Interesting Bloomberg piece on the future of photography

[brunerww]

Money quote: "The shift to smartphones could be similar to the transition from film to digital photography, which weeded out companies slow to adapt."

Smartphone Cameras at 41 Megapixels Pressure Canon, Nikon - Bloomberg

 

[goodguy]

Can anyone please explain to me why the heck anybody would want a smartphone that has 41MP camera ?
I thought people already understood there is no connection between MP count and picture quality.
And why would the normal user need 41MP anyways ?

 

[Overread]

I thought people already understood there is no connection between MP count and picture quality.
And why would the normal user need 41MP anyways ?

1) No they don't - more MP has gone hand in hand with increased picture quality for a long while now. Whilst its not strictly true that more MP makes things better, the camera manufacturers have ensured that each time they up the MP they also generally up the quality of the final image (especially with in-camera editing on the JPEGs).
As a result of that and marketing the average person ends up assuming that MP is part of the rating of quality of the camera, so more is better

2) Most users don't even NEED the camera at all - if they do they don't need a smartphone - heck most of us here don't need a DSLR either. Need isn't important its want and people always want more than what they have now.

MP is also easy to market - more MP = more quality and bigger photos and more detail and such. That's a pretty easy thing to measure and to compare for the user. Dynamic range scores, pixel pitches, pixel densities etc... are hardly spoken about and the average person doesn't want to bother trying to juggle a dozen or more different variables; they just want something to snap shots at the parties and trips they go on.

 

[brunerww]

Flickr Search: 41mp

Did a search for "41MP" on flickr - some pretty impressive images (alongside a few pictures of those plates of restaurant food that people inexplicably post to Facebook).

My guess is there won't be very many camera-only manufacturers left standing when this is over.

 

[amolitor]

It does pixel binning for noise reduction, and also allows "digital zoom" to be pretty darn effective.

There's lots of reasons for throwing megapixels at the problem. Nokia seems to be trying to make some marketing hay out it as well, but there's some superb technology in play here as well.

 

[SCraig]

Can anyone please explain to me why the heck anybody would want a smartphone that has 41MP camera ?
I thought people already understood there is no connection between MP count and picture quality.
And why would the normal user need 41MP anyways ?

As a blanket statement I disagree with this. If you believe it then take a shot with an old 3mp or 5mp camera and the same thing with your D7100, then print them at, say, 16" X 20" and tell me which looks best. You won't have to look hard.

I do agree that there is a ceiling above which the law of diminishing returns comes into play, but that ceiling is going to vary depending on use. Someone who never does anything but post snapshots on Facebook and someone who regularly prints large prints are going to have vastly different needs. Someone who regularly has to crop their images and someone who never has to crop their images will have different needs.

Flickr Search: 41mp

Did a search for "41MP" on flickr - some pretty impressive images (alongside a few pictures of those plates of restaurant food that people inexplicably post to Facebook).

My guess is there won't be very many camera-only manufacturers left standing when this is over.

There are none now that I can think of. Every camera manufacturer that I can think of is involved in other areas as well. Nikon makes a lot of optics for other uses, Olympus is the prime vendor of endoscopes, Canon makes printers, etc. The days of specializing in a single area are long gone.

 

[Braineack]

Every new iphone has camera improvements for a reason. People use their smart phones as cameras that can connect to the internet and post to social sites, and sometimes place a phone call.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Beside cutting into cam sales, the digital revolution has cut into my social documentary work.

Nowadays when I offer free photos to a prospect they tell me they don't want or need any more pix. The people of today are self-sufficient when it comes to photography. They have cell phone cam and a cheap ink jet printer and don't need anything else.

If I had a smart phone I would have a 41mp as well. But they only can do so much. I still prefer a dedicated cam.

 

[Braineack]

Beside cutting into cam sales, the digital revolution has cut into my social documentary work.

Nowadays when I offer free photos to a prospect they tell me they don't want or need any more pix. The people of today are self-sufficient when it comes to photography. They have cell phone cam and a cheap ink jet printer and don't need anything else.

If I had a smart phone I would have a 41mp as well. But they only can do so much. I still prefer a dedicated cam.

Bring your big boy camera to an event where everyone else only has PNSs and cell phones and you'll get endless emails about where they can download the pics you took.

 

[runnah]

Well this is the future.

I predict cameras in the future will have no moving parts just giant sensors with huge MP counts. Rather than a 400mm lens you just zoom and crop. With a gigapixel sensor it'd be no problem.

Granted this is a series of photos but something like this is very doable with a single image from a phone in the next 10 years.
Gigapixel.com - Vancouver from Fairview at Dusk

 

[amolitor]

It is worth noting that digital zoom behaves differently from actual zoom. You get more DoF, all else being equal.

I don't claim to predict the future of camera tech, but what makes sense is a light field camera with a very high pixel count and excellent dynamic range. Then you can handle the focus, the DoF, and to plus or minus a couple stops in post. The masses will use a couple simple controls: 'make THAT and THAT and THAT in focus, darker, lighter, infinite DoF no wait shallow, cool' that are almost instagramlike in simplicity, and anyone else up to and including the highest level of professionals will use more sophisticated controls to produce whatever results they like.

Everything moves to post.

 

[Braineack]

This is why I don't cell phone:


Oh cool, this lady has two cats in the back of her car, let me picture!!!!

vs.


oh cool wrx!

 

[runnah]

It is worth noting that digital zoom behaves differently from actual zoom. You get more DoF, all else being equal.

I don't claim to predict the future of camera tech, but what makes sense is a light field camera with a very high pixel count and excellent dynamic range. Then you can handle the focus, the DoF, and to plus or minus a couple stops in post. The masses will use a couple simple controls: 'make THAT and THAT and THAT in focus, darker, lighter, infinite DoF no wait shallow, cool' that are almost instagramlike in simplicity, and anyone else up to and including the highest level of professionals will use more sophisticated controls to produce whatever results they like.

Everything moves to post.

It's only a matter of time before this makes it's way to cell phones: Lytro - Light Field Camera

But you are right everything will be in post.

 

[Joeywhat]

Smartphones akin to the film to digital switch? Yeah right.

I don't doubt that cameras in phones will become more and more powerful, and probably replace a lot of low end P&S models in the years to come, I just don't see the technology becoming decent in soon enough time to actually start replacing REAL cameras.

And I HATE the fact that my camera takes HUGE pictures. I would so much rather it just take good pictures at a lower MP then throw more pixels at the problem. Takes forever to upload, and I pretty much HAVE to crop the photo so it doesn't take up 3-4 freakin' MB on my phone. At least give me the option for considerably smaller photos (optimized for for the web).

I can perhaps see the "camera with a phone" concept going somewhere, that I think I've seen a bit already. It was a little bigger then a phone, but supposedly took pretty good pics all things considered. I think it ran Windows, though...gross. I just hope the "photo industry" doesn't go the way music did, with low quality and gimmicks being the main selling point for consumers. This instagram filter BS is already annoying enough...it needs to not catch on any further then it already has.

 

[Derrel]

Can anyone please explain to me why the heck anybody would want a smartphone that has 41MP camera ?
I thought people already understood there is no connection between MP count and picture quality.
And why would the normal user need 41MP anyways ?

I remember a buddy asking me about one of my first Macintosh computers. "Wow--you ordered it with a ONE-gigabyte hard drive?? Are you serious? Why would you ever need that much space?"

The 41-MP thing has already been covered: it's a file with a huge amount of information, perfect for a wide-field capture that can later be cropped as much as is needed.

My first digital camera was the Nikon D1 d-slr. It had a 2.7 megapixel 1.5x APS-C sensor in it.

Today's D800 and D800e have 36-megapixel sensors. At one time, we got four TV channels, all over the air...now...500 channels is common.