WAngell Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 At what point will exposure at time of shooting be a thing of the past? When the last of us who care about and practice "traditional" photography shuffle off? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_flood1 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 The camera era will come to an end when Apple/Samsung can put the photographic capability of a high end DSLR with interchangeable lenses into a cell phone and get people to pay $3400 for it (plus lenses, of course). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymichaels Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 It's much more possible your camera with get phone capabilities and you will not need to carry your phone around. They have wi fi already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 Markets drive everything. Cameras as we know them will disappear when nobody can make a profit making them. Or, when the profits from making something else are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 For some reason could not get Reply to work, so in response to Bob Flood - " The camera era will come to an end when Apple/Samsung." I guess for you, Bob - i have not bought, will not buy from either company, and will not carry a phone. I will always have a real camera. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Naka Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 Not for the foreseeable future. Camera phones do not yet have the functionality that I want and use out of my dslr. But technology moves on, and what was once thought impossible is now common. So, one day . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 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 December 31, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 When SD cards are attached to our optic nerves and accessible by USB3 ports in our foreheads. (OK, I gotta quit binge-reading sci-fi novels.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 In 1902, here was the Sears catalogue index for some horse-and-buggy items: By the 1920s only a much smaller number of items were listed. Nearly absent by the 1950s. Jes' saying.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 I had a great uncle who owned a wagon shop. They made really beautiful things. When the horseless carriage came along, he took a look and said "Naaaaahh. Never." And that was the end: Michael Darnton Violin Maker | Roots 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
brian_donaldson3 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 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 December 31, 2017 by michael_darnton|2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) [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 December 31, 2017 by Sandy Vongries 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgelfand Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
bob_flood1 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 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 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