Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on October 21, 2013, 06:59:34 pm
-
I like it.
I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.
Now, if you're an amateur who has no real interest in making an effort toward serious art, then it seems that a convergence camera may have some utility -- it's like those old 8mm cameras that our parents used to shoot movies of us, splashing in inflatable pools in the backyard. The films won't be very good, but they might have a certain snapshot-like utility. They may also be fine for such things as single-point-of-view instructional videos, but even those become kind of boring after a few minutes of viewing, perhaps because we're so used to professionally made videos with lots of both conceptual and technical quality.
But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using. I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.
-
But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.
well, well... now you want to do serious stills, right ? so you start adding tripods, ballheads, camera plates, flashes, etc, etc... not much different from adding steadycams and "contraptions"
PS: "I believe that Adobe Lightroom is a good example of a product that achieves the goal of simplicity at a reasonable price."... indeed, why do we need all those LuLa video tutorials beats me.
-
"Simplicity" doesn't not necessarily equate to "simple".
Michael
-
"Simplicity" doesn't not necessarily equate to "simple".
Michael
indeed, however your partner apparenly has a different view :
"There are a number companies and products (some of which are extremely complicated) that seem to consistently achieve the goal of simplicity.
The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "
so, either you are pregnant or not... either you need a manual (for LR and hence LR does not achieve a "goal of simplicity") or not...
-
The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "
Sorry, can't resist:
http://support.apple.com/manuals/
-
Amateur still photographer here who's beginning to open his eyes to decidedly amateur/consumer video......
I want as much convergence as I can, so that means I have as much functionality as possible without having to forget features or buy multiple systems (unfortunately, for me we're not there yet- but if the EM-1 had video focus peaking and Panny's 2.6X focus thing, IMO we would be).
That being said, I agree with Mark's overall point - these cameras and interfaces are poorly designed. Sometimes that's a matter of poor vision, other times it's just a function of all the features that are crammed into these machines. I can understand the appeal of the Fuji X series or Leica - even though they both seem now to do video - in that they have all the old controls everyone used back in film days. If it's not broke, don't fix it, and if you need to add features, don't take away what you already have.....
-
Good point!
Erik
"Simplicity" doesn't not necessarily equate to "simple".
Michael
-
Hi,
I don't necessarily share Mark's views. Regarding video I think it is a bless. I often present my pictures as slide shows and video adds aspects you cannot capture in stills. Video doesn't make the camera more complicated. It needs an extra button. Now, that button may be badly placed, and it may be preferably lockable.
I have a strong preference for cameras having presets, preferably selectable with a switch. For instance, when I shoot on tripod I normally want:
- No AF
- No image stabilisation
- Minimum ISO
- Self timer and MLU (except my cameras don't have a moving mirror)
I never read or use a Sony manual. They are completely useless. There are some good books by Gary Friedman that I carry on my iPad.
I also have a preference for programmable buttons and controls.
One thing I miss is that I would like to connect up the camera to a computer, configure it's presets and save my settings as a humanly readable file.
There are things that are horribly stupid. My camera has separate video modes, a special position on the control wheel. But viewfinder image magnification doesn't work in video mode. You need to switch to stills to have 11x image magnification and switch back to film mode, stupid!
Nice to hear Mark likes the Alpa and the IQ back.
Best regards
Erik
I like it.
I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.
Now, if you're an amateur who has no real interest in making an effort toward serious art, then it seems that a convergence camera may have some utility -- it's like those old 8mm cameras that our parents used to shoot movies of us, splashing in inflatable pools in the backyard. The films won't be very good, but they might have a certain snapshot-like utility. They may also be fine for such things as single-point-of-view instructional videos, but even those become kind of boring after a few minutes of viewing, perhaps because we're so used to professionally made videos with lots of both conceptual and technical quality.
But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using. I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000. Further, adding all the video stuff to a still camera simply adds more things that can go wrong with the camera, which I REALLY don't need.
-
I couldn't agree more strongly with Mark on this one.
1. 99% of video done on non-dedicated video cameras is total crap. It's gimickry.
2. Any camera that requires reference to a manual to be fully used (most of them today) is a design failure.
Light in, image out. Not complicated.
The automation and "features" are first and foremost marketing schlock and secondly computerized crutches to overcome a lack of technical knowledge.
- N.
-
To me an image only is an image when I have printed it and I can hang it on a wall.
It has something to do with an aspect of art which has something to do with transcendence,
eternal truths, universality and this kind of stuff, if you know what I mean.
Web imaging surely is sort of fun, User Critiques forum is fun, but for me a real image is on paper.
I think thats one reason, why I can't connect to video - its too electronic, too virtual and unsubstantial for me.
I'm still shooting mostly analogue and I will switch to digital - but only to print in the end.
Cheers
~Chris
-
The classic example that comes to mind is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad. The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art. These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions. There isn't even a users manual! "
Except there are hundreds of buttons and controls, they just happen to be via software, so that is a non-argument. Not only that but there are numerous different paradigms of how they, the apps that is, work too.
Not to mention that there are many features of iOS that you tend to only find out when someone shows you. Unless of course you are the sort of person who will experiment with every possible combination tap/button/push/slide - i.e. not the average user. Most users of most computers of all kinds know only a fraction of what they can do. I know iOS pretty well, but whenever the OS updates I always scour t'interweb for the little hidden tricks and tips that can make using my tablet or phone easier and actually installed a manual to read when I first got an iPhone.
so, either you are pregnant or not... either you need a manual (for LR and hence LR does not achieve a "goal of simplicity") or not...
Doing very complex tasks using a programme that make doing those complex tasks easier, doesn't necessarily remove the complexity. Take Photoshop and a single layer in the layers panel which is very simple really, but even just duplicating that one layer a few times and playing with various blending modes, transparency means you quickly end up with a very large number of permutations and combinations. I've always said that PS or Lightroom are fundamentally very easy programmes to learn in respect of how things function, but the complexity is in the incredibly large number of ways in which you can use the functionality.
I can show someone relatively quickly what LR or PS does, but showing them when to do stuff takes a lot longer and that's why there are lot's of useful guides and tutorials like LuLa's on software such as LR. Also LR is much easier to use than PS for certain tasks because it was designed to work in a different way - a way that suited overall adjustment of large numbers of images. This simplification of tasks doesn't necessarily equate to simple though.
-
I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.
Quite right there's no way anyone would make feature films with say a 5DII or use it for one of the world's most popular TV dramas. Oh wait they already did that and they looked great too.
But sticking the two forms together, as Mark points, out, creates a lot of complication in the still cameras we're using.
As Mark inaccurately writes you mean. He confuses bad design with complexity. Not to mention the he completely ignores the fact that P+S cameras aimed at amateurs not interested in fiddling with fancy cameras have had video from the word go and yet they were never seen as complicated. Mark does not need video, so creates a bogus argument to exclude it from cameras.
I shoot Panasonic Lumix GX7s (in addition to a D800e) and I'm told that the video that comes out of them is of pretty good quality. But the ergonomics are not good, not if you want to move the camera while holding it steady on the scene you're shooting. Shooting video is seriously different than shooting one still at 1/1000.
Shooting complex multi flash setup s is completely different from shooting by natural light, so what?
-
I couldn't agree more strongly with Mark on this one.
1. 99% of video done on non-dedicated video cameras is total crap. It's gimickry.
To be fair to Mark Dubovoy, his essay wasn't totally against other people's use of "non-dedicated video cameras" -- "While I welcome the possibility of shooting video and stills from a smart phone or other small devices, and while I can certainly understand that certain segments of the market such as wedding photographers like to shoot video and stills with the same device..."
2. ... The automation and "features" are ... secondly computerized crutches to overcome a lack of technical knowledge.
So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)
-
... Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)
You should rail against automatic transmissions if you prefer manual and automatic is all that's available.
I have no problem with automatic features allowing people to make better photos as long as those feature don't make it more difficult for those with technical knowledge to make photos. AF is probably the best example of an automatic feature that makes manual use more difficult.
-
You should rail against automatic transmissions if you prefer manual and automatic is all that's available.
Wouldn't that be tilting at windmills?
I have no problem with automatic features allowing people to make better photos as long as those feature don't make it more difficult for those with technical knowledge to make photos. AF is probably the best example of an automatic feature that makes manual use more difficult.
As you do think AF makes it more difficult for you to use MF, you do have a problem with those auto features -- manufacturers seem to think features sell cameras.
-
As you do think AF makes it more difficult for you to use MF
Compare a good manual focus SLR viewfinder and lens with using a modern equivalent AF camera manually. The difference is not subtle.
-
So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)
[/quote]
Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish. Next thing you know we will be forced to buy cameras online, or get fined.
- N.
-
So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)
Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish. Next thing you know we will be forced to buy cameras online, or get fined.
- N.
Good one! :-)
-
So? Let's say Auto+ and Eye AF help people who lack technical knowledge take better photos than they otherwise would -- Is that a problem to you? (Should I rail against automatic transmission because I know how to drive stick shift?)
Absolutely. It's just the tip of Obama's creeping socialist agenda overtaking our right to photograph what we wish, as we wish.
Of course! You'd need to read the manual and gain the technical knowledge required to prevent the camera using Auto.
As you might say -- Mode dial turn, MF button in. Not complicated. :-)
-
As you do think AF makes it more difficult for you to use MF...
Compare a good manual focus SLR viewfinder and lens with using a modern equivalent AF camera manually. The difference is not subtle.
Tilting at windmills does nothing to show there's money to be made from selling your ideal designed for manual focus SLR. (Those pesky commercial considerations Mark Dubovoy elided.)
-
I couldn't agree more strongly with Mark on this one.
1. 99% of video done on non-dedicated video cameras is total crap. It's gimickry.
In what way? And out of curiosity, what percentage of stills done on a stills camera is not crap?
2. Any camera that requires reference to a manual to be fully used (most of them today) is a design failure.
Light in, image out. Not complicated.
Which cameras do not need manuals?
And what about those not born with the knowledge of the custom settings for cameras which very usefully allow you to tweak controls to suit your personal way of working? Would they be allowed to look at at the reference manual? And do you think someone who had never used a camera before would never have needed to look at a manual for say a film SLR? Or would they simply divine film plane metering or highlight exposure? They'd probably find the more complex digital camera easier to work out in fact as you get instant feedback via the screen.
The automation and "features" are first and foremost marketing schlock and secondly computerized crutches to overcome a lack of technical knowledge.
So would you also criticise those who bought ready made darkroom chemicals for not making their own from scratch and what about those who used a lab to develop their films, is that more of a wheelchair than a chemical crutch?
-
In what way? And out of curiosity, what percentage of stills done on a stills camera is not crap?
Which cameras do not need manuals?
And what about those not born with the knowledge of the custom settings for cameras which very usefully allow you to tweak controls to suit your personal way of working? Would they be allowed to look at at the reference manual? And do you think someone who had never used a camera before would never have needed to look at a manual for say a film SLR? Or would they simply divine film plane metering or highlight exposure? They'd probably find the more complex digital camera easier to work out in fact as you get instant feedback via the screen.
So would you also criticise those who bought ready made darkroom chemicals for not making their own from scratch and what about those who used a lab to develop their films, is that more of a wheelchair than a chemical crutch?
I seem to remember my Nikon FM2 came with quite a thick manual - and you seriously cannot get a much simpler camera. Same with the RB67.
Jim
-
1. 99% of video done on non-dedicated video cameras is total crap. It's gimickry.
And what % of video done on dedicated video cameras is total crap? Hollywood spends millions of dollars on gimickry every year...
2. Any camera that requires reference to a manual to be fully used (most of them today) is a design failure.
The only camera that qualifies for that is the pin-hole camera ;)
I think the world has moved past that :)
-
snip
I think most people on this site (which a couple notable exceptions) are pretty tolerant, and even interested, in differing uses of photographic technology. But I've never quite understood the excitement, reflected by Mike Reichmann, most prominently, for the DSLR-form convergence cameras that both shoot stills and video. It seems to me that this forum's primary appeal is to artists, largely still photographers, but there may be a few videographers sneaking into the group, because the two forms have an undeniable relationship. But the thing is, if you're going to make good high-quality videos, it seems to me that you should work with good high-quality equipment made specifically for video -- the requirements are quite different, as Mark points out.
snip
A video or still camera of any price doesn't have a lot to do with creativity or producing something of interest. Some cameras can hold you back, some can allow you to do more than before, but if you follow the commercial entertainment and advertising world, there is work being produced every day where small cameras are either complimenting or the main device used for big screen and small screen display and the work is very compelling.
For these quotes of 99% of _______ is crap, is judgemental, but given that is anyone's right, there is very little art in any medium that is truly ground breaking.
Like it or not, there is a merging of genres and media and equipment is going to reflect this.
If anyone thinks that Sony, Nikon or Canon is going to make a simple film camera with a digital sensor that only works at low iso, only shoots one medium, only is made for the walk through the woods photographer, then your reading the tea leaves different than I.
In fact those cameras have been made and are available a great prices. Buy a contax a p21 phase back and your as close to analog digital as possible. Your also limited in what you can produce, but you can manually focuses to your hearts content and never worry about too many buttons.
The world is not going backwards. Ford is not going to make a 65 mustang, print publishing is not going to double, NBC is not going to outpace netflix and flip phones are not going to make a comeback.
Even simple cameras are going to be marketed in videos on youtube, vimeo and corporate sites.
Now in the world of macro marketing, there will be a slight tip of the hat to the traditionalists (see nikon fm digital) but don't think for a moment it's going to outsell even a Nokia phone, because it won't.
We're just seeing the beginning of imaging machines that can do more than we ever thought possible. If you took the best of every camera out there, large sensors, high still resolution, pixel binning raw video, 5 axis stabilization, wireless microphones, wireless tethering, direct access to 4g and lte, and smaller, motorized sliders and support, faster less expensive lens sets, low power draw led lights, then you'll have a glimpse of what's coming, but yes you'll have to learn more than one shutter button and an f stop ring.
In regards to the requirements of a still and motion camera being different, well in todays world those changes can be made in software, in fact today they are made in software.
IMO
BC
-
And what % of video done on dedicated video cameras is total crap? Hollywood spends millions of dollars on gimickry every year...
By 'crap' I meant technically inferior. Content is subjective, whereas quality of production much less so. My real point is that video is (i) hard in that it brings together far more elements than still photography, the fairly of one of which compromises the final product, and (ii) video on what are essentially stills cameras tends to make it unnecessarily harder. It's like saying, 'we can make your Prius fly with enough add-ons', when one can buy a Cesna if flight is the goal.
You can use you hammer as a spatual, if you try hard enough. But a real chef will just get a good spatula, and a good carpenter a good hammer. 'Convergence', in this sense, is convenient for consumers who want to be able to 'do' everything, but have little concern for the craft (not necessarily a bad thing - home movies are valuable and have their place), but have convergence offers little to true pros in its present form.
If/when still-extraction from digital video reaches a certain point, it may well overtake dual-production in certain sectors. But other than that -- and that's something that will involve gear way above most consumers' pay and knowledge grade -- convergence offers little for those interested in mastering the craft of either medium.
The only camera that qualifies for that is the pin-hole camera ;)
I think the world has moved past that :)
Nope. It is only in very recent times that I have been actually stumped by a camera. Sony, Fuji and even Nikon have all let me in situations where I truly can't figure out why the machine is doing/wont do something. The explanation is invariably stupid design by a non-photographer. Even the 1st gen of digital cameras were pretty transparent.
My iPhone, I hasten to add, has never required the use of a manual.
I'm not sure why the world would have moved past good design and UI, other than an obsession with useless 'features' stacked in interminably nested menus.
The medium, or in this case the tools of the medium, are overshadowing the message.
- n.
-
Nope. It is only in very recent times that I have been actually stumped by a camera. Sony, Fuji and even Nikon have all let me in situations where I truly can't figure out why the machine is doing/wont do something. The explanation is invariably stupid design by a non-photographer. Even the 1st gen of digital cameras were pretty transparent.
Bad design predates digital, by a long way and bad design is bad design, it has nothing to do with features or digital or computers.
My iPhone, I hasten to add, has never required the use of a manual.
I'm not sure why the world would have moved past good design and UI, other than an obsession with useless 'features' stacked in interminably nested menus.
I bet you would not know all the little subtleties of your iPhone without some tips/pointers and funnily enough if you want to talk about annoying nested menus try adding a track to a playlist in iTunes in iOS, simply shocking design. A classic example of how reducing a single UI button massively increases complexity. My local Apple store is also full of people asking how to do stuff on their phones and iPads because it didn't come with a manual.
The medium, or in this case the tools of the medium, are overshadowing the message.
What message is that then? Not sure why I'm even asking as you ignored all my other points and queries posted above.
-
I seem to remember my Nikon FM2 came with quite a thick manual - and you seriously cannot get a much simpler camera. Same with the RB67.
Indeed.
People are so very selective when recalling the glory days of their youth, when all music was good and babies rarely died in childbirth.
-
By 'crap' I meant technically inferior.
Are the cameras Mark Dubovoy takes as examples (Sony NEX 7, Leica M 240) being marketed as pro video cams?
You can use you hammer as a spatual, if you try hard enough. But a real chef will just get a good spatula, and a good carpenter a good hammer.
A real chef will use a microplane grater (http://us.microplane.com/microplanezestergraters.aspx) and a real carpenter will use a microplane rasp (http://us.microplane.com/microplanelargesnapinrasps.aspx), and both would understand those tools are interchangeable.
... convergence offers little to true pros in its present form.
Are "true pros" a true scotsman (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman) ?
I'm not sure why the world would have moved past good design and UI, other than an obsession with useless 'features' stacked in interminably nested menus.
“It’s everyone’s instinct to want more,”... “At the point of desire you want more (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/simple-innovation-is-often-the-most-successful-prototype.html), but at the point of daily use, you want less.”
"If a company is looking for a short-term win or immediate sale, then simplicity doesn't necessarily give you that because it's often not a purchase consideration (http://books.google.com/books?id=N1YSryYXkzUC&lpg=PT58&ots=Fmh-WTO1H_&dq=%22simplicity%20doesn't%20necessarily%20give%20you%20that%20because%20it's%20often%20not%20a%20purchase%20consideration%22&pg=PT58#v=onepage&q=%22simplicity%20doesn't%20necessarily%20give%20you%20that%20because%20it's%20often%20not%20a%20purchase%20consideration%22&f=false)," van Kuijk says, "In fact what is most commercially attractive may be more features and functionality -- so it can be a risky sales strategy to limit a product to the most basic features."
-
First or second day back, and I see nothing much has changed. Seems folks understand perfectly well what the other guy is saying, but choose to pretend that they do not just so that they have something to shout and argue about, and the hope of scoring points... of course, I might be mistaken. ;-)
Anyway, regarding the prime purpose of a stills camera, I'd imagine that to be for the shooting of still images. That a manufacturer does, for commercial reasons connected with the fanboy syndrome and more attractive advertising possibilities, stick in motion functions, doesn't mean that he has made a better camera: if anything, he has piled in even more junk than many shooters need or use. I have a massive Samsung Galaxy Ace cellphone that I bought when my two, convenient little Nokias died. I bought it instead of the smaller cellphones for one reason: it boasted a camera with a large pixel-count for the time, a time when I was sick to death of carting around a D200 or D700 when I no longer had a professional need for such weighty stuff, and therefore seldom shot any pictures for myself.
Initially, the cellphone gave me a lot of fun, but what it achieved above that was to convince me that I was wasting time and opportunity: every shot that I did with it would have been better with even the D200. Now, it's back to what it's useful for doing: notes, such as showing images of my taps that might need the attention of a caring plumber. And, of course, conversation or text messages. I have never made a video, with it or with anything else. I have no interest in the medium.
Those in this thread who suggest that people really are divided between those who want to do both disciplines and those who are dedicated stills people is, I think, true.
But even then, I’d imagine that there is a bias towards one or the other discipline, in which case, it makes sense to buy that which makes achieving the best results in each one easier.
As I’ve mentioned before, I disable every single thing on my two digital cameras that I can that renders them closer to film camera usage. That extends to having only one af lens in my little arsenal, and that because I couldn’t find it as manual at the time I took it in exchange for a terrible 2.8/24-70 G Nikkor that I tested and couldn’t wait to return. Luddite? Probably. But it makes me happy to use the techniques I learned in my youth and I feel no desire to do it differently. But then I’m one of those guys who married his school-days girlfriend and thanked God for that every day. The single new thing that I am happy to have is auto ISO which can be very useful indeed. It’s great to be able to settle for a set aperture and shutter speed and have the camera change the sensitivity to suit those two choices. Even works with non-af lenses! ;-) Lets’s not even mention the despair at the modern pentaprisms. If they even are pentaprisms any longer.
Some seek change all the time, I don’t. I don’t even like buying a new car and leave it to the last moment, when I fear it may be too old to be safe or will need even more spent on it to keep it looking nice. I remember a documentary on Bailey where he is described as not liking change and surprises, the reason he used the same small list of girls for as long as he could. I did the same in my fashion days, for exactly the same reasons, but the calendars were different: there wasn’t the continuity with a single girl to make the difference in mutual understanding that makes long relationships work so well.
Maybe the same with cameras as with girls?
So at least for myself, I want the most simple system that gives the highest affordable quality. Had I the money and were it made, a dedicated, digital FF Hassy 500 Series would be perfect. Don’t want film anymore; the appeal of the old ‘blads to me now is perfect ergonomics and the feel of a product at the apogee of its development.
Rob C
-
Anyway, regarding the prime purpose of a stills camera, I'd imagine that to be for the shooting of still images.
Similarly, the prime purpose of a camera now-a-days would be to make images, both still images and moving images.
Luddite? Probably. But it makes me happy to use the techniques I learned in my youth and I feel no desire to do it differently.
Luddite? No, nostalgic (for some things).
-
Luddite? No, nostalgic (for some things).
Its called "old school" ...
-
Nikon charges a premium to remove AA/LPO filter.
I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.
-
Nikon charges a premium to remove AA/LPO filter.
I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.
If you pay me a grand I'd take the burden to take all your money .... :P
-
I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.
If your camera manufacturer gave you a well designed UI, you could, for all practical purposes, totally remove any video option by spending a little time in the menu, without paying anything more. This is already available, more or less, and if the "stills only" preference exists outside of Lula, you could hope for more. Of course, you might be pleased to pay for an imaginary difference, and that would be entirely your business. But I am not sure you should be optimistic that camera manufacturers will cater for that preference.
-
... you could, for all practical purposes, totally remove any video option by spending a little time in the menu...
That is the same logic that ridicules Leica for the Monochrom concept, arguing that it is so much better to arrive to b&w by "spending a little time" in post. I, on the other hand, applaud Leica for the wisdom that less is more.
-
That is the same logic that ridicules Leica for the Monochrom concept, arguing that it is so much better to arrive to b&w by "spending a little time" in post. I, on the other hand, applaud Leica for the wisdom that less is more.
And I am not yet totally convinced that doing a b/w conversion is really equivalent to shooting b/w with a filter.
A filter on front of the camera works directly on the spectrum of the light before it is converted into RGB values inside the camera.
B/W conversions work on the RGB values after that conversion.
It might sound like nitpicking, but it is physically and mathematically something quite different.
I'd really love to hear an experienced expert who knows both techniques very well on this.
-
People are so very selective when recalling the glory days of their youth, when all music was good and babies rarely died in childbirth.
From "Wear Sunscreen (http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/mary-schmich.html)":
Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.
That is the same logic that ridicules Leica for the Monochrom concept, arguing that it is so much better to arrive to b&w by "spending a little time" in post. I, on the other hand, applaud Leica for the wisdom that less is more.
Technically, it should be possible to build a dedicated B&W digital camera that provides far better sharpness and grey levels than is possible by converting a colour image to B&W.
Nope. It is only in very recent times that I have been actually stumped by a camera. Sony, Fuji and even Nikon have all let me in situations where I truly can't figure out why the machine is doing/wont do something. The explanation is invariably stupid design by a non-photographer. Even the 1st gen of digital cameras were pretty transparent.
I remember after using a Canon SLR that I picked up a Nikon SLR and I couldn't work out how to do anything using the dials it had on top.
Today I often find the problem I have is that a basic feature (force the flash on for fill flash) is either not available or not easily available on small cameras when people ask me to take a photograph of them.
My iPhone, I hasten to add, has never required the use of a manual.
But in doing so, you give up nearly all creative control. This was possible back in the film days (film in a sealed box that was a disposable camera) and later in the very early digital days (Michael has a review somewhere of a disposable camera where he used it to create a photo from inside his car whilst it was raining outside that his wife remarked as being the best art he'd created in a while.)
Is that a trade off you'd be willing to make?
-
That is the same logic that ridicules Leica for the Monochrom concept, arguing that it is so much better to arrive to b&w by "spending a little time" in post.
The comparison has obvious limitations. Disabling video would only have to be done once. But I am certainly not inclined to ridicule Leica for the Monochrom concept. If a better b&w camera, or a better stills camera ("better" meaning "technically able to produce better output"), could be made by using a sensor and other hardware and firmware unable to do color, or video, or optimized for the "lesser" purpose, then less would be more in something other than the domain of spin. Whether that is the case is, as CF says above in relation to b&w, a technical question on which expert input would be interesting, and we don't appear to know whether it is the case with Nikon's new camera in relation to stills and video, or whether they are merely disabling the video. If that is all they are doing, then I would argue that less will be less. In any event, the issue is not addressed by Mark Dubovoy and it takes the argument well away from whinging about video buttons.
-
Hi,
There are some good reasons for the Monochrom. One is that you get higher ISO as there are no color filters. You also avoid color fringing. The sensor probably sees wider spectra, that may be the cause that a special 'APO' lens was developed for that camera.
The downside is that you need filters like in old B&W times, and perhaps additional filtering is needed.
Best regards
Erik
That is the same logic that ridicules Leica for the Monochrom concept, arguing that it is so much better to arrive to b&w by "spending a little time" in post. I, on the other hand, applaud Leica for the wisdom that less is more.
-
Hi,
Nikon does not remove the AA/OLP filter just deactivate it, so the expensive stuff is still there.
So you are paying more and get more artifacts.
Best regards
Erik
Nikon charges a premium to remove AA/LPO filter.
I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.
-
I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.
Convergence follows the precept less is more because common elements are used to provide more functionality -- both still and video on the same sensor, on the same battery, in the same case, ...
Less chance of confusion with a more explicit slogan -- Less, but better (http://books.google.com/books?id=PKpiYVV0GdMC&lpg=PT139&dq=less%20but%20better%20dieter%20rams&pg=PT139#v=onepage&q=less%20but%20better%20dieter%20rams&f=false)
More chance of understanding within an explicit context -- Flexibility-Usability tradeoff (http://books.google.com/books?id=l0QPECGQySYC&lpg=PA102&vq=Flexibility-Usability%20tradeoff&pg=PA102#v=snippet&q=%22As%20the%20flexibility%20of%20a%20system%20increases,%20the%20usability%20of%20the%20system%20decreases%22&f=false)
Within that context, we can understand kencameron's comment on the opportunity to explore different features (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83326.msg674006#msg674006) as he loses interest in some things and become interested in others.
"When an audience can clearly anticipate its needs, more specialized designs that target those needs will be favored. When an audience cannot clearly define its future needs, more flexible designs that enable people to address future contingencies will be favored."
Two years ago with my new camera, I only used jpg functionlity; now I only use raw. How I use the camera has changed, and the camera has accomodated that changing usage.
-
Convergence follows the precept less is more...
All I can say, Isaac, is that less of your semantic hairsplitting would be significantly more for me.
-
I am sorry that you don't understand what the slogans you use mean.
Compact cameras offer greater convergence, video is on the mode dial and uses the same shutter button as photos. The puzzle is why that simple successful design isn't used on all DSLRs? For cameras with a drive mode menu, video would seem a sensible drive mode.
Perhaps the manufacturers are firmly convinced that DSLR buyers are totally feature-focused and want lots of obvious buttons so that they can easily brag their new gear does so much more stuff :-)