DSLRs are a dying breed

[fractal]

Just thought I'd stir things up a bit...

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/

No More DSLR Equipment for me – Trey Ratcliff

I can’t picture myself investing any more money in DSLR bodies and lenses. The new Nikon D4 that is coming out? Not interested.
3rd Gen Cameras are already here, and they will only get better according to all the laws of size and speed we’ve come to know and love.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Just thought I'd stir things up a bit...

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/

No More DSLR Equipment for me – Trey Ratcliff

I can’t picture myself investing any more money in DSLR bodies and lenses. The new Nikon D4 that is coming out? Not interested.
3rd Gen Cameras are already here, and they will only get better according to all the laws of size and speed we’ve come to know and love.

Trey Ratcliff.... is a joke. I'm sorry, but HDR is incredibly tacky.

If he think mirrorless cameras will match a D4 in 2013 I question what the hell he is talking about.

Mirrorless and Micro 4/3rd's would likely suffice if your final destination of your images is Facebook / Flickr but photography is not intended to end on a website, it's supposed to be printed, framed, made on a tin plate, wet plated, etc etc etc

 

[fractal]

Trey Ratcliff.... is a joke. I'm sorry, but HDR is incredibly tacky.

If he think mirrorless cameras will match a D4 in 2013 I question what the hell he is talking about.

Mirrorless and Micro 4/3rd's would likely suffice if your final destination of your images is Facebook / Flickr but photography is not intended to end on a website, it's supposed to be printed, framed, made on a tin plate, wet plated, etc etc etc

He addresses this...

"Disadvantages of 3rd Gen Cameras (note: all will be overcome with time and iterations)

Sensor Size: You can’t quite get “Full Frame” sensors yet, like those available on the more expensive DSLRs. The current 3rd Gen Cameras, like the Nikon V1, will have a cropped sensor. What this means, in the case of the V1, is that the 10-30mm lens will actually be 27mm to 81mm. So, that’s not the end of the world, but something to consider. *Most* DSLR users are currently on cropped sensors, by the way. Only the high-end pros use full-frame sensor DSLRs.

Gordon Laing from CameraLabs.com chimes in: Sensor size. Most mirror-less ILCs have smaller sensors than pro DSLRs. The exception is the super-expensive Leica M9 which does squeeze a 36x24mm full-frame sensor into a relatively small, mirrorless body, but the rest are smaller than full-frame.
Of these, the largest are the APS-C sensors deployed in Sony’s NEX and Samsung’s NX ranges. These are the same size as most DSLRs, including Nikon’s DX range. After this come Micro Four Thirds models from Panasonic and Olympus, followed by Nikon’s CX format in the J1 and V1, and below that the Pentax Q. As the sensor gets smaller, it typically becomes less sensitive to light and easier to saturate – so less dynamic range and more noise. It also typically means a bigger depth of field, which is no good if you like your out of focus bokeh effects. But on the upside, the smaller, the sensor, the smaller the lens.​

Of all this, the important thing is to remember a Sony NEX or Samsung NX has the same sensor size as a Canon APS-C or Nikon DX body.
So, for the vast majority of DSLR users, this is not even a consideration, as they are used to these sensor sizes.
For the high-end pro DSLR users that want the equivalent full frame sensor, well they will only need to wait a little while. Maybe, like me, you already have good enough equipment to wait until those full-frame sensors are on the 3rd gen cameras."


I think the point is not where we are today but where we will be in 2-5 years.

 

[wdwmagic]

DSLRs will still be the king of the castle for some time in my opinion. Yes the mirrorless will get better and better, but so will the DSLRs. The performance of the DSLRs will continue to grow, and camera entusasists will not want to make the compromise to mirrorless, when they know they can get superior performance. Camera fans are those kind of people - they don't like compromises.

I do agree that for consumers, mirrorless is more than likely where things are going. If those consumers can be convinced to buy a dedicated camera at all. Because I actually feel the future of consumer photography is the iPhone or equivalent.

 

[ddbowdoin]

He addresses this...

"Disadvantages of 3rd Gen Cameras (note: all will be overcome with time and iterations)

Sensor Size: You can’t quite get “Full Frame” sensors yet, like those available on the more expensive DSLRs. The current 3rd Gen Cameras, like the Nikon V1, will have a cropped sensor. What this means, in the case of the V1, is that the 10-30mm lens will actually be 27mm to 81mm. So, that’s not the end of the world, but something to consider. *Most* DSLR users are currently on cropped sensors, by the way. Only the high-end pros use full-frame sensor DSLRs.

Gordon Laing from CameraLabs.com chimes in: Sensor size. Most mirror-less ILCs have smaller sensors than pro DSLRs. The exception is the super-expensive Leica M9 which does squeeze a 36x24mm full-frame sensor into a relatively small, mirrorless body, but the rest are smaller than full-frame.​

Of these, the largest are the APS-C sensors deployed in Sony’s NEX and Samsung’s NX ranges. These are the same size as most DSLRs, including Nikon’s DX range. After this come Micro Four Thirds models from Panasonic and Olympus, followed by Nikon’s CX format in the J1 and V1, and below that the Pentax Q. As the sensor gets smaller, it typically becomes less sensitive to light and easier to saturate – so less dynamic range and more noise. It also typically means a bigger depth of field, which is no good if you like your out of focus bokeh effects. But on the upside, the smaller, the sensor, the smaller the lens.​

Of all this, the important thing is to remember a Sony NEX or Samsung NX has the same sensor size as a Canon APS-C or Nikon DX body.
So, for the vast majority of DSLR users, this is not even a consideration, as they are used to these sensor sizes.
For the high-end pro DSLR users that want the equivalent full frame sensor, well they will only need to wait a little while. Maybe, like me, you already have good enough equipment to wait until those full-frame sensors are on the 3rd gen cameras."


I think the point is not where we are today but where we will be in 2-5 years.

oh I got that much... but in the spreecast he mentioned a 1-3 year window and he's smoking crack if he think the mirrorless movement will progress THAT fast.

 

[NowInc]

Not to mention that it will take MUCH longer than that for professionals to migrate to a mirrorless solution...mostly because of their current collection of very expensive lenses. You have a hard enough time getting them to switch BRANDS...it would be even more of a battle to get them to switch standards.

 

[CP_alum08]

I don't know, the SLR technology (digital or film) has been around for a long time and doesn't seem like it's ready to go away yet. I think once these mirrorless bodies go through a few generations and become a real player in the game people will have option, but I can' see it being the "professional" option. Professional photographers have giant egos and having the biggest camera is important (for some reason) I can't see them choosing something physically smaller. Plus technology size goes in cycles, look at cell phones; huge in the 90's, tiny in the 00's, and now big again.

 

[WDWFigment]

Trey Ratcliff.... is a joke. I'm sorry, but HDR is incredibly tacky.

If he think mirrorless cameras will match a D4 in 2013 I question what the hell he is talking about.

Mirrorless and Micro 4/3rd's would likely suffice if your final destination of your images is Facebook / Flickr but photography is not intended to end on a website, it's supposed to be printed, framed, made on a tin plate, wet plated, etc etc etc

Trey Ratcliff is good at what he does. Just because his style doesn't suit your preferences doesn't mean it's not any good. I'm not exactly a fan of much of his variety of HDR, either, but I realize it doesn't invalidate his work as art.

My issue with Trey is that a lot of what he writes, he writes from the perspective of a celebrity photographer trying to apply his advice to the masses (when the advice simply isn't one size fits all) and, more importantly with regard to this, he often writes content to (I feel) create controversy and get others in the photo-world talking about him.

I disagree with his position on this particular matter for a variety of reasons, most of which others have already mentioned here.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Trey Ratcliff is good at what he does. Just because his style doesn't suit your preferences doesn't mean it's not any good. I'm not exactly a fan of much of his variety of HDR, either, but I realize it doesn't invalidate his work as art.

My issue with Trey is that a lot of what he writes, he writes from the perspective of a celebrity photographer trying to apply his advice to the masses (when the advice simply isn't one size fits all) and, more importantly with regard to this, he often writes content to (I feel) create controversy and get others in the photo-world talking about him.

I disagree with his position on this particular matter for a variety of reasons, most of which others have already mentioned here.

he's an expert at what he does, as is Ken Rockwell... two people I despise.

It is in my opinion, that HDR, invalidates work as art when it becomes immediately apparent it is an HDR image. It can be done well, and when it is done well there are arguments that can be made that it replicates changes and alterations that can be made in a darkroom. But he championed the typical HDR image so many replicate now.

I'm not saying I set the definition, but an overwhelming majority of the circles I run in would express the same sentiment. It's fun, it's bright and people love it... but, art? No.

 

[ddbowdoin]

The original HDR... zone system, whatever you want to call it

Ansel Adams... Art

 

[ddbowdoin]

HDR in 2012...

"oh look at my fancy computer image"

 

[WDWFigment]

he's an expert at what he does, as is Ken Rockwell... two people I despise.

It is in my opinion, that HDR, invalidates work as art when it becomes immediately apparent it is an HDR image. It can be done well, and when it is done well there are arguments that can be made that it replicates changes and alterations that can be made in a darkroom. But he championed the typical HDR image so many replicate now.

I'm not saying I set the definition, but an overwhelming majority of the circles I run in would express the same sentiment. It's fun, it's bright and people love it... but, art? No.

I have no clue in which circles you run, but guessing by all of the remarks you post about film, you associate with a lot of people who I'd describe as purists--many of whom are probably resistant towards change in the photography world (not saying this describes you, but it describes many purists). So it doesn't surprise me that they'd agree with your feelings about HDR.

To eliminate any type of visual media from being defined as "art" takes an arbitrarily limited view of what the term art means. Art is, quite simply, a fixed visual expression of skill or imagination. Again, you may not like a particular type of art, or you may deem it "bad" art (the quality of art is inherently subjective--the definition of art is not similarly subjective), but that doesn't invalidate it as art.

Much of Seurat's work is immediately identifiable as pointillism...does that somehow invalidate his paintings as being art? By analogy to your comments on HDR, it would.

For what it's worth, I also am not a fan of Ken Rockwell. But I'd describe him as an internet marketer first, and a guy who takes some photos second. I don't think Trey is even close to that.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have no clue in which circles you run, but guessing by all of the remarks you post about film, you associate with a lot of people who I'd describe as purists--many of whom are probably resistant towards change in the photography world (not saying this describes you, but it describes many purists). So it doesn't surprise me that they'd agree with your feelings about HDR.

To eliminate any type of visual media from being defined as "art" takes an arbitrarily limited view of what the term art means. Art is, quite simply, a fixed visual expression of skill or imagination. Again, you may not like a particular type of art, or you may deem it "bad" art (the quality of art is inherently subjective--the definition of art is not similarly subjective), but that doesn't invalidate it as art.

Much of Seurat's work is immediately identifiable as pointillism...does that somehow invalidate his paintings as being art? By analogy to your comments on HDR, it would.

For what it's worth, I also am not a fan of Ken Rockwell. But I'd describe him as an internet marketer first, and a guy who takes some photos second. I don't think Trey is even close to that.

yes, the old "low vs high" art... this has been going on for ages.

In terms of painting, no I would not say that the style of pointillism in any way invalidates it as a work of art. Painting and photography are not on the same level. The essence of personal expression does not always correlate to photography. For many, many years photography was not considered an art form... it was considered almost a science with the early forms which relied so heavily on chemistry (such as wet plates etc etc) and many photographers, past and present, felt a responsibility that the work they create/d is a truer representation of the real world. Painting is pure expression and welcomes a lot more subjectivity. The other thing with painting, as art form it's become far more reductionist with time... which has a direct correlation to the advent and development of the camera. No longer were painters creating life like images, there was no need to... hence Cezanne and the advent of modernism all the way through abstract expressionism and contemporary works.

we can certainly agree to call HDR art, but fine... no.

HDR is not even accepted in forms of journalism and is severely frowned upon. It has even lead to photojournalists fired from their publication if image manipulation was discovered.

 

[CP_alum08]

HDR is not even accepted in forms of journalism and is severely frowned upon. It has even lead to photojournalists fired from their publication if image manipulation was discovered.

But it sells. People love it for some reason. Just like that vintage/blue tone that every high school senior wants their photos to look like, it's just a sign of times changing. I think the over done HDR will fade out eventually and some other fad will replace it but fundamentally HDR, combining multiple exposures, has been around for years like you said, and is a valid technique.

And I don't think there is much a line between fine art and art anymore, people just don't care sadly.

 

[ddbowdoin]

But it sells. People love it for some reason. Just like that vintage/blue tone that every high school senior wants their photos to look like, it's just a sign of times changing. I think the over done HDR will fade out eventually and some other fad will replace it but fundamentally HDR, combining multiple exposures, has been around for years like you said, and is a valid technique.

And I don't think there is much a line between fine art and art anymore, people just don't care sadly.

oh yes, I agree 100%... it certainly sells. So do Uggs and YOLO shirts, that doesn't validate the existence of something though.

There is certainly a vast difference between bracketing and what we know of as HDR today. I think we'd agree that there is a rift between HDR and bracketing exposures, they now tend to mean completely different things.

I think my living in New England influences my feelings on high/low ... or fine vs non fine art. I think it is very much valued here with the many historic and highly regarded universities. Galleries have a very strong hold here and I think that fuels it... I guess growing up here seeing a print go for 8 grand is something a lot of other people would gawk at, but it's the norm here I suppose.

 

[flynnibus]

I find it funny where people focus on this discussion...

It's it really about 'trust' and the optical viewfinder. The purists want the mirror for the true view through the glass. Once you make it so sensors can process data faster and all the time without getting so hot.. and the LCDs improve.. that's pretty much the main hold up IMO. And those areas that improve VERY fast.

Just build a camera body with the right dimensions for current glass and use next-generation sensor and viewscreens and get the best of both worlds.

I don't think the camera dimension stuff is ultimately that big of a swing vote... the glass is always going to dominate the body. I think these types of cameras are more disruptive technologies for the lower end cameras.. not as much for prosumer and up. The advancements here can be integrated into the existing genre of photography and the question will simply be about 'true view' or 'LCD' - not form factors, sensor sizes, or FPS.

 

[KeithVH]

The majority of people in the world are doing one of 3 things:

• Using their phone for pictures
• Using a P&S
• Using a film camera (digital is just really catching on in a WW basis)

People who buy DSLR's either:

• Leave the dang thing in full auto (but they're gettig at least slightly better IQ)
• Are trying to learn to use the camera but in most cases still use the thing as a fancy P&S
• Are good hobbyists with various levels of expertise
• Are real professionals

The first five will NEVER give a rat's patootie about this issue. For them, at best, we're talking consumer electronics. What is the best deal they can get (sometimes misled by a salesperson following the latest spiff requirements).

The last two types use their camera as a serious tool. Serious tools require a MUCH larger set of capabilities than the article ever even hints at.Things like lighting SYSTEMS (multi-remote triggers, etc), glass in a large range of available sizes and speeds. And everything built to a higher quality standard (flouride lens elements, waterproof, etc). Stuff that can last 20-30 years if necessary. Ain't gonna happen even by Gen5 . If everyone would get out of their Orgasmatron as they play with their new mirrorless toys, they'd wake up and find themselves in an emporer's new clothes situation.

Besides, skill is still the defining factor. Someone along the lines of a Galen Rowell or Art Morris could shame all of us with a Brownie, expired film, and some coffe grounds anyway.

And before I hit Post, I'm sure some of you will disagree with my last statement. When your studio opens in San Fran (or Laguna, or Maui) and/or you've published a few photography books and make a good living solely as an artist, LMK and I'll edit it out.

 

[ddbowdoin]

The majority of people in the world are doing one of 3 things:

• Using their phone for pictures
• Using a P&S
• Using a film camera (digital is just really catching on in a WW basis)

People who buy DSLR's either:

• Leave the dang thing in full auto (but they're gettig at least slightly better IQ)
• Are trying to learn to use the camera but in most cases still use the thing as a fancy P&S
• Are good hobbyists with various levels of expertise
• Are real professionals

The first five will NEVER give a rat's patootie about this issue. For them, at best, we're talking consumer electronics. What is the best deal they can get (sometimes misled by a salesperson following the latest spiff requirements).

The last two types use their camera as a serious tool. Serious tools require a MUCH larger set of capabilities than the article ever even hints at.Things like lighting SYSTEMS (multi-remote triggers, etc), glass in a large range of available sizes and speeds. And everything built to a higher quality standard (flouride lens elements, waterproof, etc). Stuff that can last 20-30 years if necessary. Ain't gonna happen even by Gen5 . If everyone would get out of their Orgasmatron as they play with their new mirrorless toys, they'd wake up and find themselves in an emporer's new clothes situation.

Besides, skill is still the defining factor. Someone along the lines of a Galen Rowell or Art Morris could shame all of us with a Brownie, expired film, and some coffe grounds anyway.

And before I hit Post, I'm sure some of you will disagree with my last statement. When your studio opens in San Fran (or Laguna, or Maui) and/or you've published a few photography books and make a good living solely as an artist, LMK and I'll edit it out.

my wife is graduate school and has night class on Wednesdays... I use the time to wander around Harvard Square and I always drop into the local camera shop, Hunts... a small chain I would suppose.

I heard some guy walk in and say "Hi my name is X, I called earlier about the Nikon 3200 in red..." he then proceeded to ask the guy, "well, I was going to get the 600 but then I read that they are essentially the same sensor"... the sales rep literally looked at him and with a straight face said "oh yeah, one sensor is slightly larger but you get almost the same resolution and performance from each camera" and I just felt bad, it doesn't take much research to teach yourself what things are.

 

[flynnibus]

The last two types use their camera as a serious tool. Serious tools require a MUCH larger set of capabilities than the article ever even hints at.Things like lighting SYSTEMS (multi-remote triggers, etc), glass in a large range of available sizes and speeds. And everything built to a higher quality standard (flouride lens elements, waterproof, etc). Stuff that can last 20-30 years if necessary. Ain't gonna happen even by Gen5 . If everyone would get out of their Orgasmatron as they play with their new mirrorless toys, they'd wake up and find themselves in an emporer's new clothes situation.

But none of that is bound by the technology - that is simply productization issues. They can build a mirrorless with that stuff tomorrow.. (would it sell would be something else..). I don't think one should use packaging arguments when they are talking about core technologies and it's applicability. That's more about product marketing.

 

[ddbowdoin]

But none of that is bound by the technology - that is simply productization issues. They can build a mirrorless with that stuff tomorrow.. (would it sell would be something else..). I don't think one should use packaging arguments when they are talking about core technologies and it's applicability. That's more about product marketing.

The truth of it all has to do with the intended use of the tool...

for a vast majority of people photography is just a casual snapshot of their kids on vacation, they could care less about quality especially since the last 5 years or so small cameras have stepped up their game for this market.

But what is the fine line between marketability and technological innovation... the innovation part comes from a demand, the prospect of a profit. So the two are very much married.

I think we're in a dangerous spot in 2012, people in our society are under the impression that cameras can continue to get smaller and more compact without sacrificing quality. This may be 100% true on a consumer level, but the more kids who grow up with this mentality the less great work we may see.

Again, it's all about your intention and what is the best tool to use. It's funny how everyone get's worked up over FX bodies, at the end of the day it's still only a 35mm equivalent frame. Were the great landscape masters shooting 35mm? No, they were shooting mammoth wet plates at 20x24 and some extreme formats. Hell, even 4x5 blows the pants off a 35mm neg from here to kingdom come. But these are pro's... my only fear is that people don't come out of the womb as pro's. At some point we're all beginners and as technology progresses and convenience trumps quality what will happen to these formats? They may very well disappear. I think year after year photographers who use these tools become more and more and more and more of a niche market.