It’s that time of year when the photo journos and pundits tell us who is going to make what in the coming year in order to keep up with or beat the competition and how we as potential buyers should be excited. It’s not only the photo industry but the computer and automotive ones are at it too and I’m sure that somewhere there are people that could get very excited about new electric toasters.
In 2009 we had 23 interchangeable lens cameras launched. Three full 35 mm frame (Nikon D3s, Sony A850 and Leica M9), one APS-H (Canon 1D Mk IV), twelve APS-C (Nikon D3000, Nikon D300s, Nikon D5000, Canon 7D, Canon 500D, Pentax K-x, Pentax K7, Sony A550, Sony A500, Sony 380, SonyA 330, Sony A230), three FourThirds (Olympus E-600, Olympus E-450, Olympus E-620) and four micro 4/3 (Olympus E-P2, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic GF1, Panasonic GH1). Plus a large number of compacts including grown-up ones from Canon, Ricoh and Sigma and some “bridge” cameras with 12 to 15 times zoom lenses.
For this piece I’m going to ignore bridge cameras because I don’t think there is any innovation to come to this sector of the market. They are do-anything cameras and they fill a need. I’m also going to ignore compacts, probably because so many of them are so similar but single out Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Ricoh and Sigma for distinctive cameras and in particular Nikon for making the first camera with a projector built into it and Canon for dropping the number of pixels for the G11 versus the G10. So this is about interchangeable lens cameras with sensors of micro 4/3 and larger.
Ever since Olympus introduced “live view” with the E-330 in January 2006 it was inevitable that DSLRs would be capable of making video clips. In my view this is actually the only reason for having a live view system (except perhaps for the ability to shoot tethered to a tablet or laptop computer in a studio) because autofocus in live view is slow and not entirely accurate all the time. However with a moving picture absolutely precise focus is not a prime requirement and the ability to create very high quality video using excellent lenses and with the ability to extract stills from the video stream is excellent. I have two Canon cameras capable of high-definition video and use it often. The new 7D is better adapted for video than the earlier 5D Mk II so I would expect a firmware upgrade for that model (promised by Canon for 2010).
One of the difficulties associated with video production is the size of files. Even short clips are very large. 2 Gigabytes takes time to shift. Professionals need to send their work to their agency or employer rapidly and securely. I would therefore envisage most new pro-level cameras being fitted with enhanced wireless (wifi or mobile broadband) to stream encrypted data and this could involve the development of new codecs. Maybe we would see this at the end of 2010.
Returning to firmware upgrades, having seen that at least two manufacturers are extending the market life of at least one camera each by improvements and new facilities via firmware, I would expect such upgrades to be paid-for with an ad-hoc price depending on the value of the upgrade to the user. Personally I would be ready to pay for improvements that I want to take advantage of.
For 2010 I can see strides forward in firmware/software. Already there is a greater willingness of manufacturers to use software to process known unwanted attributes of some lenses. You can see this if you use a Raw converter than doesn’t use a particular camera or lens’s profile. Micro 4/3 lenses have their geometric distortions removed, Canon lenses will have their vignetting lightened if a custom parameter is checked and the lens is either in the database or identified by the user, colour casts which may occur with some Leica lenses are supposed to be eliminated if the lenses are properly coded, Canon has doubled up its DIGIC IV processors in the D7 to permit faster burst rates and improved noise handling.
So far, if my predictions are true, I would say YES we do, or should care because these are improvements and not things stimulated by competition. It’s the “me too” development that often contributes very little.
First up on the “me too” front will be micro 4/3. Expect models from Sony and anybody else who can get Sanyo to make one for their badge. So far there is only one sensor used in micro 4/3. This is the Panasonic one used by them and Olympus under a consortium agreement. But while FourThirds is a standard with members signed up to it, it’s my understanding that Micro 4/3 is only a mount with a published specification. To some extent, competition is a good thing because the micro 4/3 cameras are too expensive but I think that unless micro 4/3 becomes a controlled standard the benefits of managed updating will be lost. While not micro 4/3, as it will use an APS-C size sensor, the promised Samsung NX will stimulate competition in the smaller interchangeable lens camera sector and what we need is competition and not “me too-ism”.
At the risk of being shot or worse, I’ve never been able to appreciate the FourThirds standard. I do have an Olympus E-330 but I bought it for my camera collection not necessarily to use. It has an applaudable design that does not work very well. The articulated screen doesn’t articulate enough (though it’s better than not articulating at all) and the viewfinder is dim and difficult to use. Moreover though it is a small and attractive camera the lenses are vast in comparison. Later I bought an E-520 to use with some of my Olympus and Minolta manual lenses (with adapters) but couldn’t get on with it and sold it. Personally I can’t see the FourThirds system lasting for very long and I suspect that any attempt to populate a FourThirds sensor with more than 5.1 megapixels per square centimeter will be a disaster.
Which brings me to the one thing that I would not like to see in 2010 and that is needless pixel packing. Looking, courtesy of DPReview, at the megapixel per square centimeter numbers for those cameras listed at the beginning of this piece that were introduced in 2009 we have an average of 5.05 for FourThirds and micro4/3 (with the exception of the Olympus E-450 that is 4.1). I think that this is pushing the envelope unless there is some magic software in any camera that exceeds 5.1. I don’t have any problem with Olympus Master 2 providing good up-resolution software but I would hate to see it at the in-camera stage. The average of the APS-C cameras new in 2009 (excluding the Canon 7D) was 3.44, ranging from 2.7 for the Nikon D3000 to 4.5 for the Canon 500D and all these cameras have been well received. The Canon 7D scores 5.4 as a result of its 18 MP in a 1.6 crop sensor. Clever firmware and software have done the trick with the 7D but I would not like to see the trend continue and frankly 14 MP would have been enough for me to buy the 7D (which I did). It’s significant that the Nikons D3s and D700 score 1.4 with the D3x at 2.8, the Sony A850 at 2.9 and the older Canon 5D Mk II at 2.4. The numbers for these full-frame cameras are relative to each other and illustrate the excellent performance of all of them. Plainly there is an expectation of Nikon introducing a “Canon 5D Mk II killer” in 2010 but I’m not certain that this will happen.
But when we are talking of camera bodies that cost (in the UK) between £1,200 and over £4,000, a little nudge in quality here or a tighter price there isn’t going to shift anyone from one system to another. We have a very large investment in system lenses, flashguns etc – considerably more than the cost of a camera body – and we have an investment in the way the camera bodies work and the confidence that comes from long usage (though I did read recently of one lady pro photog who apparently has five Canon 5D Mk II bodies, one Canon 1Ds Mk III body and only four lenses!). It’s true that, as happened a year ago, a top pro for a UK newspaper moved from one of the “top two” to the other and with considerable press exposure it’s thought that the manufacturer who won was not exactly concerned about margins in fixing the overall price for the deal.
What I would really like to see in 2010 is photo gear manufacturers recognising that the market is growing in maturity and certainly, in the segment where I and those like me make our purchases, not going madly after winning a race that doesn’t really demand a victor.
Posted by marstonfoto 