Superzoom, slayer of the SLR?

[usayit]

I think a super zoom can...

but

it wouldn't be a P&S any longer (at least by our definition today).... Just like the new Micro-4/3rds format, there will be a melding of technologies between the high end P&S and DSLR.

It doesn't matter if it is a small compact EVF based camera, P&S, DSLR, or whatever is currently on someone's R&D desk. If the quality, functionality, and features are right, there will be some forward movement towards changes in the marketplace. DSLRs as we know it will be around for years because of current investments in lenses and equipment that all transitioned to digital from 35mm film days.

A complete demise of DSLRs? Probably not.... just like medium format and their digital counterparts still have a place.

 

[Bifurcator]

Finally market that the SLRs fill is one of control over your image. Suppose for a moment that the lenses are good quality, and sensors are ideal and noise free. One thing you still have with a point and shoot is a tiny sensor causing low depth of field. If one wishes to create depth of field they need to increase the aperture of the lens (good luck on those ones) or increase the sensor size (like the SLRs). Now you have a market situation where one has an obscenely bulky lens 36-432 f/2.7 would be MASSIVE. The appeal of the small point and shoot is lost.

They won't have consumer appeal, but they definitely won't be neglected by their creators, nor will they be of "box camera" status in my opinion.

Digitally enhanced DOF blur?

 

[JerryPH]

Digitally enhanced DOF blur?

Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.

 

[table1349]

Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.

Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur? :lmao:

A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs.

 

[skieur]

Interesting thoughts, but I don't think the "Super-zooms" will ever replace SLRs. I can see SLRs as we know them be supplanted by an as yet unknown technology, but the simple fact is, Super-zooms are geared to the low/mid-range consumer market, and lack the versatility and build-quality of a good SLR. I can however see where they might eat into the entry-level SLR market, but not the prosumer or pro end.

Oh, I don't know about that. Superzooms are already quieter without the mirrors and vibration of DSLRS. The technology just came on line to make a gigapixel camera chip possible to produce almost 3D images. Some innovations in lens design could certainly make a small superzoom that could handle from wide angle to extreme telephoto and macro with a super IQ and no picture noise extremely useful and a necessary backup for most pros and probably even their primary camera on some shoots.

Not having to change lenses at all and maintaining the same image quality of DSLRs, for example, would certainly cause the market for DSLRs to drop like a rock. Not possible now, but certainly not impossible given the fast improvements in technology that are occuring.

skieur

 

[epp_b]

Superzooms are already quieter without the mirrors and vibration of DSLRS.

So? Superzooms don't have real viewfinders. It's a long way off before tiny LCDs can replace viewfinders.

 

[prodigy2k7]

The largest reason why those P&S cameras they cost so little is because of their tiny sensor size. We all know what tiny sensors do... If you have a P&S camera, you know how much noise they produce when bumping the ISO

 

[prodigy2k7]

I don't really think that's going to happen... Just simply due to sensor size. P&S's don't have the IQ of a SLR, and they never will, because their sensors are too small. Increase sensor size, and you get a camera that doesn't have 400 mm (equiv.) range. In order to keep that, you have to increase lense size - and then you get a absurdly huge P&S.
Na... SLR's will stay around.

Thats exactly what I wanted to say

 

[Bifurcator]

Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.

Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur?

Well if they use IR and UV spectrums they don't need that at all. They can also use microwave radio pulse signals to create a depth map (AKA z-buffer) in order to perform the digital DOF and in that case light amount doesn't matter at all. And this isn't some far fetched futuristic thing either. Some video auto-focus systems already do this. They don't "image" or map the returning signal but that wouldn't be hard to do.

 

[Garbz]

Digitally enhanced DOF blur?

Show me one that looks good. I mean they work great with a DOF map. But if you have 2 lenses to generate a DOF map then you may just as well have a big SLR The rest of the photoshop efforts just seem really poor in comparison.

 

[Bifurcator]

Show me one that looks good.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5021211&postcount=1
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5022065&postcount=2
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=4623367&postcount=1
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=526053

I mean they work great with a DOF map. But if you have 2 lenses to generate a DOF map then you may just as well have a big SLR The rest of the photoshop efforts just seem really poor in comparison.

Nah, you wouldn't need two lenses. Just split it like they do for the AF and metering systems now. But I dunno if I would claim CG DOF blur was bad. It can be sure but I guess about 70% or 80% of the DOF rack effects and blur we see in motion picture films is computer generated - and mostly without a depth map. Depth maps in combination with contrast and edge detection algorithms would speed things up tremendously and allow for the camera computer to make intelligent decisions about what to blur and how much. I mean these cameras have dual CPUs in them now - I think it could be done.

 

[JerryPH]

Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur? :lmao:

A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs.

Exactly!

 

[djacobox372]

I don't really think that's going to happen... Just simply due to sensor size. P&S's don't have the IQ of a SLR, and they never will, because their sensors are too small. Increase sensor size, and you get a camera that doesn't have 400 mm (equiv.) range. In order to keep that, you have to increase lense size - and then you get a absurdly huge P&S.
Na... SLR's will stay around.

Great point! So many people forget that it's the crop factor that enables P&S to achieve long zooms.... an image will always look best when taken through the largest possible glass on the largest possible sensor, regardless of the technology used.

Of course human vision is a limiting factor, which will make large sensor cameras like current dslrs more of a specialty tool in the future--similar to 4x5 view cameras.

 

[skieur]

So? Superzooms don't have real viewfinders. It's a long way off before tiny LCDs can replace viewfinders.

Oh, real viewfinders require vibration and mirror flapping?

skieur

 

[Garbz]

But I dunno if I would claim CG DOF blur was bad. It can be sure but I guess about 70% or 80% of the DOF rack effects and blur we see in motion picture films is computer generated - and mostly without a depth map. Depth maps in combination with contrast and edge detection algorithms would speed things up tremendously and allow for the camera computer to make intelligent decisions about what to blur and how much. I mean these cameras have dual CPUs in them now - I think it could be done.

Yeah I should have really said MOST of them look crap. The third one is actually very convincing, but something seems off about the first two. That said I wonder how long it took.

A hardware solution would be perfectly acceptable if it could be made. I guess the range finder focusing systems could be adapted to this type of purpose. What I was mainly talking about is post processing DoF in software only without a DoF map is either crap or rarely worth the effort.

There are people here who don't spend the 5 minutes to run their photos through a RAW converter let alone spend the time to do a DOF adjustment. That's where the movie argument falls down too. Post production takes longer than actual filming, something lots of photographers try to avoid. But if a hardware solution comes in to play along with automatic firmware DoF adjustment then I'm sold

I can't for the life of me find it but I remember reading an article about a Phd student who created a camera that takes 3D images where DoF and Focus are photorealistically selected in post processing.