DSLRs are a dying breed

[BertBart]

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.

I think it depends on your "style" of photography.

Henri Cartier-Bresson used nothing larger than a 35 mm Leica and is considered one of the masters.

Landscapes benefit from medium format and larger but some subjects/styles (such as Cartier-Bresson's "street photography") don't.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I think it depends on your "style" of photography.

Henri Cartier-Bresson used nothing larger than a 35 mm Leica and is considered one of the masters.

Landscapes benefit from medium format and larger but some subjects/styles (such as Cartier-Bresson's "street photography") don't.

agreed... street is all about maneuverability and remaining inconspicuous. With Bresson, his focus was the actual moment, as he coined "the decisive moment". He cared very little for the quality of his negatives, he was more focused on a pure moment in time.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Yes and no.. often people build products because they think the world 'needs it' and they can make a buck along the way. Contrast that with 'the world tells us they want this'. The former ideal tends to be much more disruptors, and the latter tends to be 'add more knobs and switches' and all too often bringing products down.

Think about so many self-made inventions... they originate in a perceived need or gap in the market and they innovate to fit the gap. One of those 'you never knew you needed it until you saw it...'

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.

How is 2012's position this any different from the last 50 years?
From full manual range finders... to things like auto-focus, motorized advance, interchangable lenses
From professional development labs to 24hr photo development to one hour...
The advent of 'instant' phototography...
Pocket cameras...
Disposible cameras...
The avalanche of printing innovations...
The first digital cameras...
The shrinking digital camera...

And during all that time... the art aspect of photography has escaped unscathed.

I really don't see an inflection point in 2012 or the near term at all. I don't see mirrorless as a disruptor technology either really... just a technology evolution that through incremental advancements has started to challenge what was the 'accepted minimum' before for viewfinders.

Does it stand to change what prosumer will use in the near term? Possibly. Is it inevitable? IMO, yes. The mirror+shutter in a digital body is a compromise to try to account for limitations in the ability to replicate the classic optical viewfinder. Overcome those limitations, and the mirror+shutter are pointless. It's only time.

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.

I think what you are edging around but not seeing is... the separation between PRODUCTION and Art. The Art aspect will always be there, and people will build the niche products as long as they are economically feasible. And when they aren't.. small batch people take over. None of that is good for affordability, but the demand for an Art format isn't tied to the format's use in production or consumer uses.

You've already seen this with the production world moving to digital... and yet other film formats are still around. Paint is still around decades after the wacom tablet was introduced.. People still learn the guitar decades after synthesizers were introduced.

Art drives itself.. not from production demands.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Yes and no.. often people build products because they think the world 'needs it' and they can make a buck along the way. Contrast that with 'the world tells us they want this'. The former ideal tends to be much more disruptors, and the latter tends to be 'add more knobs and switches' and all too often bringing products down.

Think about so many self-made inventions... they originate in a perceived need or gap in the market and they innovate to fit the gap. One of those 'you never knew you needed it until you saw it...'



How is 2012's position this any different from the last 50 years?
From full manual range finders... to things like auto-focus, motorized advance, interchangable lenses
From professional development labs to 24hr photo development to one hour...
The advent of 'instant' phototography...
Pocket cameras...
Disposible cameras...
The avalanche of printing innovations...
The first digital cameras...
The shrinking digital camera...

And during all that time... the art aspect of photography has escaped unscathed.

I really don't see an inflection point in 2012 or the near term at all. I don't see mirrorless as a disruptor technology either really... just a technology evolution that through incremental advancements has started to challenge what was the 'accepted minimum' before for viewfinders.

Does it stand to change what prosumer will use in the near term? Possibly. Is it inevitable? IMO, yes. The mirror+shutter in a digital body is a compromise to try to account for limitations in the ability to replicate the classic optical viewfinder. Overcome those limitations, and the mirror+shutter are pointless. It's only time.



I think what you are edging around but not seeing is... the separation between PRODUCTION and Art. The Art aspect will always be there, and people will build the niche products as long as they are economically feasible. And when they aren't.. small batch people take over. None of that is good for affordability, but the demand for an Art format isn't tied to the format's use in production or consumer uses.

You've already seen this with the production world moving to digital... and yet other film formats are still around. Paint is still around decades after the wacom tablet was introduced.. People still learn the guitar decades after synthesizers were introduced.

Art drives itself.. not from production demands.

maybe I'm just an old man internally... but in the past with the innovations you referenced there was still some skill involved. I think that just because art has survived past innovations it does not necessarily make that a proven law that can be applied to the future.

I just disagree with your stance on the difference between production and art, because IMHO production in many ways serves as an introduction to the world of art.

In the past when photography was a b*tch to learn we made innovations.... better optics, better films, better printing processes and those were all well needed but I see it as a mountain peak. We went from a valley, things got better, then iphonography and all that jazz has become the norm which is now the descent back into the valley.

Will people always create art... YES, but my fear is that the future is here, it is a watered down version of the craft and the longer we accept this watered down (and not us, but kids who grow up ONLY knowing this mentality) then it will limit the amount of people who wish to push themselves to higher levels and show on white walls.

I'm not arguing the validity of mirrorless or next gen cameras to the consumer levels, I'm fearful that future generations will only read of past practices in text books. I'm not bright on the future of photography.

 

[fractal]

I really don't understand all the angst about new technology. I enjoy and appreciate my flat screen TV and computer monitor. 20 years ago my cell phone and battery were the size of a shoe box.

ddbowdoin, you appear inconsistent to me. You were blow away by Sony's new full frame point & shoot but have an issue with this article. It seems to me the RX1 is part of this 3rd generation of cameras. Sony just introduced a full frame for their NEX line of camcorders which means the cameras are not far behind. We are only talking about 2 years of production for these cameras and look what they can do. I'm just a beginner with photography but I don't understant why there is such hostility.


"So I ask you, Sony, why can't I have it all? Give me a NEX with a full-frame sensor, and I may have to put my Canon on the market."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/11/3485656/sony-rx1-a99-nex-6-hands-on-sample-pictures

 

[ddbowdoin]

I really don't understand all the angst about new technology. I enjoy and appreciate my flat screen TV and computer monitor. 20 years ago my cell phone and battery were the size of a shoe box.

ddbowdoin, you appear inconsistent to me. You were blow away by Sony's new full frame point & shoot but have an issue with this article. It seems to me the RX1 is part of this 3rd generation of cameras. Sony just introduced a full frame for their NEX line of camcorders which means the cameras are not far behind. We are only talking about 2 years of production for these cameras and look what they can do. I'm just a beginner with photography but I don't understant why there is such hostility.


"So I ask you, Sony, why can't I have it all? Give me a NEX with a full-frame sensor, and I may have to put my Canon on the market."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/11/3485656/sony-rx1-a99-nex-6-hands-on-sample-pictures

The RX1 is certainly an impressive tool, but I'm not 100% sure it will stick. It is amazing quality in a very small package, but it is the only camera in that class. It is in tiny... fits in the palm of the hand. The problem with that is the marketability, like many here pointed pro's will not migrate to this type of format... it still has limitations in its initial development like a fixed lens. But it's also the same price as a high end FX body. I'm sorry if I appear to be inconsistent but I do not see the RX1 being the norm anytime soon.

Who knows where the market will go...

 

[ddbowdoin]

I really don't understand all the angst about new technology. I enjoy and appreciate my flat screen TV and computer monitor. 20 years ago my cell phone and battery were the size of a shoe box.

ddbowdoin, you appear inconsistent to me. You were blow away by Sony's new full frame point & shoot but have an issue with this article. It seems to me the RX1 is part of this 3rd generation of cameras. Sony just introduced a full frame for their NEX line of camcorders which means the cameras are not far behind. We are only talking about 2 years of production for these cameras and look what they can do. I'm just a beginner with photography but I don't understant why there is such hostility.


"So I ask you, Sony, why can't I have it all? Give me a NEX with a full-frame sensor, and I may have to put my Canon on the market."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/11/3485656/sony-rx1-a99-nex-6-hands-on-sample-pictures

the other thing I should mention is my critique of Ratfliffs position is more about what I THINK will happen, NOT what technology COULD bring us.

Hell, they could put complex CCD sensors used in orbiting telescopes in our cameras but I just don't see these corporations going down those roads. I just see them continually targeting the middle road of society who really doesnt give a crap... as long as its expensive and takes "better pictures"

 

[flynnibus]

The 'icebreaker' products aren't priced for mass consumption. They are more about trying, learning, and having a showcase toy to put up on a pedestal. The pricing and practically come in later gens. The difference now is how quickly those iterations come.

As for 2012 being some valley... Ddbowdoin it's clear you have a ragin hard on for film. You idolize it, you worship it, you aspire to be able to utilize it. That's fine, but its caused you to lose objectivity. You panic because you see a new threat to your idol.

Theis really isn't anything new... Films biggest threat is simply time. As people focused on it die off, its base shrinks. It's already lost the mainstream for work. It's delegated to specialist needs. That doesn't mean it's at new risk of being pushed away. The same analogies can be seen in music production in analog vs digital. Even now, 20+ years after digital invaded the mix room.. There are still fans that insist on doing analog.

But no one sees cloud players as some inflection point in killing off analog post production or distribution. That ship has long past.

 

[MickeyPeace]

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.

HDR has become all pervasive and I can already see it being looked back upon as the trend that once was. Personally I'm tired of the look. It is supposed to convey an "artistic" sensibility but I just see trend or decorative art.

 

[ddbowdoin]

The 'icebreaker' products aren't priced for mass consumption. They are more about trying, learning, and having a showcase toy to put up on a pedestal. The pricing and practically come in later gens. The difference now is how quickly those iterations come.

As for 2012 being some valley... Ddbowdoin it's clear you have a ragin hard on for film. You idolize it, you worship it, you aspire to be able to utilize it. That's fine, but its caused you to lose objectivity. You panic because you see a new threat to your idol.

Theis really isn't anything new... Films biggest threat is simply time. As people focused on it die off, its base shrinks. It's already lost the mainstream for work. It's delegated to specialist needs. That doesn't mean it's at new risk of being pushed away. The same analogies can be seen in music production in analog vs digital. Even now, 20+ years after digital invaded the mix room.. There are still fans that insist on doing analog.

But no one sees cloud players as some inflection point in killing off analog post production or distribution. That ship has long past.

so raging... lol

 

[ddbowdoin]

The 'icebreaker' products aren't priced for mass consumption. They are more about trying, learning, and having a showcase toy to put up on a pedestal. The pricing and practically come in later gens. The difference now is how quickly those iterations come.

As for 2012 being some valley... Ddbowdoin it's clear you have a ragin hard on for film. You idolize it, you worship it, you aspire to be able to utilize it. That's fine, but its caused you to lose objectivity. You panic because you see a new threat to your idol.

Theis really isn't anything new... Films biggest threat is simply time. As people focused on it die off, its base shrinks. It's already lost the mainstream for work. It's delegated to specialist needs. That doesn't mean it's at new risk of being pushed away. The same analogies can be seen in music production in analog vs digital. Even now, 20+ years after digital invaded the mix room.. There are still fans that insist on doing analog.

But no one sees cloud players as some inflection point in killing off analog post production or distribution. That ship has long past.

it's not even film... hell I'd take a Medium Format dig in a second, but even then they only cover a 6 x 4.5 sensor. There's no market to go bigger, which sucks... balls


I also don't have 60 grand

 

[BertBart]

HDR has become all pervasive and I can already see it being looked back upon as the trend that once was. Personally I'm tired of the look. It is supposed to convey an "artistic" sensibility but I just see trend or decorative art.

I don't think HDR is going away any time soon. More and more cameras are coming out with built-in HDR features where HDR processing is done in-camera. You can even do HDR with an iPhone.

I think HDR has its place especially when an image has a lot of shadow detail that needs to come out. I just don't like the "overcooked" ones.

 

[NowInc]

I think that people should put "HDR" in quotes...as the term is being used all too often (and sometimes even incorrectly) by various products. Its the new buzzword.

 

[CP_alum08]

I don't think HDR is going away any time soon. More and more cameras are coming out with built-in HDR features where HDR processing is done in-camera. You can even do HDR with an iPhone.

I think HDR has its place especially when an image has a lot of shadow detail that needs to come out. I just don't like the "overcooked" ones.

I think that people should put "HDR" in quotes...as the term is being used all too often (and sometimes even incorrectly) by various products. Its the new buzzword.

More than sometimes!

And Trey Ratcliff - HDR is an entirely differently thing than the HDR button you push on your iPhone.

 

[ddbowdoin]

More than sometimes!

And Trey Ratcliff - HDR is an entirely differently thing than the HDR button you push on your iPhone.

I was playing Madden 13 last night and in one of the videos highlighting the new features was "HDR" lighting....

 

[CP_alum08]

I was playing Madden 13 last night and in one of the videos highlighting the new features was "HDR" lighting....

Haha wow! I've very curious to know what HDR lightning is now!

 

[ddbowdoin]

I don't think HDR is going away any time soon. More and more cameras are coming out with built-in HDR features where HDR processing is done in-camera. You can even do HDR with an iPhone.

I think HDR has its place especially when an image has a lot of shadow detail that needs to come out. I just don't like the "overcooked" ones.

having issues with shadow detail is a fundamental issue with digital... we can keep on increasing megapixels, but dynamic range is still below the standards of normal film. So, that's why HDR is around... to make up for a performance issue. The problem is people crank it so far it's just a tacky look. My 2 cents though...

 

[ddbowdoin]

Haha wow! I've very curious to know what HDR lightning is now!

lol no idea man... everything today is HDR Lighting! Retina Display!

I think they just make up words that you don't understand to make it sound complicated and expensive

 

[NowInc]

HDR lighting is something we animators/modelers do in our 3D suites (Its been around for years). Also known as HDRI. Thats actually where this whole process started (and thus why I have a DSLR for work). We use it to light the scenes we create using a bracketed (usually about 7 steps or so) "dome" picture (the HDR file)..so the scene looks more realistic. Example below:

http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/backgrnd/p_sky10.htm

 

[KeithVH]

HDR . . .