Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on September 06, 2010, 07:48:37 pm
-
September is a rant season isn't it?
Being in the midst of investing in a new pair of speakers to replace my current, and already breathtakingly good, pair, I was struck by another disturbing question this morning: do we still want better cameras?
Assuming that big breakthoughs are behind us for most practical applications, I take it for granted that we don't need them anymore. Now, do we even still want them?
I anticipate some selfish value from my new speakers. More clarity in the highs, a wider soundstage that will enhance my listening pleasure when listing to the speakers from my dining table, awfully off centered from the core of the action. I know that the reflection of light on its polished oak side panels will make me feel good the moment I enter my living room in the morning. I don't need these speakers but I want them because I believe they will bring me some form of sensual value.
Now I am sorry to say... but I have stopped feeling the same for cameras. I know that whatever I buy from now on will deliver little additional pleasure. Perhaps this is due to my not actually touching my camera more than a few % of the time I use (it sits on a tripod all the time)... or... doctor... am I sick?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I do. I want better tiny cameras. I want better tiny lenses.
APS-C and FF are fine. m43 and the Sony Nex cameras have miles to go.
I also want better speakers.
-
I'd like to see greater dynamic range in DSLRs. That is the greatest weakness in current DSLR cameras.
-
I feel your pain Bernard! :'( . . . I for one would like to see some sanity return to the camera market, with new models only being released when there is a genuine and significant improvement in technology and not simply re-cobbled marketing spin. I realise that no-one is forcing me to buy a new camera, but the quickfire release of new models has rendered my still warm older bodies worthless in just a couple of years.
On a less money orientated note, I also cannot help but believe that a slowing down of new releases might lead to an increase in photo quality as photographers grow to know their cameras, as opposed to now, where the battery is barely used before the next model is being touted. I had my Canon A-1 for over ten years, during which time it did not age technologically at all. I was able to "bond" with it, learn its finer points and foibles, and develop a real understanding of its capabilities. Without sounding coy, one could develop a long term relationship with the camera . . . whereas these days it seems more like a one night stand . . . boom, bam, thank you ma'am, onto the next model . . . ;)
-
On a less money orientated note, I also cannot help but believe that a slowing down of new releases might lead to an increase in photo quality as photographers grow to know their cameras, as opposed to now, where the battery is barely used before the next model is being touted. I had my Canon A-1 for over ten years, during which time it did not age technologically at all. I was able to "bond" with it, learn its finer points and foibles, and develop a real understanding of its capabilities. Without sounding coy, one could develop a long term relationship with the camera . . . whereas these days it seems more like a one night stand . . . boom, bam, thank you ma'am, onto the next model . . .
AMEN.
-
¿Do we still want better pictures?
10 * 8 film cameras were/are high enough res for almost all people, and people who have changed from 10 * 8 sheet film to digital still stitch 60Mpx files for high res, so is it a reasonable assumption that standard single-shot digital cameras will never exceed 200 or 300 Mpx?
When can we get a 5 * 4 inch 6 micron sensor, and an Apo-Digitar 2,000mm?
¿When will an H4D-60 be low-res and old hat, and good enough for web work or as a back-up?
I never had any ambition to go beyond 5 * 4, so I hope and expect to remain happy with an H4D-60.
-
[quote
whereas these days it seems more like a one night stand . . . boom, bam, thank you ma'am, onto the next model . . . ;)
[/quote]
So true Hilton. One of my cameras is about three years young.
I was asked by a chap ( whilst in a game viewing hide) shooting the same brand/ type but about seven upgrades ( or so it seems) later as to why I'm still shooting with such an "old" camera and that I really need to upgrade so I can take better pitures- the new model is just sooo much better than the previous.
I wished for his part that he had figured out the settings on his previous model though, as he was really battling to use it when a herd of elephants came to drink at the waterhole.
-
I echo the wail of discomfort about devaluation. Was a time that one could keep cameras for years and still trade them in for either new of the same or a newer version, without a huge financial loss. That has gone.
Obviously the camera makers are delighted with the new paradigm: built-in obsolescence is a new avenue to milk, and it comes mated with the perfect excuses of development/new components. There is an unlimited number of little things that can be 'upgraded' and claimed as justification for price hikes.
But I wonder, do the figures bode well for the future of these same companies? Will the time come for each individual amateur buyer when he says enough!? I can see the pro being milked for far longer - has he any real choice? - but the way things seem to be going, how many of them will be left with the potential to buy the extreme machines? Even those need a reasonable turnover to exist.
I can't help thinking I'm seeing the dotcom bubble all over again.
Rob C
-
I'm not so sure this isn't looking at things through rose-coloured glasses. I'm not an historian, but it seems to me bodies have always been subject to relatively short life cycles, especially with low- to mid-range kit. Even in the halcyon days of just film. Higher-end bodies don't seem to be on the once-a-year revision cycle. It isn't the same equation when the film and the lens was all it was really about. These days, the body is integrated with the "film." There's going to be regular advancement in sensor technologies, at least for the next many years and we'll all want to benefit from it.
That said, longevity is and has always (rightly in my view) been with the lens. Again, lots of churn at the consumer-end but the best lenses will hold value and remain superbly useful for many, many, many years. And thankfully, manufacturers don't seem inclined to let feature-creep seep into that segment.
-
I used my 1D Mark II bodies for five years. Just replaced them with the new 1D Mark IV this spring. I am satisfied with the life I got from the old cameras, and blown away by the improved image quality of the new cameras. Three generations of digital development makes quite a difference.
I'm pretty well set for the next five years, I think.
-
Let's face it, we're going to get "better" cameras whether we want them or not. Here's an example: Canon's about ready with their in-camera HDR. There's a quick run-through on the process here http://gizmodo.com/5561208/canons-in+camera-hdr-patent-will-let-you-take-pictures-like-this. The unanaswered question is: who would want to take pictures like this?
-
Hi,
In the old times you switched to new film in an old camera. Now days the film is built into the camera and called sensor.
One of the areas where there has been much development was high ISO capability. The Nikon D3 seems to be quite outstanding in this respect, so competition needs to catch up.
On the other hand it's my impression that todays cameras are probably good enough, but we may see a lot of improvement in usability. Some features that would stand high on my list of priorities would be:
- Live view
- Optional contrast sensing autofocus
- Self calibrating autofocus
- Non mechanical shutter
- Vibration less design (No moving mirror and nonmechanical shutter)
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
-
Hi,
I see your point.
On the other hand, HDR seems to get more and more feasible. I recently shot some HDR's I actually like:
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/13306153_DcZHj#967152189_afKD9-A-LB
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/13306153_DcZHj#966794997_wt4h6-A-LB
Now, these may not be perfect, but they achieve much better separation of both highlight and shadow detail than would be possible with none HDR techniques. This is mostly due to tone mapping and not HDR. Still I'd suggest that better bracketing for HDR would be a worthwhile feature and so would be focus bracketing to extend depth of field.
Best regards
Erik
-
http://gizmodo.com/5561208/canons-in+camera-hdr-patent-will-let-you-take-pictures-like-this. The unanaswered question is: who would want to take pictures like this?
Probably three quarters of the world Russ. It will create a new "in thing" on the net. HDR categories will have to add an "in camera" sub section, and the posters of such images will be proud of their "in camera" images. And people like me who blend images will be called idiots for not embracing new technology.
But darn, those haloes above the building does look cool...yeah right..
-
September is a rant season isn't it?
Being in the midst of investing in a new pair of speakers to replace my current, and already breathtakingly good, pair, I was struck by another disturbing question this morning: do we still want better cameras?
Bernard, to my mind, the problem with your question is the assumption that all of us still have a Nikon D3x like you. You might not care one whit about getting new DSLR now, and if I were in your boat I wouldn't either. However, some fella may be coming to the tail-end of usefulness with his Nikon D200 and may very well be in the market for a new camera ...
Assuming that big breakthoughs are behind us for most practical applications, I take it for granted that we don't need them anymore. Now, do we even still want them?
Yes, most definitely.
Again, not everyone has a Nikon D3x. Further, good as your camera is, there are features in it that can be improved upon. While such minor adjustments might not be enough to move "you" into a buying mode next year, they might well move the guy still sitting on his D200 to get up and get one.
Even better, the guy like me who at this point can't really swing the $8000 D3x "right now" can smile and buy a nice used one in 2 years when it becomes "yesterday's news" ... because it still will be a great camera.
I anticipate some selfish value from my new speakers. More clarity in the highs, a wider soundstage that will enhance my listening pleasure when listing to the speakers from my dining table, awfully off centered from the core of the action. I know that the reflection of light on its polished oak side panels will make me feel good the moment I enter my living room in the morning. I don't need these speakers but I want them because I believe they will bring me some form of sensual value.
Now I am sorry to say... but I have stopped feeling the same for cameras. I know that whatever I buy from now on will deliver little additional pleasure. Perhaps this is due to my not actually touching my camera more than a few % of the time I use (it sits on a tripod all the time)... or... doctor... am I sick?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, then, at this point the need for YOU to buy a new camera with the next iteration of features just isn't there. But that doesn't mean other people won't be moved to buy the next iteration, as their own cameras are a bit lower down the evolutionary continuum than yours.
And again, even better, the guy like me who did NOT plop down $10K to buy the D3x when it first came out, will be able to have the same great camera for considerably less a few years down the road. Thus, again, the advent of new models is only "bad" based upon one's own current camera ... and what one spent to get it.
So, in the end, I don't think you're "sick"; you're just a guy who finished spending 10K on a helluva camera and you don't really need a new one. Further, you can't take advantage of the price drop of the D3x either. In point of fact, you're at the wrong end of it.
However, a person like myself will profit greatly when a newer and (slightly) better D4x comes out (D5?) ... because I can take advantage of this ever-developing trend from the other side of it ... and be able to buy a truly great camera in the Nikon D3x for a low price in a year or two. And, when I do, I will not be motivated to buy another camera until mine runs out of life ...
Jack
.
-
Bernard, to my mind, the problem with your question is the assumption that all of us still have a Nikon D3x like you. You might not care one whit about getting new DSLR now, and if I were in your boat I wouldn't either. However, some fella may be coming to the tail-end of usefulness with his Nikon D200 and may very well be in the market for a new camera ...
So, in essence, you are saying that people, or at least you, buy new cameras because they need them, regardless of any consideration of want? :)
To be fair, I guess it is hard to completely separate them. The want must somehow result from a belief in a need, or at least it could.
Would I feel different if I were still using a D90? Maybe but probably not. My main satisfaction these days is to come back from a shoot and seeing that 99% of my images are tack sharp when looked at at 100% on screen with the right sharpening applied in C1. That is the result of more focus on the camera support and I believe that I would just as pleased if I achieved the same with a D90.
Again, this might not be a healthy practise.
One last point on waiting and buyng cheaper. I would stay that buying at the right place is a start. I paid 7600 US$ for m current camera almost 2 years ago, which appears to be still cheaper than the price you would have to pay today. But the main point really is all these images that I did capture in the mean time. That is at least how it looked before I reached my current state of Buddhism... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, in essence, you are saying that people, or at least you, buy new cameras because they need them, regardless of any consideration of want? :)
Hmmm, I am not sure one ever "needs" a camera (as, for instance, a person needs oxygen and water); so I would say when a newer camera has enough features I desire to warrant the purchase then, yes, I will get it.
To be fair, I guess it is hard to completely separate them. The want must somehow result from a belief in a need, or at least it could.
I understand. In the end, I agree, we must want it bad enough to justify the expense. Which was my point, actually. YOU may be in the position, features-wise, where the next iteration of Nikon might not interest you, but a fellow a couple of generations behind you might well feel much different.
Would I feel different if I were still using a D90? Maybe but probably not. My main satisfaction these days is to come back from a shoot and seeing that 99% of my images are tack sharp when looked at at 100% on screen with the right sharpening applied in C1. That is the result of more focus on the camera support and I believe that I would just as pleased if I achieved the same with a D90.
But you would not be able to produce the same-size print with the D90 as you would with a D3x.
Thus, in my own case, when I get to a level (and position of travel flexibility) to where it makes sense for me to get a FF camera and take landscapes more seriously, an elder D3x will probably be my choice.
Again, this might not be a healthy practise.
Are you feeling okay? You keep talking about being "sick" or "unhealthy" :)
In truth, you do what makes you happy, which is okay by me.
Your reasons for purchase (or not to purchase) are your own, same as mine are my own.
One last point on waiting and buyng cheaper. I would stay that buying at the right place is a start. I paid 7600 US$ for m current camera almost 2 years ago, which appears to be still cheaper than the price you would have to pay today. But the main point really is all these images that I did capture in the mean time. That is at least how it looked before I reached my current state of Buddhism... :)
Cheers,
Bernard
LOL, well, I am glad you got a good deal!
Myself, I wanted a really good crop camera, as macrophotography is my main thing. I bought the 7D which, at the time, was the best option I had available ... and it is still good enough that I will be happy with it for a long, long time. However, I do intend to get serious about landscapes eventually, and when I do I am going to get a FF camera ... and I believe even a 4 year old D3x will be a fantastic tool for the job ... and I will be very grateful for all the newer (and much more expensive) versions out there ... which will help me get this great camera for a fraction of what a new one cost :)
Cheers,
Jack
.
-
But you would not be able to produce the same-size print with the D90 as you would with a D3x.
I happen to stitch a lot, so there would in fact be little difference in most cases, just a little bit more work on the field.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I do. I want better tiny cameras. I want better tiny lenses.
I do too... but wait. My goodol'Rebel still works OK and gives me the quality I need.
is it a reasonable assumption that standard single-shot digital cameras will never exceed 200 or 300 Mpx?
Maybe...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html
::)
I echo the wail of discomfort about devaluation.
I won't, it makes 2nd hand cameras cheaper!
-
I do too... but wait. My goodol'Rebel still works OK and gives me the quality I need.
Not a tiny camera, tho.
-
This thread blends the ideas of consumerism with the more utilitarian goal of suitability to a particular task.
Cameras are largely a consumer product, and as long as people have wants there will always be a market. Especially for those who are in the endless pursuit of “better” whatever that actually means.
But someone who is good with a camera tends to seek specific goals. As examples, does the camera work well in low light, does it offer a large sensor and produce a large enough image for the print size desired, is it light weight, yada, yada…
As long as a camera is suitable to a task or a number of them there is no utilitarian need to replace it. For some, the cost (more the better) and bling appeal *are* utilitarian needs. But of course those are really examples of consumerism.
If one identifies a part of them-self closely with a camera, they may well have an endless pursuit of having the “best” camera they can get. It may be based in utilitarian need or the need may the perfect confluence of consumerism and suitability to a particular task, when the “task” just may be little other than the appeal to vanity.
Anywho, people desire “better” in all things, so the answer to the OP’s question is an unequivocal yes.
-
This thread blends the ideas of consumerism with the more utilitarian goal of suitability to a particular task.
Cameras are largely a consumer product, and as long as people have wants there will always be a market. Especially for those who are in the endless pursuit of “better” whatever that actually means.
But someone who is good with a camera tends to seek specific goals. As examples, does the camera work well in low light, does it offer a large sensor and produce a large enough image for the print size desired, is it light weight, yada, yada…
As long as a camera is suitable to a task or a number of them there is no utilitarian need to replace it. For some, the cost (more the better) and bling appeal *are* utilitarian needs. But of course those are really examples of consumerism.
If one identifies a part of them-self closely with a camera, they may well have an endless pursuit of having the “best” camera they can get. It may be based in utilitarian need or the need may the perfect confluence of consumerism and suitability to a particular task, when the “task” just may be little other than the appeal to vanity.
Anywho, people desire “better” in all things, so the answer to the OP’s question is an unequivocal yes.
Thanks. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not a tiny camera, tho.
I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. 8)
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.
-
… I may have some scottish genes.
;D
-
I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. 8)
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.
I hope you mean that as a compliment? If not I know of some wild highlanders who are handy with claymores and are looking for something meaty to practise on. ;) ;D
-
I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. 8)
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.
Too late for you, Niko, but if you have a delightful eighteen-year-old daughter... wait: according to Jerry Lee's song, 17 to 25 is around perfect.
I'd love to offer to help, but my vintage probably doesn't promise much of anything other than disappointment these days, and neither would I hold my breath in vain hope. But I suppose I could always burn a few bras for you instead; not that that might help all that much. Hey, how about seeing the gene genie?
Rob C
-
Not me. Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier. I just bought one of these:
(http://www.freestylephoto.biz/images/prod/30228.jpg)
-
Not me. Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier. I just bought one of these:
(http://www.freestylephoto.biz/images/prod/30228.jpg)
;D
Eric
-
Laugh all you want. This camera ROCKS. It has a 22mm fixed focus lens, an aperture of f11, and a shutter speed of 1/125 sec. Pick your film speed based on current conditions and snap away. No meter, no batteries, all plastic, super lightweight. $25.00 brand new, so you can really take it anywhere.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/4986907315_0587cd1ca9_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/4986907315/)
Mangrove-Out-There003 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/msmambo/4986907315/) by MsMambo (http://www.flickr.com/people/msmambo/), on Flickr
-
Not me. Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier. I just bought one of these:
(http://www.freestylephoto.biz/images/prod/30228.jpg)
Either that is a big camera, or you are a petite lady!
-
Laugh all you want. This camera ROCKS. It has a 22mm fixed focus lens, an aperture of f11, and a shutter speed of 1/125 sec. Pick your film speed based on current conditions and snap away. No meter, no batteries, all plastic, super lightweight. $25.00 brand new, so you can really take it anywhere.
You've got some lovely images at tokengirl.com (http://tokengirl.com). I bet some of them were taken with a camera that costs at least $30.
Anyway, you clearly show that the eye is more important than the camera!
Eric
-
I like this shot and perhaps even more because of the camera and your attitude.
I haven't shot a roll of film since 2006. Now my 5D2 feels like the last camera I'll ever need...but every now and then I take out my old CONTAX and feel like I might be missing something. I know I don't miss being hunched over a light table for hours or scanning slides so what is it? Maybe it's the feel of real metal instead of engineering plastic or the incredilby big and bright viewfinder that I took for granted all those years.
-
On the original question, it would seem that Michael agrees with me, he has not even mentioned the Nikon D7000 announcements in his news although it appears to be speced as the best ever value offering for a landscape shooter willing to go light. :)
I would bet that most high mountain photography in the coming 2 years will be shot with this baby. Galen Rowell would have been all over this camea, it looks like it was designed for him.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On the original question, it would seem that Michael agrees with me, he has not even mentioned the Nikon D7000 announcements in his news although it appears to be speced as the best ever value offering for a landscape shooter willing to go light. :)
Canon 550D is about 2/3 the weight and price of D7000, and is specced similarly or better when it comes to landscape shooting. Not sure how 550D, 60D and D7000 compare with weather sealing (or lack thereof).
Some things go for D7000, though. Its shutter is rated much higher. 550D's sensor is likely to be inferior, as well, but by how wide a margin is something we'll have to wait until objective tests come out.
Michael of TOP was lamenting the other day how Nikon and Canon seem to churn out the same cameras, and he's spot on. I don't see any meaningful differences between 550D, 60D and 7D for my use, so I went for 550D from 450D (which is currently on sale in the appropriate subforum ;) ). 550D sensor is slightly worse than the big brothers', but it's still better than my first digital camera, 30D. Finally, I'd rather have the light weight of 550D and save some money to buy a nice prime.
-
Canon 550D is about 2/3 the weight and price of D7000, and is specced similarly or better when it comes to landscape shooting. Not sure how 550D, 60D and D7000 compare with weather sealing (or lack thereof).
Well, that's the whole point, the D7000 is weather sealed and has a magnesium body. Its AF is also speced much higher meaning that it will be usable also for wildlife shooting.
It is a camera you can forget about.
As far as Nikon and Canon delivering the same cameras all the time... well what's wrong with them? The real innovation we would need is not in pellicular mirrors, it would be in openess... as described by Thom Hogan a few months back. Sony is just as bad as Canon and Nikon in this regard because they don't understand the business model.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would bet that most high mountain photography in the coming 2 years will be shot with this baby.
I believed real men used a Canon, though? ???
On a less serious note, I think it has already been posted around here, but the magnesium is no warranty of resuistance, and the ability of plastic to withstand impact is not to be underrated (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602). Question of rigidity and mass, I'd think.
And speaking of mass, you always hate when there is more in high altitude...
-
I believed real men used a Canon, though? ???
Real pack animals use Large Format or Medium Format Digital View Cameras.
-
On a less serious note, I think it has already been posted around here, but the magnesium is no warranty of resuistance, and the ability of plastic to withstand impact is not to be underrated (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602). Question of rigidity and mass, I'd think.
And speaking of mass, you always hate when there is more in high altitude...
Yes, valid points indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believed real men used a Canon, though? ???
I believe real men can use any type of camera?
-
My D3x is a a well made camera and I can tell a lot of different stories with it.
I am sure that if it could talk it would have a lot of recommendations for me to improve…
Still I have some things to wish for.
a better autofocus and sharpness spot- especially performing better with wide angel lenses and subjects at some distance
Build in wireless triggering
Overall faster data handling
More dynamic range
More high iso sensitive - like the D3s
200 gram lighter
far less noisy ( do not try shooting at violin concerts!) - being able to keep the mirror up while shooting
shooting 4000k movie with an external microphone
---
-
What do you mean by sharpness spot? I haven't heard that term before. As to the wish list are there any cameras on the market that has all these features?
-
What do you mean by sharpness spot? I haven't heard that term before. As to the wish list are there any cameras on the market that has all these features?
sorry I am dutch- No i meant the sharpness Dot in the viewfinder that says the subject is in focus...- it is not precise.
and no - but it is a wishlist.
-
"Better" is entirely subjective.
I still have my old Minolta X300/X700 and lenses from the 1980's. These were cheap enough to buy as a student, were portable and had some nice sharp lenses (still going strong thanks to some micro 4/3 adapters). They didn't do face detection or any kind of AF, but they had a clever focusing screen that worked well.
Fast forward to today's SLRs and I am a bit non-plussed. Full-frame digital sensors are fantastic, but why are the cameras so huge and expensive compared to their full-frame film predecessors? I would love to find a good FF DSLR that just captured RAW photographs quickly and easily, without the myriad of settings that may or may not change my RAW output (and which behaviour is never clear from the manuals!).
Actually, quite a lot of modern cameras would be "better" if their manuals would accurately and clearly describe what the camera settings actually do...
-
I would love to find a good FF DSLR that just captured RAW photographs quickly and easily, without the myriad of settings that may or may not change my RAW output (and which behaviour is never clear from the manuals!).
AFAIK the only in-camera settings which impact RAW data are resolution and compression (if available). If you're using the manufacturer's RAW converter it gets fuzzy, though, as there are documented and undocumented tweaks applied to the RAW in the converter.
-
AFAIK the only in-camera settings which impact RAW data are resolution and compression (if available).
I am not sure that is so true now. Examples include highlight-tone compression and various flavours of noise reduction that are applied to the RAW data. Usually it is unclear whether the setting affects the RAW data or not.
Another example is the AE setting on some cameras. Panasonic loves to inject the word 'intelligent' in to its documentation but the best that I could take away from the manual was that "intelligent exposure" was just somehow magically better than other modes. It might be simply modifying the JPEG tone-curve in camera, or it might be deliberately underexposing one stop with automatic compensation in ACR. I can not tell from the documentation what actually is happening and as a result I avoid the mode entirely.
So a simple table listing the settings and their effect on JPEG and RAW output would make several of my cameras better for me :)
-
A simple answer is to buy a book that is pertinent to your camera. I think that all the major cameras produced in recent years has had books written about them . At least three written about the Nikon D300. As to the bulk and size of cameras, you have a point. Video capabilities built in. Nikon are re-introducing scene modes in the D7000. Dual card slots. Are they useful? D lighting in Nikon cameras along with a retouching menu. They obviously are selling points that don't appeal to advanced amateurs and Professionals. I am afraid you will have to bite the bullet and get on with it. :(
-
A simple answer is to buy a book that is pertinent to your camera. I think that all the major cameras produced in recent years has had books written about them .
Indeed. Among those the ebooks of Thom Hogan stand out IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks! I'll try to take a look at these, although I can't help thinking that my existing cameras would be "better" if they came with a manual that usefully described what things do :)
-
I agree wholeheartedly that less would be more.
I have set my own D200 and D700 as close to what constituted a fully manual film camera as I can; the only beneficial additions (for me) are the bits where you can add copyright stuff etc. Perhaps the best advance I have found is the Matrix Metering mode on the two Nikons: pretty well perfect.
Maybe that's one of the big attractions about the Leica marque's top guns, which some see as failings: minimalist tools that don't get in your way.
Which at once does battle with my first sentence: why should less, even when it's more, cost more too? Maths always defeated me and I now start to worry about logic.
Rob C
-
Yes, I want a camera that tells me which way to point it and when, and when to push the shutter release. And maybe how many times. And how good I am.
Better speakers a waste. I can't hear below 100 or above 5,000 Hz. Essentially AM radio. The other ear is even worse.
Mike
-
Better speakers a waste. I can't hear below 100 or above 5,000 Hz. Essentially AM radio. The other ear is even worse.
This isn't a lot cause, audiophile will tell you that this is precisely the most enjoyable range of frequencies and the one where high end gear will bring the most value.
I believe that you need something like this: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/theroom/1.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I want a camera that tells me which way to point it and when, and when to push the shutter release. And maybe how many times. And how good I am.
Sony already make something even better than this (you do not even need to press the shutter button):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGk_-E44zAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGk_-E44zAk)
With WiFi auto-upload from the Camera to Flickr or Facebook, it will let you know how "good" you are too. Even better still, companies like Google unleash robots to trawl over your online photographs, looking at them and collecting them (and allowing others to use them without permission). Flickr will automatically calculate how interesting your photographs are.
So all you really need to do is find the on/off switch...
-
Sony already make something even better than this (you do not even need to press the shutter button):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGk_-E44zAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGk_-E44zAk)
With WiFi auto-upload from the Camera to Flickr or Facebook, it will let you know how "good" you are too. Even better still, companies like Google unleash robots to trawl over your online photographs, looking at them and collecting them (and allowing others to use them without permission). Flickr will automatically calculate how interesting your photographs are.
So all you really need to do is find the on/off switch...
Combine that with Casio's photographic point-of-interest programmed on a GPS (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2010/Casio/), and one of these babies (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/), you don't even have to leave home.