The only issue I can think if, with it, is, probably that its Only 18MP (17.84). Everything else is in the superlative for it, from dynamic range, ro frame rate. 

(http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2021/02/isscc-2021-nikon-1784mp-1000fps-sensor.html?m=1)

 

One advantage of a smaller sensor, is the insane form factor flexibility that it allows cameras to be made into, from the DJI Pocket 3, to Smartphone sized cameras (with even multiple cameras or collapsible zooms), or tiny Point and Shoots with great manual control. 

 

Maybe someone can make a l16 Light type of Camera with multiple 1inch Sensors, but without attempting to fuse images. They could have multiple cameras with difference zoom ranges, with cameras whose angles can be changed, to be able to record wide and mid, and other angles, simultaneously. 

[Emanuel]

On 8/4/2024 at 6:54 PM, zlfan said:

on my YouTube channel, I did a rough statistical analysis on the upvotes, 80% from go pro 12, 15% from magic lantern cams, 5% from f3 and red m-x cams. (...)

Where? Can you post a link, please? :- )

[KaiS]

That’s something I have long thought, even before smart phone cameras got multi-lens arrays.

A “real” camera, built without the space restrictions that you find in a smartphone, combined with the intelligence and processing power of a smartphone would be total game changer.

As trivial as this sounds, no one has done it up to today.

[Ilkka Nissila]

On 8/3/2024 at 2:42 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Isn't it time we saw the writing on the wall and got rid of our trad. optics and full frame sensors?

https://www.eoshd.com/news/the-future-of-cameras-is-not-full-frame/

I really do believe it is outdated.

It isn't needed to have such a large sensor or physically heavy big lenses any more.

The physical side of the camera and the advanced controls need to stay.

So how about we merge mirrorless with the smartphone camera world, at a very high level?

And we are the perfect people for the camera industry to consult on this...

Come on Japan let's work together and make it happen.

I thought that Super 35 mm was the traditional format for cinema, not 35 mm full frame, and video cameras used much smaller formats in the past, but buyers seem to have largely rejected those, except for many professionals (those shooting sports for TV, etc.). 35mm full frame is a relatively new format when it comes to video and things have moved up from smaller formats to 35 mm, likely mainly for the reason of hybridization where the objective is for one camera to both video and stills, whether this makes sense or not.

For (still) photography, 35 mm is has been considered a small format (mainly suitable for family snapshots, photojournalism, and action) and ignoring cost constraints, I think it would be preferable to use larger formats such as medium format in many cases, to get exquisite detail, tonality and colour, and differentiate from the everyday smartphone camera user. The problem is, larger than 35 mm sensors are expensive, especially if wanting sensors that approximate medium format film such as 645. I love the rich colour and tonality of the larger formats, and the robust detail in large prints. Unfortunately the technology that has been developed to make photography easier, faster and more precise, is mostly available only in the smaller formats, in particular, 35 mm. As for the size of the camera, no pain, no gain. If something is easy and painless, others have already done it (likely better than you would) and there is no reward, financial or otherwise. To get a reward, you need to do things others are not willing to or comfortable doing, things that are messy and uncomfortable and smell of work rather than just having fun. Such as collecting the garbage, fixing people's teeth, lawyering, r carrying a lot of lighting and camera equipment. That's the difference between working and casual happy snapping. If something is easy and fun, no one is going to pay a penny for you to do it, because billions of people want to have fun and are delighted to do it for free.

I think most serious amateurs and professionals rejected the smaller formats for still photography and want the higher quality, low-light possibilities, shallow depth of field etc. of 35 mm (full frame). For video, I think 35mm is excessive and unnecessary but since companies want two for the price of one, the size of the sensor is dictated by the stills side and video goes along with it. Other formats are available and if people choose them, manufacturers will follow the money. So far it seems the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera buyers deliberately choose manufacturers who offer full frame 35 mm as option in the lineup, and those manufacturers who focus exclusively on the smaller formats have a very small combined market share. The manufacturers accept the customers' wishes and put their efforts on the larger formats (such as 35 mm) as a result.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 8/6/2024 at 2:20 AM, KaiS said:

That’s something I have long thought, even before smart phone cameras got multi-lens arrays.

A “real” camera, built without the space restrictions that you find in a smartphone, combined with the intelligence and processing power of a smartphone would be total game changer.

As trivial as this sounds, no one has done it up to today.

There is a software problem. Android is too heavy for a camera operating system, except if somene makes a VERY lightweight and specialized fork - and I guess that for use the original Android apps, would be not lightweight enough.

Maybe someone should give Tizen another look - just for the interface part. About apps, there should be a basic editor on camera, and social media posting would be much better be done by some kind of server that receives the pictures with login credentials and post it on social media; but nowadays almost all social media don't have anymore exernal APIs (because ads).

Pixii is doing very interesting things with Linux in their cameras, but is far from smartphones.

[zlfan]

On 8/5/2024 at 2:17 PM, Emanuel said:

Where? Can you post a link, please? :- )

I know you are an experienced dp, actually I am honored that you are interested to see my footage as you only want to see very high quality product as I can tell. just I want to keep anonymous on this forum, so that I can speak freely. I truly appreciate your interest, bow to you. 

[infocusimag3s]

Interesting topic. I think that technology when used properly can bring and does bring big leaps in 'better' for most things. Eliminating full frame I believe is more in your genre than all of them. As a hybrid shooter I respect micro 4/3's and apsc however the quality isnt equal to each of those comparitively so, and definitely not to FF. As far as cost for FF glass vs others? Im not sure thats quite correct. Canon EF FF glass arguably is some of the better on the market and is by far more cost competitive to others. Probably why they make adapters for other mfg's to put that glass on their cameras. Fuji is great glass for example but their red badge XF is no gift price. Panasonics Leica M4/3 glass isnt exactly cheap either. Dont get me wrong, I know youre talking from 10K feet and you have some inetersting points but I'd say FF is well worth it for specific genre's and when done right on building a kit is just as competitive. IMHO. 

[Andrew Reid]

14 hours ago, infocusimag3s said:

Interesting topic. I think that technology when used properly can bring and does bring big leaps in 'better' for most things. Eliminating full frame I believe is more in your genre than all of them. As a hybrid shooter I respect micro 4/3's and apsc however the quality isnt equal to each of those comparitively so, and definitely not to FF.

Yes I agree with that, but this is the current traditional way of looking at image generation as a raw product of sensor and lens.

In the future, the sensor and lens will be merely there to set the template to embellish from.

They will capture the reality - with a deep DOF and a lot of detail, in a clinical form - and the "final render"will be done with software. Would you like a Noctilux at F1.0? Tap it

Of course this opens up the hellscape of lenses being seen as subscriptions and online services.

But I wouldn't design it like this - I would have them all built in as a one-time purchase with the hardware, with subsequent style transfers added in firmware updates throughout the life of the camera.

14 hours ago, infocusimag3s said:

As far as cost for FF glass vs others? Im not sure thats quite correct. Canon EF FF glass arguably is some of the better on the market and is by far more cost competitive to others.

EF? Sure, not RF though - which is what you need for the optimal performance on a current Canon mirrorless system.

Then the cost goes up very significantly.

And so does the weight.

With my camera design, all of that is irrelevant and the annoying need to remove a prime and attach a zoom during a shoot, also dies a death.

14 hours ago, infocusimag3s said:

Probably why they make adapters for other mfg's to put that glass on their cameras. Fuji is great glass for example but their red badge XF is no gift price. Panasonics Leica M4/3 glass isnt exactly cheap either. Dont get me wrong, I know youre talking from 10K feet and you have some inetersting points but I'd say FF is well worth it for specific genre's and when done right on building a kit is just as competitive. IMHO. 

You're talking about today's market, yes?

I'm pointing to what the next market should be.

That is if any of the manufacturers are brave enough to start... Which currently, they are not.

It will take someone with far less skin in the existing game to come along to get the ball rolling.

[kye]

Talk is about lens emulation, but it demonstrates the capabilities of the new Resolve 19 to mask the foreground and background in order to process with blurs etc.  Both the Magic Mask and Depth Map plugins are used, which I think are both AI.  

Not perfect, but getting better with each release, and if used sparingly on the right shots then I think they're already usable.

 

[D4cl00]

I’m surprised to hear that statement from you Andrew, knowing you love optics so much (at least when going back in time, reading your posts).

Images shot with great, characteristic optics are a different beast from AI-powered, small sensor cameras.

It’ll take a while before fake DoF will use realistic depth fall off and deal with moving hair, etc. It’ll take a while before it can simulate actual lenses. And even then, these effects are ‘post’ and not part of the actual image acquisition phase. 
Which is fine as long as we don’t expect phones to be devices for true professional cinematic productions. 

I agree the writing is on the wall (it has been for years) and consumer and soon prosumer cameras are fine with iPhones and DJI 1” Osmo cameras, but shouldn’t we start to look at full frame DSLRs as professional workhorses for entirely different use cases? 

I haven’t brought my DSLR to any holiday for the last 10 years because it simply sucks to carry such a device when dealing with two kids. 
A $1500 smart phone is super expensive but not that crazy as long as it provides an excellent camera shooting experience.

Meanwhile the Japanese manufacturers keep pushing out hardware that still operates like a 1990s camera with software that provides a 1990s user experience. No real innovation there.

This is why I believe in companies like DJI more - they truly look at the audience of today, face value. They will start to capture the future professional audience, while Apple and Samsung take the low to mid-end.

Meanwhile Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Fuji will serve a shrinking market as long as they keep essentially selling the same stuff as they have been doing for decades 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, D4cl00 said:

Meanwhile the Japanese manufacturers keep pushing out hardware that still operates like a 1990s camera with software that provides a 1990s user experience. No real innovation there.

Sadly, that seems to very much be the case. There has been some innovation but it never seems to sell and the market seem to like conservative as much as the manufacturer.

1 hour ago, D4cl00 said:

This is why I believe in companies like DJI more - they truly look at the audience of today, face value. They will start to capture the future professional audience, while Apple and Samsung take the low to mid-end.

Maybe, or instead, wake up some of the others.

1 hour ago, D4cl00 said:

Meanwhile Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Fuji will serve a shrinking market as long as they keep essentially selling the same stuff as they have been doing for decades 

Indeed…unless again, as above, other more progressive companies act as a wake up call and the sleeping giants are woken finally and called to action. Or go extinct one by one.

[Davide DB]

On 8/15/2024 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Reid said:

I'm pointing to what the next market should be.

That is if any of the manufacturers are brave enough to start... Which currently, they are not.

It will take someone with far less skin in the existing game to come along to get the ball rolling.

You are asking a pastry chef to become a pizza maker.

No it doesn't work. These companies will die like this.

The market changes because someone else comes in from next door and routs everything.

That's what happened with Apple in the world of telephony.

None of Apple's current competitors in smartphones existed before the invention of the iphone. Look what happened to Nokia.

A company has to come in and break the rules from the outside. Current camera manufacturers are only capable of reiterating themselves. It is in the nature of things.

 

 

[Davide DB]

On 9/16/2024 at 6:01 AM, D4cl00 said:

This is why I believe in companies like DJI more - they truly look at the audience of today, face value. They will start to capture the future professional audience, while Apple and Samsung take the low to mid-end.

Maybe it's a huge BS buy it fits perfectly in our discussion 

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/i-missed-that-crazy-rumor-dji-and-huawei-partnership-withe-the-possibility-of-launching-a-new-mirrorless-camera-system/