-
You seem to be assuming I know too little about the subject. I could have used examples of other manufacturers because I'm not that tied to one brand. What I don't need is a primer in camera tech. I'm not emotionally attached to my cameras I have more of a technical interest in photography.
Ultimately this seems like a misunderstanding about semantics. I think the innovation has mostly occurred in sensor technology and electronics. There have been some improvements in lens accuracy due to manufacturing improvements and the change from the less accurate film to sensors meaning that advances in lens accuracy could be seen.
I don't agree with a lot of what seems like hyperbole for the last decade of development. It all seems to have been a pretty linear development of sensor technology and the resulting changes in camera performance. It does seem that overall you are counting as innovation capacities that were available for a long time but are now commonplace, like waterproofing/condensation resistance. That's not really innovation.
I'm not a big fan of astro photography though so to me it is an edge case.
It's great that you are excited about photographic equipment though. Like I said initially I'm not arguing about all the innovation in your list but I don't think you can say 'mirrorless' is an innovation. The return to the mirrorless format was enabled by sensor technology. In terms of increasingly sharp lenses, sensor technology enabled us to pixel peep sharpness and the public has been prepared to switch back to prime lenses to get the sharpest wide open lenses. For a while it was all about massive zooms. Now it's changing to phone cameras.
You are reading a single comment by @Airhead and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Airhead
Velocio
It's silly arguing on the internet, you're clearly very emotionally attached to Leica as a brand so nothing I say will possibly convince you that innovation has occurred despite the fact that camera, mount, lens, sensor, digital innovation in the last decade or two has essentially rendered obsolete and even superseded the best from 20y ago.
At no point did I argue that historical innovation didn't occur, but I originally responded to Amey's declaration that there has been no innovation in cameras in the last couple of decades. So much has changed that a camera today is barely recognisable if you looked beyond the ergonomics and basic shapes that people are habitually attached to.
Even details like autofocus motors are just a leap beyond what they were, now being silent magnetic drive, low-power, smooth, sealed. But yeah you can argue Leica had mirrorless, or Hasselblad did something interesting... you can argue Leica had lens that were excellent... sure, I'd buy that argue for the time that it occurred. But you could never have pointed a Leica at a night sky and captured the number of stars that you can capture with a digital mirrorless and a modern lens, despite the fundamental physics of "get as much light to the film/sensor as possible in as clean a state as possible" being as true then as it is now. Night sky and astro photography may feel like an edge case, but it demonstrates so neatly how much innovation has truly occurred (including the fact that lenses today can transfer from hot to cold environments with less condensation and moisture build up). It's just such a huge leap, it happened incrementally and then exponentially, but it's so big a difference. But none of this will persuade anyone who is so emotionally invested in a brand that they're unwilling to acknowledge it.
Innovation in cameras in the last decade or two has outstripped innovation in cameras for almost the entirety of photography that preceded it. The pace is stunning. Cameras now launch with significant new features multiple times per year. It's an exciting time to have an interest in photography and all I'm doing is sharing that excitement.