Jump to content

Are image only cameras on their final leg?


WAngell

Recommended Posts

Expensive year for new bodies. 2 D5's and a D850. Both are great camera's and worthy upgrades from what they replaced.

 

Oh, and an iPhone X.

 

The image quality from the X is inferior to that produced by our shiny new Nikons. It's capabilities may far surpass the Nikon's though. Lytro camera's didn't really seem to take off but Apple did include some Lytro light field capabilities in the X and apps like Focos are taking advantage of that. What would happen if this capability were embedded in a D900 or D6? If focus and DoF could be manipulated and fine-tuned in post?

 

Adobe are apparently working on a light field module for LR. I assume this is specific to the X and Lytro? Are there other camera's with similar capability out?

 

At what point will exposure at time of shooting be a thing of the past? Will we soon be able to combine multiple frames to achieve the same effect that today requires a Big Stopper and long exposure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see anyone carrying a multi-lens fly's eye around simply on aesthetic reasons. Those things look ugly as sin.

 

Beside that; the art of photography is one of selection and exclusion. We direct the viewer's attention to the subject by focus, depth-of-field, colour juxtaposition, lighting, tone, avoidance of distracting background, etc., etc.

 

A camera that captures everything in the vicinity of the subject is the antithesis of this. It would simply displace the 'art' to post-processing, but then the recognition of a good subject, or assembly of picture elements still needs to be made before the button is pressed.

 

So what would be the point of capturing excess image information? Only to discard most of it later on. The fly's eye camera would be the tool of someone with no visual awareness in the first place.

 

Like attempts at popularising '3D' photography, this sort of toy has only novelty appeal.

 

"At what point will exposure at time of shooting be a thing of the past?"

- It pretty much already is if you shoot RAW.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expensive year for new bodies. 2 D5's and a D850. Both are great camera's and worthy upgrades from what they replaced.

 

Oh, and an iPhone X.

 

The image quality from the X is inferior to that produced by our shiny new Nikons. It's capabilities may far surpass the Nikon's though. Lytro camera's didn't really seem to take off but Apple did include some Lytro light field capabilities in the X and apps like Focos are taking advantage of that. What would happen if this capability were embedded in a D900 or D6? If focus and DoF could be manipulated and fine-tuned in post?

 

Adobe are apparently working on a light field module for LR. I assume this is specific to the X and Lytro? Are there other camera's with similar capability out?

 

At what point will exposure at time of shooting be a thing of the past? Will we soon be able to combine multiple frames to achieve the same effect that today requires a Big Stopper and long exposure?

Never!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all of us who have digital cameras have movie modes available to us, and how many of us use that? I've shot movies with my cell phone, for fun, but never on my D7200, even as a test. Stills and movies are different media, with different applications, I think.

 

As for the headline question, parsed the way it is written..... I think the answer is obvious--still-only cameras no longer exist, as far as I know. So it's not a final legs question: they're dead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used the video mode on my D800 once, and it was just to see how it worked.

 

For the times where I need/want to take a video, my iPhone is a lot easier to use even if the result probably isn't as good.

 

I care about still photographs, and loading a camera with video features just makes it more difficult for me to get to the still settings I care about.

 

Yes, the lines are getting blurred, but ultimately for still images dedicated still cameras are better than video cameras. Sony has the A9 running at 20fps, but honestly I don't want to dig through that many photos, and the resolution is still lower than the A7r/rII/rIII

Link to comment
Share on other sites

loading a camera with video features just makes it more difficult for me to get to the still settings I care about.

 

That says more about your camera than the video feature. I have three cameras and can't think of a single time I even ran into something dealing with video. I had to look at the manual to see how to do anything with video, all deal with a switch I don't even use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That says more about your camera than the video feature. I have three cameras and can't think of a single time I even ran into something dealing with video. I had to look at the manual to see how to do anything with video, all deal with a switch I don't even use.

 

I should say with the D800 that the video features don't get in the way, aside from the fact that Nikon stupidly re-located the mode button and put the record start button where the mode button should be.

 

Still, the record start button doesn't do anything unless you've engaged video mode, which is a physical switch on the back. In still mode, I have the start button currently assigned to change the crop. I need to look and see what other options the button has as that's a function I use rarely enough that going into the menus isn't a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when movie function on a SLR was called Motor Drive?

 

It is not the markets that drive what is out there, it is some person sitting in their office who dictates what we will get. How many times has anyone been polled on what would be nice features on a camera? Even ask the general public what they would like in camera? Never, so it is not the market. It really is about who has the most bells and whistles.

 

I have no movie functions on my DSLRs. I do have movie function on my Fuji x100 and Canon G12. I think I too have only used the movie function once. Never again because it drained my battery faster than I had planned.

 

Is still photography dead? Could very well be. I watch a How To video on lighting once and the guy was using the video mode on his highend DSLR. He just had the model move around and then he took what he needed? Innovative or lazy?

 

For me, I don't know. I have a medium format camera that has a Polaroid back. Can't use it anymore because of a lack of 1) film and 2) the high cost of a 10 exposure film pack. What will happen to my Nikon F(2) cameras when I can't get 35mm film? Or my Mamiya RB67 when 110 film is a thing of the past.

 

Unfortunately, that is what will happen. Still image only photography will fall to the way side like cars that can be driven by a person.

 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people neglect the video features of their DSLR because they don't know how to use it properly. Expressing "no interest" sounds a lot like "sour grapes." I'm not speaking of which buttons and menu selections, rather when and how to use it effectively. Still photography is basically point-and-shoot, whereas video is point-and-hold. You also have to know how long and what to do in the transition between shots.

 

Video is a lot harder than stills, but pays a lot better, especially if you have the tools and expertise to add sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people neglect the video features of their DSLR because they don't know how to use it properly. Expressing "no interest" sounds a lot like "sour grapes."

Yeah, I feel the same about people who express "no interest" in making violins. Lazy buggers, human trash, right Ed?

Edited by michael_darnton|2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of motorists, motorcyclists and cyclists videoing every second of every journey they make. Apart from incidents and accidents that have some voyeuristic interest, I doubt there's otherwise a single frame that would make a picture in its own right.

 

Proving that the indiscriminate capture of anything and everything doesn't really count for much.

 

Of course technology will progress and make almost anything possible, but just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE="Ed_Ingold, post: 5631287, member: 419409"]they don't know how to use it properly

Matthew Quigley: Said I didn't have much use for 'em, never said I didn't know how to use 'em.

Used videos with various video cameras for a number of years while teaching Martial Arts. Slow tedious, expensive and time consuming. In the final analysis those factors outweighed any benefits and I stopped. Bad enough to look at vacation slides, or home movies back in the day - just when you thought it was safe, something else to fear - being subjected to amateur video "productions".

making violins.

Don't know if you've seen the shirt - "We need more Sax and Violins"

 

There will always be those who prefer still images, and some who like video. More I believe will look at images than sit through a video. As to lack of media, plenty of people use antique processes by making their own.

Still image only photography will fall to the way side like cars that can be driven by a person.

Not where I live, and likely not in my lifetime for either.

Edited by Sandy Vongries
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point will exposure at time of shooting be a thing of the past?

 

Exposure at the time of shooting ended a very long time ago - in the late 1800's.

 

As Ansell Adams said when comparing a photograph to music: The negative [exposure at the time of shooting] is score; the print is the performance. We usually look at the "performance" - either a print or a manipulated image on a screen. Most professional prints were heavily manipulated with dodging, burning, changes of contrast. If you are ever in Tucson Arizona, go the Art Department at the University of Arizona. They have a large Adams collection, not only prints but also the original negatives and some of his test prints with printing notation on them. The final prints have been heavily manipulated.

 

Or read Tim Rudman's book, "The Photographers Master Printing Course" over a hundred and fifty pages of how to change the way an image looks. (You may have to get it from the library; the book has been out of print for several years.)

 

Photographers have been changing the way a final image look from "the point of exposure" for many years. Digital just makes it easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people neglect the video features of their DSLR because they don't know how to use it properly. Expressing "no interest" sounds a lot like "sour grapes." I'm not speaking of which buttons and menu selections, rather when and how to use it effectively. Still photography is basically point-and-shoot, whereas video is point-and-hold. You also have to know how long and what to do in the transition between shots.

 

Video is a lot harder than stills, but pays a lot better, especially if you have the tools and expertise to add sound.

 

So I don't know how to make movie. I bought a Beaulieu bac in the 80's trying to make movies but I found out I don't have the skills. So when I buy my cameras I don't want a camera that has video. I am a dummy but is there any one who knows everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been an interesting discussion!

 

Mr. Vongries - I agree with your view - I do carry a phone because my wife doesn't like the idea of me being unreachable. A big part of that is the extinction of public telephones caused by the cell phone - if you don't carry your own, it's very difficult to find a public-use phone nowadays. And I carry a real camera, too. Nothing fitted into a cell phone will ever be able to compete with the capabilities of what we all call a real camera.

 

Mr. Darton - I will quibble with your statement that the still-only camera is dead. It not only exists, it's thriving. It has just grown an appendage called video. That appendage is largely ignored by still-only photographers. It may be correctly called a still+video camera instead of still-only, but it's a still-only camera to those who ignore the video (like me).

 

JDMvW - That 1902 Sears catalog also had cameras for sale. Very different from today's cameras, but cameras designed to allow capturing an image for display later. That hasn't gone away.

 

Still cameras will continue as long as there are people who value and will use the still image. I have photos I took in Ireland, Norway, Denmark, and New York City on my walls, and cannot see any way or reason to replace them with videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people neglect the video features of their DSLR because they don't know how to use it properly. Expressing "no interest" sounds a lot like "sour grapes."

 

I wouldn't presume to speak for "most people," but I've been trained on and have used studio video cameras on a local weekly program, have used the video feature on my Nikons when I had to and, ages ago, I used my fathers 8mm equipment. I don't like doing it. It's a different process, which makes different demands and provides different rewards.

 

just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done.

 

Exactly. And it doesn't mean I have to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...