Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Spinifex on February 17, 2014, 07:10:10 pm
-
First of all, thank you for the review: it will be much more difficult to keep my hands off a X-T1 now.
I just have one nitpick: there is a third weather-sealed lens that will be released, the 18-135mm.
Fujifilm is launching three weather-resistant zoom lenses to complement the X-T1 camera, these will all be available during 2014, with the XF18-135mm launching in June. The three lenses are the XF18-135mmF3.5-5.6 R OIS WR, XF16-55mmF2.8 R OIS WR and the XF50-140mmF2.8 R OIS WR.
Source: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n140128.html
-
A good review Nick - as per your usual standard it's all useful.
It makes an interesting read placed against your two-part X-Pro 1 review.
At a Toronto launch event the Fuji Guys insisted that the OVF remains a key part of their plans. This should prove interesting in future models, such as the X-Pro1 successor.
One thing that I feel doesn't get enough attention is the ability to add overlays to Fuji's OVFs. I don't think anyone else does this, and it's a superb feature - especially the histogram.
I agree with you about the EVF. I'm not a huge fan of EVFs, but this one really impressed me. It wasn't simply the size and clarity (both outstanding), but also the realistic rendering. Overall this new X is, as you say, very together, and very fast. For some this will make a real difference.
The other thing I'd add is that in use I found that the X-T1 is no smaller than the X-Pro 1: the hump creates a bulk that in my view makes up for the slightly smaller core body size. In bag or hand there isn't much difference, though the X-Pro1 is less noticeable.
The Fujifilm people seemed determined to make cameras for photographers. ;D
-
At a Toronto launch event the Fuji Guys insisted that the OVF remains a key part of their plans. This should prove interesting in future models, such as the X-Pro1 successor.
One thing that I feel doesn't get enough attention is the ability to add overlays to Fuji's OVFs. I don't think anyone else does this, and it's a superb feature - especially the histogram.
I love this feature, it is like a head-up display and very customisable. Setting exposure is great just tweaking the exposure compensation until no clipping on the histogram occurs all with an OVF.
-
Very enjoyable review, thanks!
-
I can just join the rave - not about the X-T1, bute X-E2, which I own and which made
my step into serious digital imaging beyond compacts a pure joy -
the X-T1 seems to be the natural successor so far,
BUT:
Coming from the Mamiya 7 ii I'm looking forward to a mix of an X-T1 and the X-pro1 (X-Pro2 ?) coming hopefully
one day with hybrid viewfinder, kick ass autofocus and weather sealing.
Good times to go digital !
But I'll keep my film cameras anyways - and probably even go for an additional 4x5" view camera ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
Interesting review.
I do wish Fuji had gone with mechanical focus very surprised they went fly by wire for products like this.
Leaving that to one side, the lack of proper flash is really one of the show stoppers for me.
Fuji really need to get that sorted out and fast. They have some great ideas but they have to nail the flash side and they have not. I suspect it's putting many people off of looking at the X system.
-
Not having a flash would be one thing in its favour, were I in the market. The Nikon D200 has a flash, and that serves the noble purpose of rendering the full use of shifting/tilting lenses impossible.
Actually, if I didn't already own more photographic junk than I need, the X-T1 might have been a very attractive proposition.
Rob C
-
Rob the issue isn't so much the X-T1 not having a built in flash (personally I like a built in flash for off camera flash control, you don't want it don't use it Canon FF snobbery IMO - Not directed to you I would add)
Fuji only have basic TTL flash, no HSS, no wireless at all, and re-branding a Sunpak flash and doubling the price isn't convincing either.
If Fuji want to tempt DSLR users then they're going to have to address this, and until they do my wallet remains firmly shut
-
I do wish Fuji had gone with mechanical focus very surprised they went fly by wire for products like this.
Mechanical focus rules out fast autofocus.
Guess which is more important nowadays?
Can not have both.
-
Off camera wireless TTL flash and tethering is needed - I hope they add it in the next evolutionary step.
Would be cool to get hypersync compatibility.
-
Mechanical focus rules out fast autofocus.
Guess which is more important nowadays?
Can not have both.
Not sure what lenses you've been using but that doesn't add up in my experience across many lens mounts.
Yes you can have both, actually screw drive lenses tend to be faster for AF than in lens motors (in many cases)
And all of those are mechanical focus. In fact very few lenses are fly by wire in DSLR land, a few Canon STM's not much more.
-
And all of those are mechanical focus. In fact very few lenses are fly by wire in DSLR land
so all those ring USM lenses are actually w/ old mechanical helicoids still ? and USM motors just rotate old helicoid ?
-
so all those ring USM lenses are actually w/ old mechanical helicoids still ? and USM motors just rotate old helicoid ?
I don't use Canon much (the odd time), I have used Sony/Pentax and Nikon
AF-S lenses all the ones I've used are mechanical linked, most of the Pentax lenses are screw drive anyway, Sony SSM and SAM are mechanical linked as are all the screw drive lenses.
Only a few USM lenses I've used are fly by wire 85mm f1.2 being one example, but most are not unless I missed something which I doubt.
Most of the ILC lenses are fly by wire. Olympus were doing fly by wire with the original 4/3 mount.
No idea why Fuji would copy this the X series is supposed to be something different. I'd wager 90% of people prefer mechanical focus v fly by wire.
-
I don't use Canon much (the odd time), I have used Sony/Pentax and Nikon
well we can discount old screw driven designs really... so most of the modern lenses are in fact by wire.
-
well we can discount old screw driven designs really... so most of the modern lenses are in fact by wire.
That is not correct:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/26428/how-does-a-fly-by-wire-focusing-lens-work
Function: Normally the focus ring is mechanically connected to the inside of the lens so that when you turn the focus ring some of the lenses inside the lens move directly. With focus-by-wire the movement of the focus ring is measured electronically, and then a motor moves the lenses inside.
-
To be honest, I'm surprised anyone has any interest in hand-held flashes via any of the goofy TTL systems. If you're going to light, light properly. Get a set of Lumopros and some pocketwizards. All for the price of two of Canonikon's ridiculous top-end flashes. Or, since you're going to need grip gear with real mods, get a couple of Einsteins and their amazing at-camera remote system.
Unless you're shooting weddings, or news, I can't see the need or use for any of the mainstream flash systems. And I say that having spent $$$ on an SB 910.
[on reflection this is a bit harsh. Just bc I don't like these systems doesn't mean some don't find them useful. My better answer is that I suspect Fuji will issue a flash of the sort you have in mind. I don't know that, but they didn't put all those contacts on top of the X-T1 to power that dinky included flash. There's likely to be a system-flash in the future, is my guess.]
Which is why I think the flash sitch is a non-issue.
Besides, Fuji gives you a nifty little flash which runs off the camera's batteries, making it highly pocketable and fine for fill or triggering remote.
Just my 2c.
- N.
-
As for manual focus:
- fly-by-wire kind of sucks, yes
- the two-image system in the EVF is the best focus-aid systems I've ever used, by far
- manual focus is mostly a moot point nowadays
- N.
-
It depends what you do. For weddings and portraits there is a need for a proper flash system. And whilst I've no problems setting up some Yongnuo's inside (or outside) for lighting on the cheap, there are obvious scenarios where a proper dedicated flash wireless system can be useful (it's easy and quick)
1994 Minolta brought out wireless flash, and in 2014 it's something that can't be overlooked on Fuji'x X series.
Likewise HSS, there are workarounds like ND filters. But HSS is again very useful in some situations esp for fill flash outside.
Fuji will have to add this functionality either with firmware (if they can) and on dedicated flash units too.
Non issue for landscapes, but many of us want an interchangeable camera system that is flexible enough to take on many tasks. It's really something Fuji should have looked at from day one.
In other areas it looks like a nice enough camera even though I tire a bit of the retro theme.
-
To be honest, I'm surprised anyone has any interest in hand-held flashes via any of the goofy TTL systems. If you're going to light, light properly. Get a set of Lumopros and some pocketwizards. All for the price of two of Canonikon's ridiculous top-end flashes. Or, since you're going to need grip gear with real mods, get a couple of Einsteins and their amazing at-camera remote system.
Unless you're shooting weddings, or news, I can't see the need or use for any of the mainstream flash systems. And I say that having spent $$$ on an SB 910.
[on reflection this is a bit harsh. Just bc I don't like these systems doesn't mean some don't find them useful. My better answer is that I suspect Fuji will issue a flash of the sort you have in mind. I don't know that, but they didn't put all those contacts on top of the X-T1 to power that dinky included flash. There's likely to be a system-flash in the future, is my guess.]
Harsh indeed many folks use flash outside of news and weddings and can light properly too. :P
And high speed flash sync which isn't possible with "proper' lighting is incredibly useful and is something I use all the time. Essential for photographing dancers if you want to keep them sharp for exampl and is also great for being able to use shallow depth of field without faffing around with NDs. Which also make critical focusing rather tricky, so HSS is very handy for creatively lit portraits outdoors.
Not to mention being able to easily add a little bit of pop with fill flash without compromising other settings.
-
I've had a play with this camera and was impressed by lots of things, in particular the large viewfinder, which is almost as big as those on the 40 year old OM film cameras design - which are also tiny and being 35mm full frame. I've always found it frustrating using other much bigger cameras with poorly designed smaller viewfinders. So thumbs up to Fuji for finally catching up with an antique design. ;)
Speaking of that excellent design, why didn't Fuji copy the OM cameras ergonomic shutter dial around lens mount, rather than the awkward to use retro shutter speed dial which doesn't even do incremental values. This means you need to use a far more ergonomic modern thumb dial to do 1/3 stop changes, which is inexplicably limited to a few values either side of the trendy but poorly designed shutter dial. Style/marketing over function.
The vertical battery grip also had buttons that don't match up with the horizontal layout and there were a couple of other areas where muscle memory will trip you up when accessing the same feature in a slightly different way as with the Menu Vs Quick Menu. This sort of inconsistency could be fixed or better made customisable with a firmware update. Firmware updates being something Fuji seem to be quite good at.
I also like the fact that you can set an EVF to mimic the the film style you have set and as a big fan of Provia, I quite looking at the world that way.
-
Harsh indeed many folks use flash outside of news and weddings and can light properly too. :P
And high speed flash sync which isn't possible with "proper' lighting is incredibly useful and is something I use all the time. Essential for photographing dancers if you want to keep them sharp for exampl and is also great for being able to use shallow depth of field without faffing around with NDs. Which also make critical focusing rather tricky, so HSS is very handy for creatively lit portraits outdoors.
Not to mention being able to easily add a little bit of pop with fill flash without compromising other settings.
+1 I use my speedlights often.
Alan
-
In other areas it looks like a nice enough camera even though I tire a bit of the retro theme.
It's not a theme. It's a way of controlling the operation of the camera that combines digital and analogue controls. It may not be good for everyone. I prefer it. Being able to see critical settings at a glance without peering at a screen, and being able to change them through direct physical controls is an intuitive and tactile pleasure. For sure there are some cameras out there with a shape that points to older cameras, but retaining a digital-first interface, but that doesn't include the leading Fuji X cameras.
-
It's not a theme. It's a way of controlling the operation of the camera that combines digital and analogue controls. It may not be good for everyone. I prefer it. Being able to see critical settings at a glance without peering at a screen, and being able to change them through direct physical controls is an intuitive and tactile pleasure.
Funny I can see all the setting on my 5Ds just by glancing at one location on top of camera, not 4 separate dials as on the Fuji. Plus I can also easily change them through direct physical controls too. The shutter dial on the Fuji is a fashionable gimmick that is awkward and clunky to use and lets the camera down ergonomically. It wasn't even a good design in ye olde days and it's simply a stylistic retro gimmick, a shame really as there's lots of things I like about it. Not that some people won't be suckered in by it.
-
Funny I can see all the setting on my 5Ds just by glancing at one location on top of camera, not 4 separate dials as on the Fuji. Plus I can also easily change them through direct physical controls too. The shutter dial on the Fuji is a fashionable gimmick that is awkward and clunky to use and lets the camera down ergonomically. It wasn't even a good design in ye olde days and it's simply a stylistic retro gimmick, a shame really as there's lots of things I like about it. Not that some people won't be suckered in by it.
I never knew being a sucker could be so fun and so useful. I'm loving it.
;D
-
It's not a theme. It's a way of controlling the operation of the camera that combines digital and analogue controls.
I think retro look and ergonomics are independent of each other. The retro look is a design decision, common in many products. While the retro look by default will end up with sort of old school ergonomics (not a bad thing), it certainly can be accomplished with a more modern look. The retro look rarely offends and does appeal to many so can't blame camera makers using it.
Certainly better than the opposite, such as the hasselblad Lunar which wraps an artificial "design" around someone else's camera.
Being an old dude, I sort of like the retro look cameras, other than they seem so "small" that in person sort of look like toys. But bottom line it is about the ergonomics and functionality and what one person likes another may dislike.
-
Jeremy,
Great work on your site. I particularly like your portrait section. As far as high speed. Flash is concerned, this is where I particularly prefer the external strobes. The einsteins are as good as the profotos for high speed capture. The problem obviously is getting a fast enough shutter speed. A lot of guys really like the X100/s for it's leaf shutter for this reason.
I'd actually like to have the time to do some testing of the compact system cameras in that kind of context - real world location portraits and so on. A tripod in the woods is nice but not always the most telling about usability for working pros.
As for the control layout/style, I hear what you're saying about the modern gear, but for many there's a real pleasure in the traditional analog controls. I'm kind of on that side of the fence thought I appreciate really good modern design as we'll. I'd be excited to try a really forward thinking 'next' type of camera. But there's no taking those risks (bc of the $$ involved, sadly). On the other end, the return to a retro style is good too. Fuji has gotten a Lot right about that.
Cheers,
- N.
-
I think retro look and ergonomics are independent of each other. The retro look is a design decision, common in many products. While the retro look by default will end up with sort of old school ergonomics (not a bad thing), it certainly can be accomplished with a more modern look. The retro look rarely offends and does appeal to many so can't blame camera makers using it.
Certainly better than the opposite, such as the hasselblad Lunar which wraps an artificial "design" around someone else's camera.
Being an old dude, I sort of like the retro look cameras, other than they seem so "small" that in person sort of look like toys. But bottom line it is about the ergonomics and functionality and what one person likes another may dislike.
I pretty much agree, though I would emphasize that the context of my comments was in relation to the Fujifilm stable. In this case I don't think what is labelled retro separates look and ergonomics - it is an integrated whole. And yes, it's not for everyone:
It's a way of controlling the operation of the camera that combines digital and analogue controls. It may not be good for everyone.
-
I never knew being a sucker could be so fun and so useful. I'm loving it.
;D
So you enjoy using something that is poorly thought out and so very easily improved. ??? Well each to his own.
And you also ignored my point that your reasoning re seeing setting at a glance is actually completely wrong. Seems like you like the camera [nothing wrong with that] and now are post rationalising to try and justify it.
-
Great work on your site. I particularly like your portrait section.
Cheers for the kind words. :)
As far as high speed. Flash is concerned, this is where I particularly prefer the external strobes. The einsteins are as good as the profotos for high speed capture. The problem obviously is getting a fast enough shutter speed. A lot of guys really like the X100/s for it's leaf shutter for this reason.
This is always the issue, which compromise do you go with. Only HSS as far as I'm aware allows you to be completely flexible with shutter aperture combinations, the compromise there is reduced output at high shutter speeds, but then wide apertures do compensate for that. Or it can be addressed with more flashes. Take for example shooting a portrait on a sunny day and you want to use f2.8 and flash. Using the 1/film speed guide to base exposure for iso 100 makes for 1/100@f16 which equates to 1/3200@f2.8. Not sure what leaf shutter or external strobe can cope with that.
I'd actually like to have the time to do some testing of the compact system cameras in that kind of context - real world location portraits and so on. A tripod in the woods is nice but not always the most telling about usability for working pros.
For working pros good [consistent] ergonomics is absolutely key, missing a shot or fumbling in front of client with poorly designed controls do not make one look professional.
And as lovely as the Fuji is, it's clunky in a couple of areas as fiddly shutter dial and conflicting muscle memory issues will trip you up. I shoot manual 90% of the time, so clumsy controls are more of an issue than for the typical automatic shooter.
As for the control layout/style, I hear what you're saying about the modern gear, but for many there's a real pleasure in the traditional analog controls. I'm kind of on that side of the fence thought I appreciate really good modern design as we'll. I'd be excited to try a really forward thinking 'next' type of camera. But there's no taking those risks (bc of the $$ involved, sadly). On the other end, the return to a retro style is good too. Fuji has gotten a Lot right about that.
I love beautiful objects and I think the Fuji is certainly a very nice looking camera, but my absolute pet hate in design is where something's functionality is impaired in order to make it prettier. To me that is the epitome of bad/stupid design. A camera is not an objet d'art, it is a tool and should be primarily designed with that in mind. Mind you I've often thought cameras are to some men male jewellery. Things to be hung around neck in order to look pretty/cool. Some folks at the local camera club I went to whilst at school used Leicas for displaying. I also thought Leicas were poorly designed if you wanted to actually take photographs though and definitely appeal to the style over function crowd.
-
Being an old dude...
I forgot to respond to this. A sign of age... ;)
One of the good things about being in the mature club is the experience it brings. Accumulated mistakes not to be repeated if you will. I like knowing what works for me, what doesn't, and yet being open to trying.
-
Using the 1/film speed guide to base exposure for iso 100 makes for 1/100@f16 which equates to 1/3200@f2.8. Not sure what leaf shutter or external strobe can cope with that.
Profoto B4 Air.
-
Profoto B4 Air.
Ooh! That's interesting. About time too.
Seems like a very new innovation as they are still appear to be working on backwards engineering Nikon compatibility.
Not sure they'll fit in even my big backpack though. :(
-
Ooh! ... Not sure they'll fit in even my big backpack though.
A minor inconvenience - that's what assistants are for ! Don't tell me you carry your own backpack ?
(it's Friday evening ... usual frivolity disclaimers apply.)
-
Unfortunately the last serf managed to pick the lock on his cage and I've not been able to trap a new one. They got wise to copies of photography magazine laid out as bait.
-
Well you might keep your serfs longer if you offered to upgrade the ones who perform well to villeins.
Seriously though Fuji will start running into problems at the T1 price point because you can buy the Canon 6D and Sony A7 for the same sort of money. The Nikon D610 is only about $150 more. I would think this may limit the market to those with a very specific set of needs. That is even without the competition from other Fuji cameras. Competition at this sort of price point has come sooner than Fuji anticipated.
One minute Fuji execs see no reason to consider FF cameras and then they are considering them ( keeping the faith full, faith full ? ) and now onto expect 2015.
-
Seriously though Fuji will start running into problems at the T1 price point because you can buy the Canon 6D and Sony A7 for the same sort of money. The Nikon D610 is only about $150 more. I would think this may limit the market to those with a very specific set of needs. That is even without the competition from other Fuji cameras. Competition at this sort of price point has come sooner than Fuji anticipated.
I doubt price will necessarily be a big factor. Once I tried an X-E2 it so fitted my needs for a lightweight camera that would make detailed 24 inch prints, I sold all the Canon gear. It was nice to have a credit of $1500 left over, but not a deal breaker.
The added factor is that I am having fun with this system. That was unexpected but is now worth a lot to me.
-
I doubt price will necessarily be a big factor. Once I tried an X-E2 it so fitted my needs for a lightweight camera that would make detailed 24 inch prints, I sold all the Canon gear. It was nice to have a credit of $1500 left over, but not a deal breaker.
The added factor is that I am having fun with this system. That was unexpected but is now worth a lot to me.
I was in a situation to buy a first serious digital system and I went for Fuji, because of the quality+versatility per bulk factor - simple as that.
For high resolution stuff I still use MF film any my Mamiya 7, but will change to large format in the future.
For me the best possible combo.
If I were a pro with dire needs for a sophisticated flash system, tethering and other features it would have looked different,
but for an amateur its an awesome solution, and even many pros love it.
-
Profoto B4 Air.
And if you don't want to spend a fortune: http://www.paulcbuff.com/ads-e640.php
Seriously, the high-speed capability and colour accuracy of these, for the price ($500US) is really amazing.
- N.
-
And if you don't want to spend a fortune: http://www.paulcbuff.com/ads-e640.php
Seriously, the high-speed capability and colour accuracy of these, for the price ($500US) is really amazing.
That's high/short flash speed, not high flash sync speed, which is what you need for flexible outdoor control.
-
2 issues raised.
"Retro theme"
Well modern cameras have moved on from lens aperture rings and shutter speed dials, if you like that or not depends on what you do.
I've tons of dials and controls on my 2 x Minolta Dynax 7 bodies, in fact more controls than just about any camera I've ever used, and not Canon buttons, but real dials to controls all aspects of the camera and you can see many settings with the unit powered off.
I've mixed feelings on the retro area. I mostly use aperture priority and even a single control dial can set that pretty quickly.
I'm not convinced a fairly loose on lens aperture ring for electronic control is really a very good solution. Not would I use the shutter speed dial a lot.
This isn't film, this is digital and things have changed a bit in some ways. I still do a bit of film but I'd much rather use a modern body like the Dynax 7 than an old MF body (for many reasons)
Down to taste but yes I am getting a bit tired of retro, it's not always the best solution.
I won't disagree that with FF prices coming down cameras like this Fuji will have to fall in price a bit, unlike some I don't see an end to APS-C soon, but prices will have to adjust of course. On the other hand the X-T1 doesn't look too bad price wise v the EM-1 which is more expensive.
Back to retro, anyone saying it's not a theme or nothing to do with marketing isn't really paying attention much!
-
Back to retro, anyone saying it's not a theme or nothing to do with marketing isn't really paying attention much!
Context is useful. Retro in general marketing terms is nothing new and comes and goes.
In this context it was about a specific series of cameras. Using them, and comparing the usability with my other cameras, shows combining traditional elements with modern is much more than a theme. It's much more than just a look or style. It works very, very well. Of course that doesn't mean it is for everyone. But perhaps, just perhaps, it is OK for some. maybe even more than OK.
-
In this context it was about a specific series of cameras. Using them, and comparing the usability with my other cameras, shows combining traditional elements with modern is much more than a theme. It's much more than just a look or style. It works very, very well. Of course that doesn't mean it is for everyone. But perhaps, just perhaps, it is OK for some. maybe even more than OK.
Yet the X-T1 is more difficult to use than it needs to be, because of its poorly placed retro shutter dial. Which also needs to be augmented by a second modern style thumb dial for 1/3top increments and this second dial could control all shutter speed far more easily on it's own. That retro dial placing was poor design in the days of film and is still pants. Have you actually used an X-T1? I have and the shutter dial is an unnecessary fashion gimmick because it impairs functionality.
-
Yet the X-T1 is more difficult to use than it needs to be, because of its poorly placed retro shutter dial. Which also needs to be augmented by a second modern style thumb dial for 1/3top increments and this second dial could control all shutter speed far more easily on it's own. That retro dial placing was poor design in the days of film and is still pants. Have you actually used an X-T1? I have and the shutter dial is an unnecessary fashion gimmick because it impairs functionality.
Yes I have used one, at a recent Fuji event. The implementation is similar to the other X series. I appreciate that you don't find the implementation useful. You may not be the only one the feel that way. I do like it. It seems some others share my view. It's an opinion. A viewpoint. Luckily there are plenty of cameras to choose from.
-
Using two controls to adjust shutter speed instead of one is more complex. That is not an opinion it is a fact.
You are post rationalising an aesthetic preference, I am looking at how it actually operates.
When using a camera in a professional environment, fiddlyness can result in missed shots, which is to be avoided. I accept the camera may be fine for amateurs who admire its looks, but a tool is ultimately judged by usability. And in that area it falls short in a couple of places. Which is a shame as other aspects of the camera are very nice indeed.
-
Using two controls to adjust shutter speed instead of one is more complex. That is not an opinion it is a fact.
You are post rationalising an aesthetic preference, I am looking at how it actually operates.
When using a camera in a professional environment, fiddlyness can result in missed shots, which is to be avoided. I accept the camera may be fine for amateurs who admire its looks, but a tool is ultimately judged by usability. And in that area it falls short in a couple of places. Which is a shame as other aspects of the camera are very nice indeed.
All of which is your viewpoint, based on how you work and what you shoot. It seems some others disagree, amateurs and pros, based on how they work and what they shoot. I suppose it's possible their photography and view of tools is not as valid as yours. As noted before, it's wonderful that we can choose what works for us.
-
Say that using two separate controls to alter a single parameter is more complex [and therefore more mistake prone] than the usual single control, is not a viewpoint or opinion. It's a simple statement of fact.
-
Good news on the processing front, LR/ACR will soon support Fuji profiles and the X-T1. ;D
Download the release candidate of ACR 8.4 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/02/camera-raw-8-4-rc-and-dng-converter-8-4-rc-now-available.html) to test. Note an RC is for testing final bugs, so don't swap a working ACR for this, use side by side.
-
That retro dial placing was poor design in the days of film and is still pants. Have you actually used an X-T1? I have and the shutter dial is an unnecessary fashion gimmick because it impairs functionality.
For you, maybe, but this is a personal choice not a professional truth. Without the shutter dial you need a top LCD to display and adjust shutter speed. While adjusting shutter speed through a thumb wheel is a practical control in many cases, all the cameras I have ever loved using have a direct dial.
On a related note, on the whole, I still think photographers took better pictures -- or at least better pictures per number of frames shot -- in the pre-digital age. While the volume of imaging has grown astoundingly, I have not seen substantive quality keep pace. There are exceptions, of course, but not enough proportionately. I partly blame the change in tools. You could do brilliant work with an F3 or and M6 or a 500c/m. And people did. If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???
ps. awesome news on LR support...I have a lot of RAW files I'd really like to look at :-)
- N.
-
Design is down to taste and the type of shooting you do.
I spend 90% of my time in Aperture priority and even a single control dial meets that need. Dual dials are useful for manual no doubt and I have that on a few cameras.
If you're using the VF most of the time, then it tells you the shutter speed, tripod a camera and it can be useful to have the settings on a top panel, though I never really cared with the Minolta's I had without it.
I don't mind retro if it's practical, I don't dislike the design of the Fuji either. It's on balance probably more sensible than the odd and uncomfortable attempt to blend new and old with the Nikon DF (DF to me means "design fail") Dials on top with a D600 back doesn't work for me.
I think we have to accept that digital bodies and film cameras have in some ways different handling requirements. Obviously no need of WB controls on film and how often did you use the ISO setting? Probably not that often. I do like dials for drive modes and exp comp, and ISO is handy too. I do think aperture rings on lenses and shutter speed dials are somewhat redundant for many of us. (camera design have evolved in some ways better other ways not so much)
There is nothing here on the XT-1 that puts me off hugely, but then there isn't a lot here I can't do on an APS-C SLR body and do it for less, and have access to a far bigger system. Fuji's biggest worry is where FF prices go, once they hit sub £1000 it's going to push their margins down. If Fuji can flesh the system out and sort out the flash side of things I'll take a look at them, I do think they are trying hard not always on target but at least Fuji are offering something a bit different.
-
For you, maybe, but this is a personal choice not a professional truth. Without the shutter dial you need a top LCD to display and adjust shutter speed. While adjusting shutter speed through a thumb wheel is a practical control in many cases, all the cameras I have ever loved using have a direct dial.
Nick,
First of all, many thanks for your hands-on review of the X-T1. In fact I've appreciated all your reviews on the x-series - not only are they informative but highly enjoyable and readable. Thanks.
I haven't tried the X-T1 yet , but honestly I'm not that compelled to as I've been (and am) an X-E1&2 user since the first day day they came out. The rangefinder gestalt may well have passed but I find the Fuji's produce an exceptional file, are great at high ISO, and to me at least, feel 'good in the hand' . Also, as you say, their frequency of firmware updates, not just for the latest models but also the older ones, is impressive.
Regarding the 'suitability' for professional use – I think it's worth narrowing the usage definition. I like you enjoy the 'retro' dial but equally there are times when the top LCD is preferable. I agree with your above comments but 'jjj' also makes a good point (he often does ..) when he says that 'a tool is ultimately judged by usability'. For the usage I presume he is referring to - flash and HSS amongst others – the LCD is often preferable if only for the fact that on Nikon (and presumably Canon too) you are able to lock (and see) the Av/Tv settings. Regrettably you can't do that on the Fuji or any camera/lens combination that uses mechanical aperture control. I guess it comes down to personal preference .. and usage. We all have different priorities – and in this case one has to make make a choice – Av lock is not a feature that can be added by firmware, unfortunately.
The other thing that struck me, reading your report and some comments in this thread, is the different ways in which we each use this camera. You seemingly use autofocus a lot and are not too enamoured with focus peaking. I use manual focus, mainly adapted lenses, always shoot RAW and preview in B&W. I would now be lost without magnified live view and fp. I think it's a real credit to FujiFilm that their camera is so adaptable to so many. My only real 'wishlist' items are that they upgrade the X-E2 refresh rate to the X-T version (that's coming) and allow us to choose the fp colour.
All in all a great camera by a great company.
All best
M
ps
Oh! and one other thing - please, Fuji, gives a menu option that allows us to save our settings to disk, please ..
-
And if you don't want to spend a fortune: http://www.paulcbuff.com/ads-e640.php
Seriously, the high-speed capability and colour accuracy of these, for the price ($500US) is really amazing.
I thought that Einstein's were only available on the US continent. Unfortunately they haven't, as far as I know expanded into Europe yet.
(by the way - my Profoto quip was 'slightly' tongue-in-cheek ...)
-
PB used to sell in Europe but they were charging a fortune and it didn't last long.
-
For you, maybe, but this is a personal choice not a professional truth. Without the shutter dial you need a top LCD to display and adjust shutter speed.
Except when I and indeed most other people are taking photos we are usually looking through the viewfinder. :P And where all the relevant info is being displayed including whether the exposure is correct, camera is level and adjust there without having to look at top of camera and maybe miss shots.
While adjusting shutter speed through a thumb wheel is a practical control in many cases, all the cameras I have ever loved using have a direct dial.
Firstly the shutter dial doesn't even display all the shutter speeds, in fact only 1/3 of them. So to access the ones not displayed you need a second dial to adjust. The this means when you glance at the top [the reason some people say how much better this design is], it probably won't even be showing the right speed, so it is doubly redundant.
Regarding the top LCD on my various Canons all the info you need is there in one place including exposure reading - extremely useful. With a design like the X-T1 Aperture, ISO, compensation and possibly the correct shutter speed [but possibly not the right speed] are in separate places. But again, one should really have eye to viewfinder if you are actually taking pictures. Tripod work excepted.
On a related note, on the whole, I still think photographers took better pictures -- or at least better pictures per number of frames shot -- in the pre-digital age. While the volume of imaging has grown astoundingly, I have not seen substantive quality keep pace. There are exceptions, of course, but not enough proportionately. I partly blame the change in tools. You could do brilliant work with an F3 or and M6 or a 500c/m. And people did. If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???
Weddings! The standard of photography and the number of interesting shots is way above the days of film in that genre for example.
I have shot with 35mm and 6x7 film as well as digital and I kind of agree and disagree. Pros always shot a lot of film compared to amateurs in order to make sure they got the shot and film cost went against tax or expenses. Nowadays amateurs can afford to fire off as many shots as the pros and machine gun style photographers will certainly take advantage of that. But being freed from the tyranny of cost allows one to experiment more and also document less 'important' stuff, which may in years to come be of the most value as a historical record. I also recall a model photographer saying he used to pretend to load camera at start of session and once the model has warmed up then he'd put film in. Personally I find that I usually get good shots right at start when everyone is fresh or at end of shoot when everyone has warmed up. The other benefit of digital is that for some work you can end up shooting less as with instant LCD screen feedback, you know if you've nailed a shot.
I did some shots of a dancer doing some flips in Sweden, but thought shot needed something else so I got another dancer to go in background and do a handstand, took one shot and called it a wrap for that set up as I got exact placing. With film, I'd have probably done far more shots as I wouldn't know if I'd got what I wanted.
The main reason you may think quality versus quantity of shots have gone down as you only used to see the very best people's work as only good photography used to get published. Now everyone can share their multitude of banal photographs and usually without any editing down, so you actually get to see all the crud that was once invisible.
ps. awesome news on LR support...I have a lot of RAW files I'd really like to look at :-)
Thought that news may be popular. :)
Currently I think I want an X-T1 with the 14mm + 35mm lenses and an OME1 with the full range of tiny lenses and for a true pocket camera a Panasonic GM1. Except the GM1's control dials are completely useless, as I think Michael found out recently, so hurry up mark II of that camera. Justifying buying any of them when I already have a large amount of Canon kit is another thing, as they wouldn't replace my FF kit and also when a new MacPro may make my life easier than yet more cameras.
-
The main reason you may think quality versus quantity of shots have gone down as you only used to see the very best people's work as only good photography used to get published. Now everyone can share their multitude of banal photographs and usually without any editing down, so you actually get to see all the crud that was once invisible.
Hmmm. I suspect you are on to something. I have narrowed down what I look at because there is just so much out there. I can find and dismiss what you call 'crud' pretty quickly. The stuff that is even more pervasive is imitation: photographs that are not inspired by other work, but merely imitates. Whether or not this is a bad thing isn't my point. It's just that it doesn't help me in any way. What I like to see is photography that moves and inspires me, and/or which I need for my work. On the other hand, there are a lots of very creative and talented photographers out there, and it is easier for them to share their work and have it noticed. Digital my have lowered the bar in some ways, but it may also have opened doors for talent.
-
The problem with the digital world is there is no curation and everything that gets created can be out there on display. This makes finding the good work harder.
The benefit of the digital world is that the usually arbitrary gateways that prevent talented artists being seen by others have been removed.
Swings. Roundabouts.
-
To set shutter speeds in 1/3 stop increments, one stop not being fine enough, requires using the dial and the command wheel on the X-T1. Often bouncing back and forth between the two controls.
-
Seriously though Fuji will start running into problems at the T1 price point because you can buy the Canon 6D and Sony A7 for the same sort of money. The Nikon D610 is only about $150 more. I would think this may limit the market to those with a very specific set of needs. That is even without the competition from other Fuji cameras. Competition at this sort of price point has come sooner than Fuji anticipated.
I am not sure price is as big an issue as one may think. IMO cameras have moved to a position of relative equality of performance as Michael noted recently. Thus what is a primary motivating factor is the joy one derives from owning and using a certain camera. I know that I derived a huge amount of pleasure from my Leica M-4 that was outperformed on variety of levels by other 35mm cameras. In the same way the XT-1 and OMD EM-1 have their passionate adherents despite the naysayers claiming shortfalls in pixels per dollar or some other arbitrary metric.
We see this phenomenon all the time. Apple is the most vivid example where critics marvel at the foolishness of users/buyers of Apple products when cheaper analogs are available.
As for flash issues, I have to side with Nick on this. I shoot full time and use lighting on virtually every job. ETTL and TTL fall far short of reliability in my book and have never given me the reliability I need in fast paced shooting situations. Moreover, I chuckle at every demonstration of off camera TTL setups as they ALWAYS involve numerous test shots and EV compensation and then the subject moves six inches and throws off the exposure because the dumb machine sees something different. ETTL is fine for those that seem to believe it works and it certainly does if you can't manage manual but just a weeks worth of practice will get the average person getting to a keeper rate that exceeds any ETTL system.
As for HSS I find it a great tool and we are starting to see it implemented in some newer Chinese and European strobes. As for radio triggering, I find it essential in my work but I would prefer an external trigger for two reasons.
1. Upgrade-ability. I want to take advantage of newer technology as it comes to market.
2. If the radio breaks inside the flash you are SOL on location.
For me the weakest part of the shutter on the XT-1 is its 1/160 sync speed.
I see the XT-1 as the first glimpse of mirrorless cameras coming of age. When I look at its capabilities I am struck by the fact that there is no job that I did in the last 15 years that could not have been done with splendid results with this camera.
-
Thus what is a primary motivating factor is the joy one derives from owning and using a certain camera.
I have two categories for equipment.
1. Camera, lights, lenses that I love using because they allow me to produce what "I" want and . . .
2. Cameras, lights, lenses, that I have to use for commerce because the work fast, or reliable or easier and allow me to get the job done.
Funny thing is they don't usually and always become cross purpose. What does that tell you about the world of commerce.
A DSLR will do anything well. Not great, not usually unique, but well. The focus fast, have long battery life, lenses are everywhere and their amazingly reliable, even for video with enough ad ons.
The issue is they don't really work that uniquely. As I've stated I'm shocked a little fit in your hand 43 camera can make a better out of camera file that suites my taste better than a camera like my 1dx that cost 3 times more.
I'm more than happy that someone (oly and pana) actually built a under $25,000 still camera that shot a 4:3 native format with a viewfinder you can focus, waist level or straight on.
As someone said the cameras that stick with me are usually more camera than digital, my contax, the leica s2, the leica m and the em-5/1. The last one is hard to quantify because it' so digital to set up but works so analog once it's done.
It's interesting but I think with mirrorless we're just at the beginning of what digital can really do. The olympus, fuji, Sony, are so close to being really professional cameras. They all shoot a comparable file, I'd rate them at olympus, fuji in a tie, Sony a third, but they also are not exactly professional with some rough patches like the fuji's lack of video and limited lenses, the Sony's apparent problems that have run from shutter bounce to light leaks along and the olympus with silly omissions like lack of tethering, finally a pc connection (which when you need it you really need it) and the worst part of mirrorless is small batteries on cameras that use a lot of power.
If Canon and Nikon wasn't so entrenched with traditional cameras they probably have the resources to build a mirrorless pro camera and knock it out of the park, but I think they'll wait until they have to, if ever.
If Olympus and Fuji weren't trying to play to mass numbers (they have to) and pick up or maintain market share they could obviously build an off the scale killer system that could do anything, if Panasonic joined one of them for video they should own the world, but people equate bigger is better an will probably buy a 5d way before they'd buy a mirrorless system.
Michael mentioned this, but think about it. With the standard 43 system Olympus built a beautiful and huge lens line thinking they could break into the pro market with a 43 dslr. It didn't happen because they were large cameras with small sensors and fairly large and expensive lenses.
But everyone here ask themselves this. Who here would buy a $4,000 mirrorless camera that did 4k video and 25 to 30 mpx stills, had the olympus lenses that costs $1800 to $3,500. A system with a software suite, tethering, pro video out, in other words everything a Canon 1dc gives you but in a smaller package for less price and more use, just smaller.
That's a hard sell.
But cost is relative. My most expensive cameras were my contax, my phase backs and RED 1's. They're now old but still more than viable. Along with profoto flash, the contax/phase are the most cost effective equipment I've ever bought, My RED 1's the most profitable.
IMO
BC
-
James, you really need to try the OM-D E-M1 (did I get that right? Who the F names these things???)
The E-M5 was ok. The M1 is really a step up. Michael loves it for a reason. If you like the "5" you'll love the "1".
Also, what you say is so true -- there is a real divide between the 'for love' and 'for money' cameras. I too own a dslr, mostly bc it just gets the job done. Someone ask for a quick headshot? Grab the D800, bang, it's done. The day someone brings these two together will be a happy day indeed.
Micro 4/3rds is getting close. Really close.
The interesting thing is that people still say, "why would I buy that when I can get a dslr for the same price?" Like bigger is better. Kind of like with cars. This is a really western vs. Asia split, which the sales #s on mirrorless demonstrate. There's no reason a smaller camera should cost less. Indeed, if IQ is equivalent, it is offering more.
My complaint is that, for me, the 'very electronic' cameras still have this fog of digital controls that descends btw me and the shooting experience. Nothing has felt as right as the see-focus-click-wind of my Mamiya 6. It's like electric steering in cars. It works. You get used to it. But I still kind of dislike it. When I get behind the wheel of a car where all that's between me and the road are a few feet of metal and some gearing, it just feels right in a way that is hard to describe.
The synthetic photography experience is just lacking something for me. (I say 'synthetic' in reference to EVFs, fly-by-wire, endless modal menus and virtual focus points.) Maybe at 42 I'm just getting old and crochety. But I like to drive :-)
-
There are 2 distinct points.
A micro 4/3 sensor has to cost less to make than an APS-C one (not that APS-C sensors are even remotely expensive to make - not if we look at the price of budget DSLR's anyway) Point being here..there is a feeling among many that smaller sensor products should cost less than larger ones (you can take that all the way up to FF if you want)
It's not really about body size (though you could argue less materials and simpler construction will be cheaper to manufacture, ie less parts/materials and assembly time)
I don't really care how nice the EM-1 is build wise, it's hard to justify the price tag of £1250 odd.
The E-M10 is however a step in the right direction (much more sensible price point)
Folks can pay what they want but reality is there is no point paying FF prices for a micro 4/3 sensor, unless you are heavily invested in the system.
Most people will just buy Canikon DSLR's which is pretty much what they are doing. A FF Canikon costs around the same as the Olympus, and you can get a semi pro level APS-C camera for significantly less. Anyone shocked Canikon are holding firm and ILC makers are unable to dent their lead?
Everything has a price, and you can't remove the sensor aspect from that.
-
James, you really need to try the OM-D E-M1 (did I get that right? Who the F names these things???)
The E-M5 was ok. The M1 is really a step up. Michael loves it for a reason. If you like the "5" you'll love the "1".
Nick - I hate to break the news to you, but unless I've totally misread - BC does own the M1!
He's been writing the forum equivalent of 'Pride and Prejudice' on it since before December last year ..
-
My complaint is that, for me, the 'very electronic' cameras still have this fog of digital controls that descends btw me and the shooting experience.
So true.
-
On of the first guys I met here 32+ years ago was an expat Scot who ran a tour operator's agency; he represented a variety of different companies and raked in a nice percentage per head of arriving tourists from the companies he represented. A clever man with a good financial perception, villa with pool up on the hills overlooking the beautiful Bay of Palma de Mallorca.
Two things I distinctly remember him saying from so long ago:
a. if you want to go there, then this isn't a very good place from which to start;
b. the very best steak in the world has a finite price beyond which you are just being daft if you pay it.
I rather think that his second quip is very relevant to photography.
Rob C
-
. You could do brilliant work with an F3 or and M6 or a 500c/m. And people did. If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???
- N.
This, I have been saying to the point of nausea.
In my view, the apologists (I do know what that means) for digital have been trying to evade and deny that simple fact from the very start of digital capture and manipulation. Not only has it changed the perception of photography in a downwards direction re. clients and their appreciation of a photographer's value, it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.
If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. It has never been as good as then, as even a brief look at the web sites and galleries hosting pre-digital photographs from the top practitioners will reveal. That it is quicker and open to greater degrees of minute control on a monitor is not necessarily a good thing: I see it generally producing nothing more than the sterility and lack of identity of perfection. And the added work load and responsibility for no more money is a mockery on top of everything else.
Too late.
Rob C
-
A true Scot ;-)
You mean, because he, too, escaped?
;-)
Rob C
-
Chances are you're all going to escape soon ;-)
Now that would be a national disaster indeed! I wonder if that northern nation has also reached its menopause? Reminds me very much of the daft things that I sometimes did on emotion, and with little regard to consequence!
However, I think the Conservatives must be secretly hoping that it does go off into the northern lights: remove the influence of Scottish Labour MPs and the English parliament will have a decidedly different colour balance...
One man's loss etc.
;-)
Rob C
-
There are 2 distinct points.
A micro 4/3 sensor has to cost less to make than an APS-C one (not that APS-C sensors are even remotely expensive to make - not if we look at the price of budget DSLR's anyway) Point being here..there is a feeling among many that smaller sensor products should cost less than larger ones (you can take that all the way up to FF if you want)
It's not really about body size (though you could argue less materials and simpler construction will be cheaper to manufacture, ie less parts/materials and assembly time)
I don't really care how nice the EM-1 is build wise, it's hard to justify the price tag of £1250 odd.
A couple of things.
You often pay a premium for smaller things, as they can be harder to make.
Raw goods costs is a small part of the cost of placing something on a shelf for sale.
-
Rob, I agree with much you have said. Trouble is we can’t turn back the clock and to be honest I really wouldn’t want to.
For my own part I compensate by choosing the simplest of digital cameras and a simplistic workflow.
Simple things…
No, of course you're right: we can't revert to times past. My own solution is similar to yours in that I have everything that can be manual as manual. It isn't really denying the moment, it's about finding what's comfortable for me.
And yes, though I never had an M of my own, my last employer did and I remember printing negs from that camera - M3 - and they were really of a different 'look' to what I was getting in the same darkroom from his Nikon F using identical chemistry and films. So from personal experience in the same time scale and conditions, I will never deny Leica glass its particular glamour. Having said which, I wonder if I'm right: he used the M3 for BBCtv room-sets with a 21mm and I can't for the life of me remember if that was the Schneider Super Angulon or Leitz! Had I been the one to buy it, I would sure remember what was what!
;-)
Rob C
-
In my view, the apologists (I do know what that means) for digital have been trying to evade and deny that simple fact from the very start of digital capture and manipulation. Not only has it changed the perception of photography in a downwards direction re. clients and their appreciation of a photographer's value, it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.
If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. It has never been as good as then, as even a brief look at the web sites and galleries hosting pre-digital photographs from the top practitioners will reveal. That it is quicker and open to greater degrees of minute control on a monitor is not necessarily a good thing: I see it generally producing nothing more than the sterility and lack of identity of perfection. And the added work load and responsibility for no more money is a mockery on top of everything else.
I posted this above, but it needs repeating.
The problem with the digital world is there is no curation and everything that gets created can be out there on display. This makes finding the good work harder.
The benefit of the digital world is that the usually arbitrary gateways that prevent talented artists being seen by others have been removed.
Swings. Roundabouts.
Photography was no better in ye good old days even if the business of photography has been devalued. The art and the business are two very different things.
I certainly approve wholeheartedly of the movement away from the darkroom into the computer. I was good at printing and even got asked my art directors when showing my portfolio around who did my printing for me, yet I never went in a darkroom again after the first time I tried Photoshop. Why limit yourself by using an inferior tool?
-
If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???
This, I have been saying to the point of nausea.
Would yesterdays thing be "genius art" today?
In any case --
"Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become ever more formidable. This apparent paradox is due to rising expectations in a culture where we are surrounded by a growing number of sophisticated images every day of our lives."
p17, Preface, Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography, 2001
-
James, you really need to try the OM-D E-M1 (did I get that right? Who the F names these things???)
The E-M5 was ok. The M1 is really a step up.
I'm not a evangelist on any format and like I said I backed into m43 because of the panasonic gh3 for a smaller form factor for video to compliment our REDs. I'd tried sony video etc. and nothing was close to the gh3, I can't wait for the gh4's.
The olympus stills were just a plus. Nick I've go the em-1 and 5 (yea who does name these things) but would I have rather had 35mm? My inner photographer's paranoia told me to, the results compared to the Sony A7 never proved it, in fact it was the opposite.
I'm not against big cameras, but dslrs like my 1dx and d3 have become crazy big, even larger than the leica s2 I just bought.
The images are so smooth they look like plastic . . . the cameras look like plastic so it kind of puts me off.
In fact I tried hard to make the A7 work to the point of using a computer to view next to the em-1 shooting this and that in rooms, outside and finally just put them up on screen and to me and everyone that passed by, the em-1 file looked better and I hate this term, but more film like.
The deal is the Sony synced slow on flash didn't have touch screen, didn't have stabilization which I use and don't always use, didn't have near the same build quality, didn't look as nice, (kind of like a mock up of the em-1).
But, why I really wanted to do was replace my Canons. I find them uninspiring in a lot of ways. I also like an evf. It think it's the future, allows you to really manually focus.
What really hurts ALL the mirrorless cameras except large cinema cameras, is they leave stuff off to hit price points. NO TETHERING! I will continue to yell this because no camera is professional without tethering, even if you never tether.
It's like owning a race car with tiny brakes. You just have to tether, at times and the wireless I've tried is just too difficult to set up and too flaky to rely on. If any company stencils professional on the side of the camera, it must tether.
There is no free lunch though. I don't care about always shooting at f 1.2 but if your going to do that outside your also going to need nd filters so m43 is far from perfect.
The fuji was actually the perfect size and other than long lenses has a nice lens set. The only thing with it is there is no professional video with that lens mount and I defeat my purpose adding another camera mount, where m43 covers both stills and video.
Also m43 lenses are more interesting. There are remounted 8mm wides from video c-mounts to .95 manual lenses. There are the olympus 43 pro series lenses which are killer, so other than tethering, battery use and less than perfect still image tracking, the m43 is almost there, but not quite.
In video the gh4 will rock nearly all points and allow for professional production. That's enough to keep me in the system, even if I never pick up an olympus still camera.
Olympus hit upon something with the em-5. Though slightly too small, it got us thinking about how 35mm type cameras use to be, in terms of size and use. The em-1 is better but still misses a few points next to standard dslrs, that would be easy to fix.
Panasonic has made the almost 100% complete video camera with the gh4, it's now up to olympus to do it with stills.
IMO
BC
-
There are 2 distinct points.
A micro 4/3 sensor has to cost less to make than an APS-C one (not that APS-C sensors are even remotely expensive to make - not if we look at the price of budget DSLR's anyway) ...
People should remember that 35mm format film cameras varied in price from about $200 to $2000 (excluding more expensive exotica like the Leica R) with mid-range models like the F100 and EOS-3 at about $1000, and this was nothing to do with sensor cost or performance, because they could be loaded with the same "sensors". The same is true in digital too, with camera in the same format varying in price greatly (as much as a thousand dollars for APS-C and for 4/3" format, and many thousands of dollars in the case of 35mm format.) The reason is obvious: both the cost and the market value of a high quality ILC depend on far more than the sensor. So I see a clear market for paying a premium of maybe a $1000 or even more for higher quality in other aspects of the body, and so it does not make sense to expect that the best models in one format must cost less than the lowest spec models in a larger format if that "bigger, cheaper" model is inferior is respects like build quality, water resistance, frame rate, presence and quality of an eye-elvel VF (OV or EVF), AF speed and accuracy, ergonomic advantages like dual control dials, etc.
The market value of an ILC body is also affected by extrinsic "system" factors like the quality of suitable lenses available for the body: Nikon and Canon have stopped offering any new lenses beyond slow zooms (f/5.6 at the long end) for DX and EF-S format bodies (perhaps deliberately "starving" those systems to push enthusiasts towards 35mm format) whereas Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm continue to expand their higher level lens offerings (f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, various primes) for their smaller-than-35mm format bodies, adding value to those bodies.
-
........... it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.
If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. .............
Too late.
Rob C
Digital is just another tool. Kind of like a lens. If used right it's great, if used wrong it's not.
The web is a different animal. At first it was great having all that knowledge at your fingertips, but now it's just become the world's greatest stealing machine.
But . . .
Commercial art (not counting editorial) usually is usually weak next to personal photography.
Not essentially fine art photography, just personal.
Maybe because commerce comes with too many lists of what can't be done and honestly anything close to unique is hard to pull off.
Then again advertising isn't an art installation, it's to sell something. I've seen great concepts go flat in metrics, really boring concepts go off the wall.
I think too many photographer's think it's a client's responsibility to build their portfolio.
I've had client's rip budgets out of projects and then turn and say it doesn't look like your portfolio. I don't know how to answer other than say I wouldn't have shot this on black and tried to make it look like a location by using a fog machine, at least not for my portfolio. Not that anyone gives up trying, but a fog machine doesn't replace a night club.
Also great work comes from inspiration. I have some client's that are positive and inspiring, have worked with a few that weren't and what's strange the more difficult the client/ad, the harder you work to try to fix all the issues.
I shot a sports star and knew exactly what I was going to do. Luckily the agency team came in an hour late so I did the shot I wanted and then they came in, the world changed and when they saw what I'd shot before they said "don't send us that we'll never run it".
That image won two pages in CA's annual and of course they called and said can you make sure you give us a credit and spell our name right? How the hell they found out it won I'll never know.
Then again, my view is (and this isn't a sales pitch) that my goal should be whoever hires me to make THEM look good. If it doesn't pass the first layer it will never be shown.
It's far too easy for a commercial artist to assume the client is wrong. Most of it is just the attitude of the room. Positive breeds success negative becomes damage control.
So shooting digital or film has nothing to do with what is good or bad. Good photographers are good, period, but only as good as what they put in front of the lens.
Inspirational photography comes from being fearless about what you can do and also being brave and never being negative.
I've seen a set go to hell because someone said something silly, or negative. That turns a walk up a steep hill, into climbing a mountain.
If your working for others, it takes everyone pulling the same way. They don't have to agree but they have to be positive about being very good and saying I'll fix it in post isn't the way. If you plan on using post for the concept that can work, but fixing bad isn't really possible.
Digital can't fix something that is uninspiring. It can just hide some flaws.
As far as the amount of sewage out there, it's always been there, you just couldn't see it. Now you can.
IMO
BC
-
And yes, though I never had an M of my own, my last employer did and I remember printing negs from that camera - M3 - and they were really of a different 'look' to what I was getting in the same darkroom from his Nikon F using identical chemistry and films. So from personal experience in the same time scale and conditions, I will never deny Leica glass its particular glamour. Having said which, I wonder if I'm right: he used the M3 for BBCtv room-sets with a 21mm and I can't for the life of me remember if that was the Schneider Super Angulon or Leitz! Had I been the one to buy it, I would sure remember what was what!
Leitz licensed the SA design from Schneider but made the lens themselves. It's a real cracker with film, like the Zeiss 21mm Biogon of the same era, but not so hot in front of sensors. :-[
-Dave-
-
I shot a sports star and knew exactly what I was going to do. Luckily the agency team came in an hour late so I did the shot I wanted and then they came in, the world changed and when they saw what I'd shot before they said "don't send us that we'll never run it".
That image won two pages in CA's annual and of course they called and said can you make sure you give us a credit and spell our name right? How the hell they found out it won I'll never know.
So shooting digital or film has nothing to do with what is good or bad. Good photographers are good, period, but only as good as what they put in front of the lens.
As far as the amount of sewage out there, it's always been there, you just couldn't see it. Now you can.
IMO
BC
I almost wept reading your sports star story.
On my second shoot for a brewery calendar the client decided he wanted to go to Florida. Because he wanted to go to Florida.
Fortunately, after the first shoot for him in Spain, he decided to leave me to work alone on that second trip and just go enjoy the adventure. When we were back in Britain, I had some colour prints made of some of the Kodachromes I'd thought best. They were spread across his officer desk (he was the Marketing Director) and one shot was a tight head of the girl wearing a baseball cap. The brim was pulled down hiding most of the face except for the red lips, and her hair was flying out in the wind.
I thought it was really cool for the time. He had just told me it wasn't any good because too much of her face was hidden, when in walked the Managing Director who picked up the print and said wow! The shot made it into the calendar. These dumb things happened on and off much of my life.
On your point about what's in front of the camera. On my sixth or seventh calendar for them, shortly after booking me the Marketing chap decided to hand the job downwards to the PR Manager. This guy, to mark his personal contribution to the assignment, decided not to allow me to choose models from London, and made me pick them in Glasgow, I suppose to keep his local territory sweet. No! That's wrong: I had nothing to do with the casting of that lot - it was his choice. Fortunately, by the time he was given the responsibility, I'd already booked a lovely girl from London and she was the only non-Glasgow one in the shoot - he was too late to screw that leg of the job. The rest of the 'talent' (joke) screwed me. It turned out to be my last calendar shoot for them, which cost me a bloody fortune in lost work. The irony? It was a round-the-word gig. It was an opportunity to hire six of the best models in Britain - the budget was huge. The talented chick is in my Singapore shots in the website. She's Suzi G, who was in Patrick Lichfield's Sicily calendar for Unipart. We also did some shots on a keelong out there, but not a one of those made the calendar. They were beautiful even if I did cheat and rip off a single Sam Haskins concept with the fish over the shoulder! But as everybody just had to do that, I figured he no longer cared and laughed at it all for the homage it truly was.
Why didn't anything from that segment make it to print? The fishing boat taking us there wouldn't accept any more people than the model, the translator, my working wife and myself. The 'client' was left sitting in the hotel, one very pissed off cat. It had nothing to do with me. But the rules had been changed, and I no longer got to take part in the final cut: I handed over the best of the stuff and went back to Spain. I never got a single transparency back from him; I was off the design and production rôle, and as I had nothing to do with the printing that time, I couldn't even get the printers to send me back my trannies, leaving me zero for the portfolio beyond a couple of very close doubles of two of the used images. Love that mother.
All in all, I'm glad I'm out. I think working like that again would have done for me.
Rob C
-
Leitz licensed the SA design from Schneider but made the lens themselves. It's a real cracker with film, like the Zeiss 21mm Biogon of the same era, but not so hot in front of sensors. :-[
-Dave-
Thanks for that - nice to get the facts! Do you remember the name of the 21mm one that used one of the traditional Leitz names?
Rob C
-
Thanks for that - nice to get the facts! Do you remember the name of the 21mm one that used one of the traditional Leitz names?
You're probably thinking of the f/2.8 Elmarit. It seems to have been discontinued now in both the 21 & 24mm focal lengths in favor of both faster & slower versions. I have the first version of that 21, which works quite okay with sensors (really well with APS-C), and previously owned a Super Angulon (traded for the 1950s Biogon I currently have).
One Leitz lens I recommend for any mirrorless camera is the 1970s era 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It's a simple four-element design, is small & lightweight and performs superbly at all apertures.
-Dave-
-
I almost wept reading your sports star story.
.................Why didn't anything from that segment make it to print? The fishing boat taking us there wouldn't accept any more people than the model, the translator, my working wife and myself. The 'client' was left sitting in the hotel, one very pissed off cat. It had nothing to do with me. But the rules had been changed, and I no longer got to take part in the final cut: I handed over the best of the stuff and went back to Spain. I never got a single transparency back from him; I was off the design and production rôle, and as I had nothing to do with the printing that time, I couldn't even get the printers to send me back my trannies, leaving me zero for the portfolio beyond a couple of very close doubles of two of the used images. Love that mother...................
Rob C
Nothing to weep about, just the way the biz is.
In fact it's not limited to photography or the arts. Everybody on this forum has a story where a boss rolled on them or took credit for something. You can get mad, get even, or blow it off.
I guess it depends on what it's worth to you at the time.
Just like your story about the guy getting pissed about a boat ride.
You know we're suppose to be adults and if that's all it takes to lose a gig, it probably was going away no matter what.
Sounds like a 12 step program, but I never try to worry about what I can't control and in my case I got paid, keep working for the client and won an award. That's not bad, but the whole situation bordered on being silly.
Today, things are different than the past, but in a lot of ways just the same, because we all have to work with others. I wish it was easy, but I've never done an easy gig that looked good.
I do know that the idea is to work each gig like that's the last one your ever going to do and let everything shake out the way it's going to.
I know a few years ago Rolling Stone magazine named a Bob Dylan song the best song ever, (don't remember which one it was). Turned out his publisher rejected it so Dylan gave the master to a nightclub DJ in NY that played it, a radio station jock heard it, (remember radio?) played it until it wore out and it was picked up and went #1 on the charts, so as many close misses as we have, sometimes we also have some good luck.
Actually I feel blessed to have made a living doing the job I wanted to do. A lot of people don't get that chance, so a few bumps in the road aren't bad.
IMO
BC
P.S. remind me on Friday I said that.
-
Bob Dylan never had a number 1 hit Rainy Day Women went to number 2 best he ever did on the charts. I just saw the xt1 today and was amazed at the viewfinder. As far as the review well to each his own and I have never gotten into custom settings oh well. Nice to know maybe one day I will set up custom settings am I missing something great here. Maybe I am being too old school here. But I loved the xt1 want to get one with the 18 and the 23 someday.
-
Bob Dylan never had a number 1 hit Rainy Day Women went to number 2 best he ever did on the charts. I just saw the xt1 today and was amazed at the viewfinder. As far as the review well to each his own and I have never gotten into custom settings oh well. Nice to know maybe one day I will set up custom settings am I missing something great here. Maybe I am being too old school here. But I loved the xt1 want to get one with the 18 and the 23 someday.
Uh, sorry, I'm just repeating what I heard on NPR one day.
Anyway, my point could be covered by Michael's nobody knows anything article.
I do know this, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, if they want mirrorless to stick with professionals they gotta hard wire tether. Period. I'll repeat this for google, the olympus em-1, the fuji xti and the sony A7 must hard wire tether reliably to be considered professional.
Thanks,
BC
-
People should remember that 35mm format film cameras varied in price from about $200 to $2000 (excluding more expensive exotica like the Leica R) with mid-range models like the F100 and EOS-3 at about $1000, and this was nothing to do with sensor cost or performance, because they could be loaded with the same "sensors". The same is true in digital too, with camera in the same format varying in price greatly (as much as a thousand dollars for APS-C and for 4/3" format, and many thousands of dollars in the case of 35mm format.) The reason is obvious: both the cost and the market value of a high quality ILC depend on far more than the sensor. So I see a clear market for paying a premium of maybe a $1000 or even more for higher quality in other aspects of the body, and so it does not make sense to expect that the best models in one format must cost less than the lowest spec models in a larger format if that "bigger, cheaper" model is inferior is respects like build quality, water resistance, frame rate, presence and quality of an eye-elvel VF (OV or EVF), AF speed and accuracy, ergonomic advantages like dual control dials, etc.
The market value of an ILC body is also affected by extrinsic "system" factors like the quality of suitable lenses available for the body: Nikon and Canon have stopped offering any new lenses beyond slow zooms (f/5.6 at the long end) for DX and EF-S format bodies (perhaps deliberately "starving" those systems to push enthusiasts towards 35mm format) whereas Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm continue to expand their higher level lens offerings (f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, various primes) for their smaller-than-35mm format bodies, adding value to those bodies.
In ye 35mm film days you paid for build, features/spec such as bigger viewfinder, more controls higher shutter speed/flash sync, better AF etc etc.
You get exactly the same IQ which was the film and the lens used. Even a cheap budget film SLR could deliver results if you used a decent lens and film. In todays market makers do the same thing they chop stuff off the lower end bodies (esp Nikon) and gradually up-sell people to higher end bodies with more "bits" that they might or might not really need.
I don't think it's realistic to expect that a smaller sensor format can command premium prices at the full frame entry level. Marketing wise it's a heck of a lot easier for Canikon to push users to FF, than it will be to sell the EM-1 to people. I'm sure it has it's fans but for newer buyers I'm pretty sure it's not an easy sell at all.
In the same way I think bar a 7dMkII... APS-C days of getting well over £1000 for a pro (or near pro) level body are coming to an end, bar maybe some sports/wildlife shooters it's a non starter really. I doubt you'll see another high end crop body from Canon after that. And if you do it will cost less. Micro 4/3 is basically tied into the ever diminishing circle in the same way 4/3 was. It's not cheaper than APS-C (and FF is coming down in price) As the market matures over time I expect FF to invade the £999 mark.
At that point micro 4/3 is going to be in the same sticky situation normal 4/3 was. As far as the market is concerned bigger sensor = better
All the reviews in the world can tell people "smaller is better" and they're not really buying into it. I don't really need smaller, but I'd take a look at cheaper. Money talks..size doesn't, not much
-
At that point micro 4/3 is going to be in the same sticky situation normal 4/3 was. As far as the market is concerned bigger sensor = better
All the reviews in the world can tell people "smaller is better" and they're not really buying into it. I don't really need smaller, but I'd take a look at cheaper. Money talks..size doesn't, not much
Right. That's why we're all still taking photos with large format view cameras.
Your evaluation of "the market" is incredibly parochial. Folks in the US and Europe are more inclined to buy stuff that looks like "what the pros use." In much of the world this doesn't hold...the photo market is more wide open. IMO history is pretty clear on this: the long-term trend is towards smaller formats and smaller gear. Canikon may have a near duopolistic grip on the photo market right now, but like all things this won't last. It's too stagnant and thus ripe for disruption. The sooner the better, I say.
-Dave-
-
Right. That's why we're all still taking photos with large format view cameras.
Your evaluation of "the market" is incredibly parochial. Folks in the US and Europe are more inclined to buy stuff that looks like "what the pros use." In much of the world this doesn't hold...the photo market is more wide open. IMO history is pretty clear on this: the long-term trend is towards smaller formats and smaller gear. Canikon may have a near duopolistic grip on the photo market right now, but like all things this won't last. It's too stagnant and thus ripe for disruption. The sooner the better, I say.
-Dave-
This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly
I'm not hearing "most" DSLR users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.
But then you're average D7100 or 70d user isn't nearly as bogged down, nor evidently are 6d FF users carting a monster camera around either
Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)
Well even FF doesn't have to be that big
Size isn't what people are talking about, and looking at some of the lenses so far on ILC models even APS-C ones they have no size advantage at all, and seem to suffer from more optical problems (vignetting, distortion etc) than normal DSLR lenses. Smaller is better? Really...
-
Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)
"The raven chides blackness (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/troilus_cressida/troilus_cressida.2.3.html)."
-
Three monks decide to perform a retreat of absolute silence.
They sit meditating with only one candle lighting the room,
as a gust of wind suddenly blows out the light.
The youngest and less experienced of the three at a sudden says:
"The wind has blown out the candle".
His older monk brother says to him:
"Shhht! No speaking !"
Suddenly the oldest laughs out:
"Hahahahaha - I am the only one who said nothing ...."
:o
Cheers
~Chris
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQcGkzXmPjY&list=RD029DkcQ09h2Vo
Watch, think Fellini and format worries shrink to zero.
For the zillionth time, the real, horridly unavoidable truth about imagery and imagination, folks, is that it's not about nuts and bolts.
Rob C
-
This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
You mistake me for an advocate. You are wrong. I use a wide variety of gear in various formats and sizes. I have no fanboy interest in any particular brand or format "winning" some illusory war. I'm merely pointing out what the long-term trend in both image format and gear size has been. I see no reason why the trend won't continue until we run up against fundamental barriers to further format miniaturization. I suspect we've already reached the point where further gear-size reduction would be counterproductive...but we'll see.
The interchangeable lens camera market is small compared to the smartphone market. The latter is where interesting things are happening tech-wise regarding both sensors and optics. Imagine an iPhone or Galaxy with a high-speed multi-focal-length liquid lens, 60mp (or greater) sensor and advanced Lytro-type selective focus capability. I'd rather be Apple or Samsung than CaNikon, etc. when that or something similar appears.
-Dave-
-
I suspect we've already reached the point where further gear-size reduction would be counterproductive...but we'll see.
I partly agree on that: once the sensor is about "APS-C" size or smaller (and maybe up to about 35mm size), and the device is just a camera (not also phone-computer-PDA), the sensor size no longer sets the lower viable limit on the size of the body. Instead, the minimum good size for a body depends on what the user wants in the way of rear screen size, EVF or OVF, enough control knobs and buttons of sufficient size and spacing, batter capacity, etc. The last big opportunity for body downsizing is removal of the mirror/prism components of an SLR VF.
That leaves lens downsizing, and even this is limited by the extent that the artistic distortion of reality by strong OOF effects is desired, and how much the user wants in the way of "low light/high shutter speed" performance. But somehow, lens size differences between formats get overlooked or denied by many people who seem to believe that the advantages of a larger format can be achieved with just a larger sensor, whereas in fact most(*) of the advantages come from the combination of a larger sensor with a larger, heavier and/or more demanding lens design. Larger and heavier due to needing both longer focal length and greater entrance pupil diameter (focal length)/(aperture ratio) and thus bigger front elements if one wants better low-light performance; more demanding design to get higher angular resolution if one wishes to get an advantage of higher pixel counts in a larger sensor.
(*) One major exception: a larger sensor can give greater dynamic range and finer tonal gradations at equal FOV, equal DOF and equal image resolution just by using a longer exposure to gather more total light from the subject, without much need for a bigger or higher-precision lens design.
-
This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly
..................................
Aside from a very vocal group of people, who seem to think they speak for everyone (when in reality they're in a minority)
Well even FF doesn't have to be that big
No.
Must be smaller isn't the driving force, just not be huge.
Huge is a problem. Huge cost money and time in support and setup. Huge is kind of crazy in a world of smart phones, but huge, we do huge.
The driving force for me and working is.
1. Must produce a unique image, not generic in look, regardless of how much I do in post. Better in, better out.
2. Must be a system that's adaptable, which means for me that motion imagery is a plus and must be professional and not hobbled to move you to the next model.
3. The camera should look and feel like quality. I'm somewhat tired of plastic looking blobs and no I'm not nostalgic.
4. The camera/system should have life to it. the 18months electronic business cycle has grown tiresome.
5. More innovation than just 9 more megapixels, or a little better focusing.
Size?
I carry a 68 lb. medium format case, a 40 lb. dslr case and my m43 case has now grown to 27 lbs. My three RED 1 cases plus lenses, I dunno let's just say heavy.
that's just cameras, lenses and chargers, so small isn't the main factor.
What I like about m43 is it cross purposes and I like the little panasonic gh3 soon gh4 for video because nothing I know will produce a 4k file, not cost over $10,000 a body and have smooth stable autofocus in a small by cinema standards package.
What I like about the olympus still file is it's very good, I like an evf for a lot of continuous light work and it's very well built. You have to get into leica territory to find anything that feels better in the hand.
The numbers say that m43 is in the minority in terms of overall camera sales. So are REDs, so are Arri's and Leicas, so to me camera sales numbers don't move me to buy, usually they move me the other direction.
But (and I've said this before) if the Full Frame sony A7 (not R) had the same still quality as my olympus the same motion quality as my panasonics, I'd have dumped m43 and gone to those right then.
In regards to dslrs, I own them, carry them, use them, don't really like them, though will admit, there is very little a dslr can't do.
My Contax, the REDs, the Leica S2 and those are either very traditional and far from small.
But as always I only can speak for myself, not others.
Though If I had my wish, I'd have all sensors the size of super 35 like a Epic Scarlet, just fatter on the short end, pl mounts that would manually and remotely autofocus, around a 24mpx still, a 4 to 6k motion image and all that looked like film, not plastic digital.
One lens set for both mediums.
4 xlr inputs and removable storage in one box, kind of like the gh4, still tethering through ethernet like the 1dx cause it's rock stable and olympus would liscense their 5 axis stabilization for motion imagery, cause that's just crazy good.
But speaking for the majority, of course not, the majority is 5d3's or mobile phones.
But we all know it's what we do with a camera, is not just the camera.
Most of this talk is meaningless anyway, because people are going to do what they want to do.
IMO
BC
-
This is the problem with the "must be smaller" brigade. It's one extreme to another
So now you use large format cameras as an example, which is hilarious to put it bluntly
I think the comment referencing large format was simply to show that the trend over time has been towards smaller cameras. And I don't recall folks insisting on smaller cameras either like you seem to suggest. But who wouldn't want a lighter camera if it can do the same job?
I'm not hearing "most" DSLR users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.
Yet I've come across quite a few peeps who certainly like their 5Ds and L lenses, but find they are too big and bulky for carrying around comfortably all day. I tend to use my pocket camera in preference to my mine for walk around photography for that very reason. Not to mention it's bulk is not exactly discrete.
At my local camera store there has been a lot of interest in smaller cameras, some people have traded in their bigger camera kit, some have supplemented it.
-
I'm not hearing "most" DSLR users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all. Some like a gripped 5dMkIII with an L lens and it's not light nor small.
I would probably disagree with this statement.
Being a frequent reader of Fuji forums I can assure you that there is a lot of interest in Fuji cameras from wedding photographers who already completely or partially switched from DSLRs to Fuji.
Besides cost obviously weight is one of the main considerations. Carrying a 5dMkIII plus a bunch of lenses for a whole day is not everybody's idea of fun.
-
I would probably disagree with this statement.
Being a frequent reader of Fuji forums I can assure you that there is a lot of interest in Fuji cameras from wedding photographers who already completely or partially switched from DSLRs to Fuji.
Besides cost obviously weight is one of the main considerations. Carrying a 5dMkIII plus a bunch of lenses for a whole day is not everybody's idea of fun.
I shoot weddings. The Fuji offerings might have some potential, but right now they lack the flash system many shooters will need.
It's really not much to do with size. I'm already using APS-C and it's not bogging me down or big.
The point being not every DSLR is big, many are fairly compact.
The other issue is "too small" at which point we get compromises in handling and practical limitations
No huge demand around for really small cameras. I suspect part of the appeal of fuji is the tonality (which is good) and low light capability (as good as it gets for APS-C)
People making blanket statements about ILC models are out of the loop and not in touch with working photographers. I've no desire to have a big bulky camera, so I don't buy one. That doesn't mean I want a tiny camera either.
-
I'm not hearing "most" DSLR users complaining about size, in fact very few care at all.
I live at a place where regular people can afford DSLRs, and I am at a stage in life where my friends are marrying and/or have kids.
A large number of those people have bought Canon x00D cameras, or the Nikon equivalent (and to a lesser degree, m43) with a KIT lens, without being photo enthusiasts, they just want to capture moments from an eventful part of life with good quality. Or so they think, because in practice I am seeing that they leave their compact DSLR at home, and snap happily with their iPhone/Samsung/....
I am guessing that the number of units sold (multiplied by a moderate profit) to this demographic group is a key component in paying for the R&D that is needed to churn out the 5DmkIV, D900E, A9 and whatnot. And I see it as a "freak event" that so many people decide to spend $500 or $1000 on camera equipment. I don't expect most of these people to ever purchase expensive camera kit again, and I suspect that the next generation of 25-35 y.o. will not either. Thus things may return to the pre-2005 "normal" where the artistic uncle Joe had his big SLR camera used at family events, and the rest of us had relatively inexpensive gear. That must be a scary story for camera manufacturers.
-h
-
I could list maybe 15 Canon nnD or Rebels gathering dust, most with a telephoto fir soccer games, etc. You could be right.
-
Thus things may return to the pre-2005 "normal" where the artistic uncle Joe had his big SLR camera used at family events, and the rest of us had relatively inexpensive gear. That must be a scary story for camera manufacturers.
This has already happened once before. When compact, but still quite good 35mm cameras came out, SLR sales dropped dramatically as most people did not want/need a big camera. Phones have already the same thing to compact digital cameras as they are not only good enough [for most people], but can do more.
Everything being equal most people will opt for a smaller/lighter camera. And as most cameras are good enough for most people, a lighter camera is going to look increasingly attractive.
Obviously certain professional jobs will require more specialised kit which may be bulkier, but remember amateurs make up the overwhelming majority of camera purchasers.