Is photography improvable right now? Professional cameras now take real-like photos
I think it's not improvable at all.
>>54982722
>pic unrelated
>>54982722
Depends on your definition of improved.
>>54982742
improved quality in general
>>54982722
Of course it is. Have you ever been in a theater for a few hours then left it into bright sunlight? Does photography have the power to blind you? If not, then it is lacking in dynamic range compared to real life.
>>54982800
Yeah, thats right. but i am talking about image quality
>>54982722
At this point sensors have surpassed the rest of the camera, now we just have to wait for the price of nice lenses to come down
>>54982818
Dynamic range is important to image quality. Cameras right now can only show compressed versions of images compared to our eyes.
Colors aren't highly linear and can drift
Monitors are lacking in all of this as well and inks are inherently limited by the ambient light
if i have lots of money is there even a camera that is CLOSE to flawless in the dark?
>>54982749
Well, sure. There is always improvements made in megapixel counts, lens technologies, sensor technologies.
>>54982896
There is no camera that is close to flawless anywhere
>>54982896
There are tons of nightvision cameras.
>>54982908
i meant a camera that produces a flawless image in low light, i.e. no grain at all
i dont like how cameras take square-ish photos usually
it feels like humans see at like 21:9 but cameras only take 4:3 photos
>>54982896
Define dark.
>>54982914
Nikon D4S.
>>54982945
>Nikon D4S
It's not bad. But it's hardly flawless. I'm talking about could i buy a camera for $500k that literally has NO grain?
>>54982915
You mean 16:9
>>54983041
It's impossible to collect any signal without noise, cameras included.
>>54982860
>APS-C noise still starts around iso 800-1600, getting problematic at 6400
>full-frames can pull out useful 12800, but it's still quite noisy already
there is still a lot of room for improvement, photography
god, i'd love to have 4-6mpx fullframe in modern technology. i bet it could pull off way better night shots than anything right now
>>54983070
why is it impossible?
>>54982915
>it feels like humans see at like 21:9 but cameras only take 4:3 photos
Physiologically this is absolutely not true.
>>54983041
>How "modern" noise reduction ruins photography
I still use my canon s40 4mp camera and the pictures look better than 99% of what I see on 500px and instagram.
I can also get good prints from them and I only use a 64mb compact flash card.
Sony Foveon, when?
>>54983041
Cool the sensor.
>>54983106
There is always parasites.
Best thing we can do is optimize the signal-to-noise ratio
>>54983606
Btw, like in the audio world, there is less visible noise at lower gain (iso).
Camera like the ones in OP's picture are especially good at this
https://www.photigy.com/pentax-645z-review-part-3-comparisons-of-the-dynamic-range/
>>54982722
More megapixels.
Higher frame rate photo taking.
Better noise reduction in low light.
There's plenty of room to improve.
>>54982722
By a lot.
>>54982896
Nothing is flawless and what is dark? What kind of shots are you trying to take? Something like Sony A7S II has really good SNR resulting in low levels of grain in the image. With a large aperture lens combined with the in-body image stabilization, the camera should take visually nice looking pictures at low light compared to most others on the market. The question here leaves too much to interpret.
>>54983106
Noise is always present in any system, usually many types of it adding up to each other. Thermal noise is the absolute limit and it's unavoidable above 0k temperatures. Noise is impossible to counter as it is completely random.
>>54983660
>Btw, like in the audio world, there is less visible noise at lower gain (iso).
That's true to every analog system.
