Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek But I do feel manufacturers are now starting to make cameras with very superfluous features that none of us will never need or use.......I searched out one of the last 50d's available for my last purchase, purely because I didn't need or want a camera (60d) with a video facility, despite the fact it might be very good!.... I've got a video camera if I ever feel the need to use video, I only use this as an example..
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek
Yes, I realised that, Ade . I suppose that what is superfluous to one person is useful to another. When I first started buying digital cameras I had no interest in the video facility at all.
But in the last couple of years I have started making a decent little income from YouTube videos and wouldn't even consider a camera without top quality video - even though still performance is still my top priority.
In my view, adding video doesn't compromise camera handling or even increase costs a great deal. I'd draw the line at anything that materially detracted from a my camera's main purpose, ie stills and video.
I think you might have posted something about digital zooms somewhere David, I`ve since found it very handy for video on the OMD
You did a nice little revue on that 45mm as well.
Quote: I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek But I do feel manufacturers are now starting to make cameras with very superfluous features that none of us will never need or use
Which is, I think, where the 6D is aimed. A simple full-frame camera leaving the 5Diii for those who want high-grade AF.
Could we see a future where CSC and full frame dominate.
Less crop frame dslr users, a lot more CSC users, and a lot more full frame dslrs users with full frame camera`s costing less than £1000 within 2 or 3 years
Will new kit make you happy? Yes. Will folk want to see and have a play? Probably. Will it make you a better photographer? In most cases no.
It's a bit like buying a new set of golf clubs. You buy a new set after reading all the marketing puff about the new head giving a bigger sweet spot and the new composite shafts giving you greater length and after a few months using them your average scores are exactly the same. The problem is that the subconcious rapidly adjusts to the bigger sweet spot and you're less accurate when you hit the ball and the longer shot length is only an advantage if you've hit the ball in the right direction. However, it does make it easier to shoot the same score as before.
Better cameras just make it easier to take the same shot you would have taken anyway. I do find more accurate focus is a big advantage though, which is where the analogy breaks down.
I agree better AF performance helps, and my reflection is that once you go past a certain number of pixels what matters more are the other aspects of photography so much more, from handling to AF etc. I go look at exhibitions like wildlife photographer of the year and I see big great prints that I wish I had taken. I cannot remember ever thinking that the images did not have enough resolution. and it is this sort of reflection that leads you to the "just how many mp do I need" thought and should I stop worry about number of pixels and instead trade number of pixels for say a deeper frame buffer or better dynamic range, lower noise etc. The message from those exhibitions is that mp is not important, dedication, skill, being in the right place, and having good reactions (camera and photographer) is.
So it all sort of tells you @ 12mp is a sweet spot, yes you can use more and technology will deliver improving performance, but its not the biggest thing. For example are you better off getting the longer lens rather than cropping? It gives you AF a better chance of being correct if you are shooting with the lens wide open for example. Its not like you can look at images taken by the D3 and D300 for example and say those 12mp images are rubbish, as I have seen stunning images from them. I have seen large prints taken by an S95 compact and been impressed.
Another reflection comes from landscape prints. There is no doubt that printing big the higher resolution capture allows you to walk a lot closer and still see lots of detail. But if I am photographing the sweeping vista and that is the purpose of my image, is it important that the individual blades of grass are captured? If someone has to walk so close to see the detail you have that they can no longer see the whole image are they no longer looking at the shot you captured??
So perhaps the question to ask is what gives value to your photography??? Each person can draw their own line. What is certain is the race to add more pixels will continue for awhile because sales follow and we will all end up with more pixels than we absolutely need It could be time to look for other aspects.
My question on number of mp is does it enable you to take a better picture, or do developments like AF improvements and bright high dynamic range viewfinders help more. In fact does more training help more?. I fear more mp makes a tiny impact compared to other areas, now.
Quote: In fact does more training help more?
Yes, probably but the whole ethos today is to enable people to do things without effort, mostly, as with photography by having computers do the so-called 'donkey work'.
That's why we are seeing the middle classes, public school and Oxbridge educated, taking over the country. They go through an old fashioned system that places great value on learning and knowledge, teaching you to expect a lot from yourself.
If we accept that the purpose of photography is to make pictures (arguable, a love for the technology itself is perfectly reasonable), I see nothing to suggest that they have been improved. Is the modern perfect blue/ cloudy sky, large object in foreground, steep ultra-wide angle perspective that is the modern landscape cliche better than Ansel Adams landscapes on clumsy, totally manual plate cameras?
I look at fashion pcitures that David Bailey did on a Rollei - are the modern ones any better? Reportage? Show me better modern stuff than Eugene Smith's on manual Leicas. That's not to say that digital output is worse, just not better.
I think that training, learning, looking, more important, seeing, is at the heart of photography. A better camera doesn't help with that. As with Steppenwolf's golf analogy about golf and modern equipment making it easier to attain the same score - the digital everything does make sharper, clearer etc easier.
I was always fond of Arthur Koestler's remark, that there are two ways to get to the summit of a mountain. One is to be dropped off at the top by a helicopter. The other is to climb it yourself. The mistake is top imagine that the view from the top is the same.
I think there is still a place for film, especially in the mono/specialist sector, digital hasn't quite caught up yet in some of the more specialist sides of photography. I still love firing off the odd roll of Ilford FP4 Plus at the occasional family wedding, even if I am very much still very much the amateur and it costs a fortune to get it processed. I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???.......I don't think they'd have a clue
Quote: I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???
It would be very hard for them. One of the reasons that things have become so nasty with the paps, the pushing and shoving and the thugs in the business, is that before digital they had to learn how to operate a manual camera under difficult and rushed conditions. It did take photographic skill whatever one might think of the work itself and that kept the worst elements out of the business.
The people willing to do that are very different from someone who just buys a camera which does the technical work for them. It enables anyone able to push a button to be a pap.
Those guys would never have survived in previous days and the business was better without them.
I knew all three of today's top paps (though they go everywhere by invite now), Richard Young, Alan Davidson and Dave Benet. All three of them are technically highly skilled photographers who went through the long freelance proving ground that was Fleet Street.
Quote: I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???.......I don't think they'd have a clue
Indeed. They wouldn't have a little screen on the back of the camera to constantly 'chimp' !
Quote: camera to constantly 'chimp' !
Well it is a viewing screen so the animal is entitled to 'chimp an' see' isn't it?
You guys kill me..!
(Not before time, some would say.... )
Quote: "I spent 4 grand on a new camera because I can"
Well, it helps to keep the makers in business, so that if I need a new camera in the future they might still be there!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar