Poll - improvements to your current kit

[Damien_Demolder]

Do digital cameras really need improving?

Either way, they are about to take a collective step forward as the world’s photographic manufacturers show their latest products over the next couple of weeks. You might think that we don’t need any new cameras, but it is improbable that the top brands at least won’t introduce something new at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) show in Las Vegas – or even at Focus On Imaging in Birmingham.

I’ve been going to these annual shows for 11 years as a journalist and every year spend some time beforehand working out what will be launched. It’s part of my job to anticipate what will be shown, and through our product testing during the year it is sometimes obvious what needs to be introduced or improved. There has never been an occasion when nothing needed more work, and this year there is plenty of room for improvement in some areas.

I’m desperate for the smaller manufacturers to pick up the pace a little by growing DSLR ranges to provide a real alternative to the Big Two of Canon and Nikon, but there is no single brand that has nothing to do.

I’m hoping for big things.

This week's poll is:

If you could improve one aspect of your current kit, which of these would it be?

A. More pixels
B. Less noise
C. Better lenses

Click the question to vote at our home page

Thanks for taking part.

damien

[Benchista]

Where's the "none of the above" option?

Seriously, I've plenty of pixels, low noise, and lenses that are well-suited to my current kit. If I upgrade, it'll be for all three...

[Roger_Provins]

Much the same as Nick. More than enough pixels (24.6 megapixels), noise levels are okay at the ISO I use (100-800) and the few lenses I have are about as good as lenses get.

BUT there are small changes I would like made, none of which would warrant investing in a new camera, a firmware update would do the trick.

[beejaybee]

Bigger pixels....

[huwevans]

Definitely less noise, for me. I'm happy with my D2X's noise most of the time - I'm even willing to use its highest 'extended settings' when the occasion demands, but there's always a case for better noise and an extra stop or two's worth of shutter speed when the conditions are really dark.

[Gordon_McGeachie]

I went for `C`............could do with some better glassware.....

[Barney]

I also so went for 'C', but once I have those I would also love to get a D700 for the improved noise levels over the D300 and also the full frame sensor.

As for the manufacturers outside the big two, the only system I would currently consider buying into would be the micro fourthirds one, Olympus depending. I don't trust Sony's longevity in the market just yet and the others haven't got the range of lenses/accessories of the big two.

[alanS]

Not really any of the above, but I am tempted by better high ISO performance.

Anyway...

I've read a couple of times about variable sensitivity to light across the frame, that'd possibly do away with things like the combining of multiple exposures and enable retention of highlights and shadow detail in one shot. That should surely be possible, given enough processing power.

Maybe in the future we'll remember the days when we used to occasionally have to decide to retain highlight detail and boost the shadows later.

Or...

An effective means by which contamination could be prevented both in the image path and in the optical view path. That shouldn't be too difficult, surely, if there was a will to do it.

[Barney]

An effective means by which contamination could be prevented both in the image path and in the optical view path. That shouldn't be too difficult, surely, if there was a will to do it.

I didn't think you were bothered about a speck of dust or two?












[img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[alanS]

The complete and total elimination of contamination is my whole reason for existing.

[Zou]

I went with lenses, as better glass on the cameras I currently have would make the most cost effective improvement in IQ for me. If I was looking to get a new digital body, then less noise would be my choice. You can never have too little noise.

[Fire_Monkey]

Lens' for me. I suspect that when I have my dream lens' . there'll be something else that needs upgrading. ( Or rather that I would like to upgrade! )

[Wheelu]

I voted for better glass, but....

I'd like a DSLR that was smaller, simpler, lighter and cheaper with a much better optical viewfinder. In effect a Pentax MX or Olympus OM1 with a digital sensor. For the photography that I do, I could live without autofocus or image stabilisation, if that meant a cheaper and simpler product.

I would also like to see some removal of the built in obsolescence by designing a camera body whose electronics could be easily upgraded, including a sensor change. At present the depreciation on DSLRs is far too high to persuade me to buy new, but I guess that I am in the minority on all counts

[El_Sid]

On the principal that your question limits me to one improvement only then currently that is better glass. While I'm reasonably well served in the midrange I could do with sharper and/or faster lenses in the wider and longer departments.

If I could go for two options then I'd add less noise as well - and that's less noise through better/fewer pixels, not quality mangling NR algorithms...

[Learning]

I do not expect to see the rate of progress to continue and most improvements will be small. I am so satisfied with my DX cameras that I do not expect to see a reason to upgrade in the near future. The D300 does more than I want for serious photography.
I would however like a quality compact camera and see micro four thirds as a possibility, but not one designed to look like a small DSLR. Something like a miniaturised Leica would do (on grounds of cost, without a Leica badge). This would not be an improvement to my kit; it would complement it.

[Bawbee]

I also so went for 'C'....

As most Nokin users will also do.... [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Nod]

D More available cash to be able to afford C!

12 MP is enough for me and since they're wrapped up in a D700, B isn't an issue either. TBH, I'm happy with the lenses I have up to 70mm and can live with the ones I have for the 70-500 range but the long lenses could stand upgrading! (&0-300 VR Nikon and 150-500 OS Sigma - both fine for the price but bigger bucks would mean better glass!)

[TimF]

Could I get any better glass? Don't think so.

More pixies would be nice (and a larger chip; x1.1 would do if full frame isn't possible), but I'd sooner have lower noise levels - not non-existent noise though, I can't be doing with that plastic-fantastic look some cameras have. Vote goes to B then.

[beejaybee]

not non-existent noise though, I can't be doing with that plastic-fantastic look some cameras have.

You can't have zero noise; the quantum nature of light forbids it. That's precisely why the "plastic" look given by overenthusiastic noise reduction software is so obnoxious.

However it's easy to add realistic, artificial noise back into the image.

[APchris]

There are more than enough pixels and glass out there IMHO so less noise for me, especially at higher ISOs.

The improvements I'm most looking forward to are in the Micro Four Thirds world. I'd love to see an interchangeable lens camera smaller than the Pano G1 and maybe even fixed lens compacts with the MFT sensor too.

Also, I could never understand why the Foveon sensor never developed beyond 4.6 MP. The idea of a sensor that records images in the same way as film should have been a lot more successful than it has been, so maybe some new developments in this area now that Sigma has taken control