Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on October 27, 2013, 11:50:16 am
-
When you wrote ... "But a look at how quickly the music industry transitioned from LPs, to audio cassettes and then to downloads", you forgot to include CDs. It would be interesting to look at the life span of each ...
Big box stores generally have stereo systems in a different part of the store to TVs and every one that I've been to has both. And that wall of TVs will have a number of them that are 3D, you just don't know it because above a certain price point, it is there whether you like it or not.
Otherwise I agree with both your post and the "Consumer DSLRs dead in 5 years" except for one point - that the A7 looks like it will kill Canon - I'm not sure as it requires big lenses. I'm almost convinced that m4/3 is where the enthusiast market will go and that A7 will end up in the same bucket as regular DSLRs. Sony should be joining the m4/3 segment...
But if DSLRs are in such danger, what of MFDB manufacturers? Does their price point and quality mean that those who are already there will stay there because the ecosystems is somehow stable? Or as DSLRs are relegated to a smaller corner of the market, will they eat into MFDB territory?
I remember reading someone pondering elsewhere the question of "Have you bought your last DSLR?" Well, maybe some of us already have and without knowing it.
-
I think we're actually regressing back to the 70s, in terms of photography. Back then, "enthusiasts" might have a Pentax and threes lenses (35, 50, 135), while consumers mostly shot Instamatics and maybe Polaroids. Only pros, or aspiring pros, had the heavy stuff -- I remember when I got out of the Army in 1968, yearning for a Nikon and just a modest set of lenses. But if you weren't a pro, you could hardly justify the purchase.
Now, the Instamatic slot is being taken by cell phones. Enthusiasts, who until recently were buying a whole range of cameras, I think are beginning to see that for their purposes the ~$1,000 mirrorless with a few zooms is all they really need. Very soon, only the pros or aspiring pros (and some status-conscious enthusiasts) will be looking at the big guns. In fact, I think a good chunk of the enthusiasts would be pretty happy with a non-interchangable Nex-form or m4/3-form mirrorless camera with something like the current f 2.8 Panny 12-35 or Olympus 12-40 permanently mounted on it. They are fine lenses, with good group shots at one end, good portraits at the other. If somebody does that -- mounts a really good fast zoom on a quality body, I think it might really cut a chunk out of the enthusiast sales.
But overall, this new alignment (going back to the 70s) would mean that the camera companies would shrink rather severely. It's possible that that's the natural result of the aging of the baby boomers, moving out of the affluent "hobby" years and into less affluent older age.
-
But overall, this new alignment (going back to the 70s) would mean that the camera companies would shrink rather severely. It's possible that that's the natural result of the aging of the baby boomers, moving out of the affluent "hobby" years and into less affluent older age.
I'm not sure it is even just "back to the 70s".
In the 90s, it was still common for "normal people" to buy a compact camera - the instamatic of the 90s - and (wealthy?) enthusiasts bought SLRs. Everyone was using the same film so the difference became being able to control things like aperture, shutter speed and use lenses with a reach greater than ~100mm. Now the smartphone is taking over the role of the "instamatic" or "compact camera" and camera companies are fighting over what's left.
So how long did the DSLR revolution last? Barely 10 years from the introduction of Canon's 10D?
-
Ooops, CD's got lost between the first draft and the published article. Now reinstated to their rightful place in history.
Michael
-
The reality is that the entire market is in decline, including a huge drop in ILC/CSC/mirror less (whatever you wish to call them)
I'm not sure just by ripping out a mirror you suddenly decide the DSLR is dead (some folks that is)
ILC's actually dropped more than DSLR's
It would be a pretty brave person who backed mirror less with those awful figures.
And it would be extremely naive to think Canikon are going to sit on their hands and do nothing at all.
Very easy weapon to beat Sony with..deep discounts price them off the market (Sony don't like price cutting) And let's not rule out a "real super budget" Rebel like FF body. It can be done, just as the EOS 300d rocked sales for Canon a new "genuinely" affordable FF body could boost sales no end.
Right now Sony are selling a sensor and not much else. That's great for competition but until I see Canikon ripping mirrors out I'm not backing that horse
I'm seeing some interest from Canikon users in the A7 models, but "hey I might add this" not "I'm dumping my gear". People keeping their lenses and not buying Sony lenses is a long term problem for Sony. Kodak found out the hard way just selling a body has a limited potential. The universal adaptor nature of these new FF models is great for buyers, but ultimately not so great for Sony. They have no mount to lock buyers into.
The jury is out on that strategy, but some people seem to have missed it entirely.
-
All I know is, Hasselblad should be teaming up with those Photo Clam ProGold ball heads.
Dave
-
Ooops, CD's got lost between the first draft and the published article. Now reinstated to their rightful place in history.
I wonder if perhaps the role of the CD is understated.
The CD was the first entertainment vehicle that was digital. Following that came video (DVD) and in the 21st century, cameras, telephones, TV and radio.
If the CD had failed, would the others have eventuated?
If we were to say that from 1988 to 2008 was a 20 year period (it may be less) where the world transitioned from analogue to digital then today we're less than 10 years into the "digital era" of human society on this planet.
-
Problem is, if things are moving that fast, like so much in our current era, they will have killed off the previous iteration without having been able to match it, 'convenience over quality'. I have little doubt that if mirrorless does kill off DSLR's for anything but the high end, it will be before EVF can match OVF and before focus speeds and lens choices come close. There are plenty enough parallels unfortunately.
-
Michael uses a phrase in this article "transition to mirrorless" and implies this transition has caught the traditional camera makers (Nikon & Canon) sleeping.
Surely with the miserable sales of mirrorless cameras, especially in North America, you can't give 'credit' to this sector for the decline in DSLR sales?
-
You do make us think, Michael, thanks. Why do enthusiasts and pros buy big camera bodies and large aperture lenses? Surely one answer lies in the quality of the final image. There is a significant cohort of people that put a lot of effort into shooting images and want an output that reflects that effort. One has to ask if smaller sensors and lenses provide that quality of output. Are the millions of images uploaded to the internet about quality or just content? It would be a pity if content (these are my friends snapped doing… or look where I was today) stifled the production of really good images. Maybe the mass market does not need FF DLSRs and their associated lenses, but that does not mean that good tools should become unavailable.
Jonathan
-
Hi,
As I take it the photo industry had good times with digital photography getting extremely popular. DSLR sales were very good and compacts sold well, too. Now, cell phones cameras move upscale and eat up a portion of the compact market.
DSLRs are good enough for most purposes, so market goes into saturation. We had a boom in digital photography but that boom is over, prices go down. It is not a decline, IMHO, but a normalisation.
Vendors need to find new markets or new solutions. I don't know what those solutions may be, but I am pretty sure mirrorless is a new frontier. High end compacts will also expand, I would believe.
If 4K is established, I would expect a lot of development into converged stills and video. Video used to be low res and still high res, but with 4K we could have a common ground.
Best regards
Erik
-
I think that today already we have a large market segmentation: we have ways of taking professional/serious hobbyists photos, and ways of taking "all the rest" photos. So if you are a photographer (pro or serious amateur), you may care about image quality, sharpness of lenses, and so on... if you are a casual photographer, your smartphone will suffice, period.
I see myself as a good example of this trend; SLR/DLSR user for more than 20 years, now using a Fuji X system, because it is more than good enough for my photographic endeavours. The serious hobbyist is a market minority, and for us, companies like Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, are putting together cameras that we like and enjoy.
The big shift will be when pros start dumping their pro DLSRs, because somebody else is making, or will be making, a smaller and more "connected" camera system.
-
Hi,
It would just mean that the smaller system would be the new "pro" system. It would be an upswing for the industry but not necessarily for the current leaders in the pro market.
Best regards
Erik
...
The big shift will be when pros start dumping their pro DLSRs, because somebody else is making, or will be making, a smaller and more "connected" camera system.
...
-
As I take it the photo industry had good times with digital photography getting extremely popular. DSLR sales were very good and compacts sold well, too. Now, cell phones cameras move upscale and eat up a portion of the compact market.
DSLRs are good enough for most purposes, so market goes into saturation. We had a boom in digital photography but that boom is over, prices go down. It is not a decline, IMHO, but a normalisation.
Indeed ... I wonder how the sales of digital cameras has compared to that of film cameras. After the "mad rush" between ~2004 to 2012 to replace film with digital, is it returning to film sales levels? Or will smartphones see it dip even lower?
-
I'm seeing some interest from Canikon users in the A7 models, but "hey I might add this" not "I'm dumping my gear".
The A7 / A7r are a foot in the door. I guarantee that Sony will sell ZERO lenses if people don't have a compatible body. in a year or two an A7 purchase because "hey I might add this" can turn into "hey that new FE-mount lens is looking really good, and I have a camera I can use it on".
Promises are not worth much until the product hits the market, but FWIW Sony and Zeiss have promised several new FE-mount lenses in the next year. IMHO CaNikon need to get off their butts if they want to keep their market share.
-
The A7 / A7r are a foot in the door. I guarantee that Sony will sell ZERO lenses if people don't have a compatible body. in a year or two an A7 purchase because "hey I might add this" can turn into "hey that new FE-mount lens is looking really good, and I have a camera I can use it on".
Promises are not worth much until the product hits the market, but FWIW Sony and Zeiss have promised several new FE-mount lenses in the next year. IMHO CaNikon need to get off their butts if they want to keep their market share.
Absolutely right. Small thought exercise. Say today I have a FF Canon DSLR with a fast 50 f1.2 L lens, or a 85 f1.2 L lens, and I shoot editorial, portraits, or such similar fields. Would I think of switching to say, a Sony A7 with a Zeiss FE 50 or 85 mm lens? Maybe not today, perhaps I am not too comfortable or yet happy with the EVF, or the tethering options, or the lighting system compatibility and options. But it sure looks tempting...
Talking about foot on the door, just look at Zeiss. They now have lenses for all of the market segments, from camera phones to FF DSLRs...
-
DSLRs will diminish in market share and likely will become a niche product for wealthy enthusiasts. Mainstream enthusiasts will move to so-called mirrorless system cameras and the mass market will happily take pictures with their smartphones while uploading them in real-time to Facebook.
And the mass market will (last Saturday) happily video being-at-the-beach with their smartphones, and then stream to a big screen to share the fun with the rest of the family a few hours later.
Right now Sony are selling a sensor and not much else.
True of a different sensor -- "Sony’s latest star performer... Apple’s iPhones 5 and 4S use it and so do Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S4 and LG’s G2 ... almost a third of the $7.6 billion market for low-power sensors (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-28/sony-s-newest-hit-find-it-in-apple-and-samsung-phones.html) that record crisp snapshots. ... Most of the 10.9 billion yen ($111 million) operating profit last quarter from Sony’s device division was generated by sales of the chips..."
-
Hi,
I would suggest that going digital made photography more popular with a wider audience. Digital photography is easy, feedback is fast and it also integrates well with modern lifestyle. So market got bigger, much bigger. On the other hand cell phones captured a part of the market and they are good enough for many purposes, putting a lot of pressure on compacts.
Still, high end compacts are probably doing well. Cell phones don't have zooms and advanced controls that real cameras have. It seems that DSLR cameras are still selling well, even if the boom is over. It also seems that folks want cameras with the DSLR look. A prism housing looks like a real camera. So, Olympus and Sony put the EVF in prism housing.
Convergence of stills and video is important, and I think the truly creative photographers embrace the new possibilities offered by digital video. Most helpful in this sense is 4K. With 4K we are still only at 8MP but I think that 4K is good enough for some really good display. 4K screens and projection is an excellent way to display photography and also video.
Best regards
Erik
Indeed ... I wonder how the sales of digital cameras has compared to that of film cameras. After the "mad rush" between ~2004 to 2012 to replace film with digital, is it returning to film sales levels? Or will smartphones see it dip even lower?
-
The A7 / A7r are a foot in the door. I guarantee that Sony will sell ZERO lenses if people don't have a compatible body. in a year or two an A7 purchase because "hey I might add this" can turn into "hey that new FE-mount lens is looking really good, and I have a camera I can use it on".
Promises are not worth much until the product hits the market, but FWIW Sony and Zeiss have promised several new FE-mount lenses in the next year. IMHO CaNikon need to get off their butts if they want to keep their market share.
I don't see much threat to Canikon FF DSLR's (A7 isn't any cheaper than rival offerings)
Some Canon users might pick one up if they are desperate for 36mp
Rangefinder lens users...well the samples I've seen are quite abysmal so I think they're out of luck here unless they shoot short tele lenses
Native E mount, the lenses are few, big and expensive as well as not particularly fast the range will grow but I suspect sales will not be great.
The real market is from folks who want FF, buy the body and adaptor and go digging around for 35mm manual focus lenses that cost next to nothing on ebay, and there are plenty around. That's by far the most obvious target, which sadly means Sony are going to have a hard time selling their own lenses. Maybe landscape shooter, or travel photographer.
A7 has no hope at all regarding the pro market, or sports/action/PJ/ type shooters. So I don't see it killing Canikon any time soon. People over estimate the importance of mirror less, it's more about cost savings for makers than "what the market wants" As for small many don't want tiny..again you can't paint people into a corner.
As for the video comments, 4k has very little interest from what I can see bar video shooters. And I expect a slow uptake on 4k sets too. Let's not forget many if not most stills shooters have a minimal interest in video, most couldn't care less about what happens with 4k.
The only company that probably had a major panic is Olympus, trying to sell a micro 4/3 body for the same price as a FF one is about as doomed as you can get!
-
I don't see much threat to Canikon FF DSLR's (A7 isn't any cheaper than rival offerings)
Some Canon users might pick one up if they are desperate for 36mp
Some Canon users are discussing this camera on another forum: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1247661
-
Hi,
I would guess that Sony's focus is making a capable system with reduced weight and volume. It's not about price, you cannot compete on price and earn a lot of money. Sony things that EVF is the future and builds a system to utilize it.
The Alpha will not work well symmetric wide angle designs, but it will work well with any lens ever made for an SLR. I guess that the best camera for Leica lenses is the Leica M (240) or if you are happy with CCD the Leica ME. I don't see the problem. If you need an MF rangefinder system, go Leica M. If you need a compact system go 4/3. If you need a compact full frame system, consider the A7. Where is the problem?
I don't think video capability is a bad thing. If you want a crippled system, it is OK, but I would assume that creative or open minded photographers embrace the new options we get with new technologies, especially when they come at zero price.
Best regards
Erik
I don't see much threat to Canikon FF DSLR's (A7 isn't any cheaper than rival offerings)
Some Canon users might pick one up if they are desperate for 36mp
Rangefinder lens users...well the samples I've seen are quite abysmal so I think they're out of luck here unless they shoot short tele lenses
Native E mount, the lenses are few, big and expensive as well as not particularly fast the range will grow but I suspect sales will not be great.
The real market is from folks who want FF, buy the body and adaptor and go digging around for 35mm manual focus lenses that cost next to nothing on ebay, and there are plenty around. That's by far the most obvious target, which sadly means Sony are going to have a hard time selling their own lenses. Maybe landscape shooter, or travel photographer.
A7 has no hope at all regarding the pro market, or sports/action/PJ/ type shooters. So I don't see it killing Canikon any time soon. People over estimate the importance of mirror less, it's more about cost savings for makers than "what the market wants" As for small many don't want tiny..again you can't paint people into a corner.
As for the video comments, 4k has very little interest from what I can see bar video shooters. And I expect a slow uptake on 4k sets too. Let's not forget many if not most stills shooters have a minimal interest in video, most couldn't care less about what happens with 4k.
The only company that probably had a major panic is Olympus, trying to sell a micro 4/3 body for the same price as a FF one is about as doomed as you can get!
-
Erik, being creative or open minded has nothing to do with 4k video. I have no problems with video being offered, but it's not a high priority for most "photographers" because erm well we shoot still images and not moving images ;) Are you suggesting those of us who are not that interested in video are not creative or open minded?
Just because I drive a car, doesn't mean I'm that interested in 4x4 vehicles on off road conditions.
4k is just another attempt to wrangle more cash out of TV and capture device sales it's really not in demand at the moment. If we've learnt anything from 3D TV's it's that consumers don't always want what makers have on offer, that crashed and burned fairly quickly if I say so.
Reality is in recent times the consumer market has fallen rapidly in many areas. Is it any wonder that the camera industry is also in decline?
No it's not, the market was overinflated for some time and the bubble had to burst at some point.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years
The article above raises some valid points, but it's misinformed and no punches pulled missing the point entirely.
- The camera market is down across the board, DSLR's, CSC's, compacts..
- Smartphones might hit compact sales but they're chalk and cheese to DSLR buyers really not even remotely responsible for sales declines here
The points made about satisfaction with current gear/models is reasonable
It's far to early and ill advised to suggest the A7 is a nail in Canon's coffin
Sony have tried some new interesting things, but they also show a lack of understanding as well. The QX shows a lack of grasp about how people want to take photos with smart phones and entirely misses the point. The RX10 is interesting but priced at a point where it's guaranteed to fail.
Canon are not the fall guy here, for one obvious reason..they have a diverse broad business it's not just "cameras". Nikon are more vulnerable here as it makes up far more of the company overall. Both Panasonic and Sony have serious issues in the consumer electronics industry, both makers in severe decline for over a decade. Olympus has serious financial problems too. One model isn't going to boost Sony to defeat the mighty Canon. There are lots of poorly informed articles around at the moment proudly declaring mirror less as the winner.
As said ILC sales declined even more than DSLR sales so how that makes it the way forward is a complete mystery.
We will have less makers, less models, longer upgrade paths, and cheaper prices. That's great for all of us too much stuff out there and something has to give.
-
Sony, an electronics company in decline that bought a camera company in decline. Minolta couldn't crack Canon and Nikon in decades, and Sony's billions haven't made much headway... despite being a sensor manufacturer. Their switching from system to system when they have yet to build out any of their systems adequately is also a concern. The traditional Minolta based SLR/SLT Alpha series is likely already dead.
The digital camera market in mature markets will decline as the expansion of photography that digital engendered slows and stops. The consumer market will likely be happy with cell phone cameras. There will, however, be a serious enthusiast and pro market that will probably be bigger than that market was in the film era. There are laws of physics that cell phones will not overcome, and enthusiasts will need dedicated cameras. That market will be served by the camera manufacturers. Is it enough for manufacturers of mirrorless cameras to exceed old guard Canikon only in size? Don't they need to be better at some technical metric to be anything other than attractive as an additional system or for consumers whose main focus is size? It's telling that Nikon is the manufacturer that debuted fast on sensor autofocus for mirrorless cameras. Canikon likely don't feel its time to start to cannibalize their own sales at this point.
-
I am with Erik here. System cameras used to be a niche for pros and enthusiasts. Normal people had cheap compacts.
Then came digital, and normal people purchased significantly more expensive (digital) compacts. Then came digital system cameras, and surprisingly many soccer mums, regular people into nature and wildlife, or single men with cats purchased a (relatively) expensive DSLR.
The reasons are obvious: digital gives you instant feedback, zero running costs, good integration with digital tools (photoshop, printers, tvs,…), and system cameras gives you flexibility, quality and some brag-factor. But what is next? My uncles and aunts all have ok digital compacts and/or Canikon crop DSLRS. And a dusty DV handicam sitting on the shelf. And a large part of the time they are using their iPhones because they are not photographers or enthusiasts, they are regular people who want to document things that matter to them (and brag about their kids/holliday/cats) with minimum effort.
The GoPro cameras shows that it is possible to innovate and to create a new category where _you_ get to decide the terms (instead of having to compete with mature video cameras, improving SNR by 2dB).
_I_ will perhaps be satisfied with more DR, more resolution, better AF performance etc. But I am in a minority, and things like that takes significant R&D. So what is it that camera manufacturers are going to offer the regular people, generating the revenue (Canon may sell 100 700D for each 70D, and probably a 100 70D for each 1D-X). Facebook integration? PictBridge technology? Android cameras that can run 2012 cellphone apps in a choppy manner? I am no market research guy, but I don't think that making a camera into a (poor) cellphone is the answer, and I certainly don't think that Canon can make (camera-centric) cellphones to compete with the established cellphone players.
It seems that one niche that have been neglected is "I want good quality images, but I want water-proof, dust-proof and fall-proof as well". This has caught on in cellphones, so why are we not seeing (more) rugged compact/system cameras with larger sensor, raw capabilities (Nikon 1-series being the one exception)? Not talking scuba gear here, but something you can take to the beach without worrying.
If I had to put my bets anywhere, it would be on the good-quality, retro-design, upmarket cameras (Fuji). It may be a niche, but I think there are a significant number of people who wants something that works well (for its purpose), is stylish while compact, but does not want to pay for a Leica. The Sony RX-1 touches into this area, but "fails" on looks.
-h
-
Hi,
Yes, I actually think so. If you don't use the toolset, it is something you miss.
The reson I think 4K is important is that it will change the way we see images. Today, if you want to put an image on the wall in decent resolution you need to print it. In the near future we can hang a display on the wall. A 4K screen does not match the resolution of a good print, but has a much wider contrast range. We can also put motion on a 4K screen.
I sometimes shoot some wildlife. Stills are great but motion adds a dimension, called life. http://vimeo.com/52012348
BCooter here on LuLa says that essentially all commercial they shoot now involves both motion and stills. I am in no way commercial but still I think we are moving in a direction where we mix stills and motion.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, being creative or open minded has nothing to do with 4k video. I have no problems with video being offered, but it's not a high priority for most "photographers" because erm well we shoot still images and not moving images ;) Are you suggesting those of us who are not that interested in video are not creative or open minded?
-
Yes, I actually think so. If you don't use the toolset, it is something you miss.
...
I sometimes shoot some wildlife. Stills are great but motion adds a dimension, called life.
Color also adds a dimension, yet some people choose to remove it.
I think that "artistic expression" can be great or not, depending on the person who did it. They may choose to use all of the tools in the box or only a few, they may base that choice on a thorough understanding of all tools, or a flawed understanding, in the end, it is the end-result that counts.
-h
-
Hi,
Yes, I can agree on that. My point was intended to be a bit provocative, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
Color also adds a dimension, yet some people choose to remove it.
I think that "artistic expression" can be great or not, depending on the person who did it. They may choose to use all of the tools in the box or only a few, they may base that choice on a thorough understanding of all tools, or a flawed understanding, in the end, it is the end-result that counts.
-h
-
A7 has no hope at all regarding the pro market, or sports/action/PJ/ type shooters. So I don't see it killing Canikon any time soon. People over estimate the importance of mirror less, it's more about cost savings for makers than "what the market wants" As for small many don't want tiny..again you can't paint people into a corner.
Not any time soon, but say in 5 years? For sure today the new Sony's can not compete in fast action shooting, due to AF limitations, and lens line limitations. But just 1 year ago, something like the RX1 was deemed "impossible"; just 1 month ago, the A7R was also deemed "impossible", so give it a few more years. The trend is certain.
-
Not any time soon, but say in 5 years? For sure today the new Sony's can not compete in fast action shooting, due to AF limitations, and lens line limitations. But just 1 year ago, something like the RX1 was deemed "impossible"; just 1 month ago, the A7R was also deemed "impossible", so give it a few more years. The trend is certain.
Judging from the bulk of posts on photo enthusiast forums, it seems to me that 24x36mm sensor and compact design in one camera is a combination that many people want. I think that their reasons can be multiple, some perhaps easier to understand than others.
I think that quite a few people are willing to live with less-than-perfect AF, limited lens choice and other quirks as long as the price (with a standard zoom) is $1500-$2000 and the best-case quality is good.
-h
-
Do you really see APS-C Canikon shooter with some FF lenses buying an A7 over their own mount FF body?
I don't myself.
It's interesting to have more models out there, and I really do hope FF prices tumble (they need to) Just not sure this is going to have the impact some suggest. Talking about it on forums and buying one are not the same thing.
As for mirror less, until I see Canikon go EVF on their DSLR range..only then will the trend be set. Though I very much doubt they will on higher end APS-C or FF bodies.
-
Do you really see APS-C Canikon shooter with some FF lenses buying an A7 over their own mount FF body?
I don't myself.
I don't know where you're looking but I see it here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1248480
It's a very hot topic on Canon equipment forums. The A7r is 50% of the weight of a 5DIII with higher resolution, can use EF and many other lenses. Quoting one typical comment in the above link:
"Hell yes. Great sensor, high mpix and a small package that takes all my existing lens. What's not to like about that?"
-
Hi,
I like the A7r, no question about it. I am just not sure that it is a solution to all problems!
Best regards
Erik
I don't know where you're looking but I see it here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1248480
It's a very hot topic on Canon equipment forums. The A7r is 50% of the weight of a 5DIII with higher resolution, can use EF and many other lenses. Quoting one typical comment in the above link:
"Hell yes. Great sensor, high mpix and a small package that takes all my existing lens. What's not to like about that?"
-
I was super-excited about the A7r, but in my hand it was just another soulless computer with a lens on it. If it performs brilliantly with my Leica glass I might buy one, but otherwise the forthcoming Nikon DF is much more exciting, to me at least.
- N.
-
Before they were a soulless computer with a lens they were a soulless machine, especially suited to modernist portrayal of the machine age. But once we shake-on that retro pixie-dust... :-)
-
This is an interesting piece.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/
Roy
-
This is an interesting piece.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/
Roy
Love it! And that article is why I think Nikon's upcoming "photography only" target is wrong - it is aiming at a shrinking portion of the market (the "grey beards" of photography.)
The camera market is in the doldrums now because it is conflicted. Go with the aging money? Or go with the maturing new markets? Go with a shrinking but loyal market or blaze a new trail based on new cultural parameters? The spoils will go to the companies that get it right.
...
Is my advice any good? Naw. I'm as trapped into my generation as anyone else. But I do know that the first step to freedom is to throw off the resistance to change. You'll never change the momentum of the overall market but you can always change your own focus. And then you may open new doors of perception that allow you to do your own work....but in a new way. Like a bridge.
-
Grey beards?
Actually I know a few folks who are quite young (20's) who seem fairly interested in these types of cameras (ie retro Nikon/Fuji models)
People are not on the streets marching and chanting death to the DSLR
It's nice to have choices and different tools for different needs/people
As for the Canon forums, it re-enforces my point. Add a Sony A7, use their existing lenses with an adaptor. Quite a limited potential for Sony to sell their E mount FF lenses.
A7 will do ok, but it's not likely to dominate the FF Market
The real meat and gravy is the $600-$1000 range buyers, FF is nowhere near that. The first maker to offer a genuinely affordable FF body will clean up. There are a lot of APS-C users just dying to get a FF if the price is right. For most the A7 doesn't really change anything.
Like I said watch Canikon and see who brings out a really affordable FF, that will be a turning point in the industry
-
The real meat and gravy is the $600-$1000 range buyers, FF is nowhere near that. The first maker to offer a genuinely affordable FF body will clean up. There are a lot of APS-C users just dying to get a FF if the price is right. For most the A7 doesn't really change anything.
The (original) Canon 5D, the Nikon D600, the Canon 6D, the Sony RX1 and now the Sony A7(-r) seems to have been important milestones towards the craved $1000 FF digital camera. The fact that people weigh these (quite dissimilar) cameras up against each other for (almost) no other apparent reason than their sensor size seems to suggest that quite a few people are really interested in FF sensors at bargain prices.
Of course, soccer-mums with crop DSLRs (or MILFs) that don't know or care about sensor size outnumber these by 10:1 or 100:1, they still seem to be a significant number of people, willing to shell out considerable money.
-h
-
... the forthcoming Nikon DF is much more exciting, to me at least.
I wonder if you'll feel the same once you lay your hands on it.
As for the Canon forums, it re-enforces my point. Add a Sony A7, use their existing lenses with an adaptor. Quite a limited potential for Sony to sell their E mount FF lenses.
I suppose this is a glass-half-full / glass-half-empty question. I don't see that it makes your point at all.
-
Grey beards?
Actually I know a few folks who are quite young (20's) who seem fairly interested in these types of cameras (ie retro Nikon/Fuji models)
People are not on the streets marching and chanting death to the DSLR
They don't have to march, they just have to not pull out their credit card.
Like I said watch Canikon and see who brings out a really affordable FF, that will be a turning point in the industry
No, it won't. Why not? Because it won't make a lick of difference to those that are happy snapping away with their phones and uploading to facebook a second later. Even if you added a 3G or 4G interface to a FF camera it won't make a difference because the size of the thing is going to make it that much more inconvenient for people to have with them. People bought compact cameras in droves because they fitted in the purse, handbag, jacket pocket, etc. This applies to both film and digital cameras.
What impact will an affordable FF camera have? It'll tempt a lot of "fanbois" of other brands to switch. It'll tempt a lot of APS-C owners to upgrade but it will not make a dent in phone-camera sales or win back market share. If the camera+sensor is good enough, it may tempt a lot of FF owners to "buy another."
-
I wonder if you'll feel the same once you lay your hands on it.
Me too. I have not been positively surprised by a new camera in a very long time.
This thread is wandering heavily now, but in response to the very interesting article linked above, I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year? I am getting to the point where I might seriously posit that ubiquity of imaging has actually degraded its quality. If this is true (and I know it would be contentious and not 'provable'), it would in part be because words and pictures in the present internet era are treated as fleeting and ephemeral: they hit the top of your Facebook or Instagram feed, are pushed off the top screen by new content in seconds, and are lost to the pixel-dust history, unless you're naked and later run for president.
- N.
-
I don't know where you're looking but I see it here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1248480
It's a very hot topic on Canon equipment forums. The A7r is 50% of the weight of a 5DIII with higher resolution, can use EF and many other lenses. Quoting one typical comment in the above link:
"Hell yes. Great sensor, high mpix and a small package that takes all my existing lens. What's not to like about that?"
Let's say you have a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 6D. The total weight is 2960 grams and with the Sony A7R without adapter this would be 2670 and with adapter and I guess with the adapter it would be the same weight.
Resolution wise we have seen the D800 and the Canon 5D3 to be almost the same real resolution according to DxO and what I see from the files also. So if the Sony delivers all the extra pixels it would maximally be a linear resolution increase of 28%. Not even enough to go one size up from say A3 to A2 with same PPI. A 1 meter wide picture from the 5D3 could be printed maximum at 1,27 meters with the Sony and most likely it will not deliver that. At normal viewing distance would you even see that? I think this is splitting hairs ;D
Better DR, this is nice, but shooting both Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E it is very few pictures where I can't produce a clean shot from a single RAW file from the Canon. But of course the Nikon is better.
So I highly doubt that this would convince many photographers.
E.g. for a weight reduction that would really count one would need to go down in sensor size or go for very slow lenses. And using an EVF rather than a OVF, not me unless there was a very clear motivation for doing that.
-
I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year?
What reason do you have for thinking that might be the case? Maybe there's proportionally more great photography happening now, which you never see.
If those billions who are taking hundreds of billions of images are simply not trying to do great photography, in what way does that degrade the quality of photography? Maybe in absolute terms there's more great photography happening now and the quality is better than ever before.
-
This thread is wandering heavily now, but in response to the very interesting article linked above, I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year?
How do you define "great"?
And is "great" photography important?
Has it ever been important or is it just that the photographs that we saw on a daily basis were those that had been taken by those with some skill and an eye for their subject (plus lots of film to go through) plus an editorial process to find "the best"?
If I take a picture of a particular moment with my phone to share with others, does it matter more if the picture is considered "great" or just simply if it captures the mood and allows me to share the moment?
I am getting to the point where I might seriously posit that ubiquity of imaging has actually degraded its quality. If this is true (and I know it would be contentious and not 'provable'), it would in part be because words and pictures in the present internet era are treated as fleeting and ephemeral: they hit the top of your Facebook or Instagram feed, are pushed off the top screen by new content in seconds, and are lost to the pixel-dust history, unless you're naked and later run for president.
I would argue that it isn't the ubiquity of imaging that is degrading the quality rather the lack of a filtering process is meaning that more than just "great" photographs are seen. The desire to share is greater than the desire to filter. And on the other end, people are thus shifting focus from caring about quality to caring about ... intimacy?
-
Some time ago I wrote the following in another thread, which I think is in sync with Nick's question:
"...A lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era. It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).
There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.
So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).
Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences..."
-
Anyone can post anything to everyone.
Freedom sux!
Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. ... Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before.
So don't go looking at photos on Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, ... Freedom rulz!
-
Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before.
Boring from what perspective?
If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?
-
Let's say you have a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 6D. The total weight is 2960 grams and with the Sony A7R without adapter this would be 2670 and without adapter and I guess with the adapter it would be the same weight.
Good point. I get a sense that some folks are overlooking the fact that the weight, quality and functionality of one's lenses, in total, are far more significant than any slight saving in weight regards the camera body.
If a new body such as the A7r were significantly better than my current Nikon or Canon bodies, in terms of resolution, DR and SNR, as well as being significantly lighter and more compact, then I might consider buying one, provided the adapter offered full functionality with my Nikon and Canon lenses.
-
... If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?
What really matters in that scenario is that the cat wouldn't be the only one doing something stupid.
-
Boring from what perspective?
If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?
I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album. He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.
Jim
-
I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album. He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.
Jim
I think it is similar to the change seen in the music record industry with 1)the inexpensive "portastudio" (4-track cassette recorders with built-in mixing) and 2)the computer music revolution. Instead of having to be "discovered" and sign up for a record contract with a big studio, you could spend $1000 (or even $100) and make your record in the attic.
What has happened? (Perhaps) predictably, there is a lot of crap released. The musical equivalent of bad cat photography. But also some genuinely good work that might never have been possible when you had to have lots of money (usually funded by men in their 50s). More subtly, I think that it has affected the minds of customers: when the production of art is liberated or democratised, customers think differently about fair cost as well.
-h
-
Every pictures means something to someone.
A picture is "good" perhaps if it means something to a lot of people, including complete strangers. A picture is "just a snapshot" if it only means something to the photographer and, perhaps, a few close friends.
The modern era of a trillion pictures means that we can now look at every picture, if we like, regardless of whether it's likely to mean something to us or not. The triage process Slobodan refers to can be thought of as a process of selecting pictures that are more likely to be meaningful to a larger audience.
-
I think it is similar to the change seen in the music record industry with 1)the inexpensive "portastudio" (4-track cassette recorders with built-in mixing) and 2)the computer music revolution. Instead of having to be "discovered" and sign up for a record contract with a big studio, you could spend $1000 (or even $100) and make your record in the attic.
What has happened? (Perhaps) predictably, there is a lot of crap released. The musical equivalent of bad cat photography. But also some genuinely good work that might never have been possible when you had to have lots of money (usually funded by men in their 50s). More subtly, I think that it has affected the minds of customers: when the production of art is liberated or democratised, customers think differently about fair cost as well.
Yes, I think you're right about that. And the liberation of people in making music is scary to organisations such as the RIAA because it has the potential to create a world in which music is produced and consumed without a middle man. But the change to producing music is even more fundamental - with computers you don't need a 4-track cassette recorder: it's all software now and you upload MP3 files to the Internet.
I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album. He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.
Ah, that I would agree with.
Back when film was still king, I knew someone that would take a couple of weeks off work and take photographs for postcards. Their keeper rate was about 1 in 36 if they were doing well. Today, we'd probably see "all 36" and any one of them might end up on a postcard, depending on whole "stole" it from the Internet.
But therein lays another challenge: if good material is going to be stolen and used without compensation, what incentive is there to upload good content to the Internet? And if the Internet is drowned in poor content, maybe that delivers security by obscurity?
-
Sure everybody can post anything and there are for sure a lot of poor pictures posted from a photographic point of view, but not all pictures posted should be judged by photographic standards.
I would also argue that today there are way more great photos posted on the internet than any set of printed photos in the past. The learning cycle for digital photography has meant that there are many more really good photographers out there than at any time in history. These photographers do not post just anything and certainly not from their memory card without serious post processing. There are lots of websites that show excellent work. Even on Facebook a lot of good work is shown every day. You can like or not like likes, but that is the filtering mechanism today ;D
With respect to learning there are more workshops, more tutorials, more books and more advanced software to make pictures than at any time in history. Compared to today's tools one could be tempted to call anything before the turn of the century to be the stone age....
-
Could it be, Hans, that you are just describing a proliferation of monkeys and typewriters? If so, I am already packing my sleeping bag and getting in line for the next Shakespearian masterpiece. ;)
-
... there are more workshops, more tutorials, more books and more advanced software to make pictures than at any time in history...
And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).
-
And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).
I don't think I said that at all.
-
Could it be, Hans, that you are just describing a proliferation of monkeys and typewriters? If so, I am already packing my sleeping bag and getting in line for the next Shakespearian masterpiece. ;)
Do you want to discuss or use the monkey approach?
-
And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).
Slobodan,
The thing is and you know this is it's easier than ever to learn how to do it, though few know why they should do it.
The assistants I work with know more about the tech side of equipment than ever before, of course they dropped $100,000 of their parent's money to learn this, but few if any know why you use a soft light, or a hard light or for that matter any light. They all know how to reach for a beauty dish for a face, because you can't lose on that one.
Big difference and that's what comes from a homogenized world where nobody does anything they haven't seen before.
The upside is if you have a clear thought and want to create it's a fairly open field.
The downside is there is a lot of clutter to get past.
IMO
BC
IMO
BC
-
Slobodan,
The thing is and you know this is it's easier than ever to learn how to do it, though few know why they should do it.
The assistants I work with know more about the tech side of equipment than ever before, of course they dropped $100,000 of their parent's money to learn this, but few if any know why you use a soft light, or a hard light or for that matter any light. They all know how to reach for a beauty dish for a face, because you can't lose on that one.
BC
Yes, BC, but that’s not what I think Slobodan is saying, and in his reference to myself, neither do I.
Both of us have no doubts that RFTM is an obvious rule to follow – at least at one stage of a learner’s life – but the reference as I understood it was to the art of/in the image, something you refer to yourself in your reference to light and assistants. You can read all the books, study all the diagrams but at the end of the day, hands-on is another animal. And often an animal that the books can’t even begin to explore: the creative juice of the moment. Using that to advantage is why they pay you, for example, and why I did what I did for so long.
Referring back for a second to the volume of images today when compared to yesteryear: it’s true that a lot of mediocre stuff gets aired, and I do it all the time; the reason is that it no longer makes the slightest commercial difference to me who sees what. It’s changed from supplying a professional, commercial image of some product or person to one of simply playing around with the medium for fun. The two worlds are at the opposite ends of the galaxy from one another.
Looking at those top-gun websites as I do, and as I expect you do too, those slots for ‘Personal’ images that get shown might often be better left out: they can show some really poor stuff, and that can’t do much for the photographer, even if the main body of the portfolio looks terrific.
Rob C
-
How do you define "great"?
And is "great" photography important?
Has it ever been important or is it just that the photographs that we saw on a daily basis were those that had been taken by those with some skill and an eye for their subject (plus lots of film to go through) plus an editorial process to find "the best"?
If I take a picture of a particular moment with my phone to share with others, does it matter more if the picture is considered "great" or just simply if it captures the mood and allows me to share the moment?
I would argue that it isn't the ubiquity of imaging that is degrading the quality rather the lack of a filtering process is meaning that more than just "great" photographs are seen. The desire to share is greater than the desire to filter. And on the other end, people are thus shifting focus from caring about quality to caring about ... intimacy?
Internet-driven democratization degrades every field it touches. In law, only truly leading cases, as determined by the best of the bar, were ever published...in books. Now, every mind-fart from every mediocrity finds equal weight on internet databases. You can literally find jurisprudential support for every legal error ever made. It's both sad and funny.
I'm unapologetically elitist and and believe that relativism is an excuse to cover a failure or inability to attempt meaningful moral/aesthetic/etc judgments, and thus inimical to art or other high endeavour.
But then maybe I'm just wrong.
But is anyone ever really 'wrong'?
:P
- N.
-
Hi,
A general answer: Yes, you are wrong if you ignore/deny facts.
Best regards
Erik
But then maybe I'm just wrong.
But is anyone ever really 'wrong'?
-
Hi,
I am under the impression that 'Wildlightfoto" has very fine Leica-R lenses with no digital camera in production to put them on, although it would be possible to put them on the D800E with a Leitax adapter. He also needs a camera with a viewfinder that is good for manual focus. So he is in a different situation than you or me.
I am principally attracted to the A7 series. I would not be surprised to see an A9 coming (used to be top of the line in Sony/Minolta nomenclature).
Best regards
Erik
Let's say you have a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 6D. The total weight is 2960 grams and with the Sony A7R without adapter this would be 2670 and with adapter and I guess with the adapter it would be the same weight.
Resolution wise we have seen the D800 and the Canon 5D3 to be almost the same real resolution according to DxO and what I see from the files also. So if the Sony delivers all the extra pixels it would maximally be a linear resolution increase of 28%. Not even enough to go one size up from say A3 to A2 with same PPI. A 1 meter wide picture from the 5D3 could be printed maximum at 1,27 meters with the Sony and most likely it will not deliver that. At normal viewing distance would you even see that? I think this is splitting hairs ;D
Better DR, this is nice, but shooting both Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E it is very few pictures where I can't produce a clean shot from a single RAW file from the Canon. But of course the Nikon is better.
So I highly doubt that this would convince many photographers.
E.g. for a weight reduction that would really count one would need to go down in sensor size or go for very slow lenses. And using an EVF rather than a OVF, not me unless there was a very clear motivation for doing that.
-
Internet-driven democratization degrades every field it touches. In law, only truly leading cases, as determined by the best of the bar, were ever published...in books. Now, every mind-fart from every mediocrity finds equal weight on internet databases. You can literally find jurisprudential support for every legal error ever made. It's both sad and funny.
I'm unapologetically elitist and and believe that relativism is an excuse to cover a failure or inability to attempt meaningful moral/aesthetic/etc judgments, and thus inimical to art or other high endeavour.
But then maybe I'm just wrong.
But is anyone ever really 'wrong'?
:P
- N.
I think the Internet has brought the very best and very worst at the same time. But the filtering is somewhat up to you. So you could be right and wrong at the same time ;)
-
They don't have to march, they just have to not pull out their credit card.
No, it won't. Why not? Because it won't make a lick of difference to those that are happy snapping away with their phones and uploading to facebook a second later. Even if you added a 3G or 4G interface to a FF camera it won't make a difference because the size of the thing is going to make it that much more inconvenient for people to have with them. People bought compact cameras in droves because they fitted in the purse, handbag, jacket pocket, etc. This applies to both film and digital cameras.
What impact will an affordable FF camera have? It'll tempt a lot of "fanbois" of other brands to switch. It'll tempt a lot of APS-C owners to upgrade but it will not make a dent in phone-camera sales or win back market share. If the camera+sensor is good enough, it may tempt a lot of FF owners to "buy another."
I really fail to grasp how "aspiring enthusiasts" or more serious photographers are willing to use a cell phone with a camera over a dedicated "real camera". They might for social occasions and the odd facebook photo, but hardly the tool of choice for more considered work is it?
If we're looking for reasons why camera sales have fallen across the board it's an awful lot more than "smart phone cameras"
I can buy the camera phones hurting compacts argument, but not DSLR's or higher end products.
People tend to form overly simplistic reasons why there is a decline in the industry and that's a mistake IMO. Clearly there are over saturation issues, pressed finances are also a "fairly major" factor too, if you have less disposable income you're going to spend less on cameras (and other products too)
A move to "full frame" is beneficial more for the camera makers than anyone else, they can get better margins on these products.
I'm not necessarily saying everyone needs to suddenly move to full frame, for many an APS-C or micro 4/3 will be just great. All I am saying is I expected increased activity and more choices and better prices on full frame products due to competition. That has benefits for everyone, if FF drops in price then it will impact crop bodies too.
In a declining market makers have to find new ways to extract people's cash, full frame is a very obvious one indeed. They've surely played the megapixel card for many years now and it's run out of steam!
-
I really fail to grasp how "aspiring enthusiasts" or more serious photographers are willing to use a cell phone with a camera over a dedicated "real camera". They might for social occasions and the odd facebook photo, but hardly the tool of choice for more considered work is it?
If people with smart phone cameras can get their pictures on to the websites for newspapers and cable TV because they are there when the news breaks and their image is current, what benefit is the professional camera?
People tend to form overly simplistic reasons why there is a decline in the industry and that's a mistake IMO. Clearly there are over saturation issues, pressed finances are also a "fairly major" factor too, if you have less disposable income you're going to spend less on cameras (and other products too)
I think the economy factor is being over played...
For me, the #1 reason why I haven't bought a new DSLR is that none of the current offerings that would suit me present a compelling reason through better image quality. Maybe other camera owners are similar? Past a certain point in the last 2 to 4 years, cameras have become good enough and image quality plateaued that upgrading is not going to give you anything more.
A move to "full frame" is beneficial more for the camera makers than anyone else, they can get better margins on these products.
The better margins for full frame won't last forever.
In a declining market makers have to find new ways to extract people's cash, full frame is a very obvious one indeed.
Agreed! Hence Nikon's new "pure photography" camera.
-
I'm unapologetically elitist and ...
Camera makers are unapologetically capitalist: they seek to profit from both the talented and the talentless.
But then maybe I'm just wrong.
Errare humanum est.
-
I really fail to grasp how "aspiring enthusiasts" or more serious photographers are willing to use a cell phone with a camera over a dedicated "real camera".
iPhone Photography Awards, 2013 Winners (http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2013-winners)
"I always felt that if I took the creative effort to produce a beautiful photo, the quality should be good enough (http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-tips/iphone-photography-tips/) to sell to the top photo agencies, like Geographic’s Image Collection. Today, we’re getting much closer to having camera phones that allow us to achieve this benchmark."
-
Photography today, has "evolved" to a much much broader spectrum of images being used for differing purposes than in the past. I think it is clear that most of us here on this site are mostly interested in the narrower spectrum of the past, ie, highly detailed, long tonal ranged photos and equipment to make such photos. I know that is where I am.
But it is clear to me that most people who use cameras today are NOT in this same group. They want the "grab" photo for social media, emailing, etc. They want the bizarre images that shock the eyes for attention grabbing purposes (think of way, way over the top HDR, or ultra fuzzy, high contrast black and white pinhole-looking closeup images of dog's nostrils.....you know, a lot of what you saw the last time you looked at a photo arts magazine or went into a gallery showing "contemporary" images).
Those of us here have an ongoing interest in the equipment in hopes that it will help us produce a marginally better "technical" image or be more enjoyable to use. But for almost everyone else whose purposes are the grab or "contemporary art" type photo, the current equipment is MORE than adequate to do what is needed.
I think the industry is in the same place as the audio industry of 25 or so years ago. ie, technology and mass production reduced the cost and therefore, increased the capability of relatively low cost audio equipment to the point that the industry crashed because for 95+% of the market, the product was good enough and no upgrades were needed.
Brad
-
... I am pretty sure that posters here are serious about photography, a blanket statement like yours is just an insult to everybody...
Huh!?
Are we reading the same post?
-
Hi,
My fault! Sloppy reading!
Best regards
Erik
Huh!?
Are we reading the same post?
-
iPhone Photography Awards, 2013 Winners (http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2013-winners)
"I always felt that if I took the creative effort to produce a beautiful photo, the quality should be good enough (http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-tips/iphone-photography-tips/) to sell to the top photo agencies, like Geographic’s Image Collection. Today, we’re getting much closer to having camera phones that allow us to achieve this benchmark."
Of course, the logic is flawed: the better the cellphones become the better the tradiitonal cameras do too, and thus the bar that constitutes excellence is ever being raised and the cellphone has to attempt to bridge that shifting gap and expectation of the possible. I don't dispute that where it doesn't matter about quality, that the being there is key, then any old piece of crap is good enough today if it catches the moment.
But for high-grade repro and top-drawer usage? I doubt that very much indeed. Of course, some fashion or music guy can use a cellphone and make the fact part of the 'story' and that's valid too, but then it isn't about usefulness or being an appropriate tool, it's about gimmickry.
Rob C
-
I don't dispute that where it doesn't matter about quality, that the being there is key, then any old piece of crap is good enough today if it catches the moment.
Content is King. (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1648361_1419267,00.html)
-
Content is King. (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1648361_1419267,00.html)
Yes, but in the quoted instance, it had nothing to do with camera choice and everything to do with an overheated negative drying cabinet kindly supplied by the lab-lads entrusted with rushing the films through for the editor. A very few images survived the partial melting, and who's to say this blurred shot was the best on any roll?
However, had it not been for that cock-up, it's perfectly likely that the images may never have achieved their iconic appeal of today.
Back to Dame Fate's helping hands.
;-)
Rob C
-
A good example of how video can be used to present the landscape:
Yosemite Nature Notes: Fall Moments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzA-M8ASGqk)
... now what was that about convergence?
-
A good example of how video can be used to present the landscape:
Yosemite Nature Notes: Fall Moments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzA-M8ASGqk)
... now what was that about convergence?
Nice enough but video is entirely different as a medium to a stills photo.
Convergence is mostly about marketing, same as full frame it's there to get folks to spend more cash.
I've no doubts the updated A7 models will have 4k video capture too, if that many use it is another debate.
Whilst I play around with video from time to time, it's a different beast to stills shooting. Why can't folks seem to get that?
Will be interesting to see if this new "Nikon" has video, some say it won't.
-
Nice enough but video is entirely different as a medium to a stills photo.
Convergence is mostly about marketing, same as full frame it's there to get folks to spend more cash.
I've no doubts the updated A7 models will have 4k video capture too, if that many use it is another debate.
Whilst I play around with video from time to time, it's a different beast to stills shooting. Why can't folks seem to get that?
Will be interesting to see if this new "Nikon" has video, some say it won't.
Nix! nix! I have both formats and never use the cropped N¡kon anymore. The two are entirely different emotions, just as 6x6 is a different experience (to shoot) than 135 ever was. Nothing to do with ultimate definition nor size of final print at all. It's visceral at the point of doing.
Rob C
-
... video ... it's a different beast to stills shooting. Why can't folks seem to get that?
Folk get that and don't care at all.
What they care about is that their camera now lets them do stuff they couldn't do before.
-
I think it is clear that most of us here on this site are mostly interested in the narrower spectrum of the past, ie, highly detailed, long tonal ranged photos...
I think you only noticed a narrow slice of the very broad spectrum of photography of the past.
-
Before they were a soulless computer with a lens they were a soulless machine, especially suited to modernist portrayal of the machine age. But once we shake-on that retro pixie-dust... :-)
And before "full frame" became the object of Big Sensor fetishist desire it was a miniature format. :o
-Dave-
-
And before "full frame" became the object of Big Sensor fetishist desire it was a miniature format. :o
-Dave-
Q.E.D. baby!
Rob C
-
And before "full frame" became the object of Big Sensor fetishist desire it was a miniature format.
A convergence of stills with movies :-)
-
Folk get that and don't care at all.
What they care about is that their camera now lets them do stuff they couldn't do before.
Which is fine but do I have to have a dumb video button sitting there which could be useful for something else?
Making a product do extra bits is fine no problems at all, it's when you compromise stills shooting to get there that's the problem.
Take a look at Sony, they put a mirror in the light patch that does not move, and robs half a stop of light. All so you can have AF at f3.5 for video ::)
I have one myself, I got over it..but still why would any video shooter want the aperture fixed at f3.5 for AF?
-
Which is fine but do I have to have a dumb video button sitting there which could be useful for something else?
Hopefully not: sensibly designed cameras like the Olympus EM5 allow the video button to be reprogrammed; mine currently does the MF/AF toggle.
-
Which is fine but do I have to have a dumb video button sitting there...
Of course not! Compact cameras don't have dumb video buttons and they do video.
All so you can have AF at f3.5 for video
All so you can have continuous AF for a burst of photos. (Even my old SLT-35 has dedicated 7fps at reduced resolution.)
-
Of course not! Compact cameras don't have dumb video buttons and they do video.
All so you can have continuous AF for a burst of photos. (Even my old SLT-35 has dedicated 7fps at reduced resolution.)
Have to say I'm not seeing any improvement for tracking AF, in theory you should. (not that it's bad it's just wasn't a problem)
Reality is predictive AF has been around for ages, I can't get my film Dynax 7 to miss the AF is that accurate
Sony have this odd concept of what they think people want, rather than actually asking them ::)
There are no doubts in my mind SLT has more to do with video than stills shooting.
70d's on sensor phase detect changed things for video folks
-
70d's on sensor phase detect changed things for video folks
Not only video, stills too:
dpreview: 70D autofocus testing (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/12)
For ages people have been saying how good PDAF TTL is but quite clearly "live view" autofocus is better and maybe now sensor PDAF too.
-
Not only video, stills too:
dpreview: 70D autofocus testing (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/12)
For ages people have been saying how good PDAF TTL is but quite clearly "live view" autofocus is better and maybe now sensor PDAF too.
I don't believe that this test shows LV/on-sensor PDAF to be universally "better" than off-sensor PDAF. I'd rather say "different" or "better for some tasks".
Someone (was it Erik?) said that there are (at least) two performance characteristics of an AF system: getting accurate focus of the thing that the photographer wants to be in focus, and getting it fast. Getting the right focus 100ms late can make the shot irrelevant, and getting an AF confirmation blazingly fast can make the shot irrelevant if it is off by 1 meter.
I would guess that speed is less critical to many landscape photographers, compared to e.g. sports.
-h
-
I've used a 70d and I can say that AF test on DPR is clearly a defective unit showing strong back focus across a range of lenses.
Even the old budget KM DSLR's I have would nail those AF shots no problem (high contrast static targets) just about any phase detect AF system would hit them.
But lemon units do get out there sadly (I personally have had issues with Nikon's AF accuracy)
The only surprise there is DPR actually used that unit, and didn't ship it back to Canon.
I don't believe that is representative of a well calibrated DSLR for AF
-
Sony have this odd concept of what they think people want, rather than actually asking them
That description doesn't seem to match what we see from Sony, I think TMARK's description (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83670.msg676376#msg676376) works better.
There are no doubts in my mind SLT has more to do with video than stills shooting.
When AF improves for photos, why do we care if the technology driver was video?
70d's on sensor phase detect changed things for video folks
I haven't used 70d, but this doesn't sound so good -- "Worse still, the screen blacks out completely during continuous shooting (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/12), making the whole thing something of a guessing game, particularly when panning to follow a moving subject. This means that Dual Pixel AF is effectively limited to being a 'one shot' mode when shooting stills."
-
I've not tried the 70d in cont shooting mode so can't comment on that, but for video it's a far better solution that Sony's SLT (problem is as said fixed aperture which is crazy for AF)
I've no problems with Sony's AF, seems decent enough to me. But I'm not sure the SLT mirror has made it better than normal DSLR's hands on with other makers I would say no it has not.
Sony seem to be trying lots of different things in the hope something will stick, I'm not sure that's the best strategy to have. They could have done a lot with A Mount, but have had many problems over the years, and not been very satisfactory in resolving issues or thinking things through very well. A real mixed bag at times. My only interest in Sony is my fairly good selection of Minolta/Tamron glass and somewhere to put it. I'm not convinced they are making products that meet the needs of their current customers, or know how to develop A Mount properly.
-
Sony's SLT (problem is as said fixed aperture which is crazy for AF)
...why would any video shooter want the aperture fixed at f3.5 for AF
I've just wandered inside and outside, with video on A35, and afaict shutter and aperture are adjusted automatically. afaict Video exposure matches AUTO photo exposure.
What makes you think aperture is fixed at f3.5 for video?
-
Hi,
That's correct. Phase detect AF needs large apertures, so Sony video doesn't stop down in AF mode. Stopping down is perfectly OK in MF mode. Video mode lacks view magnification in LV, a mess. Switch to still mode, disable AF, focus manually and switch back to movie mode. A bit brain damaged …
Best regards
Erik
I've just wandered inside and outside, with video on A35, and afaict shutter and aperture are adjusted automatically. afaict Video exposure matches AUTO photo exposure.
What makes you think aperture is fixed at f3.5 for video?
-
That's correct.
Please point me to somewhere that's documented, or suggest some way to check the camera.
-
I've just wandered inside and outside, with video on A35, and afaict shutter and aperture are adjusted automatically. afaict Video exposure matches AUTO photo exposure.
What makes you think aperture is fixed at f3.5 for video?
It is fixed for autofocus.
If you put the camera in manual focus and use the P setting it will adjust shutter speed and aperture for the exposure.
As soon as you use AF, then it's fixed to f3.5, even in really dim light, or really bright light.
I can understand that at a certain point the AF won't have enough light to work, but I don't understand why it's fixed at f3.5. With faster lenses you can't use AF take advantage of the lens speed, and I can't see why the AF won't work at f5.6 also.
It's just a strange oddity that Sony have for some reason. Same as the video crop (even with electronic steady shot off) you get a 1.8x crop
Considering Sony should have tons of video experience, they seem to have come up with a half baked solution. The lack of audio gain control another limitation.
-
Please point me to somewhere that's documented, or suggest some way to check the camera, or say how you've reached that conclusion.
-
Please point me to somewhere that's documented, or suggest some way to check the camera, or say how you've reached that conclusion.
Maybe it didn't occur to you that I might own a Sony SLT camera? :P
I've also used the following models A57/8/65/77 but not the A99
I also know because I've also got an A57
BTW the A65/77 are capped at ISO 1600 for video too (A57 is capped at 3200)
Lots of limitations with video and Sony's SLT's
-
On the contrary, you'd already mentioned owning SLT in several other posts.
Now I've been in the closet, I see that AF video is dark compared to MF video f1.8 but I still can't quite figure out what AF video does when the scene's bright.
-
The only control I see in P mode and AF is it will adjust the shutter speed (up/down) or drop/raise the ISO levels
I'm not sure why they did it like this, I get the "auto make it easy take" for some users.
But I think it's a bit odd to limit things like this.
Maybe they will address these issues on the next round of cameras. I'd love to say Sony might update the firmware, but that's not likely to happen (Sadly)
-
Hi,
No 1.8X crop, I would guess 0.96x horisontally, 1920 / 2000.
A99 SLT has gain control on audio. You can choose aperture/shutter freely when in manual focus. While aperture is locked at f/3.5 in AF mode, I don't know.
Best regards
Erik
It is fixed for autofocus.
If you put the camera in manual focus and use the P setting it will adjust shutter speed and aperture for the exposure.
As soon as you use AF, then it's fixed to f3.5, even in really dim light, or really bright light.
I can understand that at a certain point the AF won't have enough light to work, but I don't understand why it's fixed at f3.5. With faster lenses you can't use AF take advantage of the lens speed, and I can't see why the AF won't work at f5.6 also.
It's just a strange oddity that Sony have for some reason. Same as the video crop (even with electronic steady shot off) you get a 1.8x crop
Considering Sony should have tons of video experience, they seem to have come up with a half baked solution. The lack of audio gain control another limitation.
-
Wh[y] aperture is locked at f/3.5 in AF mode, I don't know.
Does Not the amount of light, the angles... (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3106664?page=2#forum-post-39997161) work as an explanation?