The future of Cameras and Lens Mounts

[Tronhard]

This is a continuing debate that I see in the various fora to which I belong.  Just to add a bit of spice to the whole thing Tony Northrop has produced his take on what the future holds.  Now, I realize that he has some controversial views on elements of photography, but apparently he was a director of marketing for a fortune 100 company and accuratlely predicted both the challenges around 2000 and the demise of his own company.  Business analysis is his thing...

Anyway for what it's worth, here is a link to his presentation: Are DSLRs Dead?

Doubtless this will invoke some reactions from our own members

[Tronhard]

---

@John_SD wrote:

---

@Tronhard wrote:

I feel pretty confident in Canon, a but less so about Nikon - their market share is much smaller overall, and certainly desite user loyalty some of the other brands face a bleak future.

---

Their market share is indeed smaller than Canon's, but by all accounts, Nikon had a fabulous 2017-2018 and I hope the trend continues. That D850 seems to be gaining increasing favor among pros and enthusiasts alike. 

From DigitalTrends:

Nikon’s focus on high-end cameras as the company restructures appears to be paying off, and could mean more advanced cameras like the D850 in the company’s future. In its 2017-2018 fiscal year results, announced on May 10, Nikon posted more than eight times the profit of the previous year overall, with the imaging division posting a 76.2-percent increase over the previous year. With the D850 (shown above) driving much of that increase, the company says it will continue to focus on high-end cameras — and that mirrorless could be an opportunity for the company in the future.

From DPR:

Nikon restructuring and strong D850 sales lead to 8x increase in annual profit.
Of course, this reflects Nikon Corporation as a whole, but the news out of the Imaging division was also positive. While overall unit sales fell—due to the continued demise of the compact camera segment—strong demand for the D850 is said to have increased the sales of "high-class" cameras "significantly," leading to a 76.2% year-on-year increase in operating profit. Restructuring helped here, too.

---

To me that is indeed good news.  I don't want to see either Nikon or Canon die out, but I would like to see them being a bit more agile... 

[ebiggs1]

"I hope that they don't go "touch screen crazy" for the upper end models...."

Pros are not beginners or even intermediate enthusiasts. Canon knows this.........................I hope, because I don't want touch screens at all.

[Tronhard]

Several of my most recent camera purchases have touch screens, and while I recognize the benefits of the technology I turn the feature off and prefer to use the buttons and menus that are second nature to me now.  Find that my nose or cheek will brush the screen while looking through the viewfinder which is an unnecessary distraction.  Doubtless that makes me some kind of ancient relic but it's what I like and it works for me.

[Tronhard]

Several of my most recent camera purchases have touch screens, and while I recognize the benefits of the technology I turn the feature off and prefer to use the buttons and menus that are second nature to me now. 

I find that my nose or cheek will brush the screen while looking through the viewfinder which is an unnecessary distraction.  Doubtless that makes me some kind of ancient relic but it's what I like and it works for me.

[altco]

>>> asking if he had ever seen a light meter with a crop factor compensation

As i understand it, Northrop claims that the physical measure of interest is the amplification of the signal from the sensor, while ISO is just an indirect indication of this measure.

It stands to reason that, for example, an x2 crop sensor (with 4 times less area, as compared to the area of a FF sensor) needs to amplify the signal 4 times more, as compared to the amplification needed on a FF, for a given sensitivity. For a constant signal amplification, the x2 crop sensor needs 2 stops more light.

A light meter gives an indication in terms of ISO sensitivity and, because the ISO sensitivity is in fact just calibrated amplification for the particular sensor/crop, the light meter does not need further compensation.

[kvbarkley]

---

@altco wrote:

>>> asking if he had ever seen a light meter with a crop factor compensation

It stands to reason that, for example, an x2 crop sensor (with 4 times less area, as compared to the area of a FF sensor) needs to amplify the signal 4 times more, as compared to the amplification needed on a FF, for a given sensitivity. For a constant signal amplification, the x2 crop sensor needs 2 stops more light..

---

You need to recalibrate your reason. The above is not true at all. For the purpose of our discussions, each pixel is independent of the other. It does not matter whether you have 100,000 or 100,000,000 or whether it is .1" square or 10" square. The amplification to get a particular intensity level just depends on the light hitting the individual pixel. In our case we use a constant amplification factor ("ISO") to adjust the overall exposure. In fact a constant ISO over the chip is not required, and you could conceive of a sensor that adusts the ISO of each pixel based on the intensity of light hitting the pixel. This is practically what Highlight Tone Priority does, though in a crude fashion.

Where size of the pixel matters is noise, but that is a discussion for another day.

[ebiggs1]

Totally agree

[Waddizzle]

---

@altco wrote:

>>> asking if he had ever seen a light meter with a crop factor compensation

As i understand it, Northrop claims that the physical measure of interest is the amplification of the signal from the sensor, while ISO is just an indirect indication of this measure.

A light meter gives an indication in terms of ISO sensitivity and, because the ISO sensitivity is in fact just calibrated amplification for the particular sensor/crop, the light meter does not need further compensation.

---

There is a very simple reason why Northrup’s claims are complete and utter nonsense.  A DSLR uses a separate sensor for metering, not the actual image sensor.  Light meters do not have a crop factor; never have and never will for this exact reason.

[altco]

Right, the term ‘amplification’ is a bit sloppy in this context; the electronics used to measure the electrical charge generated by a pixel is not your classical amplifier. The electrical charge generated by the photosensitive  area needs to be transformed into something that can be measured by a DAC, and tuning the level of this ‘something’ to the level expected by the DAC is not usually referred to as amplification

However, the energy of the signal coming from a pixel is still a function of the area of the pixel; for a given illumination, a small .1’’ pixel generates 10^6 less electrical charge as compared to a 10’’ pixel. Whatever the electronics employed within a sensor, a smaller pixel needs more light if it is to measure an equal amount of electrical charge

[ebiggs1]

"...  a smaller pixel needs more light if it is to measure an equal amount of electrical charge"

Which has nothing to do with sensor size.  It is possible to have smaller photo sites (pixels) on any size sensor. 5Ds and 4.1 vs 5D Mk IV with 5.3.