luca_stramare2 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Steven, for me (especially when travelling and having no chance to come back to the place at a different time) it is also bad weather and objects I cannot remove, like telephone wires and poles, adversing signs, litter, ... buildings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandysocks Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>I have mixed feelings on all of this. Perhaps after the specs are maxed out, camera development will go in a different direction. I am growing impatient waiting for a sensibly designed camera that isn't medium format. There is a lot that we could see in ergonomics for mainstream DSLR machines. <br> It also feels like the pace is beginning to slow down. Usually rumors are flying at this time of the year, but now it seems eerily silent.<br> Most of the advances are incremental involving ISO, resolution, and sensor size. As such, they are more hype than substance. Improved software may be even a bigger factor in the current state of affairs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_helmke1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Luca I guess this means my computer and the net are the 21st century shoe box. Pretty accurate I think. Since cameras got digital I have to look at a new lineup evey 18 months or so. Used to be every 7 or 8 years. I wish they could slow down and survive, it's giving me a headache. Rick H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Camera and lens development isn't going too fast, many photographers just want the latest and greatest without realizing what they have probably far outclasses their skill set. It is like computers, the office, and cellphones...everything changes, and sometimes it is difficult to keep up. On the other hand, sometimes, the old tried and true, in skilled hands, can outperform the latest and greatest.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Lots of cameras available on the used market just means poor people can have nice things too. And since rich people seem to obsessed with having the latest and greatest model, it just makes more cameras available. 8MP is more than MOST people need on a daily basis... you know who I'm talking about... the people who never make prints bigger than 4x6" if they make prints, 99.9999% of the images stay on the computer screen. There is getting ready to be a flood of 8MP cameras on the used market, but I don't see what any of that has to do with photographers. Cameras take pictures, photographers make photographs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>I don't think the camera companies should slow down their product development. They're successfully doing what they do, and the fact that even children are walking around with DSLRs these days is testament to their success. I don't fault them.</p> <p>However, I agree there is a high prevalence of DIY photography that would otherwise be hired out to professionals, especially in this declining economy. I'm not supposed to express any thoughts in regard to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, because people get mad at me when I do and tell me I'm arrogant and evil.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_helmke1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sarah I think we've all known you were arrogant and evil for some time now so speak your mind! Rick H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jautey Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>Of all the things that makes a good photographer. The camera is the least of them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 <p>LOL, Rick! ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher hartt dallas Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 <p>Well, camera bodies certainly seem to be developing faster than photographer skills in using them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 <p>Yeah, they are, and while they're at it, why did they put that really good suspension and braking system on my car? I'm not a racing driver. And why is my watch so accurate? I'm retired. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_stanton1 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 <p>One of the things that is happening is that the increments of advancement get smaller and smaller. Each model is a somewhat smaller leap forward than the one before. In a sense this is good because it makes it easier to justify holding on to what I have. The same is true in computers.</p> <p>Dave</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 <p>in the words of my personal hero Chase Jarvis...</p> <p>"if you are worried about the 12 year old with his budget DSLR, you need to do two things. One, become a better photographer. Two, become a better business person"</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovcom_photo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>DSLR's are not changing too fast. And in fact, they're changing way too slowly. Sure they add more MPs and such but when are they going to add a few stops of dynamic range? Adding bit depth from 12 to 14 is not going to do it. </p> <p>Frankly, until they extend the DR, I'm really not impressed with 10 or more FPS, live view and other such "refinements".</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>The fact that a photo is sharp and properly exposed doesn't mean that the photographer was competent.</p> <p>Lynn</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>The fact that a photo is sharp and properly exposed doesn't mean that the photographer was competent.</p> <p>Lynn</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now