Ever wondered what the future of photography might hold? It’s notoriously tricky to pre-empt technological advances but we might get an idea by looking at where we’ve been, where we are, and what we can’t yet photograph—however audacious the expectation that we should be able to might seem. In that spirit, here is the past, present, and future of photography in the weirdest cameras we could find.

10. Camera obscura

The camera obscura was the world’s first camera—first recorded in China in the 4th century BC. Simple yet ingenious, it consisted of a darkened room or box with a small hole or lens in the front. As light passed through the hole into the room or box, it left an inverted image of the outside world on the surface at the back. The image was inverted because light travels in straight lines; it’s easy to understand: imagine someone sitting for a photo in front of a camera obscura, with straight lines (the light) passing from the top of their head and the soles of their feet through the pinhole in the box to the surface at the back. If the hole was as big as the object, the light could travel in parallel lines. But because the hole is so small, the lines each take a diagonal route to pass through it (one slanting down, the other slanting up) so by the time they get to the back of the box, the top line is at the bottom and the bottom line is at the top. As light does the same from every single point on the object, the whole image gets inverted.

Unfortunately, there are no surviving photos from fourth-century China because the photographic process came later. In those days, camera obscura was mostly used for safely observing eclipses. It only displayed an image; it couldn’t print it—although cave paintings may have been traced over camera obscura-type images. 

Although there was once said to be a photo of Jesus, the tabloid source was murky on the facts. Some also think the Shroud of Turin, which shows a likeness of Jesus, is a photo from camera obscura. The oldest known photograph, however, was taken much later—in 1826 or 1827—though it did, coincidentally, involve “bitumen of Judea” as a coating for the photographic plate. Taken by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, it shows his  “View from the Window at Le Gras,” the estate he lived on. His so-called “heliography” technique marked the start of modern photography. Niépce also worked closely with Jacques-Mandé Daguerre in creating the daguerreotype process, reducing exposure time from eight hours to just three to fifteen minutes. This breakthrough, together with the French government’s acquisition of its patent in 1839, brought photography into the mainstream.

9. George R. Lawrence’s “mammoth camera”

The world’s largest camera was built in 1900. About the size of a car, its purpose was simple: To capture an entire train in a single shot. It was commissioned by the Chicago & Alton Railway to showcase the “handsomest train in the world” in all its glory: their “Alton Limited” steam engine with its eight passenger cars. At the turn of the century, this was unprecedented. Photography was still new, and there was no way to take an image so big—not without compromising on detail.

The so-called “mammoth camera,” designed by George R. Lawrence, was therefore a marvel of its time, capable of holding an 8-by-4.5-foot image. Lined with heavy black canvas and light-proofed with 40 gallons of glue, it featured an intricate bellows system and innovative plate holder to minimize friction with the massive glass plate, as well as to facilitate ease of handling. On the day of the photo, the camera was delivered by freight car and horse-drawn van to the Brighton Park shooting location. There, it took fifteen men to set up. But the image itself took only two and a half minutes of exposure to capture.

Nowadays there’s a digital equivalent—and it’s pointed at the stars. Also roughly the size of a car, the LSST Camera—the world’s largest digital camera—is set to be installed at the Rubin Observatory in Chile at the end of 2024. Remarkably, its record-breaking 1.57-meter lens contains 189 sensors with more pixels each than the iPhone 13 camera. In total, the LSST has 3.2 gigapixels, which means it’s capable of taking images with a resolution high enough to show a golf ball from 24 kilometers away. Every night, it’s expected to capture 15 terabytes of data, helping scientists study the nature of dark matter and galaxy formation.

8. Zenit Photosniper

The Zenit Photosniper was one of many “gun cameras” made for military use. And by “gun camera,” we don’t mean a gun-mounted camera (or even a camera-mounted gun); we mean a camera shaped like a gun.

Initially developed by the Soviet Union for reconnaissance during World War Two, the Photosniper was designed to leverage snipers’ steady-handedness for the capture of critical intel. One model, the Photosniper FS-2, which featured a wooden rifle stock and reflex viewfinder for high-precision, long-distance shots, later became available to civilians.

Not all gun cameras were rifle-shaped, though. There was also the DORYU 2-16, which looked like a pistol and was designed for use by police, and the Rokuoh-Sha Type 89, which looked like a machine gun. This was produced by Konishoruko (Konica) for the Japanese Air Force, and was designed to be mounted to planes—hooked up to the weapons trigger to evaluate trainee pilots’ accuracy. Instead of firing bullets, the gun took a photo of where the pilot was shooting.

7. DARPA’s mantis eye

In 2013, with funding from DARPA, researchers from the University of Illinois came up with a digital camera based on the multi-lens eyes of arthropods—specifically praying mantises and dragonflies. Earlier designs, they say, had limited resolutions more comparable to the eyesight of a fire ant or bark beetle. Featuring an array of tiny focusing lenses and detectors, the camera boasts an exceptionally wide field of view that researchers say is “nearly infinite.” It also has minimal optical aberrations, all of which makes it virtually unparalleled among modern digital cameras. It even resembles an insect’s eye, with its curved, elastic electronics and microlenses. 

You might be wondering what DARPA plans to do (or has already done) with this design. Well, it isn’t clear. But there has been talk in the past of practically undetectable, mosquito-sized assassin drones. It seems an obvious application for the military. Less sinister, though, would be its use in micro airborne vehicles (MAVs) for disaster relief applications, where a multifaceted insect-eye camera would help navigate collapsed, smoky buildings in the search for survivors.

6. OmniVision OV6948

Heralded by Guinness World Records as the smallest commercially available image sensor, the tiny OmniVision OV6948 is a giant leap forward for medical imaging. Measuring 0.575 mm by 0.575 mm, it can be fitted to devices as narrow as a millimeter to help minimize discomfort and recovery time. Plus, the sensor’s low-power backside illumination does away with the need for potentially too-hot additional light sources, which further avoids any discomfort. Its resolution of 200 x 200 pixels is good enough for capturing images of some of the tiniest body parts, so it’ll be invaluable to a wide range of medical fields, including neurology, cardiology, and urology.

Furthermore, because it’s relatively cheap to make, it addresses a growing demand for disposable endoscopes amid concerns over cross-contamination.

5. Panono

Equipped with 36 lenses, each with a quarter-inch 108-megapixel sensor, the grapefruit-sized Panono offers the kind of panorama George R. Lawrence could only dream of: one that captures every angle of a scene. In case you missed the specs there, that’s 36 individual lenses, each with 108 megapixels, which is the megapixellage of a high-end smartphone camera. It gives users an expansive, high-resolution 360-degree image.

It was originally conceived as a thesis project. Thanks to crowd-sourcing, however, the German-engineered Panono rocketed from concept to market in record time. And, for all its technical sophistication, the camera—designed to be held on a stick or thrown in the air like a ball—is activated with a single button push, while its status is communicated by an LED ring. Similarly straightforward, the Panono’s single micro USB port serves as both an accessory connector and charging point. Even the app is optional, although it does enhance shooting, processing, and sharing the photos. 

4. Paragraphica

Reflecting our diminishing interest in the outside world, Paragraphica is (probably) the first ever camera without a lens or aperture of any kind. The place where it would usually be is instead fitted with an extraterrestrial-looking, purely decorative 3D-printed spirograph inspired by the star-nosed mole.

Uniquely, Paragraphica takes photos (or rather, creates images) by combining GPS positioning and artificial intelligence. Creator Bjørn Karmann explains how it uses “contextual data” to generate an image: first, it pinpoints the user’s location and surroundings, then it adds in environmental conditions such as weather and time. With this information, it can, fairly convincingly with AI, generate an image of what the user sees in front of him—except in the bizarro style characteristic of AIs like DALL-E. 

Pointless? Yes. But it’s only a prototype; it’s not on the market just yet. There is something appealing about it, though. Powered by a Raspberry Pi 4, it has several user-friendly controls, including three dials to fine-tune input data and AI output settings. For those interested, there’s also a virtual version online.

3. Touch Sight

Contrary to what you might expect, photography isn’t out of bounds for the blind. Historically, they’ve used their other senses as a guide for where to point—for example the smell of the sea, the sound of voices, or the feel of an unfamiliar object. Now, though, technology makes it easier. 

Apple’s VoiceOver screen reader comes pre-installed on iOS devices and can be used to make the camera more accessible—not only by saying aloud which buttons are which but also how many faces are in the shot, and by guiding the hand for panoramas. 

That’s nothing compared to Samsung’s Touch Sight, though, which is a camera designed specifically for the blind. Instead of the usual LCD screen, it features a groundbreaking Braille display—a flexible, embossable surface that represents photos in 3D. Another feature is to record three seconds of ambient sound as an auditory reference for each photo—which is crucial for organizing images. Unlike cameras for the sighted, the Touch Sight is designed to be held in front of the forehead, positioning the lens there like a third eye, and this is where users will also feel the photo they’ve snapped. Inspired by practices at the Beit Ha’iver (Center for the Blind) in Israel, this leverages blind people’s naturally heightened auditory and spatial awareness to help stabilize and aim the camera.

2. Flexible camera

Invisibility cloaks, whereby cameras and screens are used to display what’s behind an object on the front of it, would be easier with flexible cameras. We’d be able to wrap them around objects or make them into clothing. This isn’t necessarily what Columbia University’s Shree K. Nayar had in mind, but it’s probably the use to which his thin, bendable sheet camera will be put. This innovative concept can be adapted to various shapes and surfaces to shoot images that normal cameras cannot.

Crucially, its flexible lens array (made of an elastic material) is responsive, changing optical properties as the sheet bends to ensure high-quality images across a range of deformations. If the lenses were fixed, there would be gaps in the field of view when the lens sheet was bent.

Although it’s just a concept for now, Nayar and his team envision the technology as a low-cost, rollable sheet. 

Needless to say, one use they have in mind is surveillance, with the sheet allowing photography from otherwise impossible locations—literally, blanket surveillance. They also have the somewhat less sinister idea of a low-cost credit card-sized camera that changes the field of view when it’s flexed.

1. Quantum camera and holography

With all the cameras we already have and the novel cameras listed above, what could be the final frontier? What can’t we take photos of yet? One answer to this is objects in pitch darkness. Enter the quantum camera, which as the name suggests, relies on the quirks of quantum physics to encode information about an object into light particles that haven’t touched it. Invented in China, it could significantly benefit the study of delicate, light-sensitive materials, including in the body. It’s early days yet, but the concept is sound.

Another concept for the future of photography is synthetic wavelength holography. It’s based on interferometry, a technique for accurately measuring astronomical and microscopic phenomena. Similar to taking photos of objects light hasn’t touched, this basically allows us to take photos around corners (without a long stick). The concept involves firing laser beams with slightly differing wavelengths past obstructions to illuminate objects hidden from view. The reflected wavelengths are then captured and superimposed, creating an interference pattern—a kind of blueprint—showing the location and details of the object in question, with astonishing (and terrifying) precision and speed. It’s able to do this by requiring only two exposures, each lasting just 23 milliseconds, to scan a nearly hemispheric field of view. 

Applications are likely to include examining human tissues obscured by bones or detecting tiny imperfections in machinery. It could also be used in self-driving vehicles to help navigate blind corners and fog. Probably, artificial intelligence will be used to filter out “noise” and enhance captured holograms—paving the way for real-time holographic streaming systems. Needless to say, all of these uses mean there’s plenty of funding. So although it’s still a long way off, the dawn of holography is coming—bringing with it a transformation in how we visualize and interact with the world (and a giant leap beyond Orwell in terms of governments’ surveillance capabilities).

Doorbell cameras like Ring and Nest are one of the newest developments in the ever-growing world of smart devices. Tiny recording devices face out of people’s doorways, constantly monitoring. Motion sensors scan to see if anyone comes near the home, logging every time someone pushes the buzzer.

Of course, the companies that sell these devices claim that they play a vital role in home security. But others are much more skeptical. They argue that the systems are capitalizing on a growing social paranoia, that their surveillance is an attack on people’s privacy, and that the practices of these major tech corporations are anything but trustworthy. Here are ten ways they may threaten your security.

10 Big Business Is Collecting your Data

It’s no secret that most, if not all, major tech firms are constantly harvesting people’s data. There’s big money to be made in tracking all our personal information. Social media sites, streaming services, messaging services, they’re all at it. And doorbell cameras are no different.

So exactly what information do these devices have access to, and how much do they store? Well, it’s a lot more than many users realize. Let’s take Amazon’s Ring, for example. There are the usual things like name, address, payment information, and Wi-Fi access. But it’s doorbell activity too. After a BBC information request, Ring revealed that they keep a record of every time the bell is pressed. Whenever the camera detects motion or a user zooms in on the footage, they log that as well.

But what about the privacy of people passing by? That’s where it gets trickier but also arguably more sinister. The devices aren’t always filming, but they can be triggered by movement up to 25 feet (7.5 meters) away. This means that anyone walking past having a conversation could be unknowingly recorded, and Ring would then have access to any of that footage. Tests by Consumer Reports showed that Ring devices can pick up audio from a distance of 20 feet (6.1 meters).

“Ring impacts everybody’s privacy,” explains Matthew Guariglia from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “Most immediately, it impacts the people who walk down the streets every day, where the cameras are pointing out.”^[1]

9 Hackers Issue Threats and Racist Abuse

In December 2020, dozens of Ring users filed a lawsuit after their devices were hacked. They say a lack of security left them open to blackmail, death threats, and racist abuse.

There are many examples of hackers infiltrating smart doorbells to harass or intimidate people. One user, a vulnerable older woman, heard a voice saying to her, “Tonight, you die,” and was subjected to sexually abusive remarks. She had been in an assisted living facility at the time. Her family had bought the smart camera to keep an eye on her. But the incident left her feeling too unsafe to stay there. In another case, a mother alleges that hackers played music from the horror movie Insidious to scare her children.

The suit includes complaints from more than 15 families, who all have similar experiences. They claim that Ring “blamed the victims and offered inadequate responses and spurious explanations.”^[2]

8 LA Police Infringe Upon Right to Protest

In 2020, a wave of Black Lives Matter protests swept the U.S. following George Floyd’s murder. The movement drew a range of responses, from vocal support to fierce criticism, as did the police. But in the aftermath, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) faced particular criticism from privacy campaigners, who accused the force of using doorbell camera footage to crack down on people’s right to protest.

The EFF made the claims against LAPD in February 2021. After the protests, police contacted residents and businesses and asked if they would share footage to help them investigate alleged crimes. A spokesperson described their actions as “not uncommon.” But EFF argues that this surveillance is an attack on the privacy of the protestors, the majority of whom acted peacefully and within the law.^[3]

7 Ring Staff Access Private Videos

In January 2020, Amazon’s Ring once against found itself at the center of controversy when it emerged that staff had accessed users’ private videos. Five Democrat senators contacted CEO Jeff Bezos a few months before asking about the company’s security practices. They asked various questions about customer privacy, including why the staff at the office in Ukraine had access to customer footage.

In their response, Ring admitted to investigating four staff members for inappropriately accessing customers’ videos. Although the company found that the employees were within their right to view the footage, they “exceeded what was necessary for their job functions.” All four were fired.^[4]

6 Spying on Delivery Workers

The rise of doorbell cameras means that delivery workers are now subjected to invasive monitoring by customers. So say tech institute Data & Society in their report “At the Digital Doorstep.” “The result,” the team goes on to say, “is a collision between the American ideas of private property and the business imperatives of doing a job.”

Delivery workers, the institute lays out, are one example of the ever-growing gig economy. Workers are not hired as employees but treated as independent contractors. According to delivery companies, this offers more flexibility and independence. But the institute argues otherwise. “These marketed perks have hidden costs: drivers often have to compete for shifts, spend hours trying to get reimbursed for lost wages, pay for wear and tear on their vehicle, and have no control over where they work.”

The team says that the on-the-ground reality is delivery workers are pressured to perform increasingly unsafe staff in the name of productivity quotas. Smart doorbells, they found, only make this worse. According to their report, customers with video monitoring are more likely to report delivery drivers—either to tech firms or the police—or shame them by posting the footage online.^[5]

5 Violent Customers Open Fire on Innocent Woman

Smart doorbells threaten the safety not only of customers but passers-by as well. This is particularly true if the user happens to be prone to extreme and unwarranted violence.

In October 2022, a man in Florida received someone else’s medication that had been sent to the wrong address. So he went to the apartment of Gino and Rocky Colonacosta and dropped the prescription by their front door. This triggered an alert from the video camera of their phones. The Colonacostas’ response was, in the words of Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, “crazy.”

The pair, armed with .45-caliber handguns, went out of the apartment and began looking for an intruder. What they found was a woman sitting in a car nearby checking her phone. Gino, 73, pointed his gun at the vehicle and told the woman to get out, at which point she drove off in a panic. The father and son opened fire on the fleeing woman, firing seven rounds at the car. “Our victim was that close to death,” Polk told reporters, “And certainly, had there been a baby in the car seat, the baby would’ve been killed.”^[6]

4 Software Issue Leaves Doorbell Footage Vulnerable

Google Nest encompasses a range of smart products and devices, including doorbell cameras. In 2020, one user looked over at her central Nest Hub and saw camera footage from a front door. The only issue was she didn’t have a smart doorbell, and the porch on screen was that of a stranger.

Yes, a software issue gave the Nest user accidental access to another person’s doorbell feed. Her husband posted about it on Reddit, asking if anyone knew whose Nest system it was into which they had suddenly gained such obtrusive insight. As you can imagine, many of the commenters were concerned and puzzled. Another Reddit user, believed to be a Google employee, agreed to address the problem. But other than that, the company made no statement about the error.^[7]

3 Woman Sues Neighbor for Invasion of Privacy

A man in Britain may have to pay £100,000 ($120,000) to his neighbor after a judge found that his smart doorbell was too intrusive and infringed on the neighbor’s privacy.

John Woodward, a 45-year-old audiovisual technician, living in Oxfordshire, first got the device in 2019. His car was almost stolen, and he wanted to increase security around his house. However, his neighbor, Doctor Fairnhurst, claimed otherwise. She said the doorbell camera put her under surveillance, filming and recording audio of her house, garden, and parking space.

And in 2021, when the case made it to court, the judge agreed. Melissa Clarke found that Mr. Woodward had violated several British laws, including the Data Protection Act 2018, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and Common Information Coverage Law.^[8]

2 Ring App Raises Concerns

We’re back with the Electronic Frontier Foundation for this next entry. Along with their report on delivery worker privacy, in January 2020, the group took umbrage with the Ring for Android app, which they say could be monitoring users.

An investigation uncovered that the app often shares personal user information with third-party trackers. This includes names, IP addresses, mobile network carriers, and sensor data. They explained that although many apps share data, Ring stood above the rest for the number of trackers. Ring was also accused of understating the level of data collection on its website.

“Ring claims to prioritize the security and privacy of its customers, yet time and again, we’ve seen these claims not only fall short but harm the customers and community members who engage with Ring’s surveillance system,” said Bill Budington, who authored the report into the doorbell app.^[9]

1 Sharing Private Information with the Police

Perhaps the most controversial news story to emerge in recent years about Ring is about sharing footage with the police. In the first half of 2022, the company allowed authorities to view at least 11 recordings without the owners’ permission.

The information came to light after Senator Ed Markey raised concerns about Ring’s surveillance practices. As the company explains, police cannot access footage unless the clips are posted publically or shared with them directly. The letter to Senator Markey was the first confirmation that Ring share information without users’ consent.

Amazon stresses that they only share footage without a warrant in emergencies to prevent death or serious physical harm. They say they only intervene in cases like kidnappings or attempted murder. However, privacy campaigners are disgusted by the revelations, with some going so far as to accuse the company of creating a civilian surveillance network.^[10]