The Megapixel Wars are Over. What's Next?

New Scientist:

Quote:

---

Innovation: What next after the megapixel wars?

14:11 16 March 2009 by Tom Simonite

For years, consumers have been sold digital cameras largely on the basis of one number – the megapixels crammed onto its image sensor. But recently an industry bigwig admitted that squeezing in ever more resolution has become meaningless.

Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department, said that 12 megapixels is plenty for most photography purposes and that his company will henceforth be focusing on improving colour accuracy and low-light performance. [Full Article]

---

In addition to improving camera performance, the article talks about 3D software like Microsoft Photosynth (has anyone used this? I've heard it's pretty cool.) and the Gigapan robotic tripod.

eh; I'm going to film...lol

Can't replace the quality of it...

I'm still with 35mm film :) with my trusty and faithfull old Canon EOS 3 :)

Unlike digital cameras where people may worry about getting ones with more mega pixels and spend a fortune on one, with film if i want better qaulity i spend £5 ($10-ish) on better quality film :)

Simple :)

With SLR cameras i feel the following needs to be said
:-

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

For close to 100 years film was perfect and even got the Apollo moon landings, film can be used for any situation and over all its still better than digital SLRs for 99% of situations, but thats how i feel and i am not trying to brain wash people on here in to my way of thinking.

While I still do enjoy playing with film (and more recently vintage cameras), the number one advantage of going digital was the ability to experiment. I could easily fill up dozens of rolls of film on a weekend photography expedition, and in the short term the prices for film and development snowballed rather quickly. But with a 1 gig card, I can follow a butterfly for 20 minutes, rack up a hundred shots with different angles, lighting, and settings, and pick the cream of the crop later after only spending a few cents on electricity. In that respect, my camera has basically paid for itself.

So, yay for the advancement of photographic technologies, but don't discredit the usefulness of the past.

I agree. For what 99% of us do, megapixels can only do so much. Color accuracy is the other half of the equation that brings a photo to life.

The next plateau is to reduce noise and grain IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetinder

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

For close to 100 years film was perfect and even got the Apollo moon landings, film can be used for any situation and over all its still better than digital SLRs for 99% of situations, but thats how i feel and i am not trying to brain wash people on here in to my way of thinking.

---

I really see it 100% opposite. They do not use film in the space shuttles, they use DSLR's and film would not be better
in that application. Having 1000 images is better than taking 36 as they will have much more important things to
do than change film. Had they had 5D's while landing on the moon, they would not have had film. It was the only
medium available. I could only wish that some guy on the side of the road hands you a 5D for walking his old grandmother across. Film does capture more dynamic range and is a much different medium. DSLR's offer so much more
flexibity.

In every case I have seen, if a pro shoots a lifetime of film, he will always prefer film...the weird part is that they will
almost always shoot digital because it is easier. They seem to save the film for "the shot". just an observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

The next plateau is to reduce noise and grain IMHO.

---

Oh Yea.....Like an EYE DOCTOR is going to have the right answer! :lol:

I concur :borat: Low light, low noise, anti shake, infrared night shooting in the small compact side of 4 master cards stacked together. The best part will be when it connects to the wireless router and moves the images to you computer
at home via the wireless internet routers that it hits along the way freeing up space on the camera. At the same
time all the shots are downloading to the phone so I can slide show them real time. Ahhhhh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derf

They do not use film in the space shuttles, they use DSLR's and film would not be better in that application. Having 1000 images is better than taking 36 as they will have much more important things to do than change film.

---

The space shuttle started flying in 1980 i think and in those days there where no DSLRs around, DSLRs only came in around 2001-2002 before that as far as I remember it was all film.

The 5D is ok but the EOS 3 and EOS 1V film cameras can still beat it, the EOS 1DS II or 1DS III 3 are good DSLRs but also cost an arm and a leg.

With Concorde grounded for life I now don't need to use that much film per day for the stuff i take photos of.

When i chased Concorde i used 1 x 24 or 1 x 36 exp film for every take off and landing i ever saw, out of that i was happy to get 1 - 2 decent photos per films.

Some people like me like film, others like DSLRs so its horses for courses as we say here in the UK.

I don't like getting "instant" photos i like waiting for films to be processed, come through the post and seeing good images thats exciting :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

The next plateau is to reduce noise and grain IMHO.

---

With film thats the main downside, with DSLRs i would have thought this would have been fixed as minidv camcorders can "see" things in low light which film SLRs can't see so i would think DSLRs use similar technology, but not 100% sure.

With film if you use high speed like ASA1000 or higher your photo's will look like they've been taken on sandpaper that ain't good.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electr ... featu.html