The Future of Digital Photography: The Modular Large Format System

[caption id="attachment_4465" align="alignright" width="300" caption="An 8X10" wooden field camera that kicks your digital camera in tush when it comes to image quality.  Will there some day be a digital back that will revitalize the used large format market?"][/caption]

Recently you may have seen some cool new photo gadgetry while surfing engadget or other photo/tech related websites.  Just like any other kind of technology, when it comes to digital photography there are plenty wild prototypes and unrealistic propositions.  Thankfully in this digital age a healthy dose of commenter/user skepticism comes standard with each wave of innovation and new products.  If you've read our blog before, you probably know that I have written fairly extensively about mirrorless cameras and the micro 4/3rds system.  I believe that it is good technology that hasn't been perfected yet.  I did happen to get my hands on an Olympus E-P3 today and I was very impressed with how far Olympus has come since their first PEN cameras.  Unlike previous PEN cameras, the focus is snappy and the LCD is bearable to look at.  Soon I will have a solid writeup/review (real life shooting situations) of the EP-3, E-PL3, and E-PM1.  It really is impressive how Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, etc... have come up with something different.  It's Canon's world (let's call Nikon the moon) and everyone else is just living in it.  You can't compete with their DSLR sales, so doing something different was smart on their part.  However the merits of a smaller system will only go so far.  For the consumer there is tremendous advantage to having a small system.  For videographers there are advantages as well because even  high definition recording only uses a fraction of the total sensor area.  However is is just that, sensor area/size that makes an enormous difference in image quality.  This is why I think the professional cameras of the future may very well  be getting bigger, not smaller, here's why...

[caption id="attachment_4466" align="alignright" width="223" caption="This guy probably bit the dust in 1858, but his camera pumped out way higher resolution images than your puny DSLR"][/caption]

The view camera was invented in the 19th century and since then there hasn't been a camera invented that takes higher resolution images.  Period.  In terms of connivance, there is no debate that cameras have become more convent to use, now more-so than ever.  There are more now ways than ever to make and share images.  The smart phone has made a major impact on the compact camera segment and I imagine that it will only continue to grow in popularity.  Mirrorless cameras have taken a small bite out of DSLR sales, but mainly in Asia, not in Europe or the United States.  Professionals of course will continue to use DSLRs because of image quality, bright optical viewfinders, autofocus speed, durability, etc...  Until there is a viable system that offers better performance in all areas for a better price, the DSLR will be the mainstay of professionals for a very long time.  Let's take a look at a couple recent "innovations" and how they could potentially impact any niche of camera buyers from total novice to seasoned professional.

About a month ago there was a bunch of internet flavored cola being passed around about a previously unheard of camera manufacturer named Lytro.  Apparently Lytro has developed a camera that  will let you focus AFTER taking the picture.  Meaning that you don't have to focus on the right spot anymore, just click away and pick your focus point later.  According to Lytro, this is accomplished using a "Light Field" sensor capturing all of of the light hitting an object beyond the flatness of 2D.  If you want to read the FAQ from Lytro and the full thesis/dissertation from Lytros foudner/CEO, you can check those links out here and here.  in layman's terms, the Lytro camera takes a picture and lets photographers AND viewers decide where the focal point of the image should be with an interactive "map" that a user can simply click on to focus.  Lytro has dozens of these examples in their gallery.  Apparently the technology is indeed real and currently being tested.  So what does this mean for digital cameras?  Well right now Lytro has designed the "Light Field" sensor to work in a "compact/light" point and shoot camera.  To me this seems kind of pointless... its hard to get truly shallow depth of field on a point and shoot camera and they've become so good at focusing on faces (mostly what people with point and shoot cameras take pictures of), that there really isn't a need for this technology.

[caption id="attachment_4470" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Welcome to the world of ridiculous and stupid. For only $250 you can turn your iPhone into a DSLR lens compatible camera. Hint hint, buy a 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 for your DSLR instead."][/caption]

When it comes to professionals, this technology is even sillier.  You could make a pretty solid case that consumers would find the Lytro attractive, but not professionals.  Every manufacturer wants to sell you cameras that are "FUN AND EASY" and have modes that let you "GET CREATIVE!"  Since when did creativity have anything to do with a stupid gimmick special effects mode on a camera?  For professionals, the art of seeing is more important than any mode on a camera.  You could hand a seasoned pro photographer a camera with three controls, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.  They would be able to take amazing pictures without any of the frills of modern day cameras.  Ultimately the Lytro camera will find its place somewhere, I could see it being very useful for commercial, security,  or military use.  You could make the case that capturing the entire lightfield opens up opportunity for new kinds of visual art and presentations, but for traditional still photographs it comes off as lazy and unnecessary.

A DSLR Lens to iPhone adapter is another product that got some buzz lately.  Again we read all sorts of spam gushing over the possibility of tiny compact cameras that take high quality pictures.  If the laws of optics could be bent and made this simple, who wouldn't sign up for it?  However it just doesn't work that way, the DSLR lens to iPhone adapter is a gimmick/toy at best and honestly I can't see why anyone would buy one.  It is a total waste of money.  If you thought the 2x crop factor micro 4/3rds was annoying, what about a 10x crop factor with an iPhone 4?  While I haven't done the math, I expect it would be around this much considering the iPhone has a sensor smaller than a tic-tac.  I imagine that you could use the super specialty Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 DC Fisheye lens.  This would give you an angle of view equivalent to about a 45mm (normal) lens on a full frame camera.  Still, the big misconception about crop factor is that it actually extends your focal length.  Regardless of what manufacturer's want you to think, the plain truth is that it doesn't.  When you use a cropped sensor, all this does is crop part of the projected image from the lens.  So you do not get the same depth of field OR compression that you would with a truly longer lens.  Oh and Photo JoJo mentions in their FAQ that you will lose 1 to 2 stops of light when using their adapter. -_-

[caption id="attachment_4467" align="alignleft" width="210" caption="Buzzkill. You'd need a specialty lens like the Sigma 4.5mm Fisheye to get a "normal" angle of view on an iPhone. Is it worth it? No!"][/caption]

So despite everyone's desire for tiny cameras that take better pictures than today's behemoths, it's just not going to happen anytime soon.  I am certain sensor and processor technology will improve over the coming years, but there are just certain laws of optics that can't be ignored.  Larger image areas will give better image quality and this has been proven since the days of film.  Many wedding photographers shot with medium format because it just had a different look than 35mm film.  Huge studios used 4x5 and 8x10 cameras that produced remarkable images.  While a high resolution 35mm DSLR such as the 5D Mark II or Nikon D3x will be good enough for most people, others demand the best quality and are switching to medium format digital systems.  Digital medium format is still in its infancy and is very expensive for individuals to purchase.  This will change over time and medium format digital cameras will be a reality for the professional photographer.

I spoke briefly online with Steven Inglima, head of the Canon Explorer of LIght program.  He mentioned to me that he used to speak about the possibility and benefits of digital medium format cameras before they  existed.  People scoffed at him and said that it was unrealistic.  Well today we have Hasselblad, Leaf, Pentax, Leica, and Phase One all competing in the digital medium format niche.  Like I said, medium format digital technology is still very new compared to DSLRs, but I believe that it is only a matter of time before the big boys get involved.  It was at Canon Expo that I saw a giant 8x8" CMOS wafer that Canon designed.  One day in the future, maybe even as soon as 10 years from now, medium format digital cameras will be standard place for professional photographers.  They will cost no more than a D3 or 1D costs now and while they won't be ideal for action/sports/coverage photographers, those seeking higher quality images will turn to them on a daily basis.

[caption id="attachment_4480" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Large format negatives allowed photographers like Ansel Adams to capture scenes with high dynamic range, not gimmicky small cameras and "HDR" settings"][/caption]

Perhaps there will even be a day when photographers have a viable large format digital solution.  A company called Better Light has been making large format scanning backs for ages, but there are a lot of limitations to using a scanning back.  A true large format digital sensor would be a huge achievement in the world of digital photography.  It would instantly make thousands of cameras, lenses, and accessories valid again.  People would no longer be simply giving away their old view cameras if there was a usable and affordable large format digital solution.  Some people may question the sharpness of old large format lenses.  I mean Rodenstock makes special digital lenses that are designed for digital medium format capture, so wouldn't you need even better and more expensive lenses for large format?  Well the answer is a little complicated, but in theory a larger image area doesn't require as much resolving power as a smaller image area would.  However many digital medium format cameras have been sporting insanely high megapixel counts, so they do indeed require more resolving power.  A true large format digital back with a conservative megapixel count would be just fine with ancient Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fujinon lenses.

[caption id="attachment_4482" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Right now using large format cameras for digital capture is costly and can't be used for moving subjects."][/caption]

My only real concern with a digital large format system is the amount of people left in the world that would care about such innovation.  Sure there are plenty of dedicated large format film photographers left right now that would love a digital solution.  I am personally part of this group.  It seems like every day brings a film stock I love(d) being discontinued or a local processing lab no longer offering large format/E-6 processing.  Often these labs just end up folding and going out of business.  I don't think there is a single place in New Jersey to get large format E-6 or B/W film processed anymore.  A lot of schools still teach large format photography, but digital has improved so much of late, many are abandoning it.  In a lot of ways, I don't blame them because colleges are supposed to prepare students for the future.  Right now large format certainly doesn't seem like the future.

We can only hope that more people will start to value quality over convenience and start to make inspirational images.  I believe the death of the printed image (it's barely clinging on for dear life) has been a major hindrance to this.  Everything looks good on a screen, but what about printing images.?  Why is everyone so afraid to make big prints these days?  We will talk about this odd phenomenon in the coming weeks.