Are image only cameras on their final leg?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by WAngell, Dec 30, 2017.

  1. 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?
     
  2. When the last of us who care about and practice "traditional" photography shuffle off?
     
  3. 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).
     
    paul_b.|1 and SSepan like this.
  4. 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
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
    marcel_carey likes this.
  7. 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 . . .
     
  8. 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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
    Moving On and mike_halliwell like this.
  9. Never!
     
  10. 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.
     
    erik_christensen|3 likes this.
  11. 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.)
     
    yardkat likes this.
  12. In 1902, here was the Sears catalogue index for some horse-and-buggy items:
    Buggy-Sears-1902.jpg

    By the 1920s only a much smaller number of items were listed.
    Nearly absent by the 1950s.

    Jes' saying....
     
    John Di Leo likes this.
  13. 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
     
    marcel_carey and PapaTango like this.
  14. 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
     
  15. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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
     
  18. 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.
     
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  19. Yeah, I feel the same about people who express "no interest" in making violins. Lazy buggers, human trash, right Ed?
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  20. 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.
     

Share This Page