Digital Camera Stagnation Good or Bad?

The debate has taken unexpected turns.

Instead of continuing to mourn Olympus or betting on who will be next (Nikon?), comments on children and young generations reminded me of two essays by Italian authors: Massimo Mantellini and Paolo Magrassi. which perfectly center the side theme slightly touched by @oneyellowtang and @Interceptor121

 "We live in the "good-enough society", the age of good enough: we don't need the optimal quality of the CD, MP3 is enough;  phone calls with perfect audio? Skype VOIP is more than enough".

The Internet has radically changed our approach with depth, information, social relations, markets and culture. We listen to music in new digital formats, we photograph the world through the small lens of our mobile phones. We no longer read newspapers, preferring random information that bounces off the social profiles of our "friends". But we embraced Ikea kitchens and Banksy's graffiti, new low-resolution artifacts that fill our lives today. Often through such options we can glimpse the signs of a new intelligence, other times they tell the story of our usual superficiality. In low-resolution technology real time overwhelms the archive. The Internet, the place of memory, is transformed into the space where everything will be quickly forgotten.

Let's take music: while still discussing whether vinyl or CD is better, we switched to mp3 and then to streaming. It all happened quickly while we were discussing which are the best gold cables for our high fidelity systems dusty in the living room. Then I go into my son's room and his tech equipment is very simple: a laptop connected to the internet, Youtube and two $10 plastic speakers. If I ask him "how does it sound?" the answer is "great". It sounds great.

We can do the exact same thing for photography.
The current transformation is similar to the revolution introduced by Polaroid in the era of film.  The digital image has changed skin and is now dominated by the speed of the transition to new media other than paper: social networks where our friends will be ready to welcome them and comment on them. The low resolution at least in our photos is not a simple process of degradation for practical purposes but a complex process that expands in several directions. 
A significant number of photos we see on the net are low-resolution but highly processed images. 
The software that modifies them before they are published is equipped with predefined filters and options that allow in a few gestures even on the screen of a mobile phone to make the image we have just taken more interesting, artistic or captivating. Such modifications are improvements and adulterations: They make the photos more similar to us and to the idea that we want to suggest us to others, but they intentionally betray the principle of truth. above all, they make the photos that we observe on the net all substantially similar. It's no coincidence that there are now groups of people on the internet who would like to eliminate the use of filters and who add the proud caption "nofilter" as proof of the authenticity of the look that technology has now compromised and deceived everywhere. 

Within the vastness of the digital offer, everything seemed at hand. Just then we decided to slow down, making an unexpected choice: the reduction of our expectations. Understanding this choice means understanding the contemporary.

Low-resolution

7 hours ago, Davide DB said:

The debate has taken unexpected turns.

Instead of continuing to mourn Olympus or betting on who will be next (Nikon?), comments on children and young generations reminded me of two essays by Italian authors: Massimo Mantellini and Paolo Magrassi. which perfectly center the side theme slightly touched by @oneyellowtang and @Interceptor121

 "We live in the "good-enough society", the age of good enough: we don't need the optimal quality of the CD, MP3 is enough;  phone calls with perfect audio? Skype VOIP is more than enough".

The Internet has radically changed our approach with depth, information, social relations, markets and culture. We listen to music in new digital formats, we photograph the world through the small lens of our mobile phones. We no longer read newspapers, preferring random information that bounces off the social profiles of our "friends". But we embraced Ikea kitchens and Banksy's graffiti, new low-resolution artifacts that fill our lives today. Often through such options we can glimpse the signs of a new intelligence, other times they tell the story of our usual superficiality. In low-resolution technology real time overwhelms the archive. The Internet, the place of memory, is transformed into the space where everything will be quickly forgotten.

Let's take music: while still discussing whether vinyl or CD is better, we switched to mp3 and then to streaming. It all happened quickly while we were discussing which are the best gold cables for our high fidelity systems dusty in the living room. Then I go into my son's room and his tech equipment is very simple: a laptop connected to the internet, Youtube and two $10 plastic speakers. If I ask him "how does it sound?" the answer is "great". It sounds great.

We can do the exact same thing for photography.
The current transformation is similar to the revolution introduced by Polaroid in the era of film.  The digital image has changed skin and is now dominated by the speed of the transition to new media other than paper: social networks where our friends will be ready to welcome them and comment on them. The low resolution at least in our photos is not a simple process of degradation for practical purposes but a complex process that expands in several directions. 
A significant number of photos we see on the net are low-resolution but highly processed images. 
The software that modifies them before they are published is equipped with predefined filters and options that allow in a few gestures even on the screen of a mobile phone to make the image we have just taken more interesting, artistic or captivating. Such modifications are improvements and adulterations: They make the photos more similar to us and to the idea that we want to suggest us to others, but they intentionally betray the principle of truth. above all, they make the photos that we observe on the net all substantially similar. It's no coincidence that there are now groups of people on the internet who would like to eliminate the use of filters and who add the proud caption "nofilter" as proof of the authenticity of the look that technology has now compromised and deceived everywhere. 

Within the vastness of the digital offer, everything seemed at hand. Just then we decided to slow down, making an unexpected choice: the reduction of our expectations. Understanding this choice means understanding the contemporary.

Low-resolution

 

Could not say it better. Excellent post

Low resolution so all the heavy modification to the image are almost invisible

It makes sense!

Again on the up side in the time it has taken to produce the content on the second half of this second page Sony has announced a brilliant new 12-24mm F/2.8 GM lens and Canon has announced two new mirrorless cameras. The two new Canon cameras now have IBIS and dual card slots missing on the first EOS R. In addition Canon has announced four new Mirrorless lenses and two tele converters.

It seems that in spite a reduction in sales the camera market is moving forward and trying to reinvent itself with 21st century equipment. 

> "We live in the "good-enough society",

Phones are not locked in to just the software the manufacturer provides. They are part of a whole ecosystem of 3rd party just about good enough software. Don't like the way the  something on your phone works - well browse the  web and try a few 'maybe good enough' alternatives until you find one you like. Whilst I curse the poor quality of much of such software, and even more the bloatware that comes pre-installed with a new phone, the fact remains that I have a choice and eventually find something that, at least for me, suits better than the original.

Its not just the phone hardware manufacturers that are pushing the whole ecosystem forward. Their software development is limited to a few proprietary drivers and configuring an operating system. But they benefit from many orders of magnitude 'free' (at least to the manufacturer) additional development work from a world of developers.

The first big camera manufacturer to take the plunge and open up their platform to third party software could start an evolutionary rush of innovation (much of which will be barely good enough) that others will have to follow or get left behind. Rather than comparing the benefits of Nikon / Canon / Sony / Olympus, we will be comparing the benefits of what software we have installed.

But by providing a route out of stagnation, would that also result in a further 'commoditization' of cameras and shake up of manufacturers? Will Sony and Nikon embrace android, while Apple partners with Canon for iEOS?

I agree with the thought of low resolution being good enough, but this is a by-product of convenience. It is not the main reason for the multitude of new divers using phones or action cameras like GoPro. They are simply easier to carry and use. Smaller profiles and ease of use are driving the entry level market. There is a reason why phones, action cameras, and products like Sealife are popular. They are easier to carry and use. Action cameras now have 4K video and advanced features in a small profile. And, everyone has a phone which takes very good pictures and video. The entry level market is where the money is and why there are so many products and accessories. Also consider how often the average person goes diving, maybe once a month for two dives that day and perhaps skipping the winter, bad weather, or holidays. The average user does not want to invest in a big expensive rig which will get minimum use.

I have an older DSLR in a housing with two strobes and it is a pain to carry it around and push it through the water. Forget about swimming against a current. Newer features such as higher resolution and 4K video are not preventing me from upgrading to something newer or better. Size, convenience, and cost are the issues for me. Cost is a big issue because I don't make a dime from the pictures I take, but I would be willing to spend some money if I thought I would enjoy using it.

I like doing beach dives, but I won't drag my rig out to the reef, swim around for an hour, and then push it back across the sand to the beach. I usually do two dives since my gear is already wet. If the conditions are not good for photography, there is no way I will leave my rig in my vehicle while I do a second dive. I would rather leave the rig at home and bring something smaller which may sacrifice quality. For the phone or action cameras, grab stick and go.

Consider this...

DSLR or mirrorless  $$$$

housing  $$$$

lens  $$$

ports  $$$

strobes or video lights $$$

accessories such as electric or optical cords, focus lights, etc.  $$

*** OR ***

phone or action cameras  $$  (everyone already has a phone)

case  $ - $$

stick  $

==================================================

Also consider this...

### camera and housing

First, choose a lens such as general purpose, macro, or wide angle. Wet lenses make this a bit easier.

Are you shooting mid or wide angle and will balance ambient light? Do you need to include red filters to compensate for the color loss?

Set shutter speed, aperature, and ISO for proper exposure.

Set white balance at depth for best color representation.

Do you have strobes or video lights which will now blast white light which will enhance the reds? Do you need blue filters for the lights?

Focus and compose picture or video.

Push button.

*** OR ***

### phone or action cameras

Push button.

The camera manufactures creating the higher end products are doing so for a target audience, not the average consumer. I agree there will always be a small group of people that want to upgrade to something more than a phone or action camera. I also agree the people earning money from photography and video production will be the ones to upgrade to something better in the future. But, the vast majority of users will accept less for the convenience and lower cost. I think the camera manufacturers know this and some don't see a future for themselves.

Thanks

I agree with your point. It seems most people think along those ways. Personally, I am quite often surprised when people show their pictures with washed out colours, no light and are satisfied. I don't need the very best (I use the original Olympus EM5 from 2012 underwater) but I could never be happy with those phone pictures. Light is required even when you use a GoPro or Phone and strobe arms make cameras unwieldy. 

In the end it's all a game of tradeoffs and people will make their own decisions. I doubt the higher end market will go away. Some people will always want more quality. But it will slow down, not because of phones, but because people like you and me who only upgrade their camera every 10 years instead of every 3 years. The people who value convenience above all would never have bought a DSLR with UW housing. 

I use both an 'action camera' (4K go-pro clone/copy), a point-and-shoot or a DLSR underwater. Since I often use a DPV on dives, I need something small and light, so the DLSR in housing with strobes is not taken on DPV dives, but the compact camera & action cam are. The action cam mounts on the DPV and I tether the compact to my harness. It works very well.

That said, the action cam video is nowhere near the quality of the compact camera video. Same shot, same settings (1080p 60fps), the action cam footage is noticeably inferior to the compact. Not surprising considering the cheap plastic action cam lens plus the teeny-tiny sensor compared to the compact camera.

I also know from comparisons with a dive buddy that real 'Go Pro' video is considerably superior to my 'action cam', but then I paid $80 CDN vs.  over $500 for the latest Go Pro. You do get what you pay for.