DSLRs progressing too fast?

[devin_toner1]

<p>I think all camera companies should slow their advances for digital cameras. It's getting to a point where cameras are so cheap and so available that the photographer will soon become obsolete. <br /> <br /> anyone agree or at least partially agree?</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Nope! Everyone can go buy a long pole too, but few will be good pole-vaulters....:) Bob</p>

[felixg]

<p>I disagree on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.<br>

Although I am not personally have no use for the continuously developing products (I bought a set of DSLRs that suited me and will stick with them for the foreseeable future), continuous development is what has delivered any given level of tool to us in the first place.<br>

The idea that the photograher can become obsolete is, so far as I can see, a rewording of Delaroche's "from today, painting is dead". Even a fully automatic robot which could select its own subjects and deliver images of deep and lasting artistic merit would be <em>another</em> photographer, not a replacement for <em>an existing</em> photographer.<br>

On a practical economic level, any manufacturer who slowed development would fall out of the market and disappear. I do often feel that "we" (the industrialised societies) rush headlong into the future for the sake of it, and would not at all mind a pause for contemplation if it happened ... but the consequence in reality would be collapse of those same societies.<br>

I could go on all day, but that'll do :-)</p>

[john tonai]

<p>But some people will want the latest and greatest carbon fiber reinforced pole, others will want the heavy but bullet-proof steel pole while others will insist that only real pole-vaulters use the bamboo poles. ;^)</p>

[felixg]

<p>When I started typing, there were no responses. Now that I've posted mine, I find Bob Cossar has put it succinctly ... had I read his first, I would probably have left the field to him...</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Back to the original topic,</p>

<p>Devin,</p>

<p>Ever hear of "The KodaK"? "You push the button we do the rest".</p>

[devin_toner1]

<p>hmm, I think I may have asked this question wrong. I don't mean like artists who's favored medium is photography. What I meant was like photographers who work for newspapers and stuff of that matter. I think that for the average person, the quality of what one may consider a "good" picture has declined rapidly. This is only what I have found in my my generation (mid teens currently) and where I live.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>I strongly disagree... digital cameras are like computers. The digital camera arena is a place where fierce competition is. What keeps a company alive is not the camera they sold you three years ago and you still use with pride. It is the camera they are going to sell you today and the one you are going to buy tomorrow. And the only way to beat competitors thinking and doing the same is to offer new features and/or better prices. The digital camera game is one year to sell to the early adapters (those willing to pay the higher price to get the new technology), one year to sell to the crowd and the last year to sell to the late followers (those who buy at discount). That's business in the digital era, regardless we like it or no.<br>

And, besides, nothing prevents us from sticking to our yesteryear cameras and lenses, as long as they work, we are comfortable using them, and we are satisfied with the results, without having to follow any innovation. I am still using a 10 years old computer at home, and it still does the jobs I bought it for.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Devin, the good pictures are still there, actually it is far easier to take a good picture today (think about AF lenses or TTL flash, immediate results, digital post-processing, ...) than it was 10-20-30-40 years ago. On the other side it is easier and cheaper to take any pictures, hence the good pictures are overwhelmed by a tide of average and less-than-average ones.<br>

My 0.02 cent suggestion is "don't worry about the tide" and committ yourself to improve the quality of your pictures. This is what I have been doing over the last 30+ years.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Photography is not just setting f-stops and 8fps. It's about composition, lighting, finding something interesting to photograph. Digital cameras are not going to help you get up at 5am then hike 5 miles for the sunrise. They aren't going to position your studio lights either.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I disagree. One can spend hours and hours in any photo-site before running across anything remarkable. The technical has improved, of course, but that only thrills snappers, the obsessed and pixel peepers. Photo Chop allows millions of overcooked photos to be uploaded every week to these sites. The ratio of great photographs to forgettable ones remains a constant.</p>

<p> The camera companies have the great majority of photographers under their marketing thumb. They salivate at the mention of anything new, and upgrade at the drop of a hat, even total amateurs.</p>

<p>There is no secret in any of this. If you want to become a better photographer, you have to change, not the hardware. If people spent a fraction of the money (and time) they spend on cameras and lenses learning, understanding, loving, feeling, sensitizing, exposing and developing themselves to life and art, they would become far better photographers than if they owned the entire Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony/yes, even Leica line.</p>

<p> This is why a Galen Rowell with an FM and two lenses, Bill Christenberry with a Brownie, Manuel Alvarez bravo with an XA, Eggleston with a Contax G2 and an old Press camera, HCB with flarey old Leitz lenses (and a mediocre fifty, btw), Alex Majoli with his point and shoots, Terry Richardson with backpacks full of film P&S cameras (I could go on and on) can outshoot anyone here with a back-breaking bagful of fat white lenses.<br>

Don't worry. Your wish of development slowing is about to come true in light of the grim descent of the world economy. We'll get the next wave, then things will really slow down.</p>

<p> </p>

[luca_stramare2]

<blockquote>

<p>It's about composition, lighting, finding something interesting to photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. Somebody once told me that if you keep thinking that the only thing between you and a great picture is a new camera, a new lens or another new piece of equipment, you still don't know what photography is. As Luis said, I am always surprised in seeing how the camera bags of many great photographers (the ones whose work I admire and respect) are, somehow, "empty" and/or "outdated" if examined by the "equipment freaks" standards.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>I agree with everything said. That being said, it does put added pressure on paid photographers to be that much better then everyone else. And, there are some really good non-paid photographers out there. You have to admit that it is also starting to change business models. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Hand-held cameras went downhill after the manufacturers started putting meters into them...then auto focus...built-in motor winders...then multi-point meters...then multi-point focusing....digital cameras are just carrying on the slide into the bottomless pit of photo technology changes....</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>No matter how fast or slow photographic technology advance, there will always be people out there who believe purchasing an expensive camera will earn them the prestige/respect of a seasoned pro. I've ran into so many of them who just wouldn't shut up about it, such as the type that tries to hold a DSLR with two fingers and wonder why they can't compose with the LCD. On one side the advances can and probably will make things go out of control, on the other hand, the photographers who know what they're doing can benefit from it just as well.</p>

[chelsea]

<p>Bob Cossar said it best with his analogy, and I'll throw in another one: pencils and pens exist in virtually every household on this continent, often in abundance...but writers, artists, and composers are not going out of existance because of typewriters and computers. It's not the instrument you're using, it's HOW you're using it that makes all the difference.</p>

<p>Having said that, I'll share a link someone sent me for a view from a robotic camera used by the Secret Service during the inauguration, the description sent with it says that it has a resolution of 1,474 megapixel, 295 times the standard 5 mp camera. Come on camera companies...I want bigger, better, faster at an affordable price! I want one of these, got a loon's nest and some herons' nests I could aim it at from the comfort of my window, wouldn't have to paddle a mile down a lake on chilly mornings to get those shots. </p>

<p><a title="http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c" rel="nofollow" href="http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c">http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c</a></p>

 

[zeb_lisik]

<p>I don't think the progression of the technology should slow down but perhaps they should slow down the releases? I guess we've entered the cold war arms race?<br>

<br /> Luis G i think the ratio of memorable:forgettable has changed based on your observation: the net has been flooded. its the memorable side of the equation that hasn't changed much.<br>

<br /> Being new to photography and taking the cheap route of old body, old primes, I appreciate the advancement of technology. obsessive technology upgrades by gear heads (professionals and otherwise) is characteristic of our culture. its just that the number of such people has skyrocketed, the most obscene example, I think, are cell phones. these habits translate laterally most naturally. cell phones:computers:cameras:cars:tvs:salt water aquariums:cookware:stereos etc... I guess its a function of consumerism & materialism gone wild.<br>

<br /> Is the content and message is being passed over in favour of the form? You betcha. This has resulted in a plethora of unmemorable photos. But in the midst of so much mediocrity the gems are all the more stunning and identifiable. This can be said about the quality of food and the collective palate of Americans, its been happening for many years now. Perhaps the same thing is happening to the collective aesthetic of Americans?<br>

<br /> Bombarded day and night by the ordinary do we not unconsciously strive for the extraordinary?<br>

<br /> All in all I'd change nothing except societys voracious consumerism.</p>

[zeb_lisik]

<p>P.S. I think we'd all appreciate <em>affordable</em> , superbly built quality lenses. Physics, its a d@mned racket!</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Well, we also need to consider that, no matter the quality and price of the equipment used, people used to take crap pictures even in the past. But in the old ages, prints of crappy pictures were more likely to be shown to some friends or relatives (who will not say the truth about them to avoid disrupting a relationship) and then end in a shoebox inside a closet or in the bottom of a drawer, where they enjoyed peaceful resting until somebody would had tossed them to make room for something else. Nowadays, crappy pictures are more likely to be spread around the inernet, shared in e-mails, uploaded in websites, ... I would agree that we are more "exposed" to crappy pictures than in the past, but I would not say that in the past people was taking only good pictures.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Devin I agree to some extent but maybe on a different level.. I am not sure about slowing down the technology intentionally because of the competitive nature of business but I do think that technology is probably close to reaching it's peak. I think that is why camera companies are coming out with multifunctional features such as camcorders..This is apparently successful and I would not be suprised to see other multi function possibilities. I have never thought of camera's as cheap before, but your comment made me think of the sheer mass of nice camera's that I see everywhere. I was just at the Monterey Aquarium recently and if you piled the camera's that were there in a heap it would probably have been a sight worthy of a photograph. You literally had to stand in line to take a picture of some exhibits. I appreciate you thread Devin. It is thought provoking.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Ross, you made a good point here. When I was young and I was going somewhere in a group, more often than not I was the only one with "the" camera, with the unofficial task of taking pictures for everybody, including the "group shot". Nowadays in some place everybody has a digital camera and everybody is shooting the same things from the same places. Sometimes you have to wait a long time before the couples finsh shooting pictures of themselves in front of a fountain or the altar of a church, check if the digital shot is OK, go back because they are not satisfied... then the next couple steps in...</p>

[bernie moore]

At a bball game at which I was shooting my grandson, a father of another player was passing around 6X8s he took of the team in a classic pose. It was pointed out to me (with a D200 and a 70-200 and big flash filling my lap) that the team pics were not in sharp focus. They were probably taken with a shirtpocket P&S and printed at the local drug store at his own expense. The best instant response I could come up with was, "Pretty good for a 6X8." That's nonsense to the initiate gathered here, but it links to this thread because there are many proud dads sharing their work with friends. Albums and DVDs and hard drives are chocked full the chronicles of P&S owners and their families. Yet this galaxy of pics does not impinge on the need for professional photogs. All those who try to take good pictures appreciate the skills of those who can. (or who can fake it with a lapfull of prosumer gear;) I know that I am going to hire a PROFESSIONAL photographer for my funeral.

[fischerphotos]

I think they should progress the way they are, but lower the prices.....ALOT!

[wpahnelas]

<p>the manufacturers will doubtless continue to do what they do, because that's their nature and they have to do it.<br>

we, on the other hand, are under no obligation to acquire anything, if we judge it not beneficial to what it is we're trying to do.<br>

personally, i don't mind having many choices, but as i make my way along my personal journey as a photographer, it's becoming less and less about stuff, as the stuff i already have is more than adequate. the job of making better photographs is not the manufacturers', but mine alone.</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>I inclined to think the only thing between me and a better picture is usually fences and men with guns.</p>