Pondering on the Future of DSLR cameras

Kodak/Nikon DCS-100. Image courtesy of NikonWeb (http://www.nikonweb.com/)

Ever since Kodak and Nikon introduced the 1st DSLR in 1991 (Kodak DCS-100), photography enthusiasts drooled over the day when they’d be able to lay their shutter-happy hands on a DSLR. When Canon introduced the first sub-$ 1000 DSLR in 2003, suddenly the technology available for a few became accessible to a lot of people. The development of DSLRs have gone leaps and bounds since then. We now have full-frame sensors with multiple-point autofocus that also provides the user the ability to shoot movies. So where is DSLR technology going? Let me ponder on that a bit.

I think that it won’t be long until DSLRs – or even P&S cameras – get WiFi connectivity. Why not? Won’t it be neat if you can immediately upload a proof to your client for whatever they need the proof for? Of course, we don’t want to send photos that are bland so why not throw in intermediate post-processing functions? It’s not far fetched that companies like Sony or Samsung lead this charge. Bluetooth connectivity? Sure. If they can put WiFi, then why not Bluetooth?

There are multiple storage media formats being used today. For multiple system users (like me), it would be neat if my DSLR can accept any card format and is able to read the contents of the card? Sort of the way the Mac is able to read native Windrows MS Office files. Why then don’t we up the ante a bit: harddrives for the DSLR. Imagine the number or RAW files we can squeeze into a 120GB HDD? Since were there? why not make these drives hot-pluggable?    We can take one out and slap on a new one without shutting the camera.

Let’s admit it: there are a number of DSLR owners out there that are casual shooters. You know…they jumped into the DSLR bandwagon just to be “in fashion”. More often than not, they just want to shot in Green Mode and gives diddly-squat about composition. Why not give them a camera that can compose a scene for them? A sort of feature that suggest to these weekend shooters what composition is right. With this feature, they can have studio quality portraits all the time.

Eh, what’s that? Oh…voice command. Image being able to instruct your camera to “set WB shade. set AEV plus two, set aperture 2.8, set shutter 128. end”…man. Wouldn’t that be nice? Well, it would be if you don’t mind looking like an idiot talking to a camera. But who knows? Garage door openers are now voice activated, why not a high tech piece of equipment like a digital camera?

Speakers, yes, speakers. Since DSLRs now are coming up with a movie-mode why not put speakers on the body? Sound check, test mic 1-2-3. Damn! Think of all the peeping you can do with a DSLR that has a 3000mm lens with a movie mode! You’d be king of the pervert sites.

What if Intel and the processor makers for DSLR cameras joined forces and create the 1st quad-core processor for a digital camera? Wow! Think of all the processing power that baby would have!  Then Microsoft gets a piece of the pie and manages to convince camera giants to load a modified version of Windows on all digital cameras. This’ll be neat! You’d get to see the BSOD when you power-on your camera. A Mac inspired camera…hmm…now that’s a thought. An all white camera that is overpriced and over-hyped as the iPhone. But hey, if those babies perform smoothly like OS X Leopard on an iBook, I’d probably fall in line to get one.

My friends, if all or many of all the above “improvements” happen, I’m getting out of photography as the purity of the art would be gone.  I’d get into another hobby, probably knitting. The camera would have evolved to a computer and it’ll probably be as big as Beavis’ head. Yeah, yeah – call me a purist but I’m from the old school (I still shoot film – although I do have  DSLR). A gentle old man once told me that cameras now-a-days are just computers with cameras. Sure, new gen cameras make photography easier for a lot of people but had a point in saying that it is taking away the discipline that film shooters have i.e. have to get the shot right the 1st time because you can have only 36 tries to make 36 images look right. Besides, developing film ain’t cheap. Looking at the other side of the coin however, advances in technology for digital cameras would be great for a lot of users as it would provide them ease-of-use and intelligent functions that would make the Jetsons proud. It would also (somehow) promote photography to the masses as advances in technology and strong competition in the market could drive prices lower.

At the end of the day, however, the camera-computer is only a tool…a piece of machine. Without an intelligent/knowledgeable person behind the viewfinder, it’s just an expensive paper weight because as with all tools, these marvels of technology would still need humans to power ‘em up and make ‘em work.

Later, I got a cross-stich project to start.