The near future.....perhaps

After using medium and large fromat systems for so many years I have always been frustrated by the lack of inovation in DSLR models which are essentially Luigi Colani's Canon prototype 'black plastic blob' from 1972(?) with a sensor thrown inside. It seems incredible that the last thirty plus years have seen SLR makers basically turning their faces to the wall as far as product inovation is concerned. It hardly takes great leaps of imagination to realise the huge increase in facility of a modern small digital imaging system rather than the same old SLR with sensor and something 'different' from one of the makers seems well overdue especially since they all make more or less the same camera with different name tags....

Well, here is and interesting and thought provoking item on the continuing convergence of still and video and what that may mean for photographers in the coming few years;

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml

The Canadian philosopher, Marshall McLuhan, said 'We travel forward looking in the rear-view mirror' or words to that effect

Here we go again.

Viewfinder, can you not see that any device that attempts to do several different things will always do them worse than a device that just does one thing?

Once a year you emerge from your chrysalis with news of some new-fangled contraption that in the event proves to be a disappointment - like the Red video camera.

What is so bizarre is that you are a complete photographic reactionary, pottering about with equipment that predates Fox Talbot, and yet when it comes to digital, you want something so ultra-modern that it would frighten Dan Dare.

Have you mastered your K10D, yet (or was it a K100D?).

G

Having read the article, here's what killed it for me:

"Imagine something about the size and weight of a medium format camera."

That's exactly what I DON'T want in a still camera.

G

Can you really not have noticed all the innovation of the past 30+ years?

Some items are best left untouched.

Hi John,

Well, there really has been far less inovation by SLR makers (during the lst 30 years) than in nearly every other area of consumer product....

There has, of course been the advent of digital, but this was effectively forced upon makers rather than being a result of their inovation,...essentially, we have had auto focus which is at best a doubtful development and whic has been mainly for the benefit of makers since it is far cheaper to implement than to engineer a helical focussing mount.

The Canon T90 appeared in the mid 70's and was the watered down results of the design work by Luigi Colani. Shortly after there were reports of his frustration with the ultra conservative Canon management.

The T90 set the path of SLR design in a slightly different direction and offered substantial manufacturing benefits to the makers since the camera was largely injection moulded from black plastic. Essentially, we are still using the same model, albeit digitalised.

The makers are only just getting used to the idea of articulated lcd screens and that has been half hearted. The major danger is that with the ease of modern electronics makers will resort to the addition of numerous and pointless gimics to attempt an image of sophistication and facility. This has already happened to a degree but hopefully will not go the same way as with camcorders where features are often unusable i any real terms.

This is true, all other things being equal, but only relevant in the short term.

The thing is, my several-year-old Sony DSC-T3 takes better stills and better video than any still or video camera of <insert year here>. My computer is also a much, much better typewriter, games system, newspaper and hifi, than the separate bits I'd have needed to do those jobs some years ago.

In x years time, where (I guess) x is more than 5 and less than 50, market willing, there will be a camera capable of taking stills and video better than the eye can resolve.

Once the technology catches up with evolution, which has had several millions of years of head start, it won't need to get any better since we won't be able to see it.

Personally, I think the real problem is that the vast majority of us, including me, cannot improve our creativity at the same speed as the technology allows us to take technically better pictures.

Therefore we tend to fear the levelling effect of the technology.

By your standards there has been no innovation in the motor car since 1902. Still the same boring old four wheels and an internal combustion engine.

And by the same standards, there has been no innovation in life forms in the last 200 million years. Still the same boring four legs, two eyes, two ears, two breasts (well, all right, not quite so boring) etc..

What is the moral? Simple. That eventually an optimum design emerges (the four-wheeled car, the four-limbed mammal), and from then on, improvements are incremental rather than radical.

I would argue that the SLR is an optimum design, and incapable of fundamental improvement, but that incremental improvements will continue to be made, probably ad infinitum.

It's never going to be a satisfactory video camera, though, and thank God for that.

G

Aero engine people were saying almost exactly this about piston-engined aeroplanes.

They'd done variable pitch propellers, turbo- and then superchargers, contra-rotating props...

... coaxed just about as much out of squashing fuel-air mixtures between lumps of metal as they could...

... and then that annoying bloke Whittle came along.

interesting analogy. there are lots of piston engined aircraft in use today....

There are, but apart from a few vintage ones that are maintained because of their historic value, they're all small, most of them are very old, and none of them go very fast. There's also a lot of effort being put into developing small jet engines, to power the smaller aeroplanes. Product liability legislation in the USA has crippled such development for a very long time, so it's not simple to generalise from comparisons.

No analogy is perfect. Mine was intended to show the error of imagining that where technology is concerned, we're very good at spotting optimum designs. I don't think we are.

Incidentally, this is simply not true. Incremental evolution takes place as long as there is no radical survival pressure, of which there's been lots in the last 200 million years (I know your timescale was a bit arbitrary, but I think it proves the opposite of the point you were trying to make).

The dinosaurs were around, enjoying incremental rather than radical improvements, for much, much longer than the mammals with breasts have been.

Any observer of the time would have thought that it just didn't get any better (at least not radically so) than T. Rex and his chums already had it.

And now look...

Where are the dinosaurs now?

They're in the same place as the bellows cameras, and indeed many of the early SLRs.

Well Chris, I wasn't disagreeing with you, really. Jet engines dominate.

Even when we spot the better design, doesn't mean it'll be the one that wins....(betamax vs vhs, gasoline engine vs steam).

Evolution? Really?

Plattypus shows really well what happens when a closed ecosystem keeps evolution in check. Just imagine how embarrassing it was for the first plattypus that decided to keep it's eggs inside and sprouted nipples.....All the other plattypuss'es calling it names "Get out of here you buck toothed, freakin' beaver!"

Seriously... a guy diggs up a tiny bone fragment, guestimates the age at several hundred thousand years or more....decides that is enough "evidence" to tell you you what the animal looked like, how it lived and what it evolved from/into. And that is proof there was no creator?

I love theories.

But evidence suggests that three major religions (that generally don't get along), historical documents, and artifacts, eye witness accounts, more than two thirds of the worlds living population.... the atrocities that are occuring to this very day support the existance of a battle between good and evil....I'd say the evidence is overwhelming that something occured in the middle east a couple thousand years ago...
and it has had a profound impact on humans to this very day. It doesn't disprove evolution, but suggests evolution was designed into creation.

whats that got to do with cameras? nothing really.

except whether you believe market dominance and sustainability, are the result of "evolution" perfecting design... or radical new creations alter evolution, is moot.
The market place is too random and chaotic to always let the better design win.
Video cameras will over take still cameras, when they are able to shoot 10-20 megapixel images at 60 frames per second, and cell phones will destroy the market for point and shoot cameras.

(ps all the above mentioned devices were created by us....none evolved on thier own, nor would they exist, in any form, had we not created them. )

I see where you're coming from, Don.

Intelligent design as a way of accounting for life on earth has been thoroughly debunked, and indeed exposed for the pseudoscience it is. I know all about what they say about irreducible complexity (trust me on that) and it's all crap.

I'm not likely to live long enough to be prepared to spend any fraction of my remaining years debating it here, though - I'd prefer to try and improve my photographic skills.