The death of cameras

[paul_o2]

<p>Digital cameras 'killed' much of the film industry but now it seems like smartphones are killing the digital P&S cameras. Who really needs to carry one more device when your smartphone shoots film in HD and takes mega-pixel photos?</p>

<p>Was at a festival this weekend and most everyone was doing this to capture the performance.<br>

<img src="http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy18/250degrees/X100/DSCF1078_zps497d2489.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

<p>Me, I'm the 'digital luddite' that still enjoys the feel of a 'camera' in my hands. Sure I've given up film for the convenience of pixels but at least my X100 sort of looks and in some ways acts like an older film camera.</p>

<p>Still new to 'street' AND to my camera so any comments greatly appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I used to think I could shoot with any camera, but I do have trouble with screens versus viewfinders. Finders, for whatever reason, help me work faster and concentrate on the framing and focus easier. Probably just hard to shake old habits. Although my need for reading glasses as I get older isn't helping. </p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I use film cameras and digital cameras equally. I shoot film with my highest quality cameras, leaving the fun film cameras in my collection to be nostalgic. My digital cameras are actually much older than what is commonly offered, Nikon Coolpix 990 for those that recognize what this model is all about, articulated camera housing, for low level, waist level, eye level and overhead viewing pus super optics and 3.4 Megs is plenty for me. My other digital is Fuji S-1 Pro Finepix also 3.4 megs using my Nikon AIS lenses, my favorite is manual focus 45mm f2.8P with gold contacts allowing picture taking in all modes plus TTL flash with my SB15. A telephone camera holds no interest for me, nor does a smart phone. Most smart phone images IMHO don't get downloaded, merely shared through social media(also I a non participant) and will not be shared for future generations as those wonderful b&w photos in shoe boxes and albums from early 20th century along with color prints showing friends and relatives from mid to late 20th century.</p>

[johnkenthill]

<p>I think the single best advantage of P&S cameras are their zooms and a larger sensor. I think they'll continue to have a following for those who don't want a dslr but want more than a phone camera. That said, yes phone/cameras will take a big bite out of the P&S market because so many people are satisfied with what their phones give them. <br /><br />As a side note: A pet peeve of mine is vertical video.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd counter that higher quality cell phone cameras have had the opposite effect. They haven't "killed" cameras. They've forced camera manufacturers to step up their game and produce better cameras more affordably.</p>

<p>An example would be the Fuji X-A1. While I have some reservations about that camera based on my personal preferences, any APS sensor compact camera in the $500 and under price range would offer a significant improvement over even the best cell phone camera.</p>

<p>Both cell phone cams and cameras like the X-A1 and various entry level Sony models with APS sensors have effectively helped kill the market for teensy sensor high end digicams. There isn't much point to a 1/1.7" sensor digicam that costs over $500 now.</p>

<p>Sony may have done as much as phone cams to "kill" the teensy sensor P&S digicam. The RX100 proved a pocket sized P&S digicam can house a larger sensor, which should effectively make the one-inch or Nikon CX sensor the new normal sensor format for P&S cameras. There isn't much other point to the 1/1.7" and smaller sensors now, apart from mobile devices and a few specialty niche cameras. An exception would be the small sensor bridge cameras with fast superzooms, which would appeal to birders and anyone who enjoys casually photographing critters and distant scenes.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>It's all about the ease and speed of sharing. Some makers like Fuji get that, most others? Not so much.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Time will tell!</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Still lots of DSLRs around, at least where I live. More than ever by the looks of things.</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Still new to 'street' AND to my camera so any comments greatly appreciated!</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Got any photos besides the murky one at the top? Photos are definitely worth commenting on, regardless of what people use.

 

[paul_o2]

<p>I do. <br>

Here are two more from the same day:</p>

<p><img src="http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy18/250degrees/X100/DSCF0996_zpse5d3b7f5.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="528" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy18/250degrees/X100/DSCF0994_zps714c481b.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

[Brad_]

I believe whatever the future holds for whatever cameras come out down the line, I'll still be able to make

photographs that for me are interesting. I've shot with dSLRs, point-n-shoots, "mirrorless" cams, and even

my phone cam exclusively for a year. They're all good. I ain't trippin about the future...

[Spearhead]

<p>OK, so those are really nice photos, worth seeing here. A lot more interesting than camera prognostications. Like Brad, I will shoot with anything I can, although I'm more limited because I mostly shoot at night.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Time marches on. Pro photographers looked down on "miniature" cameras like the 35mm and the Rolleiflex 2 1/4 by 2 1/4. And they got run over by the stampede to the smaller, faster better cameras. Who knows what the camera will look like at the 50th anniversary of the borning of the Digital Age. I'm getting out my older DSLR for tonight's Moon Madness. You can beat on tin pans if you want (a historical reaction to blood on the moon) </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>whatever the future holds for whatever cameras come out down the line, I'll still be able to make photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm in this frame of mind as well. While I very much enjoy imaging devices for the interesting machines they are, and we have forums specifically to discuss them, when it comes to making images I find it doesn't matter much to me. Within limits, they all seem to do the job. With time, one adapts to the tools one has. Good images can be made with the latest super digicam, phone cam, cheap P&S, old film cam or oatmeal box with a pinhole punched in the side. One of the attractions of this forum is the overall<em> focus on pictures and picture making skills</em> and less so on the hardware.</p>

<p>From the forum description:<br>

"Intended primarily for the discussion of issues related to street and documentary photography. Specifically, this is not a forum for equipment discussion, but rather a forum for questions regarding technique, planning, locations, and the like."</p>

 

[paul_o2]

<p>The post was moved to this forum by a moderator but thanks for copying and pasting forum rules here.</p>

 

[paul_o2]

<p>Also, if a moderator sees this post feel free to delete my account as I don't see myself visiting this site in the future.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The history of photography is a history of change :<br>

When photography appeared in about 1840 a French painter is supposed to have declared 'painting is dead!'<br>

Daguerrotype was killed by Ambrotype in about 1850<br>

Anbrotype was killed by the dry collodion process in about 1880<br>

glass plate was slowly killed by roll film from about 1900<br>

film and lenses became better and faster.<br>

Film formats became smaller<br>

Digital killed film in about (fill in your own date)<br>

etc etc</p>

<p> </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Sorry, I thought this was in the Street/Doc forum. That was the forum description for there. Casual Photo Conversations seems like the right place for this. If you originally posted it there, perhaps that's why it was moved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't see myself visiting this site in the future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be our loss. Your talented eye would be much appreciated here. Photo.net has such a great range of both equipment and photography forums. Hang with it for a while, you'll see. Start by contributing to the Street/Doc picture-of-the-week threads. The Mirrorless Digital Cameras forum is great place for camera conversations. General photo topics, like this one, are also well discussed in this forum. Once you learn to navigate the site better, you'll feel more at home.</p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

I'm more mourning the loss of the human face looking up, around at his or her world and eventually engaging in the

nourishing act of eye contact. Instead we have the dawn of the Device Idiot Parade in which people can not, even for a

lousy minute, get off their damn devices and be a part of the real world for a moment. I did a photo project from 2006-

2011.....the change in at least the U.S. in terms of the loss of the human face to a device was by far the most troubling

trend I witnessed...

 

And yet here we are 3 years later and it is even worse, god help us....

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I have my digital camera. That protect me from others. I don't care what others use. </p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>I shoot mainly with DSLRs. I used to carry a 5mp Canon in my car everywhere I went. I replaced the Canon with a new 8mp Android phone. I still shoot mainly with DSLRs.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Instead we have the dawn of the Device Idiot Parade in which people can not, even for a lousy minute, get off their damn devices and be a part of the real world for a moment."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "dawn of the Device Idiot Parade" occurred well over a century ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18990807.2.99"><strong>Nuisance of the Kodak Fiend</strong></a><br />One of the nuisances of our civilization is the man or the woman who goes about armed with a kodak and snapping at everybody who passes or who can be espied. There seems to be something in the kodak which destroys all sense of propriety in its average possessor. As soon as he owns or hires one of these instruments the ordinary individual often becomes oblivious to the canons of decency, sticks his nose into matters with which he properly has no busines and tries the patience of polite persons almost beyond endurance.<br /><em>—Atlanta Journal, reprinted in the Los Angeles Herald, August 7, 1899</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the <a href="http://calumet412.com/post/60081216285/the-ever-present-kodak-fiend-at-the-columbian">"Ever-Present Kodak Fiend"</a> was reviled at the 1893 Columbian Exposition (Chicago World's Fair), represented at that time by a woman photographer. Kodak was ahead of its time in marketing their cameras toward women.</p>

<p>An aging former outlaw Frank James can be seen in a photograph, posed in front of his gate, charging 50 cents to see the James home. A sign on the gate reads "Kodaks Bared". Presumably, for visitors bearing Kodaks, their baring of said Kodak was barred. Frank had probably learned from his mother, Zerelda, a valuable lesson in photography marketing: She would charge fees to pose for photos by visitors, then ask visitors to send her a copy, which she would subsequently sell to the next batch of visitors, repeating the process with each.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"The "dawn of the Device Idiot Parade" occurred well over a century ago."</p>

<p>Different parade, different parade route. Social media and the near ubiquity of cell phones upends the comparison.</p>

[johnkenthill]

<p>Love the article Lex. What a hoot! <br /><br />Maybe the "dawn of the Device Idiot Parade" occurred well over a century ago but you've got to admit it's taken a quantum leap in the last five years or so. I find it amusing to look at any group of people and they have theirs nose and eyes stuck in the cell phone, walking blindly, or their headphones on in walking without a clue, or their phone stuck to their ear and driving without a clue, talking on their phone in close quarters without regard or consideration of anyone around them. A quantum leap indeed. It's amusing to be sure. I also have a gut feeling I/we should be concerned. </p>

[Sanford]

<p>I see a lot of people photographing with iPads lately. I will have to get a picture of that.</p>