Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macintologist · Sep 3, 2007, 07:18 PM

If you look at an old photo you can definately tell it was taken with a crappy camera from the 80s or even the 90s. Now with everybody having digital cameras that take half decent quality photos, has the limits of what Joe Six-Pack quality photography can take been reached? For example, ten years from now will you be able to look at digital stills taken today and know that this was taken with a crappy 2000's era camera?

greenG4 · Sep 3, 2007, 07:38 PM

If you're speaking of resolution only, then no. Who cares if you have a 18 megapixel camera for printing 3x5s, right? But who knows what kind of "smart cameras" may be developed that can inteligently sense the area of the photo for optimal flash, fram rate, etc. To an extent there are features like that now, but I bet there is a lot of room to grow in that area.

Buckaroo · Sep 3, 2007, 07:42 PM

I'm sure someone will be able to correct me, but I believe that the advantage of 18 and more megapixel cameras is the ability to crop. There are several problems with extremely high resolution cameras, and I'll leave that for someone else to explain.

I like the idea of a 300 fps camera. I think it would be great. I don't know how many seconds we can get at 300 fps, but it would be nice for taking extremely slow motion pictures (video).

Casio developing 300 fps CMOS based camera: Digital Photography Review

abe · Sep 3, 2007, 07:54 PM

CASIO - IN TOUCH WITH THE FUTURE

Check out these conventional video vs 300fps video comparisons.

Pretty impressive!

macintologist · Sep 3, 2007, 07:58 PM

So you're saying the technology available in those black digital SLRs will become available in those point and shoot $150 cameras that high schooler emo Myspace'ers buy?

greenG4 · Sep 3, 2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

So you're saying the technology available in those black digital SLRs will become available in those point and shoot $150 cameras that high schooler emo Myspace'ers buy?

Eventually.

macintologist · Sep 3, 2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by greenG4

Eventually.

So that means that photos taken with those point and shooters from the 2000's will be painfully obvious?

OldManMac · Sep 3, 2007, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

So that means that photos taken with those point and shooters from the 2000's will be painfully obvious?

Not necessarily. When cameras reach the capability to produce a photograph that's as good as what our eye can see, anything above that is a waste. IIRC, our eyes can only see a max of somewhere around 600dpi (at what dot size I don't recall, and I could be wrong about the 600 number as well.) My point is, there is a "sweet spot," at which point it becomes useless to go above, unless one is examining a photo with better equipment than our eyes. One also has to remember that there's a lot of marketing involved, to get people to buy the newest and greatest gadget, and people often fall for that marketing, convincing themselves that they need the newest camera, computer, car, etc., because they're going to take advantage of its newer features, which they often don't. Printer manufacturers are guilty of this as well, as they advertise printers that have a higher dpi print capability than what our eyes can perceive, and no one that I know prints snapshots at anywhere near their highest resolution capability, as it wastes ink and adds no value to the picture.

Railroader · Sep 4, 2007, 07:18 PM

I think it's hilarious that some people are equating quality of a picture with the quality of a camera. And when I say hilarious, I mean to say sad.

analogika · Sep 5, 2007, 04:58 AM

I have to agree, but that's more the embarrassing phrasing, I think.

The technical question itself is a legitimate one - entry-level point-and-shoot optics are becoming better and better.

In the 80's, you could tell a photograph taken on an Olympus Picasso compact from a photograph
by the same photographer taken on a K1000 with a decent lens.

Are built-in zoom lenses on mid-level consumer digicams better than an mid-80s Vivitar zoom that cost easily more than the entire camera today, like a friend predicted back in the late 80s?

(Therein lies the assumption, of course, that the more expensive lenses haven't improved to the same degree.)

design219 · 02:22 PM

The next big step will be in exposure latitude. Photographers that shoot in RAW (uncompressed mode) mode know that they have a bit more latitude to make adjustments in post production than working with a jpeg. Most point and shoot cameras produce jpeg, and for good reason as most people don't want to fool with adjusting photos after they are taken. The problem with jpeg is, if you over expose a photo, there is no data in the highlights to pull down in post production. The same goes with shadow detail.

So the big breakthrough will be a camera that can take a photo at any shutter speed and aperture combination and be able to make a perfectly rendered image in camera. But that will be years away.

Of course, the main thing about good or bad photographs is the skill of the person making them.

peeb · Sep 5, 2007, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

Not necessarily. When cameras reach the capability to produce a photograph that's as good as what our eye can see, anything above that is a waste.

Not at all. As was pointed out above, the extra is useful for cropping and zooming.

el chupacabra · Sep 5, 2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by macintologist

For example, ten years from now will you be able to look at digital stills taken today and know that this was taken with a crappy 2000's era camera?

Well I hope so, I can look at a photo today and tell if it was taken with a crappy point &shoot. The color of point &shoots is way off. Getting accurate results generally requires the full set of manual functions and lenses on an slr.... At least for me... I'd be nice if 10 years from now you could just take a quick pic of something and have it turn out the-way-it-really-looks.

OldManMac · Sep 5, 2007, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Not at all. As was pointed out above, the extra is useful for cropping and zooming.

I'm aware of that; the point I was addressing is the Joe-six pack issue the OP mentioned. Joe-six pack usually takes awful pictures and leaves them at that. I've sold digital cameras for a decade and I know the difference between Joe-six pack and a pro or even a "prosumer."

peeb · Sep 5, 2007, 12:11 PM

Ok

maxintosh · Sep 5, 2007, 02:03 PM

There's a lot of room, I think, for improvement. Fuji's on the right track with low-light quality but it's not quite there yet. Super-sensitive sensors with less noise, since direct flash pictures are unflattering, uneven, flat and dull. Automatic HDR image production is a possibility as well (not the tacky-looking HDR images, but ones with completely balanced levels.)