Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: MrSmith27 on November 05, 2013, 03:12:57 pm
-
Could somebody explain to me why it's necessary to have this myriad of single-function dials and buttons? This is not making photography more pure, but more complex. Also I would suspect that most users will only ever use some of these functions.
Would it be so much wiser to not have 8 dials alone (!) that only have a single function, but instead have two dials that are fully user configurable? Why would pure photography need close to 20 (!) designated buttons and not instead maybe a half as many that are fully configurable? Need a designated bracketing button? Configure it. I certainly don't need one.
And why does the build quality look so bad? Mind you, I haven't touched a Df yet but the available press photos are of very high quality and certainly show the camera in the best possible light. Yet everywhere I can see difference in materials, seams, tiny gaps etc. We live in a time where laptops are machined out of a single piece of aluminum and this is the best Nikon can come up with?
Seriously?
-
I'm sure its not a production model.
And why does the build quality look so bad? Mind you, I haven't touched a Df yet but the available press photos are of very high quality and certainly show the camera in the best possible light. Yet everywhere I can see difference in materials, seams, tiny gaps etc. We live in a time where laptops are machined out of a single piece of aluminum and this is the best Nikon can come up with?
Seriously?
-
Would it be so much wiser to … instead have two dials that are fully user configurable?
That sounds good to me, and reminds me of the design goal I heard for the Olympus E-3: many settings adjusted by pressing a dedicated button while rotating a dial, so only one or two dials needed and minimal menu diving. That button+dial combination also avoids accidental changes, as an alternative to the locking buttons for each Df dial. To me, this seems far preferable to the Df's eight-dial, twenty-button, two-screen approach. One-dial-per-function was forced by the engineering constraints of mechanical controls, and though it might have worked well enough for a purely manual film camera, a digital camera with AF and AE simply needs many more adjustable settings than such film cameras did (partly because things that were done by choice of film are now cameras settings), so that old approach does not work nearly as well any more.
Here is my anti-retro dogma on ergonomics: camera interfaces and shapes mostly changed because new circumstances, new ideas, and new manufacturing technologies make the new interface better --- not because of the collective evil and/or stupidity of all successful camera makers.
Retro visual styling can be safer, so long as it does not effect ergonomics to much. For example, a silver and black color scheme and even some fake leather texture is innocuous, but having little or no right-hand grip which leads to less battery capacity and makes it harder to hold the camera steady or carry in one hand is a bad idea.
-
Thom Hogan gives his opinions of the UI in his essay about the Df (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/digital-confusion-with-the.html). A few extracts:
Yes, I know. Some of you are positively salivating over the return of the shutter speed dial. But note that Nikon had to put a small LCD behind it for a reason: if you're not in an exposure mode where you're setting shutter speeds directly (shutter priority or manual), you still need to know what shutter speed you're using ;~). Here's my problem with retro designs that are bolted on: to see and assess the "state" of the camera you have to look in a lot of places: shutter speed dial, exposure compensation dial, ISO dial, mode dial, and the top LCD. The good news is that all of those things are on the top of the camera. The bad news is that they're in five places. How that's an improvement on me looking through the viewfinder and seeing all that, or looking at the top LCD and seeing all that together? …
All the dials? To me they're the least intriguing parts of this new camera. All they mean is returning to a slower approach to shooting I abandoned a long time ago. I kept my F6 film camera for a reason, for example, not my F100 or FM2n. Moreover, since I tend to shoot in aperture-priority mode at a fixed ISO, I won't be using three of the dials most of the time. …
Custom modes U1/U2 are gone. … The simplification of the mode dial does reflect the retro style well, but losing the U1/U2 modes means that you can't have the camera quickly pre-set for two different types of shooting…. Personally, I think we lost something here.
-
Hi,
Personally I don't like the design. Just a few things, the shutter speed dial may be nice but it doesn't go beyond 1s. Another issue is that I really want to have exposure compensation under my right thumb. Left hand is on lens barrel, holding lens and focusing. Right index finger on shutter release leaves thumb for things. Same goes for ISO but I generally use presets for ISO, so I seldom change it.
Nothing wrong with retro, the classic layout is quite practical, but retro without sense is just bad design for me.
Canon did revolutionise camera design in the 80-es, mostly to the better. Do we really want to go back? That mechanical cable release is just stupid
Best regards
Erik
Could somebody explain to me why it's necessary to have this myriad of single-function dials and buttons? This is not making photography more pure, but more complex. Also I would suspect that most users will only ever use some of these functions.
Would it be so much wiser to not have 8 dials alone (!) that only have a single function, but instead have two dials that are fully user configurable? Why would pure photography need close to 20 (!) designated buttons and not instead maybe a half as many that are fully configurable? Need a designated bracketing button? Configure it. I certainly don't need one.
And why does the build quality look so bad? Mind you, I haven't touched a Df yet but the available press photos are of very high quality and certainly show the camera in the best possible light. Yet everywhere I can see difference in materials, seams, tiny gaps etc. We live in a time where laptops are machined out of a single piece of aluminum and this is the best Nikon can come up with?
Seriously?
-
That mechanical cable release is just stupid
Best regards
Erik
Oddly enough, that is one of my favorite things about the design. I much prefer my screw in plunger releases to those USBesque releases everyone uses now. It is just something nice and mechanical in a world of digital voodoo. (For reference, my main employment is as a web developer.)
As far as this camera is concerned, I think it's priced a bit too high, and they went overboard on the retro thing. I'll pass, for now.
-
Nothing wrong with retro... but retro without sense is just bad design for me
That exactly is the problem. This camera appears to be a kind of worst of two worlds: All the old dials plus all the new buttons. Add a $2500+ price tag and I have no clue why anybody would want that.
There is a reason why old cameras needed to have a myriad of dials for all functions: It was the only technologically possible way to do it. And there is also a reason why newer cameras have all these extra buttons: Durable, quality touch screens weren't invented yet and also any kind of screen drained way to much battery. So they added buttons.
We are beyond this. It's perfectly possible to have all the settings in the world adjusted via a touch screen and nothing more. Sure, sometimes you'll want a dial, for example I need one to adjust the shutter speed or to browse through the pictures on the card. It's simply quicker. So I think a few user configurable dials and buttons are definitely a good idea.
The solution would have been so, so simple: Take a F2, remove all the clutter and really reduce it to the purest form of the design. That would pretty much be a rather rectangular form with the signature prism on top. You machine this out of aluminum and add some vulcanite/leatherette. Slap a non-italics "Nikon" logo on it. Add two metal dials on top. Add another two small dials in front of, and behind the shutter. Very large touchscreen. D-Pad and a three four dedicated buttons on the back. Full frame sans bayer inside. You're done.
-
Smith...for my main controls I only want a shutter dial, aperture ring iso and + - dial. Way, way too much BS on these cams.
-
The solution would have been so, so simple: Take a F2, remove all the clutter and really reduce it to the purest form of the design. That would pretty much be a rather rectangular form with the signature prism on top. You machine this out of aluminum and add some vulcanite/leatherette. Slap a non-italics "Nikon" logo on it. Add two metal dials on top. Add another two small dials in front of, and behind the shutter. Very large touchscreen. D-Pad and a three four dedicated buttons on the back. Full frame sans bayer inside. You're done.
+1
But its always good to have a backup (button, dial, whatsoever) :P
-
That exactly is the problem. This camera appears to be a kind of worst of two worlds: All the old dials plus all the new buttons.
Bingo!
-
Hi,
Who is making that sensor, or you want a Monochrome?
Best regards
Erik
Full frame sans bayer inside. You're done.
-
Hi,
Who is making that sensor, or you want a Monochrome?
Best regards
Erik
In a perfect world they would use foveon. but hey, I realize that's a loaded topic and I would be quite happy with a bayer sensor if only they got the usability right.
-
This is the follow-up to the D700. It's the baby D4. Anyone who wanted the best low-light shooter in the world for half the price can have it. Like the D700, it introduced no new tech. It's designed to appeal to people who did not want the D800. Notice it has no model /number/, so it has migrated into a "mature product" category, where it will likely remain untouched for four years. If it has a good finder and feels good in the hands, it will work. I just don't know why they didn't put the high-end AF in it. [But then, I stopped using AF anyway.]
-
Hi,
Sigma owns the Foveon and they make it with a crop factor of 1.7, AFAIK. So there is no Foveon in full frame around. There are a few patents around on non bayer designs that are not Foveon types.
The Sigma DP compacts have very good reputation, so the Foveon obviously works.
There is a basic problem with the Foveon, and that is that it lacks color filters. It detects colour by absorption depth. So color is much more dependent on math than on bayer when the CGA can be designed for a wanted color reproduction. These newer designs may be better in that sense. Anyway, non bayer sensors will be more expensive to make, specially in larger sizes, because they are more complex.
Personally, my thinking is that the best solution is to make the pixels smaller.
Best regards
Erik
In a perfect world they would use foveon. but hey, I realize that's a loaded topic and I would be quite happy with a bayer sensor if only they got the usability right.
-
I have a nice old Nikon FM2 with an MD12 winder that sits on a shelf in my office. I really like the looks of it as a reminder of times past. I kinda like the looks of this new camera. Will I buy one? No. There's no reason for me to not shoot the modern Nikons I now have. On the same shelf I have a couple of TLRs that were my dads complete with Press 25 flash attachments. I hope Nikon sells a bunch of these cameras to people who will enjoy them so they don't have to spread the development cost over product I will actually buy.
-
This is the follow-up to the D700. It's the baby D4. Anyone who wanted the best low-light shooter in the world for half the price can have it. Like the D700, it introduced no new tech. It's designed to appeal to people who did not want the D800. Notice it has no model /number/, so it has migrated into a "mature product" category, where it will likely remain untouched for four years. If it has a good finder and feels good in the hands, it will work. I just don't know why they didn't put the high-end AF in it. [But then, I stopped using AF anyway.]
I would have preferred the D800 body with that sensor...
I surely grasp the concept of pure photography but to me that would have been to minimize the number of buttons, to keep the evolutions that have been good and reintroduce the ones that have fallen off but were really good.
I would have liked interchangeable viewfinders. I would have liked them big, 100% but with a larger magnification. Interchangeable screens maybe??..
I really dislike having the shutter speed dial on top... Etc..
Instead of buying the Df I ordered a 58/1.4 :)
-
That exactly is the problem. This camera appears to be a kind of worst of two worlds: All the old dials plus all the new buttons. Add a $2500+ price tag and I have no clue why anybody would want that.
There is a reason why old cameras needed to have a myriad of dials for all functions: It was the only technologically possible way to do it. And there is also a reason why newer cameras have all these extra buttons: Durable, quality touch screens weren't invented yet and also any kind of screen drained way to much battery. So they added buttons.
We are beyond this. It's perfectly possible to have all the settings in the world adjusted via a touch screen and nothing more. Sure, sometimes you'll want a dial, for example I need one to adjust the shutter speed or to browse through the pictures on the card. It's simply quicker. So I think a few user configurable dials and buttons are definitely a good idea.
The solution would have been so, so simple: Take a F2, remove all the clutter and really reduce it to the purest form of the design. That would pretty much be a rather rectangular form with the signature prism on top. You machine this out of aluminum and add some vulcanite/leatherette. Slap a non-italics "Nikon" logo on it. Add two metal dials on top. Add another two small dials in front of, and behind the shutter. Very large touchscreen. D-Pad and a three four dedicated buttons on the back. Full frame sans bayer inside. You're done.
It’s my view that the entire reason one might desire a ‘retro’ styled camera is simply to get rid of the additional stuff that digital introduced.
All any competent shooter needs is a focus ring on the lens, an aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed control on the camera and, courtesy the digital revolution, a simple, non-menu method of selecting ISO and auto ISO.
The pentaprism should display the exposure bar as currently done, and that would obviate the need for any additional thing such a + or – dial because you do it in the prism with your left hand on the diaphragm ring. Considering how often one changes shooting/viewing position relative to the subject’s lighting, setting a mechanical control into a ‘permanent’ + or – is a nonsense: you easily forget and over/under expose all that follows should you fail to remember what you’ve set that’s different to the meter’s opinion.
Frankly, I’ve found the Nikon’s matrix to be so accurate that I no longer chimp. There’s no need. (And that from a guy who always incident light metered everything obsessively. I even bought my Nikon F2 as a Photomic, in hope, and never used the favour after the first battery died.)
Live View is not in the nature of the person for whom this sort of camera would have been designed.
Another poster in a similar thread mentioned that Polaroid was a kind of early alternative to the rear screen of contemporary cameras, providing a great way of learning photography by instant checking of mistakes; Polaroid didn’t work like that, it had other professional uses, and one of the worst aspects of Polaroid was its intrusion into the creative flow of a session. Polaroid was the darling of the fussing art director who made his presence valued by his determination to inspect what was going down at any given moment. Any guy shooting upmarket already knew how to light, what he was likely to be getting from his exposures. Polaroid simply didn’t look like your film looked. That was why having a break between the shoot and getting the trannies back didn’t help or hinder a thing. There was no need to see them in order to know what was what.
Rob C
-
All any competent shooter needs is a focus ring on the lens, an aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed control on the camera and, courtesy the digital revolution, a simple, non-menu method of selecting ISO and auto ISO.
Rob C
Exactly, that would make for a non-clutter pure photography camera. I could also do without the screen too, that would probably be very liberating. I hardly look at the screen anyway but that still is different than not having one.
-
I quite like dials and switches as this beauty shows.
And it even has a rear LCD too ::)
It's actually quite nice v the Canon "ish" buttons only approach (or mostly buttons)
But if you are doing a MF film camera with basically a digital sensor, you could cut down the controls significantly
I would not remove the rear LCD, but I would limit the camera to "no gimmicks" just important areas and a much trimmed down menu system
-
Exactly, that would make for a non-clutter pure photography camera. I could also do without the screen too, that would probably be very liberating. I hardly look at the screen anyway but that still is different than not having one.
Yup, I agree.
My impression is Nikon tried to hop on a wagon which has something good in it (simplified intuitive basic controls) essentially but is being led into a totally wrong direction (Hipster Marketing with premier price tag).
I wish they had either made this camera much cheaper or given it the D800 sensor and the best electronics they have available.
I personally had hoped for a better A7R type camera, something like the Fuji X-pro one, just from Nikon and Full Frame.
That would have really been interesting.
-
It’s my view that the entire reason one might desire a ‘retro’ styled camera is simply to get rid of the additional stuff that digital introduced.
All any competent shooter needs is a focus ring on the lens, an aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed control on the camera and, courtesy the digital revolution, a simple, non-menu method of selecting ISO and auto ISO.
Rob if you were shooting today you'd have to show the image to the AD and you can chose your way of doing it.
I've never had a client demand to see tethering at real time and if I like I could go back to shooting to card and downloading, (which isn't as slow as you think) but today half the trick isn't just the shot, it's proactively managing the room and the ability to listen to the client, crew, talent and respond, holding to all the creative briefs and objectives.
What I would actually like is a rack of screens, like 10 Ipads, that showed first frame to last and then rotated across as you worked. That way the clients could see the body of work, rather than just one image in 27" detail. That one image look always makes the digital tech constantly go back and forth.
I actually find most clients are trusting and don't get too deep into the minutia of every detail, as they are looking at the broad strokes, which really is the way to do it, so tethering isn't that bad, other than having to be hooked to a cord.
But honestly if you work professionally, nobody has buy a modern camera that is dumbed down. For the price a d800 will do everything this camera does and more, but for more money and more analog my phase backs and contax is a dumbed down as it gets and they still work fine and at this point I guess are also retro.
We also run multiple video monitors on set, usually one large and two or three small lcds, mounted on stands. I find early on everybody looks, but as the day and session continue the good creatives that know what they're doing (which is most today) watch the set, which is how it was done in the film days.
IMO
BC
-
Rob if you were shooting today you'd have to show the image to the AD and you can chose your way of doing it.
I've never had a client demand to see tethering at real time and if I like I could go back to shooting to card and downloading, (which isn't as slow as you think) but today half the trick isn't just the shot, it's proactively managing the room and the ability to listen to the client, crew, talent and respond, holding to all the creative briefs and objectives.
What I would actually like is a rack of screens, like 10 Ipads, that showed first frame to last and then rotated across as you worked. That way the clients could see the body of work, rather than just one image in 27" detail. That one image look always makes the digital tech constantly go back and forth.
I actually find most clients are trusting and don't get too deep into the minutia of every detail, as they are looking at the broad strokes, which really is the way to do it, so tethering isn't that bad, other than having to be hooked to a cord.
But honestly if you work professionally, nobody has buy a modern camera that is dumbed down. For the price a d800 will do everything this camera does and more, but for more money and more analog my phase backs and contax is a dumbed down as it gets and they still work fine and at this point I guess are also retro.
We also run multiple video monitors on set, usually one large and two or three small lcds, mounted on stands. I find early on everybody looks, but as the day and session continue the good creatives that know what they're doing (which is most today) watch the set, which is how it was done in the film days.
IMO
BC
BC, I have no beef with your point of view and the way you work today - I'm not crazy!
I'm just outlining what I would enjoy in a camera, and agreed, my pro days were a long time back.
Just a couple of hours ago I shot a Coke bottle on some rocks, and all I had to do once I had the image metered by Matrix (D700 with 500 reflex) was to wind the shutter wheel on before each subsequent shot as I ran a short series, reducing exposure each time to save the highlight rings. To me, that's the real joy of digital: I can run sequences without giving a hoot about material costs.
As it turned out, the first Matrixed shot was the one I chose to work with - go figure the value of doubting the camera's choices!
For me, this new camera and its price point indicates a non-pro market; pros can spend a lot more for obvious reasons and, I think, should. That's why I think they blew the opportunity of going cheap(ish) and making an attractive, ergonomically sound and cut down to essentials body for the amateur who already knows what he wants and really needs from a camera.
Ciao -
Rob C
-
Nice picture Rob.
BC, I have no beef with your point of view and the way you work today - I'm not crazy!
I'm just outlining what I would enjoy in a camera, and agreed, my pro days were a long time back.
Just a couple of hours ago I shot a Coke bottle on some rocks, and all I had to do once I had the image metered by Matrix (D700 with 500 reflex) was to wind the shutter wheel on before each subsequent shot as I ran a short series, reducing exposure each time to save the highlight rings. To me, that's the real joy of digital: I can run sequences without giving a hoot about material costs.
As it turned out, the first Matrixed shot was the one I chose to work with - go figure the value of doubting the camera's choices!
For me, this new camera and its price point indicates a non-pro market; pros can spend a lot more for obvious reasons and, I think, should. That's why I think they blew the opportunity of going cheap(ish) and making an attractive, ergonomically sound and cut down to essentials body for the amateur who already knows what he wants and really needs from a camera.
Ciao -
Rob C
-
This camera is like buying a pair of designer jeans. It is purely fashion.
-
This camera is like buying a pair of designer jeans. It is purely fashion.
This camera is being discussed and popping up in sth like 3 or 4 threads - so it must have hit something.
I approached it with a basically friendly attitude, but my impression is Nikon missed the point where
something good could have come out of it and thats 1st because of the premium price and 2nd some confusion in the concept:
- For the deliberate, concentrated, nature roaming photographer-artist they should have put in the 36 MP sensor and
- For the street photographer they omitted the better electronics.
- For both they omitted some other stuff.
The result is a piece of fashion evoking romantic feelings in the older guys sobbing over the loss of the "good old times".
Edit (added quote): One quote from one of the many articles on the net (forgot source, sorry dude .. ) "Too much form - too little function"
Its a pity - there was potential - and there still is potential to exploit.
-
The result is a piece of fashion evoking romantic feelings in the older guys sobbing over the loss of the "good old times".
Its a pity - there was potential - and there still is potential to exploit.
It's like the Hameau de la Reine of the camera world. Well done, Nikon.
-
On a positive note, Bjorn had this to say about it:
"Just returned from my first encounter with the Df. It is a lovely camera and ergonomically it's a dream come true. Everything positioned where it should be. The viewfinder is much better than the sheer numbers would indicate and I had no problem whatsoever seeing the entire frame plus info below with my spectacles on. Focusing manual lenses was a breeze, even the 50/1.2, Noct, or my 35/1.4."
-
They left out the good part of the F3, the viewfinder.
I have no problem with their marketing. It will move boxes and cater to many people's wants. I'm not offended by this.
This camera is being discussed and popping up in sth like 3 or 4 threads - so it must have hit something.
I approached it with a basically friendly attitude, but my impression is Nikon missed the point where
something good could have come out of it and thats 1st because of the premium price and 2nd some confusion in the concept:
- For the deliberate, concentrated, nature roaming photographer-artist they should have put in the 36 MP sensor and
- For the street photographer they omitted the better electronics.
- For both they omitted some other stuff.
The result is a piece of fashion evoking romantic feelings in the older guys sobbing over the loss of the "good old times".
Its a pity - there was potential - and there still is potential to exploit.
-
Is the new screen that good? Maybe it is much improved. We'll see.
On a positive note, Bjorn had this to say about it:
"Just returned from my first encounter with the Df. It is a lovely camera and ergonomically it's a dream come true. Everything positioned where it should be. The viewfinder is much better than the sheer numbers would indicate and I had no problem whatsoever seeing the entire frame plus info below with my spectacles on. Focusing manual lenses was a breeze, even the 50/1.2, Noct, or my 35/1.4."
-
The result is a piece of fashion evoking romantic feelings in the older guys sobbing over the loss of the "good old times".Its a pity - there was potential - and there still is potential to exploit.
Except that it’s not, Chris.
For the ‘older guys’ they should have done as I’ve written before: simplify to the basics of making an exposure, but on a sensor rather than a film.
This was never going to be a camera to suit all needs – there can’t be one.
The price point makes me sure it isn’t a serious pro body; it could have been a dedicated free-form shooter’s machine of choice – for the guy like me who hates lugging tripods around (I have a huge Gitzo that you’ve seen as well as a much more often employed little Slik, and also another big mother that used to end up holding a shoulder flash unit).
A friend on this board delights in using his M9 hand-held, which, for me, is what it’s all about unless you have to work to specific commissions that demand other things of you. I would have loved to have been able to continue to do the same with a dslr, but a lighter one with a real 100% screen that allows me to focus properly. I had a hell of a job today trying to focus the 8/500mm mirror lens against the light for the wee shot posted above; it’s a manual optic, obviously, and the green focus indicator light that the camera provides only works in the central spot with manual lenses – not much use when you are shooting downwards, slightly from above, and want to pin focus a bit higher than central…
Rob C
-
Nice picture Rob.
Thanks, T, here's another made just after the first version. Even more difficult to focus and keep steady(ish) in today's wind; tomorrow we've been told it'll probably rain, so striking while it's possible is best practice!
Rob C
-
the green focus indicator light that the camera provides only works in the central spot with manual lenses
Not to mention that the green dot stays lit over either side of the actual focusing point so that it does not give you the accuracy of, say, a split-image or microprism focusing screen.
-
I am sorry I didn't read the entire thread. IMHO, such a multi-dialed body can only be fine for someone who tried this kind of camera in the past. For a newcomer (like me), such amount of single function dials is worse than a pain in the ass. I have got used to manually adjusting parameters (aperture and speed) without lifting my eye from the EVF, ISO preadjusted. This kind of camera doesn't add anything to me.
Regards
-
Except that it’s not, Chris.
For the ‘older guys’ they should have done as I’ve written before: simplify to the basics of making an exposure, but on a sensor rather than a film.
This was never going to be a camera to suit all needs – there can’t be one.
The price point makes me sure it isn’t a serious pro body; it could have been a dedicated free-form shooter’s machine of choice – for the guy like me who hates lugging tripods around (I have a huge Gitzo that you’ve seen as well as a much more often employed little Slik, and also another big mother that used to end up holding a shoulder flash unit).
A friend on this board delights in using his M9 hand-held, which, for me, is what it’s all about unless you have to work to specific commissions that demand other things of you. I would have loved to have been able to continue to do the same with a dslr, but a lighter one with a real 100% screen that allows me to focus properly. I had a hell of a job today trying to focus the 8/500mm mirror lens against the light for the wee shot posted above; it’s a manual optic, obviously, and the green focus indicator light that the camera provides only works in the central spot with manual lenses – not much use when you are shooting downwards, slightly from above, and want to pin focus a bit higher than central…
Rob C
Rob - You are totally not sobbing and my post was definitely not pointed at you. I myself like this camera as a design study - my critique goes in a different direction.
Cheers
~Chris
-
I am sorry I didn't read the entire thread. IMHO, such a multi-dialed body can only be fine for someone who tried this kind of camera in the past. For a newcomer (like me), such amount of single function dials is worse than a pain in the ass. I have got used to manually adjusting parameters (aperture and speed) without lifting my eye from the EVF, ISO preadjusted. This kind of camera doesn't add anything to me.
Regards
+100500
-
On a positive note, Bjorn had this to say about it:
" ... I had no problem whatsoever seeing the entire frame plus info below with my spectacles on."
With the same 0.7x magnification and 100% coverage as all other current Nikon FX models, and no mention of added manual focusing aids, all I can think is that the Df has a higher eye-point to benefit spectacle wearers: the D800 is only 17mm and the D4 18mm, with the D610 surprising the highest at 21mm. That would both salvage one much-loved feature of the F3HP, and fit with the idea of being targeted at an older demographic. (I should refrain from saying "and hipsters wearing their Buddy Holly glasses".)
But I should also say that I am not competely down on this camera, despite its total lack of relevance to my photographic approach and my skepticism about a few of the design choices being driven by "image" rather than practicality. I have no complaint about the price, since it will clearly sell in far smaller numbers than recent entry-level 35mm format models like the D610, which can only hit that roughly $2000 price target through relatively high volume. The problem with the various proposals for a more minimal "just the features that I want" design is that there are numerous different versions of that minimal feature list, each of which would sell in even smaller numbers, requiring an even higher price.
-
1. (I should refrain from saying "and hipsters wearing their Buddy Holly glasses".)
2. The problem with the various proposals for a more minimal "just the features that I want" design is that there are numerous different versions of that minimal feature list, each of which would sell in even smaller numbers, requiring an even higher price.
!. Would John Lennon ones be acceptable instead?
2. Not really; minimum means minimum. You might have a point if you are thinking in terms of 'additional options' but that would negate the point of a camera such as I'd have hoped to find available, and have outlined elsewhere. A Nikon F's functions are where it's at; just use a sensor instead of a film. Though I'd like having it, I'd even accept no auto ISO if it made the thing a flier. Not an FM or FM2: they were pretty flimsy compared to the real deal F and F2 and didn't give you that vital 100% coverage of WYSIWYG. All you got was a higher flash synch, the only reason I had a couple of them in tow for such emergencies Why bother with a simple digital copy of a flawed film original? If you see what I mean.
;-)
Rob C
-
Nice abstraction. The perfect form of a coke bottle and the rings, nice and desaturated. All shapes from a French Curve. Great.
Thanks, T, here's another made just after the first version. Even more difficult to focus and keep steady(ish) in today's wind; tomorrow we've been told it'll probably rain, so striking while it's possible is best practice!
Rob C
-
2. Not really; minimum means minimum.
Rob, what I mean is that different people have different lists of the simplest configuration that they will accept. I am sure that your list and mine are very different!
For example,
-- some people's idea of a simple good DSLR design include a high magnification split-screen manual focusing device and external single-purpose dials for all settings; others call for a body of minimum size and complexity partly through a more modest VF and having just one or two multi-purpose dials;
-- some want no dials on the body for aperture and exposure compensation, doing it all with an aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial atop the body; others demand the simplicity of being able to settle the left hand under the lens at the balance point, with lens design and operation kept simple by having no aperture ring, through making all adjustments with dials on the body operated with the right hand;
-- some people would simplify by eliminating the rear screen; others would simplify by avoiding having to look at multiple dials in different places to check settings, by having all relevant information displayed in one place --- on that rear screen.
-
I quite like dials and switches as this beauty shows.
And it even has a rear LCD too ::)
It's actually quite nice v the Canon "ish" buttons only approach (or mostly buttons)
But if you are doing a MF film camera with basically a digital sensor, you could cut down the controls significantly
I would not remove the rear LCD, but I would limit the camera to "no gimmicks" just important areas and a much trimmed down menu system
I love my 7 Limited. The feel in the hand is perfect. The top rotary dials are simple and effective without the concerns of water getting in, like open side doors to electronics. If only I could put the D600 sensor in it...
-
I am sorry I didn't read the entire thread. IMHO, such a multi-dialed body can only be fine for someone who tried this kind of camera in the past. For a newcomer (like me), such amount of single function dials is worse than a pain in the ass. I have got used to manually adjusting parameters (aperture and speed) without lifting my eye from the EVF, ISO preadjusted. This kind of camera doesn't add anything to me.
Regards
And for the users with those requirements there are a zillion models, from Nikon and others. For those preferring tactile hard buttons there have been no options from Nikon so far. Its also interesting to see that the few cameras that implements such interfaces seems to be received well and do ok commercially.
I want return to the "what is best" debate :D , only say that its a good thing to have both design options. So why not give both a try?
-
14mm Eyepoint. Perhaps perceived magnification is higher, since your eyelashes will be hitting the eye piece.
With the same 0.7x magnification and 100% coverage as all other current Nikon FX models, and no mention of added manual focusing aids, all I can think is that the Df has a higher eye-point to benefit spectacle wearers: the D800 is only 17mm and the D4 18mm, with the D610 surprising the highest at 21mm. That would both salvage one much-loved feature of the F3HP, and fit with the idea of being targeted at an older demographic. (I should refrain from saying "and hipsters wearing their Buddy Holly glasses".)
But I should also say that I am not competely down on this camera, despite its total lack of relevance to my photographic approach and my skepticism about a few of the design choices being driven by "image" rather than practicality. I have no complaint about the price, since it will clearly sell in far smaller numbers than recent entry-level 35mm format models like the D610, which can only hit that roughly $2000 price target through relatively high volume. The problem with the various proposals for a more minimal "just the features that I want" design is that there are numerous different versions of that minimal feature list, each of which would sell in even smaller numbers, requiring an even higher price.
-
According to Bjorn, the numbers don't tell the story. He claims the camera is excellent for manual focus.
-
According to Bjorn, the numbers don't tell the story. He claims the camera is excellent for manual focus.
Well, Bjorn has some credibility, but it is mysterious, so I have to suspect the possibility that his "new toy" enthusiasm is interfering with totally dispassionate evaluation. After all, it has been claimed many times in this forum by numerous very experienced and competent photographers that the combination of lowish 0.7x magnification and no manual focusing aids (split image, micro prism collar) in modern viewfinders has been doom for accurate manual focusing ever since AF arrived, even with film, and the problem should surely be even worse if you print and view large enough to take full advantage of the 16MP sensor resolution. Have all the old experts in this forum been so wrong all along?
One point about manual focus on _any_ optical ground glass/frosted plastic TTL OVF: the scattered secondary image seen in such a VF only has about 2MP equivalent resolution, and is limited to about f/2.8 DOF even when the aperture is wider than that, so it is never going to be accurate enough for precise focusing when working with the shallow DOF of very low f-stops. But that might be irrelevant to what Bjorn (and many other photographers) are doing with manual focus; all could be well once stopped down enough to get a decent amount of the subject in focus.
-
Couldn't you just glue knobs and maybe a few sequin on a d610 and spend the money you save on manual focus lenses? The one element I do like is the sensor, but that could be placed in a body the size of the d610 and call it good. I don't see what one gains. I only see what is taken away and a rather high price tag. It is hard to a camera like this seriously. Maybe instead they should have designed a compact DX camera that had a really nice viewfinder and some new DX lenses with an aperture ring and depth of field scale? Enough of my rant.
-
The black model looks nice, I've decided. I'll take a look at it once they are available to handle. Maybe by summer.
-
When using the Canon Precision matte screens I can do OK with a 5d2 and the 1.2 L lenses, even wide open. I do mean OK. I do better with the 1ds3 and its .76. I did even better with the F4 and F5, even with teh AF screens.
Frankley, I have few problems focusing manually on the D800e with 1.4, F2 and 2.8 AIs lenses. My concern with a viewfinder is really teh view. The D800 indeed lets you see the whole frame, even wearing specs, but its like sitting in teh cheap seats at a ball game as opposed to watching a movie from teh midddle of teh 6th row.
I don't know what Bjorn is getting on about, but I would like to know more.
Well, Bjorn has some credibility, but it is mysterious, so I have to suspect the possibility that his "new toy" enthusiasm is interfering with totally dispassionate evaluation. After all, it has been claimed many times in this forum by numerous very experienced and competent photographers that the combination of lowish 0.7x magnification and no manual focusing aids (split image, micro prism collar) in modern viewfinders has been doom for accurate manual focusing ever since AF arrived, even with film, and the problem should surely be even worse if you print and view large enough to take full advantage of the 16MP sensor resolution. Have all the old experts in this forum been so wrong all along?
One point about manual focus on _any_ optical ground glass/frosted plastic TTL OVF: the scattered secondary image seen in such a VF only has about 2MP equivalent resolution, and is limited to about f/2.8 DOF even when the aperture is wider than that, so it is never going to be accurate enough for precise focusing when working with the shallow DOF of very low f-stops. But that might be irrelevant to what Bjorn (and many other photographers) are doing with manual focus; all could be well once stopped down enough to get a decent amount of the subject in focus.
-
I notice a big difference focusing between my D800 and my D4. I find it rather difficult on the D800 and easy on the D4. Yet on paper, they are very close. The D800 is .7x/17mm, and the D4 is .7x/18mm. I don't know why they'd be so different, but they are.
-
Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface ;D?
-
The style reminds me of the Maxxum 5
(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS480x360~sample_galleries%2F4964288527%2F2248174935.jpg) (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/maxxum5/m5_front_blk.jpg)
-
I think that is just the silver. The silver/chrome reminds me of a Rebel.
The black, acyually, is far better looking, in fact it is slimming. Doesn't look so busy.
The style reminds me of the Maxxum 5
(http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS480x360~sample_galleries%2F4964288527%2F2248174935.jpg) (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/maxxum5/m5_front_blk.jpg)
-
Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface ;D?
like? (http://sigma-dp.com/DP3Merrill/img/exterior/body-02-pic.jpg)
-
Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface ;D?
Good point; it just had the misfortune to be born into a printer family instead of a camera one.
I think that it could have been developed and turned into something really good.
Rob C
-
Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface ;D?
Hey, I still have (& use) my R-D1. It's a weird beastie in some ways--a Cosina film RF body with a sensor & some Epson electronics added on--but it works. And you can flip & fold in the rear LCD and pretend you're shooting film, if that's your thing (not mine). Has a variant of the 6mp Sony CCD sensor that worked so well in Nikon's D70. Nicely tuned AA filter. Better highlight tonal gradation than its Canon 10D & 20D contemporaries. Sucks batteries dry in no time. Focusing is hit & miss with lenses longer than 50mm (no framelines for longer focal lengths anyway) and tricky even with faster 50s. It will never be sold nor given away. If/when it dies I'll put it on my golden oldies shelf and look at it fondly.
-Dave-
-
Hey, I still have (& use) my R-D1. It's a weird beastie in some ways--a Cosina film RF body with a sensor & some Epson electronics added on--but it works. And you can flip & fold in the rear LCD and pretend you're shooting film, if that's your thing (not mine). Has a variant of the 6mp Sony CCD sensor that worked so well in Nikon's D70. Nicely tuned AA filter. Better highlight tonal gradation than its Canon 10D & 20D contemporaries. Sucks batteries dry in no time. Focusing is hit & miss with lenses longer than 50mm (no framelines for longer focal lengths anyway) and tricky even with faster 50s. It will never be sold nor given away. If/when it dies I'll put it on my golden oldies shelf and look at it fondly.
-Dave-
I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.
Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.
Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.
Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.
IMO
BC
-
Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.
+1000
Fuji X Pro1 on steroids ....
Mamiya 7 II gone digital ...
-
You can find Mamiya 7's adapted for digibacks on ebay.
Edmund
I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.
Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.
Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.
Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.
IMO
BC
-
Just a couple of hours ago I shot a Coke bottle on some rocks...
I like it! And I like reflex lenses too. Funny...the first lens I tried out with the Oly E-M1 after unboxing it was a Tokina Micro Four-Thirds 300mm reflex. I wanted to see if the camera's IS system read the lens' focal length. (Nope, just like the E-M5...the camera otherwise knows it's a 300mm f/6.3 but chooses not to let IS in on the secret.) The attached pic didn't really reach what I was going for (not enough tonal variety in the background) but it does show that, contrary to every online & print review I've read, the lens is plenty crisp at the point of focus.
-Dave-
-
I like it! And I like reflex lenses too. Funny...the first lens I tried out with the Oly E-M1 after unboxing it was a Tokina Micro Four-Thirds 300mm reflex. I wanted to see if the camera's IS system read the lens' focal length. (Nope, just like the E-M5...the camera otherwise knows it's a 300mm f/6.3 but chooses not to let IS in on the secret.) The attached pic didn't really reach what I was going for (not enough tonal variety in the background) but it does show that, contrary to every online & print review I've read, the lens is plenty crisp at the point of focus.
-Dave-
Great minds etc.!
300mm isn't as hard to steady as 500mm, but that 500mm really needs the big Gitzo, which is now far too heavy for me to cart around. I have used it off-base by roping it to a wheelie shopping-bag chassis, but it's such a hassle to make/break the contraption... I did get reasonably sharp Kodachromes with my first 500 reflex many years ago, but the problem was communication: I didn't have a walkie talkie and, anyway, you can't shoot a model holding one to her ear in every shot - the wind on beaches drowns out human voices at that range...
But then, unless you have lots of ambient highlights, you're better off using a standard lens of the same length.
Rob C
-
I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.
Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.
Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.
Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.IMO
BC
Maybe because it would be too hard to focus it properly without resorting to Live View etc. and that negates rangefinders, in my mind.
Rob C
-
I had the pleasure of reading Ming Thein on "The importance of hapatics and tactility". He basically makes the same conclusions as have posted earlier in this thread. I lot of the Df naysayers fall in the category "I have rejected before trying" in the sense that they reject tactile handling without ever having tried.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/27/film-diaries-hapatics-1/ (http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/27/film-diaries-hapatics-1/)
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/29/film-diaries-hapatics-2/ (http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/29/film-diaries-hapatics-2/)
"It seems that photographers fall roughly into two camps these days – those who care about feel, and those who don’t. Often, the latter simply don’t know any better because they’ve never had the opportunity to handle some really solid equipment, which is a shame, considering how much more accessible say a regular F2 is now than when it was first launched. Even more interesting is that a lot of the former vitriol-throwers change their minds after handling the Hasselblad Lunar in the flesh; it’s clear that the designer (re-designer?) understood the importance of tactility – even if we might disagree with some of the aesthetic choices, and the price point".
-
I just returned from my dealer and they say they have a whole lot of people
pre-ordering the camera, more than at many other camera launches they have had.
And they said the majority are people with a lot of old Nikon glass in their shelves.
Just FYI ...
-
I just returned from my dealer and they say they have a whole lot of people
pre-ordering the camera, more than at many other camera launches they have had.
And they said the majority are people with a lot of old Nikon glass in their shelves.
Just FYI ...
I wonder why? It's not as if the D700 or similar precluded the use of old Nikkors. All of mine, bar one, are just that, and I'm more than happy to have made that choice.
Regarding the F and F2: working both for long periods at a time, the F2's slightly more rounded edges made for a less painful day. About the only other difference I can remember is that the F2 went up to 1/2000th against the F's 1/1000. Big deal. But the thing is, those cameras just let you feel on top of your game.
Psychology might not make the world go round, but it sure makes us tick!
Rob C
-
I had the pleasure of reading Ming Thein on "The importance of hapatics and tactility". He basically makes the same conclusions as have posted earlier in this thread. I lot of the Df naysayers fall in the category "I have rejected before trying" in the sense that they reject tactile handling without ever having tried.
your (and his) logical error it that people can appreciate tactile handling and yet appreciate that in a regular modern dSLR design, instead of retro kitsch...
-
Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video.
In doing market research we never just take the pulse of a market through forums. We interview actual human beings who tend to be more human than their On-Line personae.
-
Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video.
In doing market research we never just take the pulse of a market through forums. We interview actual human beings who tend to be more human than their On-Line personae.
My main critique is the price per function.
I'd not pay that premium for design - though I actually like the design and the look.
-
Yeah, that too.
My main critique is the price per function.
I'd not pay that premium for design - though I actually like the design and the look.
-
Well, T, you had the F-range old Nikons too; none of them had a top-plate nor, for that matter, front anything like this new thing.
I never found myself getting into difficulties with swapping settings, perhaps because I never did use those + or - options because eventually doing mostly transparencies, it was all Invercone and, later, Minolta Flash Meter. Frankly, looking at the snaps of this latest offering, it looks even more intimidating than the electrical cameras. If anything, I think it's a design decision based not on successful retro (as in simplifying to really basic needs) but more a matter of creating what might be thought of as a 'complicated' camera that, to the inexperienced, means a better camera and, by extension, suggests the owner is a pretty damned good snapper to be able to understand it. In other words, a new opportunity for photographers to indulge in some showing off.
My F4s had the huge advantage of that built-in diopter correction wheel; best new thing to come along in years. Other than that, it was too heavy and the self-loading sucked, almost at every attempt. In short, it was the first computer-on-a-neck-strap I ever experienced. Come to think of it, my existing/surviving F3 isn't as beautiful or solid-feeling as the models it replaced...
I guess as Cooter suggests, the digital F or FM2 ain't gonna come calling any time soon. Worst luck.
;-)
Rob C
-
I guess as Cooter suggests, the digital F or FM2 ain't gonna come calling any time soon. Worst luck.
I'm not entirely sure we will ever see that.
My impression is, that on the long run DSLRs are going to diminish even further -
the speed of this will depend on the development of the EVFs.
There are still many reasons to stick with OVFs, but I believe technical development will
at some point make them obsolete - and development is going fast
Cheers
~Chris
-
Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video.
The main complaints I see are about retrogressions in functionality and ergonomics, not retro looks. Meaning dials piled two-deep plus locking buttons that have to be held down while operating some of them, seemingly involving holding the camera down away from the eye and using two hands --- as if the abandonment of that old approach in favor of the common modern approach was due to some vast evil conspiracy against photographers, instead of being the natural consequence of expanded technological possibilities when settings no longer have to act through direct mechanical linkages. (I could also count the decision to omit video as a pointless retrogression in functionality, given that it could clearly be supported at a very minor extra cost and with no more added complexity than a fifth position on the mode dial.)
-
Hi,
I would say it is interesting that Sony does. They have taken a normal DSLR and replaced the moving mirror with a pelicular one for AF and an electronic viewfinder. The next step is hybrid AF on sensor, so they can remove the pelicular mirror.
I guess that we are going to see similar models from Nikon and Canon. In the long run there are some advantages with a new system for mirrorless, but new technology can be introduced in an existing product line.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not entirely sure we will ever see that.
My impression is, that on the long run DSLRs are going to diminish even further -
the speed of this will depend on the development of the EVFs.
There are still many reasons to stick with OVFs, but I believe technical development will
at some point make them obsolete - and development is going fast
Cheers
~Chris
-
I am no more a Nikon Company mind-reader than the next guy, but if the idea of 'retro' is to reduce to a focussed, minimalistic camera functionality, why on Earth would anyone expect video to be incorporated? That's the whole idea, to get away from the one-box-does-all mindset; to return to a time when all you wanted was what you needed: a stills box that did you proud, that allowed you to work as you felt like working, that had everything visible and under instant control.
Crying tears of anguish because some toy (video) is removed from the chest doesn't strike me as any love for pure photography at all, and those who feel that they prefer all the bells and whistles and even hope for a further pair of swinging tassles to be added to the thing simply miss the point: the camera some of us had hoped for wasn't meant for you, wasn't ever going to be forced upon you; your present toys were not going to be confiscated nor made more difficult to collect!
To those of us who do like simplicity and a basic, uncluttered functionality in the tools we use, this has not been a clever day.
Rob C
-
I believe that many of us are a lot more influenced by the tactile and sound aspects of a human machine interaction than we realize or are willing to admit.
I believe a non insignificant pourcentage of Df buyers will make up their mind after having put their hands on the camera. This isn't a body that sells online well nor should it pre-order in huge numbers (although it seemd to be doing pretty well). This is IMHO an in store play and buy item.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it. There are few previews. I'm not saying it's great, it may be awful. I'm saying no one really knows enough to pronounce The End of Nikon.
The main complaints I see are about retrogressions in functionality and ergonomics, not retro looks. Meaning dials piled two-deep plus locking buttons that have to be held down while operating some of them, seemingly involving holding the camera down away from the eye and using two hands --- as if the abandonment of that old approach in favor of the common modern approach was due to some vast evil conspiracy against photographers, instead of being the natural consequence of expanded technological possibilities when settings no longer have to act through direct mechanical linkages. (I could also count the decision to omit video as a pointless retrogression in functionality, given that it could clearly be supported at a very minor extra cost and with no more added complexity than a fifth position on the mode dial.)
-
These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it. There are few previews. I'm not saying it's great, it may be awful. I'm saying no one really knows enough to pronounce The End of Nikon.
We could debate whether they really are shortcomings, or whether different ergonomic approaches are rationally preferred by different people (I much prefer the idea of adjusting exposure compensation or shutter speed with my right thumb via the rear dial while keeping the camera to my eye, index finger ready on the shutter and left hand fingers ready on the focus dial, over the Df approach of moving one hand to those dials on the top-left) but my point was only that the main criticisms are based on ergonomics, not due to "the perceived 'retro' look".
P. S. I am certainly not predicting "The End of Nikon", only forum trolls are. The Df seems to be attracting enough interest that it could well be a good decision from the marketing, revenue and profit perspective. I am just skeptical (note, not "cynical") that it will improve photography, or make it more "pure", for anyone who is already experienced with the modern control styles made possible by the addition of electronic interfaces to cameras.
P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.
-
P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.
Non-electrical digital... are you sure these are photographic forumes to which you refer?
Amazing concept. The ultimate hybrid, then: works off mechanics and air.
Rob C
-
I get this and you certainly aren't a troll. I didn't mean to imply that were a troll etc.
My point is that, until we hold one in our hot little hands, we won't know if it will work for us. I broke out the F4, which has a busy layout of knobs and switches, many with locks. I find, and always found, the ergos to be good. Then again, I shot that camera beginning in 1990 or so. I found the F5 with the control dials to be better. In fact, I have not used a camera with better feel and ergos than the F5.
I hope its great, but for the real deal I have my M9s.
As to exposure compensation, I'm a simpleton. I usually use Aperture priority, with almost every camera I own that supports it. If I have lenses with an aperture ring, I'll lock exposure with the shutter release and stop down/open up the lens. I've only used the dedicated dials etc in extreme situations, like a snowy field. In that case, I set it and forget it until I'm away from the snow. I think in practice the F5 and later pro slr/dslrs are fine, except for the focusing screen.
We could debate whether they really are shortcomings, or whether different ergonomic approaches are rationally preferred by different people (I much prefer the idea of adjusting exposure compensation or shutter speed with my right thumb via the rear dial while keeping the camera to my eye, index finger ready on the shutter and left hand fingers ready on the focus dial, over the Df approach of moving one hand to those dials on the top-left) but my point was only that the main criticisms are based on ergonomics, not due to "the perceived 'retro' look".
P. S. I am certainly not predicting "The End of Nikon", only forum trolls are. The Df seems to be attracting enough interest that it could well be a good decision from the marketing, revenue and profit perspective. I am just skeptical (note, not "cynical") that it will improve photography, or make it more "pure", for anyone who is already experienced with the modern control styles made possible by the addition of electronic interfaces to cameras.
P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.
-
I would say it is interesting that Sony does. They have taken a normal DSLR and replaced the moving mirror with a pelicular one for AF and an electronic viewfinder. The next step is hybrid AF on sensor, so they can remove the pelicular mirror.
Yes, I think it helps to understand current camera technology as transitional --
That's the "technical limitation" that Sony has to deal with on their SLT,
- A given amount of time (1/24, 130, even 1/60 sec)
- A given lens communication protocol (Minolta, from the 1980s, where no one thought of using this stuff for video)
- A given motor and gear configuration (again, Minolta, from the 1980s)
...
We're in the "horseless carriage" days. Many years ago, when gas, diesel, and steam motors just started to be practical, carriage companies started fitting their carriages with them, making "horseless carriages". Eventually, they gave way to people who made "cars", vehicles "purpose built" to be powered transportation, instead of adapter to it.
SLT is one of the horseless carriages. The car, in this case, is EVIL. The pieces are just starting to come together. Oly and Samsung pioneered the format, and started reaping the advantages, in compact, high performance lenses. Sony followed suit with NEX, a pretty refined system which really pushed the limits on the EVF. Fuji and Nikon built hybrid sensors that could do PDAF without diverting light to a second AF sensor. All those things will get better, and the SLT and SLR will eventually die off (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3106664?page=2#forum-post-39997161).
Does E-mount provide many more possibilities for camera and lens design than the old A-mount?
-
I get this and you certainly aren't a troll. I didn't mean to imply that were a troll etc.
No worries; that is not what I meant! I was just alluding to my frustration that so often, a legitimate variety of opinions (such as yours and mine, I like to think) get polluted by extremist nonsense, and people (including me) get lured into reacting to that rather than discussing the stuff that is actually worth discussing.
-
These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it.
and exactly the opposite - a perceived ergonomic advantage because of that...
-
I still have to Minolta bodies - an SRT 101 and an XD 7 - I can't really imagine getting rid of these, though i don't do 35 mm film anymore since I had my Mamiya Press and now the the Mamiya 7 II. They are just lovely. :'(
-
That too. I'll wait until I hold one, shoot with it. The D800 front dial is hard for me to deal with, I like Canon's position better on the 5D2/1ds MUCH better. That's what I get for buying a D800 after holding it in Best Buy for 20 seconds.
and exactly the opposite - a perceived ergonomic advantage because of that...
-
Right on. Its like American politics.
No worries; that is not what I meant! I was just alluding to my frustration that so often, a legitimate variety of opinions (such as yours and mine, I like to think) get polluted by extremist nonsense, and people (including me) get lured into reacting to that rather than discussing the stuff that is actually worth discussing.
-
The D800 front dial is hard for me to deal with, I like Canon's position better on the 5D2/1ds MUCH better. That's what I get for buying a D800 after holding it in Best Buy for 20 seconds.
I feel exactly the same way about the D800. I have fairly large hands, and neither the front dial nor the shutter release fall at a natural position. The only position I've found reasonable is to get the lower-right corner of the camera straight into my right palm. But that position also interferes with my tendons a bit.
The F/F2/F3 were very comfortable cameras to shoot with. I could carry them around with my fingers, or my right hand wrapped around the lens mount. They were very quick to bring to the eye, flip, focus, trip.
-
I feel exactly the same way about the D800. I have fairly large hands, and neither the front dial nor the shutter release fall at a natural position. The only position I've found reasonable is to get the lower-right corner of the camera straight into my right palm. But that position also interferes with my tendons a bit.
The F/F2/F3 were very comfortable cameras to shoot with. I could carry them around with my fingers, or my right hand wrapped around the lens mount. They were very quick to bring to the eye, flip, focus, trip.
Absolutely. Hence my disappointment with the new offering, which introduces even more visual 'controls' confusion than ever. But, at least the confusion may be solvable without opening another blasted menu, something that utterly destroys continuity of thought.
Rob C
-
Hi,
Sigma owns the Foveon and they make it with a crop factor of 1.7, AFAIK. So there is no Foveon in full frame around.
Could you expand on this a bit?
-
Foveon is now a divison of Sigma, and now makes its X3 sensors somewhat larger than its original "1.7x": the latest models are 23.5x15.7mm , about as in the mainstream DSLRs of Sony, Nikon, etc., but still 1.5x smaller than the traditional 36x24mm film format.
There are other approaches to the X3 idea (now an industry-standardized term for sensors that measure three color signals at each location) that have been explored and patented by several other sensor and camera makers, some of which sound more promissing than the Foveon approach (which relies on the somewhat different rates of absorption by silicon of different wavelengths of light), but none has yet been commercialized AFAIK. I mention this to preempt the claim that X3 is obviously inherently superior, and is just being ignored by all the major camera and sensor makers because of a Sigma/Foveon monopoly. My guess instead is that the X3 approach has not yet offered enough demonstrated practical advantages over the mainstream CFA approach for anyone else to bother adopting it. Maybe the fabrication costs and relatively poor noise levels are the barriers to wider adoption.
-
Nikon DF - Next generation ....
-
Is that the Hasselblad pimped version?
-
I believe that many of us are a lot more influenced by the tactile and sound aspects of a human machine interaction than we realize or are willing to admit.
I believe a non insignificant pourcentage of Df buyers will make up their mind after having put their hands on the camera. This isn't a body that sells online well nor should it pre-order in huge numbers (although it seemd to be doing pretty well). This is IMHO an in store play and buy item.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think they will sell very well. Not to the under $700 crowd, but for the advanced amateur that won't do a leica but wants something unique, they sell. Also to the older photographer that remembers analog film they'll gain some traction.
The above seems to be the market Nikons videos are playing to.
I think the highest sales figures should come from what everyone here calls the hipsters, which to me are the Millenials. They missed out on film and you can see were they're playing polaroid/instrigram, a few shooting T Richardson Yashicas and are somewhat intrigued with the analog way, though they need digital to post on the various mediums they are addicted to.
For that group it should sell well, except for price. I think it's $700 too high at the moment, considering the other two new offerings the Sony and the Olympus are at slightly above $2100.
Now if Olympus made a Full Frame om series camera the same size as their film cameras for $2100 (and actually marketed it) they'd probably outsell both Nikon and Sony, just because it would be more unique than an Nikon or Sony name.
For everyone, the real telling feature of this camera will be the ability to use and focus old Nikon glass. A 50mm 1.2, 105mm, 35mm manual focus lenses would look great on this camera and bring back a lot of good feelings IF you can manually focus it at a distance. If not, it's just a toy that will end up on a shelf.
As a working tool, I'd rather use a 5d2, because I like the output of that camera and am used to Canon ergonomics, though I tried and wouldn't buy a 5d3. Didn't like the file.
IMO
BC
P.S. It's funny. Today we were out running errands and I saw one guy, with a Nikon around his neck bouncing on his belly. I know it's wrong of me, but first thought in my head was "tourist".
Ten minutes later saw another guy, slightly better built, better hair with a leather jacket and a Leica M something and I thought, investment banker or dentist.
But, if I had rounded the corner and seen some cat with two or three black camera bodies around his neck all taped together with gaff I'd think Photojournalists.
So if your buying a Nikon to look cool, just buy some gaffer tape and don't shave.
-
And the real PJ has two 5d2s and some zooms in a bag and is using his iPhone for the shot.
I think they will sell very well. Not to the under $700 crowd, but for the advanced amateur that won't do a leica but wants something unique, they sell. Also to the older photographer that remembers analog film they'll gain some traction.
The above seems to be the market Nikons videos are playing to.
I think the highest sales figures should come from what everyone here calls the hipsters, which to me are the Millenials. They missed out on film and you can see were they're playing polaroid/instrigram, a few shooting T Richardson Yashicas and are somewhat intrigued with the analog way, though they need digital to post on the various mediums they are addicted to.
For that group it should sell well, except for price. I think it's $700 too high at the moment, considering the other two new offerings the Sony and the Olympus are at slightly above $2100.
Now if Olympus made a Full Frame om series camera the same size as their film cameras for $2100 (and actually marketed it) they'd probably outsell both Nikon and Sony, just because it would be more unique than an Nikon or Sony name.
For everyone, the real telling feature of this camera will be the ability to use and focus old Nikon glass. A 50mm 1.2, 105mm, 35mm manual focus lenses would look great on this camera and bring back a lot of good feelings IF you can manually focus it at a distance. If not, it's just a toy that will end up on a shelf.
As a working tool, I'd rather use a 5d2, because I like the output of that camera and am used to Canon ergonomics, though I tried and wouldn't buy a 5d3. Didn't like the file.
IMO
BC
P.S. It's funny. Today we were out running errands and I saw one guy, with a Nikon around his neck bouncing on his belly. I know it's wrong of me, but first thought in my head was "tourist".
Ten minutes later saw another guy, slightly better built, better hair with a leather jacket and a Leica M something and I thought, investment banker or dentist.
But, if I had rounded the corner and seen some cat with two or three black camera bodies around his neck all taped together with gaff I'd think Photojournalists.
So if your buying a Nikon to look cool, just buy some gaffer tape and don't shave.
-
Foveon is now a divison of Sigma, and now makes its X3 sensors somewhat larger than its original "1.7x": the latest models are 23.5x15.7mm , about as in the mainstream DSLRs of Sony, Nikon, etc., but still 1.5x smaller than the traditional 36x24mm film format.
There are other approaches to the X3 idea (now an industry-standardized term for sensors that measure three color signals at each location) that have been explored and patented by several other sensor and camera makers, some of which sound more promissing than the Foveon approach (which relies on the somewhat different rates of absorption by silicon of different wavelengths of light), but none has yet been commercialized AFAIK. I mention this to preempt the claim that X3 is obviously inherently superior, and is just being ignored by all the major camera and sensor makers because of a Sigma/Foveon monopoly. My guess instead is that the X3 approach has not yet offered enough demonstrated practical advantages over the mainstream CFA approach for anyone else to bother adopting it. Maybe the fabrication costs and relatively poor noise levels are the barriers to wider adoption.
thanks. I think the issue is the noise. i almost always shoot my dp2m at base iso. try explaining that to the mass market.
-
And the real PJ has two 5d2s and some zooms in a bag and is using his iPhone for the shot.
nope. the real phot journalist was let go.
-
Ha! Too true.
nope. the real phot journalist was let go.
-
And the real PJ has two 5d2s and some zooms in a bag and is using his iPhone for the shot.
C'mon guys. I wan't thinking about ancient times (7 years ago) or before the world wide stealing machine was in full steam (12 years ago), there are still people out there producing news, some of it is really beautiful.
Every few days the wall street journal in their video section runs a slide show of news images around the world and they're usually amazing and I'll just bet those guys are shooting with 5d's and d2x's and could care less about the geek talk we all get caught up in and bet you a dollar to a donut that they could care less about a cute nikon.
I like those people.
IMO
BC
-
Yeah it's true. Look at an NYT and see what AFP is getting out of Syria. Stunning. And yeah, 1ds3s and 5d2s and zooms.
C'mon guys. I wan't thinking about ancient times (7 years ago) or before the world wide stealing machine was in full steam (12 years ago), there are still people out there producing news, some of it is really beautiful.
Every few days the wall street journal in their video section runs a slide show of news images around the world and they're usually amazing and I'll just bet those guys are shooting with 5d's and d2x's and could care less about the geek talk we all get caught up in and bet you a dollar to a donut that they could care less about a cute nikon.
I like those people.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I would also think the Foveon is much more complex to make than Bayer type devices. Making a "full frame" sensor takes stitching, as normal "steppers" cannot expose a full frame sensor in a single exposure.
Best regards
Erik
thanks. I think the issue is the noise. i almost always shoot my dp2m at base iso. try explaining that to the mass market.
-
There is all this noise that the DF is for 50 year olds that yearn for the past. I don't know if I think of it that way, considering if Nikon had come out with this camera as their first or second digtal camera nobody would have said a thing.
Combined with this noise, is the thing about how "smart" phones have replaced the camera, which they have for people that would never carry a camera, but honestly I don't think "smart phones" are that good at anything. Try to type a detailed e-mail, or really view a movie, or even a video, or for that matter a pretty still.
Smart phones are ok at a lot of stuff, just not good at any one thing, including photography, but if they we're, let's say the Nokia 40mpx smart phone shot a beautiful file, would anyone serious about making images charge two and go out and shoot a project with them?
To me the only thing Nikon has done with this camera I don't like is removing the video (which didn't hurt anything) and not putting a higher mpx sensor in it given the cost, but the nice thing about it, it's a camera.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
Smart phones are good about f/8 and being there photography, and that is not a bad thing.
Personally, I like cameras. I happen to have a Sony RX100, a decent picture taker. But for real pictures I prefer a real camera.
Best regards
Erik
There is all this noise that the DF is for 50 year olds that yearn for the past. I don't know if I think of it that way, considering if Nikon had come out with this camera as their first or second digtal camera nobody would have said a thing.
Combined with this noise, is the thing about how "smart" phones have replaced the camera, which they have for people that would never carry a camera, but honestly I don't think "smart phones" are that good at anything. Try to type a detailed e-mail, or really view a movie, or even a video, or for that matter a pretty still.
Smart phones are ok at a lot of stuff, just not good at any one thing, including photography, but if they we're, let's say the Nokia 40mpx smart phone shot a beautiful file, would anyone serious about making images charge two and go out and shoot a project with them?
To me the only thing Nikon has done with this camera I don't like is removing the video (which didn't hurt anything) and not putting a higher mpx sensor in it given the cost, but the nice thing about it, it's a camera.
IMO
BC
-
Combined with this noise, is the thing about how "smart" phones have replaced the camera, which they have for people that would never carry a camera, but honestly I don't think "smart phones" are that good at anything. Try to type a detailed e-mail, or really view a movie, or even a video, or for that matter a pretty still.
Smart phones are ok at a lot of stuff, just not good at any one thing, including photography, but if they we're, let's say the Nokia 40mpx smart phone shot a beautiful file, would anyone serious about making images charge two and go out and shoot a project with them?
IMO
BC
J,
Smart phones make images which can be instantly sent on in a single gesture. They are a wonderful "photo-sketch" tool, exactly like a pencil sketch compared to an oil painting. Look at the pix I sent in from the Paris photo show (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/paris_photo_show.shtml), you instantly understand what things look like.
The big PROBLEM with digital photography is THE COMPUTER. Spooling stuff over to a dedicated machine, wading through it, sharpening, retouching, Adobe products have an interface only a product manager can love. I'd say that if someone put a zoom camera in a Nokia 1020, or in an iPad, or made a phone version of the interchangeable lens Panasonic GM1 or even the Sony RX100, then a bunch of people would go out with an iPad and that phone, and do projects with them - the trendy Paris photo magazines I see in the kiosks now are all Instagram or blurrycam and look like a Lomo was used, not even an iPhone.
Aside from the fashion magazines and the big news glossies, most of the published pics I see -press or web - could be done with anything, including a $500 30x super-zoom camera which nobody on this forum would even notice in a shop.
As you know, I have the greatest respect for the tools of the trade, and the craft which people like you bring with them. However, just like most pop songs were once mixed to be heard on a transistor radio, most publications now expect low-fi because that's the trend.
Last, not least, I have a D4 and an iPhone. The D4 creates a problem anywhere I go. I have had people run after me in central Paris shouting that I was forbidden from photographing their building. I was stopped by security guards from photographing the Louvre pyramid. The iPhone gets me a picture without problems from the rent-a-cops. I worked for many years as a professional journalist, and I often prefer to gather my material without fuss - of course there are cases when you are expected to make a show of photographing - eg. at events, but in the main I'd say that the phone or compact is well accepted and suitable in many cases where the big cam cannot go.
Edmund
-
Combined with this noise, is the thing about how "smart" phones have replaced the camera, which they have for people that would never carry a camera, but honestly I don't think "smart phones" are that good at anything. Try to type a detailed e-mail, or really view a movie, or even a video, or for that matter a pretty still.
Smart phones are ok at a lot of stuff, just not good at any one thing, including photography, but if they we're, let's say the Nokia 40mpx smart phone shot a beautiful file, would anyone serious about making images charge two and go out and shoot a project with them?
I have to say I think my smart phone is exactly that - smart. It's a fantastic tool that can do so many things. I can check/send an email out whilst in the countryside should I want to. I can whip out phone and quickly display a portfolio of images to someone I'm chatting to informally. I can mix tunes in the car via the car stereo, I even used it to DJ one night when laptop had a hissy fit. I can take photos, tweak them and send/post them within a minute. It can show me where I am, where I took a photo, how fast I rode my mountain bike, what my heartbeat was halfway up a steep hill, where the sun will rise, what the weather is going to be, let me book tickets for train/cinema/meal and I can even make a phone call too.
-
The D4 creates a problem anywhere I go. I have had people run after me in central Paris shouting that I was forbidden from photographing their building. I was stopped by security guards from photographing the Louvre pyramid.
Edmund
Yes, this is probably one things where the Df will prove to be helpful. D4 quality in a camera that appears to be the tool of a harmless enthusiast instead of the tool of an evil paparazzi. When doing street work noboby was offended when I stood in the middle of the street with the HB500 series while the mob almost lynched me when they spotted the D1x (the WLF probably helped too).
-
We all say it's not the tools, it's what you do with the tools.
That's true to a point, but dumbing down in all areas goes from a safe flight to a crash.
Sure I can shoot with a D70, or a D90, or a d anything. I can go from 8x8 or 12x12 reflectors to small flexible fill, from kinos to hand held light panels, from profoto, to flashguns, from REDs to sony handicams.
I can use small metal pics stands instead of c's, c stands instead of rollers and I may get away with it, but when you takes 10% away from every function you'll have 1/2 the image.
I'm not going to dance around this and say a cell phone is good "sometimes". It's only good because it's the only camera your carrying, even if a smart phone has 40mpx, it's still limited and honestly I've never understood "stealth" photography.
I shot this photo with one head, a medium bounce and a 5d2 and a much smaller crew that most. It's pretty, it worked though I had half a room of equipment and didn't use it all, I did use what I needed.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/napolean.jpg)
This was a much different genre. I shot have this project with my producer/partner, me and essentially two bodies two lenses, though the main imagery way a Nikon and a 200 F2, not really a lens you hide with.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/devils.jpg)
Either way, I didn't care if people knew I was working because we negotiated permission, had a goal and was clear of our intent and even if I didn't have permission I wouldn't let a something stop me from getting the image I wanted.
I don't look for situations where I'm not noticed. It's too limiting. If I go to a concert and they don't allow cameras, I don't shoot, because if I wanted to shoot, I'd get press admission or secure a contract.
I'm not saying street photography is bad (though I must admit a lot of it I find way too much alike) but I can't imagine trying to be invisible.
There is some great street photography, though a lot of it seems to be awkward, but regardless A mobile phone to me is not a camera, I don't even think it's a very good phone, but that's my view, 25 trillion people feel different.
For this image I had press credentials and was commissioned to shoot this athlete though I refused to stay in the press section, because that's an awful place to work.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sanya_web.jpg)
It's a long story of how i got this position, took a lot of heat, even was surrounded by security, but I made this image because this was the exact place I planned to shoot.
This is not an instigram style photograph where I got lucky, because I wasn't paid to get lucky. (thank God).
But bottom line to me is to get the photograph I want, not what I'm allowed. If people get upset because I'm carrying a professional camera, tough, that's not the biggest issue in life and usually not a crime and yes I've had people confront me in all sorts of ways when I'm working.
Like the old Joke of Jesus and St. Peter Playing golf. The bottom line is do you want to play golf or do you want to f__k around?
The Nikon DF, I don't understand the uproar. It looks like a Nikon camera, which is kind of the point and the only issue I have with it is it's less of a working tool than I would like for the money.
My 5d2 will do what this camera will, my 1dx will smoke it and a d800 is the same price, so before I bought this camera, I'd at least want a few more mega pixels, a bottom grip with larger batteries and probably video function.
IMO
BC
J,
Smart phones make images which can be instantly sent on in a single gesture. They are a wonderful "photo-sketch" tool, exactly like a pencil sketch compared to an oil painting. Look at the pix I sent in from the Paris photo show (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/paris_photo_show.shtml), you instantly understand what things look like.
The big PROBLEM with digital photography is THE COMPUTER. Spooling stuff over to a dedicated machine, wading through it, sharpening, retouching, Adobe products have an interface only a product manager can love. I'd say that if someone put a zoom camera in a Nokia 1020, or in an iPad, or made a phone version of the interchangeable lens Panasonic GM1 or even the Sony RX100, then a bunch of people would go out with an iPad and that phone, and do projects with them - the trendy Paris photo magazines I see in the kiosks now are all Instagram or blurrycam and look like a Lomo was used, not even an iPhone.
Aside from the fashion magazines and the big news glossies, most of the published pics I see -press or web - could be done with anything, including a $500 30x super-zoom camera which nobody on this forum would even notice in a shop.
As you know, I have the greatest respect for the tools of the trade, and the craft which people like you bring with them. However, just like most pop songs were once mixed to be heard on a transistor radio, most publications now expect low-fi because that's the trend.
Last, not least, I have a D4 and an iPhone. The D4 creates a problem anywhere I go. I have had people run after me in central Paris shouting that I was forbidden from photographing their building. I was stopped by security guards from photographing the Louvre pyramid. The iPhone gets me a picture without problems from the rent-a-cops. I worked for many years as a professional journalist, and I often prefer to gather my material without fuss - of course there are cases when you are expected to make a show of photographing - eg. at events, but in the main I'd say that the phone or compact is well accepted and suitable in many cases where the big cam cannot go.
Edmund
-
When doing street work noboby was offended when I stood in the middle of the street with the HB500 series ... (the WLF probably helped too).
For my very limited efforts at discreet street photography of people (I mostly prefer buildings), both a small "amateurish" camera and a WLF are great --- in my case, the up-tilted rear screen of an Olympus OM-D E-M5.
P. S. Couldn't resist the TLA overload.
-
The problem with street photography today is three fold: 1. people don't edit their stuff enough; 2. people don't engage their subjects; 3. people don't explore enough, meaning they go to the same places that and cover teh same subjects that have been photographed for 60 years. Coney Island comes to mind.
There is a different mindset at work when you go to make a specific photograph as opposed to just being there and hoping something shows up. When you have a commission or are sent to cover something, or you know the shot you want, you make it happen even if you hurt someone's feelings. When wandering, looking for something, you want to be discrete, but this is a shitty way to work.
The advantage of a small camera is that it is not intimidating when you engage a subject. A Leica fits the bill. people are interested in it. They have maybe heard of a Leica. Fild helps too because they don't associate you with Stalkerazzi. But even large cameras work well when engaging a person on the street. I used to use a Mamiya 7, a Littman and a even a Linhoff Tech IV with the RF. People are interested in teh camera and are put at ease, but even with a 1ds3 and a giant 24-70, if you ask permission and talk to a person, they are likely to let you take their photo. They really get offended when you shoot first, ask permission later.
I for one almost always ask permission, talk a bit, show them the camera. Smiling helps. People arte usually flattered, in a way.
We all say it's not the tools, it's what you do with the tools.
That's true to a point, but dumbing down in all areas goes from a safe flight to a crash.
Sure I can shoot with a D70, or a D90, or a d anything. I can go from 8x8 or 12x12 reflectors to small flexible fill, from kinos to hand held light panels, from profoto, to flashguns, from REDs to sony handicams.
I can use small metal pics stands instead of c's, c stands instead of rollers and I may get away with it, but when you takes 10% away from every function you'll have 1/2 the image.
I'm not going to dance around this and say a cell phone is good "sometimes". It's only good because it's the only camera your carrying, even if a smart phone has 40mpx, it's still limited and honestly I've never understood "stealth" photography.
I shot this photo with one head, a medium bounce and a 5d2 and a much smaller crew that most. It's pretty, it worked though I had half a room of equipment and didn't use it all, I did use what I needed.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/napolean.jpg)
This was a much different genre. I shot have this project with my producer/partner, me and essentially two bodies two lenses, though the main imagery way a Nikon and a 200 F2, not really a lens you hide with.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/devils.jpg)
Either way, I didn't care if people knew I was working because we negotiated permission, had a goal and was clear of our intent and even if I didn't have permission I wouldn't let a something stop me from getting the image I wanted.
I don't look for situations where I'm not noticed. It's too limiting. If I go to a concert and they don't allow cameras, I don't shoot, because if I wanted to shoot, I'd get press admission or secure a contract.
I'm not saying street photography is bad (though I must admit a lot of it I find way too much alike) but I can't imagine trying to be invisible.
There is some great street photography, though a lot of it seems to be awkward, but regardless A mobile phone to me is not a camera, I don't even think it's a very good phone, but that's my view, 25 trillion people feel different.
For this image I had press credentials and was commissioned to shoot this athlete though I refused to stay in the press section, because that's an awful place to work.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sanya_web.jpg)
It's a long story of how i got this position, took a lot of heat, even was surrounded by security, but I made this image because this was the exact place I planned to shoot.
This is not an instigram style photograph where I got lucky, because I wasn't paid to get lucky. (thank God).
But bottom line to me is to get the photograph I want, not what I'm allowed. If people get upset because I'm carrying a professional camera, tough, that's not the biggest issue in life and usually not a crime and yes I've had people confront me in all sorts of ways when I'm working.
Like the old Joke of Jesus and St. Peter Playing golf. The bottom line is do you want to play golf or do you want to f__k around?
The Nikon DF, I don't understand the uproar. It looks like a Nikon camera, which is kind of the point and the only issue I have with it is it's less of a working tool than I would like for the money.
My 5d2 will do what this camera will, my 1dx will smoke it and a d800 is the same price, so before I bought this camera, I'd at least want a few more mega pixels, a bottom grip with larger batteries and probably video function.
IMO
BC
-
The problem with street photography today is three fold: 1. people don't edit their stuff enough; 2. people don't engage their subjects; 3. people don't explore enough, meaning they go to the same places that and cover teh same subjects that have been photographed for 60 years. Coney Island comes to mind.
There is a different mindset at work when you go to make a specific photograph as opposed to just being there and hoping something shows up. When you have a commission or are sent to cover something, or you know the shot you want, you make it happen even if you hurt someone's feelings. When wandering, looking for something, you want to be discrete, but this is a shitty way to work.
The advantage of a small camera is that it is not intimidating when you engage a subject. A Leica fits the bill. people are interested in it. They have maybe heard of a Leica. Fild helps too because they don't associate you with Stalkerazzi. But even large cameras work well when engaging a person on the street. I used to use a Mamiya 7, a Littman and a even a Linhoff Tech IV with the RF. People are interested in teh camera and are put at ease, but even with a 1ds3 and a giant 24-70, if you ask permission and talk to a person, they are likely to let you take their photo. They really get offended when you shoot first, ask permission later.
I for one almost always ask permission, talk a bit, show them the camera. Smiling helps. People arte usually flattered, in a way.
I'm not against street photography, some is very nice, but I don't have much luck or drive for it. Everything I see I find interesting, I believe with a little more technique, a little more planning I can make even more interesting, but I guess that's just my style.
And I understand you don't walk up to someone on the street with an Arriflex a sound man, three swings and just start shooting, though I'll admit I take just as much exception to someone taking my photograph un announced with a mobile phone as I do if they did have an Arriflex.
Still what I don't get is why everyone is so pissed at Nikon for this camera. I personally think the Nikon look should have continued on from film to digital, rather than space ship like, but maybe they were fighting Canon and trying to one up them, heck I don't know.
All I'm sure off is my mobile phone is not a camera.
IMO
BC
-
Cooter wrote: "I don't get is why everyone is so pissed at Nikon for this camera. I personally think the Nikon look should have continued on from film to digital, rather than space ship like, but maybe they were fighting Canon and trying to one up them, heck I don't know."
Yeah I don't get the vehemence. If you want what this camera doesn't do, don't like the dials, Nikon makes other cameras. So does Canon. And others.
-
The problem with street photography today is three fold: 1. people don't edit their stuff enough; 2. people don't engage their subjects; 3. people don't explore enough, meaning they go to the same places that and cover teh same subjects that have been photographed for 60 years. Coney Island comes to mind.
I for one almost always ask permission, talk a bit, show them the camera. Smiling helps. People arte usually flattered, in a way.
Engaging with the subject would not be viewed as street photography for many photographers. It's usually seen as catching a fleeting moment.
Once you start engaging, it's probably portraiture.
-
Engaging with the subject would not be viewed as street photography for many photographers. It's usually seen as catching a fleeting moment.
Once you start engaging, it's probably portraiture.
Showing the camera makes people pose; this can be beneficial, but for "press" use you often want to just meld into the crowd; the action of using a camera-phone is ideal, as it is not furtive but also rarely offensive.
Edmund
-
Street portraits, then.
What I notice is that people don't edit those fleeting moments enough, instead presenting the banal as the sacred, when they actually have a few good frames in the vomit they post online, because its always online. But I digress.
Engaging with the subject would not be viewed as street photography for many photographers. It's usually seen as catching a fleeting moment.
Once you start engaging, it's probably portraiture.
-
Showing the camera makes people pose; this can be beneficial, but for "press" use you often want to just meld into the crowd; the action of using a camera-phone is ideal, as it is not furtive but also rarely offensive.
Edmund
Edmund,
I like you but with all respect I disagree with that statement.
Pulitzer prize winners didn't usually get the award for lurking in the shadows where nobody's looking. They're deep in the thick of it and most PJ's I knew had two or three beat to shit Nikons hanging on their neck loaded with three types of film, sore feet, leathery hands and couldn't sit still for over thirty seconds.
They had more short lenses than long and when everybody else ran one way, they ran the other.
My respect for these people is beyond what I have the skill to write and if I had the ability to eat beans and c__p in the fields I'd have done it, but it wasn't the lifestyle I wanted.
It bloody breaks my heart that now news photography is done by the rabble all holding glowing little boxes pointed at everything, from the last ga ga concert, to every snowflake that hits their apartment, then turning them into bad orange polaroids and putting them up on insticrap for all the world to bore over.
Don't get me wrong, I love the advanced amateur. The person that does shoot snowflakes, because he/she does their very best to shoot a beautiful one.
I respect wedding photographers, because they were the first pros to go digital and I can't think of a tougher or more dangerous gig than shooting a wedding other than coming into a hot LZ without a vest and wedding guys have to put up with 4,300 mobile phone snaps while they try to work.
I have absolutely no respect for the people with a cell phone that just happen to be standing in the right position when a car hits a lamp post. That's not photography, or good fortune, that's just weird fate.
So, ask me how I feel about mobile phone photography?
IMO
BC
-
"It bloody breaks my heart that now news photography is done by the rabble all holding glowing little boxes pointed at everything, from the last ga ga concert, to every snowflake that hits their apartment, then turning them into bad orange polaroids and putting them up on insticrap for all the world to bore over."
Hallelujah!
bcooter ,you hit the nail on the head!
-
Pray tell how do you feel about ...?
*I* think that street photography is all about getting the atmosphere right -see below- in such a way that you can feel "there".
Here they're all doing it too.
I'm taking you "there" with this image I hope, to the festive end of this summer day, and they are sending it to their friends with the same effect, I believe.
Anyway, as an "amateur" I'm happy with this image because it reminds me of the emotions of the day.
The technical quality of the shot does it really matter? Or is your average phone enough? You know, and I know what I used to make *my* image, but the phone is probably just as useful because to them it's their visual language, they were born to it as digital natives, while we are using the more stilted syntax of the heavy tools. BTW, the posted image is a screenshot of my PS session, I don't know where I put the real file.
Oh, and btw engaging with people etc. Well I think that's overrated. It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland being introduced to her food. Me, I just eat what's on my plate, I often photograph people in situations where they don't even have a face really, or at least one I care about, and I'm quite happy usually with the results.
Edmund
Edmund,
So, ask me how I feel about mobile phone photography?
IMO
BC
-
Pray tell how do you feel about ...?
*I* think that street photography is all about getting the atmosphere right -see below- in such a way that you can feel "there".
Here they're all doing it.
The technical quality of the shot does it really matter? Or is your average phone enough? You know, and I know what I used to make *my* image, but the phone is probably just as useful because to them it's their visual language, they were born to it as digital natives, why we are using the more stilted syntax of the heavy tools. BTW, the posted image is a screenshot of my PS session, I don't know where I put the real file.
Edmund
I'm not going to argue that someone with talent can or can't make an interesting photograph with a phone. It happens all the time.
My point is out of the 4 times a decent photo happens a day, 12 billion other images of the same event or scene are transmitted across the planet and I know the people that pull out their phones and snap an image of a parade, or their breakfast granola is "very" important to them.
I don't really understand why it's important to anyone else.
I hold to my position that photographers usually use cameras to make photographs, tourists and onlookers always use phones.
IMO
BC
-
I don't really understand why it's important to anyone else.
IMO
BC
J, you're too old. That's like not understanding why street graffiti are important to the kids. Your average digital citizen now needs to participate in this global image conversation to define herself. Texting and posting their mood and image of breakfast granola is important to *them*. In fact an image is now to them just something that someone posted. And as a photographer one can only try to make stronger images that skip across this pond at a higher granularity, maybe slightly better quality, and in this way touch their awareness. Your average trendy photo magazine in Paris now basically consists of images that somebody could have taken, someone could have posted. Have a look at Nippon Camera or Asahi Camera some time, these japanese magazines are as thick as phone directories, full of engineering tests, ads for expensive cameras, and images which someone could have posted. It's been this way for a long time, probably because the japanese love stream of consciousness impressionism, and because of that they have had the camera phones far longer than us.
As to your position, that's like saying that a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink is not art because it's pen and ink and not oil.
Edmund
-
J, you're too old. That's like not understanding why street graffiti are important to the kids. Your average digital citizen now needs to participate in this global image conversation to define herself. Texting and posting their mood and image of breakfast granola is important to *them*. In fact an image is now to them just something that someone posted. And as a photographer one can only try to make stronger images that skip across this pond at a higher granularity, maybe slightly better quality, and in this way touch their awareness. Your average trendy photo magazine in Paris now basically consists of images that somebody could have posted.
Edmund
Hope I'm not too old, because that would suck.
I'm also not bored, at least with what I'm doing.
I understand why people post on the facebooks and instithings. I get it, actually I've read so much research on Millennials that I wish I didn't get, but I do.
What I am is in love with the photograph and have been most of my adult life and though everyone enjoys validation, it wouldn't move me to go forward or backwards, it really has no effect.
But, this conversation usually just goes in circles.
Though I do know this.
Years ago I was giving some students a tour of our studio. I was saying this is a cove, this is a c-stand, this is a gear head, this is a set . . . then I stopped, looked at all those spotty faces and said "you know, nothing I'm going to tell you here today really means a thing.
Because if you have it in you to make interesting photographs your going to do it, whether you rich, or poor, talented or blind ass dumb. The ones that make it will work brutal hours, won't be stopped by money, family, boyfriends, girlfriends or the economy. The ones that have to make photographs will make photographs and won't stop until they believe they've got it right.
Problem is you never really believe you got it right.
I then went back to my office to call a client.
And BTW: I like Banksy, see his work from time to time. Don't like most other street art though.
BC
-
Hope I'm not too old, because that would suck.
I'm also not bored, at least with what I'm doing.
I understand why people post on the facebooks and instithings. I get it, actually I've read so much research on Millennials that I wish I didn't get, but I do.
What I am is in love with the photograph and have been most of my adult life and though everyone enjoys validation, it wouldn't move me to go forward or backwards, it really has no effect.
But, this conversation usually just goes in circles.
Though I do know this.
Years ago I was giving some students a tour of our studio. I was saying this is a cove, this is a c-stand, this is a gear head, this is a set . . . then I stopped, looked at all those spotty faces and said "you know, nothing I'm going to tell you here today really means a thing.
Because if you have it in you to make interesting photographs your going to do it, whether you rich, or poor, talented or blind ass dumb. The ones that make it will work brutal hours, won't be stopped by money, family, boyfriends, girlfriends or the economy. The ones that have to make photographs will make photographs and won't stop until they believe they've got it right.
Problem is you never really believe you got it right.
I then went back to my office to call a client.
And BTW: I like Banksy, see his work from time to time. Don't like most other street art though.
BC
Ancient Mariner, you made my day with this tale :)
Edmund
-
As to your position, that's like saying that a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink is not art because it's pen and ink and not oil.
Edmund
No I'm saying taking a blind snapshot with anything is just a blind snapshot. Call it anything you want, but don't call it talent.
Taking the same blind snapshot next to 4,000 other people taking the same blind snapshot doesn't validate what your doing.
Hey, I work in commerce and some days I think I'm worth a lot, some days I'm a xerox machine and I can accept both roles work hard at both and sleep well.
I just don't call my photocopies art, I call it a bank deposit.
BC
-
No I'm saying taking a blind snapshot with anything is just a blind snapshot. Call it anything you want, but don't call it talent.
Taking the same blind snapshot next to 4,000 other people taking the same blind snapshot doesn't validate what your doing.
Hey, I work in commerce and some days I think I'm worth a lot, some days I'm a xerox machine and I can accept both roles work hard at both and sleep well.
I just don't call my photocopies art, I call it a bank deposit.
BC
That bug I posted seems to have stood the test of time :)
Although it's just "another" sketch of something.
I don't know whether it is "art", compared to a Picasso painting :)
BTW, the image of the art print is a test, I was trying to figure out whether sharper is really better.
I guess most of us in vaguely creative professions suffer from this tension between the creative and the mechanical parts of our work. It's also true of programmers. And the fact that you try to do your very best even if you are stuck with a mechanical job that needs to be got out of the way.
As for "talent", I really don't know - go into any Paris bookshop and you can find all these french books which people were writing, a couple of hundred years ago, the equivalent of Facebook posts for the very rich, and then some have stuck, but quite a few are interesting. It's like leafing through an old issue of Life, the images may be minor but they are actually often quite good, even the advertising.
Edmund
PS These discussions go round and round, but I do wonder how many of the camera engineers and marketing guys in Japan are lurking to see what we're saying ... We might have a larger audience than we think.
-
So, ask me how I feel about mobile phone photography?
It's the democratization of photography.
-
,
As to your position, that's like saying that a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink is not art because it's pen and ink and not oil.
I like those drawings a lot. Can't stand cockroaches though.
-
Hi,
I would suggest that democratisation of photography has been ongoing since the days of the Kodak Brownie. What I think we see is that a device most people on the earth are carrying most time can capture images the same time images go around the world fast. News pictures don't need to be large or correctly focused and those cell phone cameras are good enough in many cases. Photographers, that is another thing.
Regarding news, any picture is better than no picture. Now that all folks have phone camera there will often be a picture but that will often be a cell phone picture.
Cell phone cameras are getting more and more capable, but they need to be small, so we are not going to see cell phone cameras with long telephotos or extreme wide angles, but who knows?
Best regards
Erik
It's the democratization of photography.
-
... a pen and ink sketch of the cockroach in your sink ...
Durer's watercolor show's a stag beetle.
How lucky you are not to know what cockroaches look like! :-)
-
Years ago I was giving some students a tour of our studio. I was saying this is a cove, this is a c-stand, this is a gear head, this is a set . . . then I stopped, looked at all those spotty faces and said "you know, nothing I'm going to tell you here today really means a thing.
Because if you have it in you to make interesting photographs your going to do it, whether you rich, or poor, talented or blind ass dumb. The ones that make it will work brutal hours, won't be stopped by money, family, boyfriends, girlfriends or the economy. The ones that have to make photographs will make photographs and won't stop until they believe they've got it right.
Problem is you never really believe you got it right.
BC
James, I've sung that song here for years; still folks seek magical short-cuts and hope/believe it can all be bought from a shop.
It never was.
Rob C
-
It's the democratization of photography.
Problem with democracy is that it is often very embarrassingly stupid when you get past the higher ideals and to what is actually happening on the ground.
I teach photography in an art school. Yesterday for a beginner class on composition I told them to meet me at a certain location with pencil, sketch book and camera. They turned up looking rather puzzled. I told them to go and find scenes which spoke to them, sketch the scene then take the same photo as the sketch. Every single one came back (as I'd intended) with great sketches and sloppy photo compositions. I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera. They got the point. If you are going to take a snapshot then you just press the button. If you are trying to create an artistic expression then the same amount of thought and care needs to be taken as with any other art form.
Snapshots will always be snapshots for all the instagraming that the world can throw at them. Photographs which have something to say will speak for themselves even among all the democratization creating a sea full of dross in which they have to be noticed. Or at least it might be true if the world cared any more....
-
I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera.
Exactly.
This is a state of mind.
I've always found very telling the comments we see so often on this very forum about the claimed inability of experienced photographers, using high end medium format or large format equipment, to work slowly with a fast camera like a DSLR or to compose without a viewfinder.
They should attend your classes. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Problem with democracy is that it is often very embarrassingly stupid when you get past the higher ideals and to what is actually happening on the ground.
I teach photography in an art school. Yesterday for a beginner class on composition I told them to meet me at a certain location with pencil, sketch book and camera. They turned up looking rather puzzled. I told them to go and find scenes which spoke to them, sketch the scene then take the same photo as the sketch. Every single one came back (as I'd intended) with great sketches and sloppy photo compositions. I then asked them to ask themselves why they pay so much attention to composition, angle and perspective in their drawings then throw it out of the window when they use a camera. They got the point. If you are going to take a snapshot then you just press the button. If you are trying to create an artistic expression then the same amount of thought and care needs to be taken as with any other art form.
Snapshots will always be snapshots for all the instagraming that the world can throw at them. Photographs which have something to say will speak for themselves even among all the democratization creating a sea full of dross in which they have to be noticed. Or at least it might be true if the world cared any more....
Its that dreaded speed issue again.
Using film the single image has a higher value in terms of time consumed to produce it.
I think much of the film vs. digital debate is based on that.
Slowing down ....
-
James, I've sung that song here for years; still folks seek magical short-cuts and hope/believe it can all be bought from a shop.
It never was.
Rob C
Agreed... yet there seems to be no end to people who think that the next greatest tool/toy will make their work stand out (while LuLa's sponsoring ads pushing the latest equipment flash across my screen).
-
Exactly.
This is a state of mind.
I've always found very telling the comments we see so often on this very forum about the claimed inability of experienced photographers, using high end medium format or large format equipment, to work slowly with a fast camera like a DSLR or to compose without a viewfinder.
They should attend your classes. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
That it’s just claimed doesn’t have to be the case.
I worked all my days in the business with 35mm and 120, and 4x5 only as an employee (my own stuff didn’t allow for that large format).
The actual working ethic was completely different: the Nikons allowed me to develop a theme around a given set-up, resulting in probably at least one good image on the film (they were probably all good, but that’s just technical considerations) that was good precisely because of the speed that a motor drive allowed me. I did not machinegun; I did avoid the problem of clumsy winding on, though. And for me, the technique was best used on exterior work.
The Hasselblads/Rollei TLR were more (for me) studio cameras, and their fate was usually to gaze at a roll of white paper. That’s so telling of the models as well as the snappers: you have to make it all happen without Nature’s helping hand with generous, believable props such as cute locations that are different to those you see in your home country, all of which make a picture more interesting to a viewer who also hasn’t personally been to the location.
I think I told this tale before. I had a client who worked in PR/Marketing for one of the global fibre companies (wool!) and we used to go off and do the odd magazine advertising shoot, the bill for which her company was footing. In those situations, often stately homes etc., I always felt that the slow set-ups with artificial lighting were not conducive to startling pictures (for me). So, the natural turn-to gear was 120: shoot a roll and go on to the next dress. I remember the lady objecting to the Hassy because, to paraphrase her words, “it looks so much more dynamic when you leap about with the small cameras.” Go figure.
So really, format choices go a lot deeper than just photographic, ultimate technical quality considerations, the latter being somewhat secondary in the scheme of things. Though a photographer instinctively knows which cameras to pack, other pressures also intrude. However, it’s probably always content that trumps technique except in engineering/industrial applications.
There’s the famous story of Bailey’s first shoot in the States; Vogue told him not to use his 35mm, and that he was to shoot large cameras. He did as he knew best to do: used 35mm and later made them copies on LF. They were none the wiser, and the rest is photographic history at its best and most delightful.
Rob C
-
I would suggest that democratisation of photography has been ongoing since the days of the Kodak Brownie. ...
Exactly the example I was thinking of: the arrival of roll film cameras like the Kodak Brownie into a world of bulky view cameras that required a new plate or sheet for each image (and DIY developing and printing) had a number of effects: it
- vastly increased the number of photos taken, and the number of people taking them
- vastly increased the number of bad and mediocre photos, good at most for showing to family and friends
- vastly lowered the _ratio_ of good, well-made photographs to bad and mediocre ones.
But over the subsequent decades, that worse ratio was entirely a matter of "more bad to mediocre photos", not "less good photography". The long-term effect of the smaller format, lower quality roll-film cameras was surely not to decrease the number of good photographs or of good photographers; if anything, the easier initial access for people curious about photography probably increased the number of people who went on to be photographic enthusiasts developing their skills, and increased the quantity, quality, and _variety_ of worthwhile photography produced.
And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds, and is it any worse than the dreaded hours of holiday slide shows?
-
And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds, and is it any worse than the dreaded hours of holiday slide shows?
Way better as I can look when I want at my own speed or ignore if I want. So not even a problem.
Though people who do not filter images and post numerous similar shots will find no-one bothers to look at them.
What I do dislike is businesses who post photos taken by a non-photographer of their events and every shot gets posted regardless of how shit it is. And even worse, then tag them on FB if they know you.
-
And as to all the complaining about people who post every snapshot online: is anyone forcing you follow those feeds.............
Yes they are. In fact it's completely impossible to communicate in the modern world without having your mailbox scanned, your searches recorded, your purchases catagorized and then get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.
I'm not talking about small low cost brands or cheap websites. Major brands and publishers have jumped on the cheap and real bandwagon.
As I write this I just get an advertisement from B_ _ G of a girl in lingerie that was probably shot by someones I phone, because if they paid real money, they got ripped off.
It's just data that is shot cheap and distributed free.
That's ok except it comes at me and everyone else on the planet every 12 seconds if you live and work professionally you can't function without electronic devices and since I own a dozen computers carry two mobile phones (one for europe, one for the u.s.) have three personal Ipads, I'm far from wanting to go back in time to film, labs and polaroid.
Today, this record everything mindset is so pervasive that this "style" of imagery infects the visual landscape and has become acceptable and I guess my main issue with this is it's just easy and cheap. Easy and cheap is nothing to aspire to.
One of the reasons we moved our business to motion imagery is motion imagery is much more difficult to do well.
IMO
BC
-
... get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.
Time to update spam filters? Time to configure email filters?
-
I've been screaming about this type of shotgun marketing. It is damaging to brands. It is failed communication. It is a lack of imagination at agencies and slothfulness of in-house brand managers. Few clients understand the ill will generated by this flood of untargeted communication and bad photography, all they want to hear about are the impressions. This work is outsourced to digital shops that care about their check rather than the effectivness of communication.
We have a small client that became one of the most successful online clothing retailers. Millenials are the target. They are interesting as they are all former AdWorld creative directors. They get it. Their photography, all shot in house, is really good. They essentially publish a weekly e-magazine with somewhat interesting pieces about the obscure. No ads. The only link is on the magazine cover, which brings you to the store. If you sign up for the magazine, make an online purchase, they store your information and only send out PERTINENT information that matches YOUR prior purchases, or announcements of new brands and styles. They use us for brand management consulting and market research only. This is how it should be done, but its hard, time consuming, and requires thought, so of course most brands spew more bad phone pics and crappy copy advertising something you have no interest in.
Yes they are. In fact it's completely impossible to communicate in the modern world without having your mailbox scanned, your searches recorded, your purchases catagorized and then get inundated by crappy images, invitations to join the crappy image fraternity, the crappy lighting seminars, easy editing seminars, fast retouching seminars and worse professional marketing and news has joined the crappy image genre.
I'm not talking about small low cost brands or cheap websites. Major brands and publishers have jumped on the cheap and real bandwagon.
As I write this I just get an advertisement from B_ _ G of a girl in lingerie that was probably shot by someones I phone, because if they paid real money, they got ripped off.
It's just data that is shot cheap and distributed free.
That's ok except it comes at me and everyone else on the planet every 12 seconds if you live and work professionally you can't function without electronic devices and since I own a dozen computers carry two mobile phones (one for europe, one for the u.s.) have three personal Ipads, I'm far from wanting to go back in time to film, labs and polaroid.
Today, this record everything mindset is so pervasive that this "style" of imagery infects the visual landscape and has become acceptable and I guess my main issue with this is it's just easy and cheap. Easy and cheap is nothing to aspire to.
One of the reasons we moved our business to motion imagery is motion imagery is much more difficult to do well.
IMO
BC
-
Time to update spam filters? Time to configure email filters?
I spent some time earlier in year unsubscribing myself from various emails and got a huge reduction in inbox size.
Spam filters from my ISP seem pretty accurate, only the odd item gets a false positive and I always check before binning spam. Which doesn't take long even for a few hundred items as it's easy to scan them and spot the occasional email that isn't spam. Then delete the rest.
-
The problem with street photography today is three fold: 1. people don't edit their stuff enough; 2. people don't engage their subjects; 3. people don't explore enough, meaning they go to the same places that and cover teh same subjects that have been photographed for 60 years. Coney Island comes to mind.
There is a different mindset at work when you go to make a specific photograph as opposed to just being there and hoping something shows up. When you have a commission or are sent to cover something, or you know the shot you want, you make it happen even if you hurt someone's feelings. When wandering, looking for something, you want to be discrete, but this is a shitty way to work.
The advantage of a small camera is that it is not intimidating when you engage a subject. A Leica fits the bill. people are interested in it. They have maybe heard of a Leica. Fild helps too because they don't associate you with Stalkerazzi. But even large cameras work well when engaging a person on the street. I used to use a Mamiya 7, a Littman and a even a Linhoff Tech IV with the RF. People are interested in teh camera and are put at ease, but even with a 1ds3 and a giant 24-70, if you ask permission and talk to a person, they are likely to let you take their photo. They really get offended when you shoot first, ask permission later.
I for one almost always ask permission, talk a bit, show them the camera. Smiling helps. People arte usually flattered, in a way.
Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.
-
[snip]
It bloody breaks my heart that now news photography is done by the rabble all holding glowing little boxes pointed at everything, from the last ga ga concert, to every snowflake that hits their apartment, then turning them into bad orange polaroids and putting them up on insticrap for all the world to bore over.
[SNIP]
IMO
BC
^^^WORD^^^
-
Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.
Good street photography is often well composed, so not sure where this criticism comes from. Not to mention that sometimes it's the content that is of most importance not the composition, same goes for news photography.
Now if you want to criticise a branch of photography that celebrates poor composition, you should look to fine art photography.
-
BC,
My F and F2 Photomic ended up looking new - with the exception of the tripod hole area, they were only worn out inside. You don't have to vandalise in order to be busy: I loved them too much to treat them with disrespect, but I wasn't in the war game. My F3 also looks brand-new, but mainly because it's been used so very very little, and living in a safe saves it any loving attention at all...
I really don't think a new Nikon FF would have needed to do more than other cameras in the line, quite the opposite: provide the basic controls that we always had with film; provide a proper pentaprism with real screens on which you can focus, and simply add a screen at the back to check the histogram, if you feel you want to, and get a rough confirmation of what you shot. Seriously, the Matrix metering is so good you wouldn't go wrong, and for those special conditions when you want to underexpose the sea - for example - to make a silhouette, any snapper knows you just underexpose and go a couple of shutter speeds faster, and with digital that's close enough for Curves to get you where you want to go. Movies? What movies? Use a movie camera if you want that, or a Canon.
Like I said in another post, it was never expected to be Everyman's camera; it was hoped that it would be a simple camera designed to suit the habits of the guy who knows what he wants and how to get there: to make good, still images and nothing else.
This shot was done as above - underexposed to save the glass. It's just about an effect; not about an ad. shot. Even used an old lens - 2/35mm manual Nikkor that I bought second-hand. Just the sort of lenses some of us have, and would want to use on a retro body.
Rob C
-
Thank you. I have to agree fully, although I belive many in Street understand this a different way; you never need to ask. I have also been puzzled by the lack of editing in street. Why? IMO you should have the same demands to composition etc as in other photoes.
Street has evolved, but in almost every period I know, the best work is characterized by brilliant composition, as well as a meaningful coincidence of elements in flux. There are very very few good street photographers, the best work being continuous with the best work in photojournalism. You could say HCB and Robert Frank were both street photographers. They had different ideas about composition, but were both very aware of it. The problems you note in editing have to do with the fact that most street work is junk. In reality, it's a very challenging genre. W Eugene Smith shot for months or years sometimes before coming up with a portfolio.
-
Street has evolved, but in almost every period I know, the best work is characterized by brilliant composition, as well as a meaningful coincidence of elements in flux. There are very very few good street photographers, the best work being continuous with the best work in photojournalism. You could say HCB and Robert Frank were both street photographers. They had different ideas about composition, but were both very aware of it. The problems you note in editing have to do with the fact that most street work is junk. In reality, it's a very challenging genre. W Eugene Smith shot for months or years sometimes before coming up with a portfolio.
And then, Pittsburgh; it ended up too big and too late to publish in any representative way at all! Most I saw was a brief essay in an old Popular Photography Annual of the late 50s or early 60s. Indeed, those annuals were seminal in my appreciation of then contemporary photography. I wonder what happened?
Rob C
-
This is true, but I would add that most of what's on a roll, even from the MASTERS, is junk. The difference is, they KNOW what is junk and what isn't. They also shoot with intent and purpose, from a point of view, which is missing from most of the street work I see on the webz.
. . . The problems you note in editing have to do with the fact that most street work is junk. . . .
-
I just had a look through my observational work and it's not much different from my more formal stuff, composition wise. But even then I tend to shoot fairly quickly/instinctively, so that helps with doing street stuff. Though sometimes I wait for the last element to fall in place (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/#id=album-13&num=content-1418) to make the picture work, other times I get a fraction of a second (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/#id=album-13&num=content-2056) to grab shot.
-
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/art_Edmund_Ronald_002.php
-
And then, Pittsburgh; it ended up too big and too late to publish in any representative way at all! Most I saw was a brief essay in an old Popular Photography Annual of the late 50s or early 60s. Indeed, those annuals were seminal in my appreciation of then contemporary photography. I wonder what happened?
I get the feeling he was highly empathic, intransigent, and obsessive. He struggled to make enough money to support his work. The Pittsburgh project paid him a $500 advance on a $1200 deliverable. I'll bet that Pittsburgh material was /incredibly/ hard to print. He always seems to be walking the fine line of dodging in the shadows of a very thin negative.
In the sixties, he lived in a cold-water flat in NY above the famous Jazz Loft on 6th Avenue. He wired the apartment for sound and made thousands of hours of recordings of the jazz greats of the day. He was a nightly presence there and took thousands of photographs. This collection was ultimately curated by Sam Stephenson from Duke and collected in "The Jazz Loft Project" and I think it sheds a lot of light on Gene Smith as much as his subjects.
What makes the jazz loft scene interesting was that it came about due to the NY Cabaret Laws, de facto race laws that made it brass and drums (and more than 2 musicians) illegal, without a restrictive city license. Underground jazz came about because it was illegal to play the saxophone in any place it was legal to play the violin. These private jazz venues became the places where a lot of musical history was made. A few of the members of this scene are captured on my record label, Smalls Records, notably the late Frank Hewitt, himself a frequenter of the jazz loft.
-
What makes the jazz loft scene interesting was that it came about due to the NY Cabaret Laws, de facto race laws that made it brass and drums (and more than 2 musicians) illegal, without a restrictive city license. Underground jazz came about because it was illegal to play the saxophone in any place it was legal to play the violin. These private jazz venues became the places where a lot of musical history was made. A few of the members of this scene are captured on my record label, Smalls Records, notably the late Frank Hewitt, himself a frequenter of the jazz loft.
Interesting. I'd never heard about that. Though it explains why it's still so hard to find places to Lindy Hop in NY. It's shocking that in a city like NY this archaic and dumb law still exists.
-
Interesting. I'd never heard about that. Though it explains why it's still so hard to find places to Lindy Hop in NY. It's shocking that in a city like NY this archaic and dumb law still exists.
A lot of great talent was suppressed that way, I can tell you. The Cabaret Laws pertaining to live music were overturned in 1988 after 60 years, due to the brilliant efforts of Paul Chevigny, who wrote a book about it called "Gigs". The book was reprinted in order to further a movement to overturn similar laws in Great Britain, especially in London.
The Cabaret Laws pertaining to dance are still very much in force. It is simply illegal to dance in most places in New York. I've been in bars many times when a couple of people got up to dance to the jukebox, only to get shouted down by the management, who stood to lose their license if caught. "HEY HEY, you can't do that in here!"
-
This is true, but I would add that most of what's on a roll, even from the MASTERS, is junk. The difference is, they KNOW what is junk and what isn't. They also shoot with intent and purpose, from a point of view, which is missing from most of the street work I see on the webz.
So true. I think for the many who attempt street, very few people get even a single good shot in their lives. If only they'd edit themselves entirely out. They don't understand that the artist is responsible for /everything in the picture/, and that means /everything/.
-
I see stuff on the web where I understand what the guy/gal was trying to do, but something is off, something is wrong in the frame, some elemnt that ruins the photo. This should be edited out, not be shown. It's almost there, but the photo fails, yet its "published" online. People need editors, and the issue with self publishing of all sorts is the lack of editing.
So true. I think for the many who attempt street, very few people get even a single good shot in their lives. If only they'd edit themselves entirely out. They don't understand that the artist is responsible for /everything in the picture/, and that means /everything/.
-
The problem with self assigned "street" work is not just the lack of an editor, or a third party to critique, it's the lack of purpose.
Since photojournalism is almost dead in regards to still photography, we've lost those human interest stories, where an editor assigns a shoot by saying "there is a young black preacher in Alabama tonight speaking on civil rights, go cover it".
That's how iconic images were made, but today if a Martin Luther King reappears and if he's unknown he'll be covered by mobile phones, which will probably be awful imagery, or once he gets famous, the photographer will be restricted by mangers, PR groups and have to stand with the rest of the pool in one spot.
I may be wrong, but i think people are actually interested in well written and illustrated news stories, but the media got lazy and greedy way before the internet, turning celebrity PR into news, making every cover a massaged portrait or pseudo fashion image on white of anyone that is popular for the moment.
But in regards to shooting the street, I know one person that does it very well, but his best work comes from planning and hard work.
He also isn't doing the facebook, instigram thing where he inserts himself, his dog or his girlfriend into every photo, he goes out with a plan to come back with something unique to the moment and is up early to late.
It's very hard to do, few do it well, most do it the easy way. While on vacation in Rome, They shoot that woman making bread. Got it,. Now they see a guy on a bicycle on a cobblestone street. Got it.
When I started in photography, I was driving from location to location on the gulf coast. It was a blue foggy morning and I saw a man jogging. I swung the car around, got ahead of him and as he appeared started to shoot, but immediately in my head I knew I'd seen this same photograph 12 billion times before, so I just tossed the roll of film got back in the car and drove on.
Sometimes what you don't shoot is as important as what you do.
If you love street work I strongly suggest getting a press card and calling some publication for spec work. Ask them what would they love to do if they were allowed. Some of it might be beyond reach, but I'll bet someone will have a good idea or know something they need. In a way I hate suggesting it, because I guess I'm advocating working for free, (and I don't think free and work belong in the same sentence), but if it's personal and you want to excel, having that kind of directive and the fact that you can say your shooting for the _____________ might get you more in the end.
IMO
BC
-
The problem with self assigned "street" work is not just the lack of an editor, or a third party to critique, it's the lack of purpose.
BC
BC, do you know what you've just paraphrased? Exactly the same thing as did Terence Donovan, and if you ever read within the 'philosophical' zone, the one about coffee and corners, you'll realise that you had better get ready for a lynching.
Maybe not; this zone here may be safe. You are, as was Donovan, absolutely correct, of course: the greatest difficulty in photography is finding a reason to do anything. And that, as Donovan said, is more true of the amateur who, by definition, lacks the commercial imperative to do something, anything!
Thanks for the giggle.
;-)
Rob
-
The problem with self assigned "street" work is not just the lack of an editor, or a third party to critique, it's the lack of purpose.
Just as well nobody told Vivian Maier (http://www.vivianmaier.com/about-vivian-maier/) that.
Don't forget the amateur who does street photography, does it for the love of it - that is their reason or purpose. Hence the term 'amateur'.
Doing the work for someone else is not necessary to validate it. Work done for one's own pleasure may be much better than those done for a commission, only the end result counts.
When I started in photography, I was driving from location to location on the gulf coast. It was a blue foggy morning and I saw a man jogging. I swung the car around, got ahead of him and as he appeared started to shoot, but immediately in my head I knew I'd seen this same photograph 12 billion times before, so I just tossed the roll of film got back in the car and drove on.
It's nigh on impossible to take a photograph that is genuinely unique in any genre, so why do any photography?
-
A lot of great talent was suppressed that way, I can tell you. The Cabaret Laws pertaining to live music were overturned in 1988 after 60 years, due to the brilliant efforts of Paul Chevigny, who wrote a book about it called "Gigs". The book was reprinted in order to further a movement to overturn similar laws in Great Britain, especially in London.
The Cabaret Laws pertaining to dance are still very much in force. It is simply illegal to dance in most places in New York. I've been in bars many times when a couple of people got up to dance to the jukebox, only to get shouted down by the management, who stood to lose their license if caught. "HEY HEY, you can't do that in here!"
Heysoos! And to think that I grew up believing in the ubiquity of Mel's Diner and constantly twinkling teenage feet! What a crushing reality! I shall never trust Hollywood and tv again.
Lucky they had different mores in New Orleans way back! God bless the hooker houses, with or without rising son's of bitches!
;-)
Rob C
-
Maybe not; this zone here may be safe. You are, as was Donovan, absolutely correct, of course: the greatest difficulty in photography is finding a reason to do anything. And that, as Donovan said, is more true of the amateur who, by definition, lacks the commercial imperative to do something, anything!
The commercial imperative may actually be the least interesting reason for doing something like photography.
Have a goal by all means, but doing it just for the money…..
-
Vivian Maier was a fluke and I'm not saying don't shoot for the love of photography, I'm saying don't just push the button because you like pushing the button.
Has everything other than below the surface of Pluto been photographed? Yes.
Has everything been photographed the same way . . . No because sometimes I'm surprised.
I'd love it if pretty pictures just paid for everything and life was easy and good, but it's not that way. Regardless of the artist, unless you've inherited wealth or you are willing to starve, it's usually four for them, one for you and that's on a good day.
IMO
BC
-
I hold to my position that photographers usually use cameras to make photographs, tourists and onlookers always use phones.
fwiw
"The photogs of the paper used their phones' GPS to post constantly updating coverage of the floods and it would show up on a map indicating where the damage was. This let them have images up in seconds rather than minutes. Not 'good' images but something usable, and, in the case of the floods, telling and helpful, as the situation was constantly changing. The 'good' images were uploaded maybe hourly."
Scroll down to the NOAA photo by Will von Dauster (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/10/vampire-cameras-signs-o-the-times.html)
-
The commercial imperative may actually be the least interesting reason for doing something like photography.
Have a goal by all means, but doing it just for the money…..
Nobody claimed that.
In my own case, looking at the talent I was able to work with because a client was picking up the tab, you can easily see why I no longer have that possibility in retirement. You have to have the money, or you might as well not bother shooting anything if you are only able to pay for (or con) 'amateur' models. It's the same as paying for 'amateur' photographers without the professional experience in the discipline in question.
Of course, if all you want to do is shoot Coke bottles, that can be had for nothing if you steal the empty. But one wouldn't be comparing buzz with similar buzz.
;-)
Rob C
-
By American conventions, Vivian Maier had an artistic literacy and aesthetic sophistication that was beyond her station in life. If anything surprises people, in America anyway, it is this. The pictures highlight her quirky and wry artistic sense. But they are very much also about her, as someone who chose to do this for a reason, a reason that partly intimates itself in her pictures, but only partly.
-
By American conventions, Vivian Maier had an artistic literacy and aesthetic sophistication that was beyond her station in life. If anything surprises people, in America anyway, it is this. The pictures highlight her quirky and wry artistic sense. But they are very much also about her, as someone who chose to do this for a reason, a reason that partly intimates itself in her pictures, but only partly.
And that's the thing: enigma on top of artistic talent is way too much for many of us, myself included; I would like to know her why but also fear it may be nothing more esoteric than because she 'liked it'. At the very least, she proves a vivid exception to the Donovan (and Rob C!) credo.
;-)
Rob C
-
You can't get into anybody's mind, especially a recluse like Vivian Maier.
It's like an English lit class where somebody explains the motivations of Byron.
This is all talk in circles conversation and everybody has their own reasons for anything they do.
The bad thing about digital is to most people it's fairly effortless and free so somebody is shooting something all the time and now they have a medium to place it on.
I guess that's ok, who knows, though I'll bet Vivian is spinning in her grave with all the attention her work has received lately.
Maybe not, maybe she's smiling.
Ms. Maier worked a job so she could do her passion and that I respect.
The fact she didn't let anyone in on the secret I very, very much respect.
IMO
BC
-
Viviane and her undeveloped rolls of 120. Swooon.
At least she got an editor. I believe that she would go on trips just to shoot, like to NYC from Chicago. She very well may have had a self assignment when she went shooting. Whatever her motivation, she did beautiful work.
-
Early last week I got my copy of Vivian Maier Self-Portraits. Makes you shake your head in wonder. I gather she came from a family with good æsthetic sensibilities and was well-educated, maybe even schooled a bit in photo basics, but still...some people just have it. Of course it'd be interesting to see her unedited rolls too...a photographer's misses are often as educative as their hits. But her work is far too good to be the result of occasional serendipity.
-Dave-
-
Early last week I got my copy of Vivian Maier Self-Portraits. Makes you shake your head in wonder. I gather she came from a family with good æsthetic sensibilities and was well-educated, maybe even schooled a bit in photo basics, but still...some people just have it. Of course it'd be interesting to see her unedited rolls too...a photographer's misses are often as educative as their hits. But her work is far too good to be the result of occasional serendipity.
-Dave-
Dave, that should be writ large at the head of every 'Critique' thread.
Of course, then there would be nothing left about which to pontificate, and we could all go get an early night's sleep...
Rob C
-
'You see, the extraordinary thing about photography is that it's a truly popular medium... But this has nothing to do with the art of photography even though the same materials and the same mechanical devices are used. Thoreau said years ago, "You can't say more than you see." No matter what lens you use, no matter what the speed of the film is, no matter how you develop it, no matter how you print it, you cannot say more than you see. That's what that means, and that's the truth.'
Paul Strand, Aperture 19(1), 1974.
-
Today I played with Nikon SDK and got pure videography out of my D700. No sound, huge lag... pure video. Sure it will be possible with the DF as well :)
http://youtu.be/8ikIdkgtDPA (http://youtu.be/8ikIdkgtDPA)
-
Hah! Maybe YouTube will soon be awash in Nostalgia My Arse! Df videos. :D
If you can do this with a D700 I imagine the same is possible with the D300...
-Dave-
-
Hah! Maybe YouTube will soon be awash in Nostalgia My Arse! Df videos. :D
If you can do this with a D700 I imagine the same is possible with the D300...
-Dave-
Yes it is :D but I do not recommand to do it just because sensor is not designed for it. But it is fun do do :)
-
And why does the build quality look so bad? Mind you, I haven't touched a Df yet but the available press photos are of very high quality and certainly show the camera in the best possible light. Yet everywhere I can see difference in materials, seams, tiny gaps etc. We live in a time where laptops are machined out of a single piece of aluminum and this is the best Nikon can come up with?
I had a play with one today and much to my surprise it looks cheap, with a tacky texture on pentaprism and the retro style dials are plasticky and even worse wobbly. This was pointed out by a chap who had pre-ordered one as he was entranced by the retro marketing promise and he was quite underwhelmed. Don't think he'll be taking his order and from chatting to him, he seemed exactly the sort of person the camera was aimed at. Used to own FM2s + F3s in the past and still had Leica film cameras as well as a D800.
The retro dials don't seem to add anything but clutter/fiddlyness and manual focusing was no better than usual. And £2,700!! Both of us thought the new Olympus and Sony FF felt like much more expensive solidly made cameras. Much cheaper too.
-
I had a play with one today and much to my surprise it looks cheap, with a tacky texture on pentaprism and the retro style dials are plasticky and even worse wobbly. This was pointed out by a chap who had pre-ordered one as he was entranced by the retro marketing promise and he was quite underwhelmed. Don't think he'll be taking his order and from chatting to him, he seemed exactly the sort of person the camera was aimed at. Used to own FM2s + F3s in the past and still had Leica film cameras as well as a D800.
The retro dials don't seem to add anything but clutter/fiddlyness and manual focusing was no better than usual. And £2,700!! Both of us thought the new Olympus and Sony FF felt like much more expensive solidly made cameras. Much cheaper too.
Similar thing with the fuji cameras, the build is nowhere near the FM/FE etc.
-
The very inexpensive cameras like the D3200 have far less dials than the pro level cameras and this may seem less confusing but who want to go into a menu to change the exposure mode or the ISO setting or the shutter speed or aperture or EV offset?
Want simple get a Nikon Coolpix camera. With the Coolpix all you have to do is point and shoot.
-
Other cameras manage all that without menus or the confusing and messy interface of the Df.
The retro shutter speed dial is completely superfluos, because if you need to change in 1/3 stop increments you have to use a different control. So why even bother with the less useful, more fiddly and wobbly retro dial?
It's simply a lame attempt to jump on the retro styling that other makes have far more succesfully pulled off.
-
For what it is worth, the Df seems to be the best selling non compact digital camera in Japan at the moment according to www.kakaku.com. It occupies both the top (body) and 5th position (kit).
http://kakaku.com/camera/digital-slr-camera/ranking_0049/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For what it is worth, the Df seems to be the best selling non compact digital camera in Japan at the moment according to www.kakaku.com.
The Daily Mail is the one of the UK's best selling newspapers and has the world's busiest news paper website. This does not make it any good as it's still a steaming pile of mendacious garbage.
Now seeing as the Nikon's just been released, it's bound to do well relatively speaking.
Also are these the genuine sales figures for all cameras sold in Japan.
-
I mean no offense, but I don't understand your strong feeling about the Df. I'm not interested so I move on.
The Daily Mail is the one of the UK's best selling newspapers and has the world's busiest news paper website. This does not make it any good as it's still a steaming pile of mendacious garbage.
Now seeing as the Nikon's just been released, it's bound to do well relatively speaking.
Also are these the genuine sales figures for all cameras sold in Japan.
-
I don't have strong feelings about it. I just happened to be in my local dealer when they had a demo on. Tried it out and was very underwhelmed, as was the guy who had pre-ordered one.
I think you are confusing my dislike for an unpleasant newspaper with an observation about the Df.
-
I think you are confusing my dislike for an unpleasant newspaper with an observation about the Df.
You've just made my day here! ;D
If this confusion were to happen, it would have been strongly encouraged by your usage of the newspaper analogy... wouldn't it have? ;)
More seriously, I also don't get it. Please tell us about the cameras you like and why you like them instead of commenting as nausea about cameras you don't like. I am sure you realize that your dislike is only personal to you and that those photographers interested in the potential of the Df as a solution to some photographic challenges of theirs will be more than capable of making up their own mind?
I am not going to buy one, so what?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
according to www.kakaku.com
Approximate sales could be interesting, but a ranking isn't.
-
You've just made my day here! ;D
If this confusion were to happen, it would have been strongly encouraged by your usage of the newspaper analogy... wouldn't it have? ;)
Only by someone who doesn't bother to read posts properly. :P
It was a counterpoint to your post, which you have chosen to sidestep rather than address.
More seriously, I also don't get it. Please tell us about the cameras you like and why you like them instead of commenting as nausea about cameras you don't like. I am sure you realize that your dislike is only personal to you and that those photographers interested in the potential of the Df as a solution to some photographic challenges of theirs will be more than capable of making up their own mind?
I am not going to buy one, so what?
So why are you commenting then? Are only Nikon fanbois allowed to have a view on the Df?
I am completely brand agnostic and open to use any new camera, if it fits a purpose/my hand nicely. And I really don't get why people are so defensive of brands, like you are with Nikon or others are with say Apple.
The Df appears to be a lame attempt to jump on the retro bandwagon, I was simply very underwhelmed when I came across it, but I wasn't as scathing as the chap who'd pre-odered one. Which was telling as he loved Nikon, had loads of money to burn and wanted something like his old film Nikkons. I have no problem with others preferring Camera A over my Camera B if it suits their needs better. But a cheap looking camera, with irrelevant, wobbly and fiddly to use retro style dials which was advertised as a trés cool lifestyle product with an inflated price to match is a bit rubbish because it misses all the targets it's aiming at.
-
The Df appears to be a lame attempt to jump on the retro bandwagon, I was simply very underwhelmed when I came across it, but I wasn't as scathing as the chap who'd pre-odered one. Which was telling as he loved Nikon, had loads of money to burn and wanted something like his old film Nikkons. I have no problem with others preferring Camera A over my Camera B if it suits their needs better. But a cheap looking camera, with irrelevant, wobbly and fiddly to use retro style dials which was advertised as a trés cool lifestyle product with an inflated price to match is a bit rubbish because it misses all the targets it's aiming at.
OK, you are 100% right.
But are these things the only ones you dislike about the Df?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looked at one, for the price, wasn't my cup of tea. At that price range, I would rather go with the D800.
For my 2 cents worth, it still boils down to the fact that Nikon still has not brought out a true successor to the D700, which I think they got darned near perfect at the time. The D800 is slower, the D600 is not as sturdy and lacks some basic features that the D700 has, and the Df, well, it lack basics like dual card slots.
I think Nikon keeps dancing around the D700. I don't know what their thinking is, but I wonder, in some cases, is the panning of the Df is related directly or indirectly to the fact that many of us are disappointed in Nikon for not coming out with a simple upgrade to the D700?
-
OK, you are 100% right.
But are these things the only ones you dislike about the Df?
You mean things apart from the entire basis of the [very good] marketing for it? Not really important as I was commenting on things relevant to how it was being sold. I'm sure it takes as nice a picture as other cameras with the same sensor.
I'm not overly fond of Nikons, too fiddly and faffy and every time I've used one and got stuck on something quite basic, I've asked the expert or other Nikon users and they've been stumped too. Even the guy from Nikon demoing the Df was baffled as to how the camera worked in some areas - which is pretty shocking and not the first time this has happened with Nikon kit.
Mind you, whoever is responsible for the interfaces on Canon flashes wants a good flogging and the reasoning/methodology behind how they work with the camera is also ridiculously arcane. Interestingly I've noticed a couple of die-hard Nikon fans Scott Kelby and Glyn Dewis have recently swapped to Canon, but they also now tend to use studio flashes rather than speedlights. Maybe there's a connection, because if they still used the by all account much better Nikon flashes, maybe they wouldn't have changed brands.
-
Everytime I pass a d800 and think, yea that's a good deal, my brane flips back to the orange skin tones of the D3, D4 and how much I hate that NX or Nick (or whatever it's called) software.
Then I pass and thank myself for not blowing 3 grand.
IMO
BC
-
Everytime I pass a d800 and think, yea that's a good deal, my brane flips back to the orange skin tones of the D3, D4 and how much I hate that NX or Nick (or whatever it's called) software.
Very different sensor technology in the D3, D4, and D800.
When it comes to NX, hate away. But CaptureOne does a great job on these files.
-
Everytime I pass a d800 and think, yea that's a good deal, my brane flips back to the orange skin tones of the D3, D4 and how much I hate that NX or Nick (or whatever it's called) software.
Then I pass and thank myself for not blowing 3 grand.
BC,
Are you saying you have never used a D800?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looked at one, for the price, wasn't my cup of tea. At that price range, I would rather go with the D800.
For my 2 cents worth, it still boils down to the fact that Nikon still has not brought out a true successor to the D700, which I think they got darned near perfect at the time. The D800 is slower, the D600 is not as sturdy and lacks some basic features that the D700 has, and the Df, well, it lack basics like dual card slots.
I think Nikon keeps dancing around the D700. I don't know what their thinking is, but I wonder, in some cases, is the panning of the Df is related directly or indirectly to the fact that many of us are disappointed in Nikon for not coming out with a simple upgrade to the D700?
Thank you! As a D700 owner, I feel I have actually made a good digital decision.
;-)
Rob C
-
Everytime I pass a d800 and think, yea that's a good deal, my brane flips back to the orange skin tones of the D3, D4 and how much I hate that NX or Nick (or whatever it's called) software.
1+
This right here is why I switched from Nikon to Canon. Someone at Nikon design thinks skin is firmly in the red/orange/pink family. So is the rest of the World too, I guess. Yes, it can be somewhat cleaned up PP, but the color right OOC in Canons just looks better to my eye. Some may differ, and that's fine for them. Don't want to inflame anyone.
Secondly, I like the Canon glass family better too.
But curiously many seem to be dissing many of the latest cameras not because they are not good, they all are. But as with every design, there are trade-offs and folks can always find something to not like about any camera. We used to carry multiple backs since we needed different film for different situations. Maybe bodies should be looked upon as "backs" and one should carry or own a couple of different ones for varying situations. Bodies/features will come and go, As far as equipment it's about the lenses IMHO anyway.
-
Everytime I pass a d800 and think, yea that's a good deal, my brane flips back to the orange skin tones of the D3, D4 and how much I hate that NX or Nick (or whatever it's called) software.
Then I pass and thank myself for not blowing 3 grand.
IMO
BC
I have very much the same, hated the orange skin tones. The d800 was even worse initially when using LR however C1 is doing a really nice job with skin tones! I even got myself a license for C1v7 just for that reason..
-
I have very much the same, hated the orange skin tones. The d800 was even worse initially when using LR however C1 is doing a really nice job with skin tones! I even got myself a license for C1v7 just for that reason..
It was really bad at first. easy enough to fix in PS, but what a pain in the ass. C1 seems best for D800 files. The NIK software, with a little tweak, can get there too, but its like using DOS compared to C1 and LR. In LR I would apply DNG neutral and dial in the color. It was painful compared to an M9 or Fuji file, which looks great OOC. The only tweek to the M9 color for skin, as opposed to a treatment, is dialing back the reds just a bit. The hue is correct, just a little over saturated.
-
I like 5d2 and 1ds3 color the best of any DSLR. Straight from LR or C1, or DPP. I sold the bodoes but kept the lenses, waiting for a model with better DR.
I do not like teh look of the Nikon G lenses. This is just taste, they are good lenses, but they are too modern. They scream DIGITAL to me. The 28 1.8G is a sharp, sharp lens but I much prefer teh rendering of the 28 AIS. It just looks more organic.
1+
This right here is why I switched from Nikon to Canon. Someone at Nikon design thinks skin is firmly in the red/orange/pink family. So is the rest of the World too, I guess. Yes, it can be somewhat cleaned up PP, but the color right OOC in Canons just looks better to my eye. Some may differ, and that's fine for them. Don't want to inflame anyone.
Secondly, I like the Canon glass family better too.
But curiously many seem to be dissing many of the latest cameras not because they are not good, they all are. But as with every design, there are trade-offs and folks can always find something to not like about any camera. We used to carry multiple backs since we needed different film for different situations. Maybe bodies should be looked upon as "backs" and one should carry or own a couple of different ones for varying situations. Bodies/features will come and go, As far as equipment it's about the lenses IMHO anyway.
-
Agreed, the G lenses have a rendering that is not always that pleasant. I find the rendition of colors 'thin, fragile or frail' if that makes sense to you. A pleasant surprise seems to be the new 58, don't get it for sharpness but the rendition is definitely very pleasing with 'fat' colors.
-
Makes perfect sense. They look thin, like they could be easily scratched or something. I have older lenses which are much more pleasant for breathing subjects.
Agreed, the G lenses have a rendering that is not always that pleasant. I find the rendition of colors 'thin, fragile or frail' if that makes sense to you.
-
I like 5d2 and 1ds3 color the best of any DSLR. Straight from LR or C1, or DPP. I sold the bodoes but kept the lenses, waiting for a model with better DR.
I do not like teh look of the Nikon G lenses. This is just taste, they are good lenses, but they are too modern. They scream DIGITAL to me. The 28 1.8G is a sharp, sharp lens but I much prefer teh rendering of the 28 AIS. It just looks more organic.
Yes, yes.... there are many that seem to proclaim the Nikons are soooo much better with DR. And of course DxO ratings are there to lean on as "proof".
However if you scratch the surface, even the vaunted D800, does have nearly two stops... at ISO 200. Turn the dial and the "superiority" evaporates rather quickly and the D800 has less DR than my 6D (a darn good little bugger!). By ISO 800 the Nikon is sucking wind (sensorgen.info). Sensor efficiency drops (-e) but it does have low read noise (but the 1Dx whups it and the 6D catches up)
Now if you're true pro, your clients are telling you that your work lacks DR, you have the studio or limit your shooting to ISO 200 or less, etc.... then by all means you are right to scratch and claw for every pixel and DR you can find... and go home at night proud of yourself.
Guys like me shoot in all kinds of light, all kinds of subjects, still and fast moving, so I can sometimes use, and do when possible use ISO 200. But often find myself significantly faster. And, even at ISO 200 don't look at the Canon's images and say, "gee I wish I had another stop or two of DR". But that's just me.
Color fidelity, sensor superiority at higher ISO and lens choices more than makes up for the low ISO DR in my World. YMMV, of course...
-
I base my need for better DR on my own experience as an editorial and commercial photographer, although I don't shoot commercially anymore. The D800 files are more flexible and have cleaner shadows than any Canon I've used, which is meaningful to me when working the files in post. Pulling in a blown sky on a D800 file is not an issue. I can shoot a D800 like I did film or any of the MF backs I owned/rented. In fact its better than the backs in many respects.
I'm not taking a dump on Canon, I still have the lenses and the color, but in reality the D800 is better for what I shoot/shot than the 5D2/3, 1ds3.
I've never looked at sensor test data, DXO, etc in my life. I've owned every full frame Canon, save for the 6D and 1dx. I've used or owned every full frame Nikon, and the D200 and D2x. I also owned or rented digi backs from the Valeo22, Sinar 54M, Aptus 75, 54s, 17, P30+ and P25.
Yes, yes.... there are many that seem to proclaim the Nikons are soooo much better with DR. And of course DxO ratings are there to lean on as "proof".
However if you scratch the surface, even the vaunted D800, does have nearly two stops... at ISO 200. Turn the dial and the "superiority" evaporates rather quickly and the D800 has less DR than my 6D (a darn good little bugger!). By ISO 800 the Nikon is sucking wind (sensorgen.info). Sensor efficiency drops (-e) but it does have low read noise (but the 1Dx whups it and the 6D catches up)
Now if you're true pro, your clients are telling you that your work lacks DR, you have the studio or limit your shooting to ISO 200 or less, etc.... then by all means you are right to scratch and claw for every pixel and DR you can find... and go home at night proud of yourself.
Guys like me shoot in all kinds of light, all kinds of subjects, still and fast moving, so I can sometimes use, and do when possible use ISO 200. But often find myself significantly faster. And, even at ISO 200 don't look at the Canon's images and say, "gee I wish I had another stop or two of DR". But that's just me.
Color fidelity, sensor superiority at higher ISO and lens choices more than makes up for the low ISO DR in my World. YMMV, of course...
-
Heck yeah... I get it. You're far more experienced and look at things differently. It's only a hobby for me, not a living. In my field I was (retired now) very prickly about my equipment and it's output. But we all are prisoners of our lives experiences or lack thereof and my ignorance is a blessing. The glass is expensive enough!
I was reasonably happy with my D4 (as I said, high ISO is a hoot for me) but the lugging factor was getting to me and was contemplating a new body. Got a 7100, but the smaller sensor did bug me. The D4 as backup made it livable and was about to dive deep into Nikkor glass.
But decided to go with C1 since the ability to work with files remotely on my laptop and synch is very cool for my habits. Then during the Great Migration stumbled on my old 1Ds Mk II files and was immediately arrested by the colors...! To my eye they were like fresh air and rented a 6D for a day and bought one right away. For some reason Canon colors are much more "real" to me. But it's a taste thing and modern PP makes it easy to get Canon-like colors from Nikons when someone like yourself or many here with the right experience take over.
OTOH, someone like me needs all the help they can get...
I base my need for better DR on my own experience as an editorial and commercial photographer, although I don't shoot commercially anymore. The D800 files are more flexible and have cleaner shadows than any Canon I've used, which is meaningful to me when working the files in post. Pulling in a blown sky on a D800 file is not an issue. I can shoot a D800 like I did film or any of the MF backs I owned/rented. In fact its better than the backs in many respects.
I'm not taking a dump on Canon, I still have the lenses and the color, but in reality the D800 is better for what I shoot/shot than the 5D2/3, 1ds3.
I've never looked at sensor test data, DXO, etc in my life. I've owned every full frame Canon, save for the 6D and 1dx. I've used or owned every full frame Nikon, and the D200 and D2x. I also owned or rented digi backs from the Valeo22, Sinar 54M, Aptus 75, 54s, 17, P30+ and P25.
-
BC,
Are you saying you have never used a D800?
Cheers,
Bernard
No didn't say that, but never extensively. Someone had one on set, I carry our Nikon glass usually F for one RED1 but the newer G for the Scarlet if needed as backup as I use PL for the other red one and Canon mont for the scarlet., so anyway I tossed a g lens on a d800 and shot some with led and with hmi.
I won't buy a d800, doubt any Nikon, I just fight the color too much.
I didn't like it, but I don't like new Nikon G glass, though I love the 200 F2. That lens is magical and much nicer than Canon's version.
Honestly I can't tell you which cameras I like right now*, because I'm tired with working huge hours.
IMO
BC
*Actually not true. It's taken me 6 months to understand the oly em-5. That may sound stretched but since the camera is a lab, the processor is a lab, combining the two you end up with a million settings and the olympus is sensitive.
I've done some stupid in store testing with the Sony A7 and the Olympus twice and both times the olympus produced a better file and better look, though that's stupid in store testing.
I think I now have the olympus to look as more like my m8 as any cmos camera can.
I was predisposed to buy an A7 or two since I have two zeiss A mount zooms (which I like) but regardless of what I do, the A7 file doesn't hold up in look as well as the Olympus (I know that makes no sense given the size) and it seems to have a lot of shutter slap or blur. Kind of dissapointing but once again, this is stupid in store testing.
IMO
BC
-
Wow, I almost regret my intitial criticism. Maybe I should just be happy that at least Nikon isn't releasing Hasselblad-style crap?
-
Is "pure photography" relevant into using an SD card on a 3000 camera?
-
I would echo that C1 Pro gets the skin tones pretty good, unlike Lightroom (without a lot of tweaking) for the D800e
-
This is a complex question. Albeit, there are no easy answers.
First, Nikon wanted to do something different that didn't involve placing the 16MP FX sensor in their $6k flagship into a a sub $3k DSLR. They learned better from the D700. Secondly, get over the D700. It's a has-been and the ISO capabilities are VASTLY overrated -- especially for such a LOW MP count on a FF sensor. I had one. I sold for the 5d2, which offered WAY more bang for the buck -- build quality and AF aside.
Third, Nikon obviously felt the D600/D610 has a bad rep so they had to release another form factor -- again, that was not built like the D800 with the $6k 16MP sensor. SO......they cut corners and cut features. As we all know, you get the same sensor in the Df as the flagship D4(s)....and as we all know the price will drop faster than a loaded missle. In a year, they will be available for the same price as the D600/610 IMHO. The Df may LOOK cheaply made, but I'm sure it's high quality. As far as the dials, again, they had to do SOMETHING different so that their FX lineup would not be a homogenous cluster-f#ck. I applaud them for taking a chance. Something very few companies do these days. Nintendo comes to mind in this regard.
The dials are useful for people learning photography because, frankly, it's easy to set a DSLR on P mode and let the processor do the rest. I'm guilty of it....and my knowledge of photography has been stunted because of this. The one SD card is shameful I will gladly admit, as is the AF system, for this price. But I'm sure for the right situation this DSLR will prove more than adequate given its specs. Lastly, again guys, please lay the D700 argument to rest. It's an outdated design and highly overrated. There are PLENTY on the market so go buy 2-3 if you'd like. But know that you'll never squeeze more than 12 MP out of it. Ever.
-
Lastly, again guys, please lay the D700 argument to rest. It's an outdated design and highly overrated. There are PLENTY on the market so go buy 2-3 if you'd like. But know that you'll never squeeze more than 12 MP out of it. Ever.
Unless you make, or plan to make, big prints...who cares if it's only 12mp? 12mp is good enough for 4k display, if/when that results in a nice big calibrated TV I can put in my rec room. Over the weekend I re-processed the RAWs of the last photos I took of my dad, in mid 2009, using a D300 (also 12mp). They look great on my monitor, great on my 40" TV and I'm sure they'd look great in a 14x21" print if I wanted to make one.
Mind you, I'm not advocating that anyone run out and buy a D700 at this point. (I doubt I'll ever buy another SLR, period. I'm a confirmed mirrorless/EVF guy.) But if you already have one and like it, no need to stop using it.
-Dave-
-
The problem with 12MP on the D3/D700 was partly with the very aggressive AA filter. The camera, beautiful as it was, did not roll off in the high frequencies gracefully. This was partly due to the facts of scale as well. 12MP with AA is not quite enough to render details of hair and skin in a medium portrait. The 24/36MP sensors, after being downsampled to 12MP, supply a level of high frequency detail that the native 12MP sensor could not. The 16MP sensor is almost enough, but not quite.
-
None of this answers the question, "Why did Nikon not put a film advance lever on the Df?" It would have made it properly "retro" and it could have been used as an on/off switch.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. I really do wish that Nikon had decided to make their "retro" offering a mirrorless camera the same size, shape and weight as my much-loved FM2n. Then, at the right price, I would have been tempted.
-
Nikon need to take a long hard look at the brace of new Sony cameras. A Nikon similar to the A7/R, would be a better camera for those of us hankering after a FM/E type replacement for the D700.
-
This is a complex question. Albeit, there are no easy answers.
First, Nikon wanted to do something different that didn't involve placing the 16MP FX sensor in their $6k flagship into a a sub $3k DSLR. They learned better from the D700. Secondly, get over the D700. It's a has-been and the ISO capabilities are VASTLY overrated -- especially for such a LOW MP count on a FF sensor. I had one. I sold for the 5d2, which offered WAY more bang for the buck -- build quality and AF aside.
Third, Nikon obviously felt the D600/D610 has a bad rep so they had to release another form factor -- again, that was not built like the D800 with the $6k 16MP sensor. SO......they cut corners and cut features. As we all know, you get the same sensor in the Df as the flagship D4(s)....and as we all know the price will drop faster than a loaded missle. In a year, they will be available for the same price as the D600/610 IMHO. The Df may LOOK cheaply made, but I'm sure it's high quality. As far as the dials, again, they had to do SOMETHING different so that their FX lineup would not be a homogenous cluster-f#ck. I applaud them for taking a chance. Something very few companies do these days. Nintendo comes to mind in this regard.
The dials are useful for people learning photography because, frankly, it's easy to set a DSLR on P mode and let the processor do the rest. I'm guilty of it....and my knowledge of photography has been stunted because of this. The one SD card is shameful I will gladly admit, as is the AF system, for this price. But I'm sure for the right situation this DSLR will prove more than adequate given its specs. Lastly, again guys, please lay the D700 argument to rest. It's an outdated design and highly overrated. There are PLENTY on the market so go buy 2-3 if you'd like. But know that you'll never squeeze more than 12 MP out of it. Ever.
Who wants more than 12 MP anyway ? I had a 5D 2 once and made the mistake of using it during a drizzly day. It stopped working after five minutes so I got rid of it and switched to a D700. I've had that ever since and it's been used in all weather conditions without a hiccup. An amazing camera that shoots a better file for me than the Canon ever did. I'm pleased they have come down in price, I'll buy a couple more.
One of the nicest cameras I ever used was the original 1Ds, now that file was great to work on and only 11mp if my memory serves me correctly. Bragging about the size of your sensor size is, well......a bit silly.
-
Who wants more than 12 MP anyway ?
Skin texture, hair texture, foliage, architectural details. Basically all high-frequency detail.
-
Who wants more than 12 MP anyway ? I had a 5D 2 once and made the mistake of using it during a drizzly day. It stopped working after five minutes so I got rid of it and switched to a D700. I've had that ever since and it's been used in all weather conditions without a hiccup. An amazing camera that shoots a better file for me than the Canon ever did. I'm pleased they have come down in price, I'll buy a couple more.
One of the nicest cameras I ever used was the original 1Ds, now that file was great to work on and only 11mp if my memory serves me correctly. Bragging about the size of your sensor size is, well......a bit silly.
No one is "bragging" about the size of their sensor. don't make this into a phallic - based argument. That's the sentiment I'm hearing on your end of the argument. Resolution is *kinda* important, to me, at least. Maybe I'm the only person on earth who wants more than 12MP. Call me weird -- you wouldn't be the first, mate.
Wow, the things people get twisted up about!! I really hope you're not sincerely offended...or over 30 years old (Which I AM). But I will close by saying "my daddy can beat up your daddy" ;-) Have a good Tuesday
-
The Df may LOOK cheaply made, but I'm sure it's high quality.
Looks are very important with a camera marketed the way this camera was. A chap who had pre-ordered one in my local shop was really hacked off with the cheap feel, particularly compared to the way cheaper new OM camera.
-
Hello guys ( D800 users)
I find it hard to set up my D800 to get neutral reproduction
of the brown and dark brown colors.
They appear far more red than the real colors.
Now I shoot in raw to work around this,(with photoshop)
but has anyone found settings on the camera for more neutral colors.