CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An artist can capture beauty with any camera. The rest of us need the best camera.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

SonyDough said in part: "does the software ever become a replacement for higher end lenses?"

Counter Question: Is no lens better than a high end lens that we can not afford? No, it is better to have a lens on the camera even if it is a compromise. If we can use Ai to peak the image, then whose to tell the difference in a real and practical sense in a real end product image world.

A compromise lens is acceptable; beyond a point there is diminishing IQ, Image Quality, return on the investment. Composition and lighting are the keys to a great photo, IQ is only feed for the pixel-pickers.

Ai, can work wonders on apparent see-able IQ. Working from the what your brain sees "viewing end," vs "My Great equipment end" may clarify the issue...
Consider: How good is the human eye, especially as we "mature." What will the viewing presentation be, TV, Print, or computer screen. How far from the image will the viewer be, what will the lighting in the room be, all variables that are more important [perhaps] than the glass quality.

Beyond photography Ai has improved many things in our ever more tech world.
https://www.edureka.co/blog/artificial-intelligence-applications/

My answer to the title question... Yes, software can improve the normal quality lens image to be nondecernable from the image of the high end lens f &mm being equal. This statement will become stronger as time goes by and Ai knows more and more about real world images.

Karl's Bird Photography Loc: Oregon

Software increases the keeper rate.

avflinsch Loc: Hamilton, New Jersey

This is something that I totally agree with.

The majority of the other posts were concerned with software being used in post processing - but the real advances will happen when camera manufacturers add the same elements of computational photography currently being used in cell phone cameras and incorporate them directly into a 'real' camera body. Using AI pre-process could help in overcoming the limitations of a less than optimal lens.

anotherview Loc: California

Agree.

kc4mnp

I really like what you were able to do with that 1st photo , both of them are great but that 1st one Just WOW!
KC4MNP

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you don't start with a decent image, you will be hard pressed to make it great in post processing.
And a decent image is attainable with lower E mount Sony lenses.

Red6

I think the short answer is maybe, but most likely yes. While some type of lens will always be required, the number of lenses required to have a "complete" kit will be much reduced, possibly to one or two. In the next decade camera resolution may be in the hundreds or even thousands of megapixels so even an image taken at a modest focal length with a single lens could contain all the data needed to produce detailed cropped images of any part of the original image. Desktop or even in-camera software could then manipulate this data as desired.

Science fiction? Yes, maybe for now. Before you dismiss what I say, compare the level of photo technology in the 1990's to where we are today. I certainly did not imagine 50+ megapixel cameras and desktop software such as LR/PS. Photographers in the early 1990's were still arguing whether digital cameras were even viable and could compete with film. And who knows what is already being done in labs and companies around the world, especially in military applications. Computer and software advances are happening faster and faster. Just compare the advances in photographic software in just 20-25 years i.e. from the 1990's. Who would have thought that cell phones could take the images they are capable of today? Imagine that technology advanced another 20 years.

Predicting the future has always been difficult. It is usually overly optimistic in some areas while completely missing the mark in others. My prediction, cameras and image processing will become more and more computer/software driven resulting in devices more capable while being simpler to use. While there will still be photographers doing artistic work, much of the commercial work such as sports, news, even fashion and studio work may be automated. In sports for example, multiple automated cameras located around the stadium could track individual athletes during the game, producing image data as needed. Sideline photographers would be obsolete.

DaveC Loc: Illinois

I don’t think we are planning on replacing a $14,000 lens with a $200 lens, but rather about replacing a $800 lens with a $200 lens.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Making it "great" will be a bit of a stretch for many, but most people have enough skills to be able to improve the photo. The extent of the improvements will be directly related to the skills level of the post processor. Of course the IQ of the original image will also be a factor, but that raises the question "How relevant is the difference between expensive lenses and not-so-expensive lenses?" I general terms I would say the most relevant factor is the skills level of the post processor, and the difference between lenses is a relatively minor consideration. Somebody skilled in PP should be able to all but negate the differences between a decent, moderately priced lens and an expensive one.

In the case of poor lenses, they place more demands on the photo editor's skills and there will be limits to what can be achieved, especially if the loss of IQ is extreme. Obviously in that situation the expensive lens provides the better starting point, but for somebody skilled in PP the differences between a good, moderately priced lens and an expensive one will be much less significant.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

No 😀

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RJW Loc: Oregon

Hi Doug,
I'm going to demonstrate the difference between a Gigapixel image result and the same photo previous to running the image through the program. The photo is irrelevant accept to show the detail difference between the two images. View the images in download and zoom in on any printed letters and you will see a magnified pixilation that is quite pronounced on the Gigapixeled image. Zoom out and you can see an increased clarity in the Gigapixel image. Is is better ? Depends on what appeals to the viewer. Personally, I like the image before it was processed through Gigapixal. It has a more natural look to me and I like the softer sharpness especially in the fruit. The photo was shot with a 1970's Pentax Takumar 28mm lens that cost me $29. It was mounted on an Olympus OM-D EM-10 Mark II and shot in Manual mode with of course, manual focus and lighting provided by a mounted LED RGB Video light. My best advice would be to become well acquainted with your camera. Go deep into the menu and learn how to use all of its offerings. Even mediocre lenses can provide a beautiful image if you use optimal settings for that lens and you take into consideration its limitations and best f-stop.
Hope these images help you answer your question. The pre-processed image is first.

(Download)


(Download)

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

RIGHT ON! Nothing further needs to be said.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Quick answer: No. However, as you've seen, software can improve images taken by whatever lens you are using. For the foreseeable future, software will not replace a variety of lenses.