NikonWeb.com

I am wondering to myself how much longer these digital cameras being built by Nikon, Canon and others, which center around using existing SLR interchangeable lenses can continue to exist?

I have just finished with the endless dirt on the pickups!

I am now using the new Lumix DMZ-FZ30 which was designed from the ground up to be a digital camera. At 8 megapixels it has a 400mm reach, at 5 it has an 800 mm reach. The focus is faster than a D2X (my brother has one) and the exposure offers much more latitude. The only drawback is it requires a lens adapter to take it to 28mm. In use the Lumix is so much better weight-wise than a D2X is almost laughable. It shoots faster and sharper, since the controls are designed with digital photos in mind.

But thinking back on the history of 33mm photography -- I have never seen much taken with lenses wider than 35mm that has endured as a great photo. AND THERE IS NO DIRT.

Many early DSLRs had fixed lenses. This allows the designer to integrate the body and lens, to optimize for the photos. My first Mavica was built this way, as was the Olympus E1 I considered my first "pro" camera.

It is very disturbing to see a 700 dollar camera shoot rings around my D100 and its $4000 assortment of lenses.

After I bought the Lumix, I was standing in front of a 4 foot wide display of pickup cleaning "solutions" at Adorama in NYC, thinking to myself "I will never need any of this horrible stuff again."

I am wondering if digital will finally become a system unto itself and leave 35mm film forever?

I have (all my interchangeable digital SLRs are on eBay, as are my brother's)

We are both aware we are going to have a hard sell, and may be forced to carry dummy Leicas or Nikon RFs to fool clients who expect "professional" cameras on jobs.

I suppose this is off subject, but in my humble opinion interchangealbe lenses will soon be gone, when pickup chips go to 20 million. At that point even 1200mm will be 10 million pixels, so there will be no need for other lenses.

My guess: These things will be around for all foreseeable future.

Personally, I would never replace my D2X (or future DSLR model) with a point-and-shoot/compact type camera (or whatever name you put on it).

You know, some people (myself included) still enjoy to shoot their old Leica and Nikon rangefinders, even if modern cameras are much more convenient (I realize that not everyone will agree).

I'm not familiar with the Lumix, but I would never buy one myself. No logical reason. I'm sure it's a great camera -- I just don't like it. I prefer my big, bulky D2X. Fortunately, people are different, and can buy whatever type of camera they prefer. These days, *a lot* of people seem to prefer the 'old-fashioned' DSLR's. Almost like the 1970's, when everyone dreamed about getting a Nikon SLR:

Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

(Paul Simon)

Jarle

It's the dirt.

There is a beauty of design in Kodachrome, you get a fresh clean frame of film with each wind.

Cameras like the Lumix DMC-FZ30, the Sony Cybershot DSC-R1, or the Nikon COOLPIX 8800, are not point-n-shoot, they are "compact" digitals. Because they equal, or exceed, the larger interchangeable models in preformance, they seem more like the 1930's Leica compared to the 1030's Speed Graflex.

I still have a very fond place in my heart for my 1980s Mavica, and all those floppy disks I carried around with it (one photo per disk).

Hi Fred,

We all agree that dirty sensors is a bad thing.

For me personally, sensor dirt has never been a big issue. Guess I've been lucky so far. Also, I typically shoot in the f/2 - f/5.6 range (perhaps f/8 once in a while), where sensor dust is less visible than of you stop down to, let's say f/11 or f/16.

Hopefully, future models will introduce ingenious new methods to keep the sensor clean.

I'm tempted to get a high quality compact digital camera myself (I still have my old Coolpix cameras, but they are not good enough by today's standards). What I would really love to see is a digital Nikon RF (similar to Epson R-D1), but with interchangable lenses you would still have dust issues. Perhaps I'll have to take a look at the Lumix after all?

(If I should buy a compact model today -- which I won't -- I'd probably get a Canon or Olympus body. Or a pocket-sized Coolpix S3, although I have no idea if the image quality is up to par with the competition).

Jarle

Now that the Digital SLRs are under a grand(including the lens), selling like hotcakes, with Olympus and Pentax joining the crowd with new models, New digital-only lenses being the DARLING of all the lensmakers, its unlikley that the Camera companies stop now.
They're gonna milk it to the last drop....
How many of those D70 or Digital rebel owners do you think change lenses? How often?
Kiu

I have been using Digital cameras full time for a long time now, and besides the dirt issue, most of them are simply too complicated.

Examples:
Most digitals require the user to quit the menu, the Lumix goes to shooting by just tapping the shutter.

The Lumix has separate ANALOG controls for shutter speed, aperture, focus, zoom, AE lock, and Focus lock. Analog controls allow the user to be in real control.

I know it is going to be a hard sell to leave interchangeable lenses, but it will be similar to the switch to zoom lenses. It took Nikon 40 years to convince users that zoom lenses make sense.

Interchangeable lenses only exist because there is still a pixel limit. When we have cameras with 100 million pixels the need for zoom lenses will disappear.

The day will come soon when only a fixed lens is needed, with the zoom being totally digital. My guess is that it will happen almost overnight, one day there will be lenses the next day there won't. Know anyone still using an 8-track?

Sorry posted the above without my name... Fred (webmaster of Nikonhs.org)

Hi,

I've had plenty of dirt issues with film. Ever get a grain of sand stuck in the felt that put a nice scratch in several rolls of film before you found the bugger? Oh, yeah. That's a good way to screw up an entire day's worth of shooting.

Then, there's the whole issue of cleaning, cleaning, cleaning film before printing. If you just let some lab deal with the processing and printing, then you'd not know about this one. However, all of us that did all our own processing know all about it. Heck, I'm going through old film shots these days, scanning them into digital, so I'm *still* cleaning film!

Personally, I'm much happier with the state of affairs when it comes to cleaning the digital sensors. But, then, I've never seen it as much of an issue. I'm used to working on electronic devices, so I have a very nice binocular zoom microscope (actually, two. One is a Leica and the other is a Nikon) on a boom stand with a polarized ringlight. I can see the dirt very well and just remove it.

But, that's just me.

As an aside, why is it that professional shooters will go out and spend tens of thousand of dollars on high-end digital camera gear, yet won't spend that extra thousand or so on tools to allow them to deal with the cleaning of the sensors? I bought that Nikon SMZ-2B stereo microscope with light off of eBay for $750, (my Leica Stereo Zoom 5 was even cheaper) and it makes cleaning the sensor a walk in the park. It's also great for removing splinters from fingers.

Now, as for the complexity of the modern cameras, I'd prefer to revert back to dedicated controls as opposed to multi-function controls that change what they do depending on which button you're pressing.

This applies to film cameras as well as digital. Think FM3a vs. F6.

Obviously, there has to be some form of menu control system for the digital section, but the shooting section can be dials and knobs and levers easily enough. Take a look at the Leica DMR scheme for a good example of this.

All that said, there's plenty of room for all forms of digital cameras in the marketplace. One doesn't have to stick with a DSLR just as one doesn't have to stick with a P&S. Lots of tools for lots of folks. One of them should fit the bill, I'd think.

Yes, in time we'll probably have a universal camera that only needs one lens, regardless. If you look at the high-end television cameras these days (like the ones that cover major sporting events), you'll see that they go from very wide angle to extreme telephoto with a single zoom lens. Of course, the lens is the size of a 600mm f4 tele, but it does the job with a HD (which is 2 MP, btw) sensor very, very well.

The other course of action would be to use a much higher resolution sensor, and then pull the old digital zoom, aka crop, scheme. This is much cheaper than using the super-zoom optical scheme. My problem is that once I have all the resolution on the sensor, I want to maximize it for every shot, so I change lenses all the time, and just deal with the sensor cleaning.

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

The trick, of course, Stan it to have the resolution on the sensor greater than your printer is able to resolve, even with prints that are 36 inchs wide.

The extra pixels become irrelevant. Too many pixels is not yet an issue, but someday those extras will be tossed.

At this point that is exactly what some of the fixed lens cameras attempt to do. Some go down to as little as 3 million pixels for extreme telephoto.

Of course all this is assuming that there is no breaktrough in digital technology. Who could have guessed we would be here in 10 years?

I do remember the dust, but no rocks in my film light felt... Remember "spotting?"

As sensors get better, higher resolution, start pushing 20MPixels, that is when I would really miss not having an SLR or digital RF that takes all of my lenses. It's not just about focal length and F-stop, I like the character of a lens. I would love an LTM or M-Mount RF to use my plethora (you can't argue with a word like plethora) of lenses. Same with the Nikon mount, thelenses are much more than focal length. Each has character. The super-zoom computer generated marvels just don't have it. I think "sterile" is the word.

Well Fred,
You are right, its a matter of time before your I-PODS take over, you have to admit though, you're talking about the end of paper-age!!
Its a matter of time before we see the end of the Paper-age and the start of the I-POD age!!!
The day will come that no camera is required....all you need is your I-POD to connect, Reply, respond or record(in person).
NO PAPER IS NECESSARY!!!!
NO TV IS REQUIRED EITHER.
Future is here,
Kiu

Hi,

Oh, I don't know about the end of paper. I once thought that in 1981, when I went to work for IBM. Everything was computer based there, and there was very little call for using paper - you could do everything online.

Yet, most things were printed out. People just prefer to use paper. I figured the end of paper was upon us in 1981, and I'm still waiting for that day. I seriously doubt it'll ever come, though.

For example, I can't imagine that I'll want to read the 73rd volume of Harry Potter - Harry Potter and the 100 MP Camera Phone - on an iPod. I'll probably still want to read the thing as - gasp - a book! :p :p :p

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

I guess this is getting pretty far away from collecting digital, but I just have to comment on the concept of "like the character of a lens."

This is an argument I might have understood in the days before Photoshop, but now I want lenses that are a neutral as possible, and certainly dependable across all focal lengths. I no longer want lenses that are soft, or add color, but want lenses that closely record the original image, with as much information as possible. I personally want the lens to be a totally neutral (or sterile) element in the digital process.

Of course having said all this, I never really understood the idea of "character." But certainly anyone who has owned a Zeiss lens from the 50s is aware of its existence.