13 ms·

Traditional lens manufacturing is likely in its last days (which can easily take a decade or two, but ... the end is visible). Modern lens are made with techni

Traditional lens manufacturing is likely in its last days (which can easily take a decade or two, but ... the end is visible). Modern lens are made with techniques perfected in semiconductor manufacturing, and use advances in material science (meta materials in particular). I don't know how close this is to mass market, but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way.

robotmay 6y ago
There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a big pivot in the market (we're already seeing it, really) with the switch to mirrorless. What I'm hoping we'll see is a total rethink of what's possible in a lens; adapting this new technology to make new designs that exceed what was possible before, rather than just matching it. If they can bring costs down by making use of this new tech then I think it will re-open the market for "I want something that does more than a phone camera". At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.
  - Kye 6y ago
    You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.
  - monkeynotes 6y ago
    2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
      - da02 6y ago
        Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  Wow that lens is bonkers. What a reasonable price. I love it. Aside, I enjoy that Ken also loves this lens, despite it being mostly plastic, which he usually shits all over. It actually seems like a feature here, for weight purposes.
  - Wistar 6y ago
    I have a 70-300mm DO and it is not a lens I like much. The 400 DO is probably light-years better. It is definitely light-years more expensive.
    - tomatocracy 6y ago
      I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a stop in light gathering ability at 400mm.
      - Wistar 6y ago
        Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.
        tomatocracy 6y ago
        Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and had the 100-400 mk 1 years ago. The 100-400 mk I isn't a patch on either quality-wise but I gather the mk 2 is significantly better so not sure how it compares. Where the 400DO perhaps really shines is paired with a 1.4x TC - it's much more handleable than a 600/4 and paired with a decent body gets results as good as bodies 10 years ago would have got with the 600/4.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Although a friend of mine tried it out as a rental along with an R5. He was really wowed at first but after using it for a bit he wasn't as impressed with the results. Still, for a birder, at $1K coupled with the R5's eye autofocus it doesn't have any real competitors. Not everyone needs or can pay for the higher end and very heavy lenses. (And, with modern full frame digital cameras, the smaller fixed aperature doesn't matter nearly as much.)
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  Nikon has been making PF, or Phased Fresnel, lenses for a number of years too. The 300mm f4 is a head-turner due to its tiny size and diminutive weight, while still being as good as the old 300mm in almost every way. They also have a 500mm 5.6 that's similarly tiny (compared to a non-PF version) and hard to get.
  - petepete 6y ago
    I've had the 300PF for several years and it's my most-used lens. I photograph birds and wildlife and being able to fit an extremely-good setup (a D500 with 300PF) into my smallest camera bag (Lowepro hatchback 16l) encourages me to take it on almost every outing.
    - geerlingguy 6y ago
      That's one reason I do tend to grab my Sony E mount fairly often these days... I just wish there were a lens close to the quality and weight of the PF 300 for the Sony system.
- m463 6y ago
  I don't know, the nikon p1000 is ~ 3000 mm equivalent by designing the sensor+lens together. On the other hand, it doesn't behave like a good canon ultrasonic lens with immediate focus. not at all.
  - y04nn 6y ago
    The Nikon P1000 has a 539mm zoom lens with extremely small sensor: 1/2.3". And it's probably a contrast based focus system. I would not expect good results from such camera. Sensor size comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlai...
- cactus2093 6y ago
  I think you’re about 2 or 3 years too late with this comment. The switch to mirrorless is already here, Nikon and Canon have the majority of their core lens lineups out already for these platforms so it’s unlikely they’d replace them again for the next decade or longer. And yes, they are mostly better than previous generations across the board. Which is pretty cool, that something based on such a simple idea that’s been around hundreds of years still has room for major improvements.
  - andi999 6y ago
    What is the deal with mirrorless? (no mirror, but why does this improve optics?)
    - jmarcher 6y ago
      Most mirrorless mounts are significantly wider (diameter wise) and closer to the sensors so they are able to develop new lenses that can take advantage of that.
    - DeathRay2K 6y ago
      Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.
      - Arelius 6y ago
        Yes, losing the mirror doesn’t really improve optics, however removing the mirror and related mechanism does allow one to bring the lens closer to the focal plane, which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. And makes everything smaller and lighter as you allude to.
        ip26 6y ago
        which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. Sort of. The diameter of the front element is predetermined, a function of the sensor size, focal length, and aperture. Mirrorless cannot escape this. But, the shorter distance from sensor to lens does simplify the design of a good wide angle. Sadly, wide angles were never the big heavy lenses in the first place. The whole smaller & lighter thing is not a lie but pretty oversold. Some of the RF glass is actually bigger and heavier than the equivalent EF glass.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can remember wanting > 200mm was back when I did sports photography.
  - trm42 6y ago
    For landscapes 400-600 mm are in some cases really nice.
  - ivanhoe 6y ago
    Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...
    - robotmay 6y ago
      Yeah wildlife photography, particularly bird photography, can never have enough focal length. I practice stalking techniques to get closer (which has a much better cost/reward ratio to buying bigger lenses) but if you can fill the frame with a bird you can get awesome shots that just aren't possible otherwise. Currently I'm shooting at 600mm, and I definitely want a teleconverter to get up to ~800mm. After that the prices get truly insane so I think I'll just have to find some bigger birds at that point.
  - matwood 6y ago
    I bought a 70-300 Nikon ED VR specifically to take pictures of the moon, and it does a pretty good job. Turns out it's useful for a lot of situations (birds and other wildlife). My vacation setup is normally iPhone + D7100 with the 70-300 attached. That can easily cover most situations w/o changing lenses around too often. I'm planning on picking up one of the Nikon mirrorless FFs soon.
- skylanh 6y ago
  For what it's worth, I like Bryan Carnathan's reviews a little more for Canon specific stuff: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F...
criley2 6y ago
>but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way. I find this very fascinating because while I enjoy my ever-increasing smartphone camera and use it as a daily driver, I have a about 13 year old Canon DSLR (one of the first one they made now) with a few lenses and that 2007 model Canon D-SLR with the 1" large digital sensor can RUN INSANE LAPS AROUND TOP OF THE LINE SMARTPHONES with respect to the ability to take low light photos, get a lot of good light, and of course zoom on the telephoto, macro on the macro, etc. The autofocus is probably five times faster and the ~10 zones are lightyears ahead of the phone. There's no comparison. Sure, the 7MP megapixels are bad. Sure, the ISO noise is pretty bad compared to modern smartphone postprocessing. But the telephoto isn't some pitiful "optical zoom", it's instead incredible powerful optics. The low aperture prime lenses produce beautiful shots whose distortion is matched to human preference. The idea that phones can "catch up" to even 10 years ago on DSLR's would be very cool. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath. Phone sensors are what 10X smaller? Doing great things with 10X less light is impressive, but at some point, you need a big sensor and good quality glass. Would love to see us get DSLR quality pics from a phone tho.
- beagle3 6y ago
  I was not referring to phone lens, although those things are being applied there too. It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. When these become common, it will likely cause another seismic shift in the pure-camera market. Perhaps some of them will actually be bonded with the sensors, unlike what we have today. Regardless, new lens technology -- while likely to make a greater impact on mobile phones -- is largely orthogonal to them.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    ... can you actually buy this yet?
    - Kye 6y ago
oblio 6y ago
I can't find it now, but I remember reading about something with what seems a lot more boring than the articles I find about "metamaterial lenses". Maybe someone has a pointer for what it's actually called. It was something reproducing a sort of "solar furnace" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace) at a micro scale, coordinated with electronics. Think creating a dynamic lens by redirecting light from many micro lenses (mirrors?). The upside being dynamic focal lengths using extremely short lens (the whole thing being microscopic). Am I day dreaming? I can swear I read something or saw a documentary somewhere. Or is what I'm describing just another name for metamaterial lenses? Based on what I've read about metamaterials, right now, I don't think it is, but I can very easily be wrong. Edit: Ah, maybe microlenses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens Does anyone know if they're applicable to camera lenses?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ipsum2 6y ago
  Microlenses are used already in most modern camera sensors to absorb more light or used for dual-pixel autofocus.
mmaunder 6y ago
The cine lens and professional photographer lens market is big and irreplaceable until they figure out how, for example, to make an f4 600mm prime without a 150mm front element. Many problems to solve until we see the last days of optical professional lenses. Price points for these start at $2000, the cine lenses are around $4500 for primes and that 600mm I mentioned is a Canon lens, has a front element grown from fluorite crystal and runs about $12,000 and is currently on version 4.
- ksk 6y ago
  A 600mm F/4 lens gathers a lot of light per-unit sensor-area, and there are many reasons why professional nature photographers have historically needed such a large lens (1) Older digital sensors weren't good at all with high-iso (high read-noise, low photon-electron conversion efficiency, etc) (2) An off-sensor DSLR AutoFocus array has a very small effective-aperture, making the lens aperture very important in low-light situations for autofocus (which a lot of nature photography is) (3) Bokeh - Ofcource nothing beats large aperture bokeh, but this can be tackled perhaps through computation? For (1) and (2) Modern imaging sensors perform beautifully in high-iso scenarios. Also, with mirrorless, there are cameras that can AF down to F/22 - something unimaginable (and impossible) with DSLRs. While the demand for 600mm F/4 is there from a professional standpoint, there is an even larger demand for cheaper options - and.. this point is important, you can produce award-worthy images using those cheaper potions. In fact if you look at any nature competition a lot of the awards go to images made with cheap/budget gear.
- medion 6y ago
  Or Cooke cine lens primes start at about 20,000eur, a zoom lens up to 60,000eur - just to comprehend where the lens top end is.
- Wistar 6y ago
  Pick up an $11k Canon 200-400 L lens and it is this super solid, beautifully made thing. Pick up a Canon CN-E 30-300 cinema lens and it is this exquisite, jewel-like thing that seems as though it is made by NASA. And it's $45K.
7ewis 6y ago
Does that mean we might be nearing the end of camera bumps on phones?
billfruit 6y ago
On a tangent are 'liquid lenses' anywhere near making an impact in consumer imaging products?
_Adam 6y ago
Do you have a link? Most likely that $2 lens only works well at a single frequency.
alfalfasprout 6y ago
This is so laughably wrong it's not even funny. We're not talking about individual lens elements but entire camera lenses. There's a ton of engineering that goes into designing eg; a zoom lens that can cover a focal range while retaining sharpness, minimal color fringing, etc. And that's assuming you can use software to correct for distortion... in the past that was a dealbreaker. The result is a lens that requires 10-20 (or sometimes even more) individual elements. No matter how you cut it that will be expensive. There's no cheating physics sadly.

robotmay 6y ago

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a big pivot in the market (we're already seeing it, really) with the switch to mirrorless. What I'm hoping we'll see is a total rethink of what's possible in a lens; adapting this new technology to make new designs that exceed what was possible before, rather than just matching it. If they can bring costs down by making use of this new tech then I think it will re-open the market for "I want something that does more than a phone camera". At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people.

formerly_proven 6y ago
> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.
- Kye 6y ago
  You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.
- monkeynotes 6y ago
  2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
    - da02 6y ago
      Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Wow that lens is bonkers. What a reasonable price. I love it. Aside, I enjoy that Ken also loves this lens, despite it being mostly plastic, which he usually shits all over. It actually seems like a feature here, for weight purposes.
- Wistar 6y ago
  I have a 70-300mm DO and it is not a lens I like much. The 400 DO is probably light-years better. It is definitely light-years more expensive.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a stop in light gathering ability at 400mm.
    - Wistar 6y ago
      Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.
      - tomatocracy 6y ago
        Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and had the 100-400 mk 1 years ago. The 100-400 mk I isn't a patch on either quality-wise but I gather the mk 2 is significantly better so not sure how it compares. Where the 400DO perhaps really shines is paired with a 1.4x TC - it's much more handleable than a 600/4 and paired with a decent body gets results as good as bodies 10 years ago would have got with the 600/4.
ghaff 6y ago
Although a friend of mine tried it out as a rental along with an R5. He was really wowed at first but after using it for a bit he wasn't as impressed with the results. Still, for a birder, at $1K coupled with the R5's eye autofocus it doesn't have any real competitors. Not everyone needs or can pay for the higher end and very heavy lenses. (And, with modern full frame digital cameras, the smaller fixed aperature doesn't matter nearly as much.)
geerlingguy 6y ago
Nikon has been making PF, or Phased Fresnel, lenses for a number of years too. The 300mm f4 is a head-turner due to its tiny size and diminutive weight, while still being as good as the old 300mm in almost every way. They also have a 500mm 5.6 that's similarly tiny (compared to a non-PF version) and hard to get.
- petepete 6y ago
  I've had the 300PF for several years and it's my most-used lens. I photograph birds and wildlife and being able to fit an extremely-good setup (a D500 with 300PF) into my smallest camera bag (Lowepro hatchback 16l) encourages me to take it on almost every outing.
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    That's one reason I do tend to grab my Sony E mount fairly often these days... I just wish there were a lens close to the quality and weight of the PF 300 for the Sony system.
m463 6y ago
I don't know, the nikon p1000 is ~ 3000 mm equivalent by designing the sensor+lens together. On the other hand, it doesn't behave like a good canon ultrasonic lens with immediate focus. not at all.
- y04nn 6y ago
  The Nikon P1000 has a 539mm zoom lens with extremely small sensor: 1/2.3". And it's probably a contrast based focus system. I would not expect good results from such camera. Sensor size comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlai...
cactus2093 6y ago
I think you’re about 2 or 3 years too late with this comment. The switch to mirrorless is already here, Nikon and Canon have the majority of their core lens lineups out already for these platforms so it’s unlikely they’d replace them again for the next decade or longer. And yes, they are mostly better than previous generations across the board. Which is pretty cool, that something based on such a simple idea that’s been around hundreds of years still has room for major improvements.
- andi999 6y ago
  What is the deal with mirrorless? (no mirror, but why does this improve optics?)
  - jmarcher 6y ago
    Most mirrorless mounts are significantly wider (diameter wise) and closer to the sensors so they are able to develop new lenses that can take advantage of that.
  - DeathRay2K 6y ago
    Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.
    - Arelius 6y ago
      Yes, losing the mirror doesn’t really improve optics, however removing the mirror and related mechanism does allow one to bring the lens closer to the focal plane, which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. And makes everything smaller and lighter as you allude to.
      - ip26 6y ago
        which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. Sort of. The diameter of the front element is predetermined, a function of the sensor size, focal length, and aperture. Mirrorless cannot escape this. But, the shorter distance from sensor to lens does simplify the design of a good wide angle. Sadly, wide angles were never the big heavy lenses in the first place. The whole smaller & lighter thing is not a lie but pretty oversold. Some of the RF glass is actually bigger and heavier than the equivalent EF glass.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can remember wanting > 200mm was back when I did sports photography.
- trm42 6y ago
  For landscapes 400-600 mm are in some cases really nice.
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...
  - robotmay 6y ago
    Yeah wildlife photography, particularly bird photography, can never have enough focal length. I practice stalking techniques to get closer (which has a much better cost/reward ratio to buying bigger lenses) but if you can fill the frame with a bird you can get awesome shots that just aren't possible otherwise. Currently I'm shooting at 600mm, and I definitely want a teleconverter to get up to ~800mm. After that the prices get truly insane so I think I'll just have to find some bigger birds at that point.
- matwood 6y ago
  I bought a 70-300 Nikon ED VR specifically to take pictures of the moon, and it does a pretty good job. Turns out it's useful for a lot of situations (birds and other wildlife). My vacation setup is normally iPhone + D7100 with the 70-300 attached. That can easily cover most situations w/o changing lenses around too often. I'm planning on picking up one of the Nikon mirrorless FFs soon.
skylanh 6y ago
For what it's worth, I like Bryan Carnathan's reviews a little more for Canon specific stuff: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F...

criley2 6y ago

>but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way. I find this very fascinating because while I enjoy my ever-increasing smartphone camera and use it as a daily driver, I have a about 13 year old Canon DSLR (one of the first one they made now) with a few lenses and that 2007 model Canon D-SLR with the 1" large digital sensor can RUN INSANE LAPS AROUND TOP OF THE LINE SMARTPHONES with respect to the ability to take low light photos, get a lot of good light, and of course zoom on the telephoto, macro on the macro, etc. The autofocus is probably five times faster and the ~10 zones are lightyears ahead of the phone. There's no comparison. Sure, the 7MP megapixels are bad. Sure, the ISO noise is pretty bad compared to modern smartphone postprocessing. But the telephoto isn't some pitiful "optical zoom", it's instead incredible powerful optics. The low aperture prime lenses produce beautiful shots whose distortion is matched to human preference. The idea that phones can "catch up" to even 10 years ago on DSLR's would be very cool. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath. Phone sensors are what 10X smaller? Doing great things with 10X less light is impressive, but at some point, you need a big sensor and good quality glass. Would love to see us get DSLR quality pics from a phone tho.

beagle3 6y ago
I was not referring to phone lens, although those things are being applied there too. It is now possible to build a telephoto lens for your DSLR, that costs $2 to make, is short and flat, yet has better optics than your current kit. When these become common, it will likely cause another seismic shift in the pure-camera market. Perhaps some of them will actually be bonded with the sensors, unlike what we have today. Regardless, new lens technology -- while likely to make a greater impact on mobile phones -- is largely orthogonal to them.
- pjc50 6y ago
  ... can you actually buy this yet?
  - Kye 6y ago

oblio 6y ago

I can't find it now, but I remember reading about something with what seems a lot more boring than the articles I find about "metamaterial lenses". Maybe someone has a pointer for what it's actually called. It was something reproducing a sort of "solar furnace" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace) at a micro scale, coordinated with electronics. Think creating a dynamic lens by redirecting light from many micro lenses (mirrors?). The upside being dynamic focal lengths using extremely short lens (the whole thing being microscopic). Am I day dreaming? I can swear I read something or saw a documentary somewhere. Or is what I'm describing just another name for metamaterial lenses? Based on what I've read about metamaterials, right now, I don't think it is, but I can very easily be wrong. Edit: Ah, maybe microlenses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens Does anyone know if they're applicable to camera lenses?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ipsum2 6y ago
Microlenses are used already in most modern camera sensors to absorb more light or used for dual-pixel autofocus.

mmaunder 6y ago

The cine lens and professional photographer lens market is big and irreplaceable until they figure out how, for example, to make an f4 600mm prime without a 150mm front element. Many problems to solve until we see the last days of optical professional lenses. Price points for these start at $2000, the cine lenses are around $4500 for primes and that 600mm I mentioned is a Canon lens, has a front element grown from fluorite crystal and runs about $12,000 and is currently on version 4.

ksk 6y ago
A 600mm F/4 lens gathers a lot of light per-unit sensor-area, and there are many reasons why professional nature photographers have historically needed such a large lens (1) Older digital sensors weren't good at all with high-iso (high read-noise, low photon-electron conversion efficiency, etc) (2) An off-sensor DSLR AutoFocus array has a very small effective-aperture, making the lens aperture very important in low-light situations for autofocus (which a lot of nature photography is) (3) Bokeh - Ofcource nothing beats large aperture bokeh, but this can be tackled perhaps through computation? For (1) and (2) Modern imaging sensors perform beautifully in high-iso scenarios. Also, with mirrorless, there are cameras that can AF down to F/22 - something unimaginable (and impossible) with DSLRs. While the demand for 600mm F/4 is there from a professional standpoint, there is an even larger demand for cheaper options - and.. this point is important, you can produce award-worthy images using those cheaper potions. In fact if you look at any nature competition a lot of the awards go to images made with cheap/budget gear.
medion 6y ago
Or Cooke cine lens primes start at about 20,000eur, a zoom lens up to 60,000eur - just to comprehend where the lens top end is.
Wistar 6y ago
Pick up an $11k Canon 200-400 L lens and it is this super solid, beautifully made thing. Pick up a Canon CN-E 30-300 cinema lens and it is this exquisite, jewel-like thing that seems as though it is made by NASA. And it's $45K.

7ewis 6y ago

Does that mean we might be nearing the end of camera bumps on phones?

billfruit 6y ago

On a tangent are 'liquid lenses' anywhere near making an impact in consumer imaging products?

_Adam 6y ago

Do you have a link? Most likely that $2 lens only works well at a single frequency.

alfalfasprout 6y ago

This is so laughably wrong it's not even funny. We're not talking about individual lens elements but entire camera lenses. There's a ton of engineering that goes into designing eg; a zoom lens that can cover a focal range while retaining sharpness, minimal color fringing, etc. And that's assuming you can use software to correct for distortion... in the past that was a dealbreaker. The result is a lens that requires 10-20 (or sometimes even more) individual elements. No matter how you cut it that will be expensive. There's no cheating physics sadly.