Did you see the latest Nikon "Df" DSLR announced on 11/5? I can't tell whether that's foresight, hindsight, or just plain desperation.
Across the room sitting on the table it looks for all the world like a cross between an FE/FM and an F3. Doesn't do video. But it reportedly will usefully mount any Nikon F lens back to 1959. (Although there is, alas, no rabbit ears capability...)
"Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
—'blanksy', December 13, 2013
Smartphones and cameras in general do not uniquely identify photography. Cameras are just devices constructed to form real optical images which then are employed, by one process or another, to yield a lookable picture. The original cameras, camera obscuras and camera lucidas, offered an image which could be hand traced to make a picture. Video cameras produced electronic files which could be displayed as movies on a monitor. Modern digital cameras produce electronic files than can also be displayed on a monitor screen or printed out. That's what people mostly want, views to capture and pictures to share, with no skill or effort beyond being able to point, and nil expense to punish failure. Why bother with a DSLR when a smartphone does this just fine. But all of this tide of electronic pictures has no legitimate claim over photography.
Originally Posted by Naples
There is a general idleness and complacency of thought that assumes any picture made with a camera, even a smartphone, at the front end of the picture-making process is a photograph.
Most casual references to digital pictures as photographs are not motivated by fraud but are a product of ignorance. It's just another of those cultural deceptions that are so widespread and familiar that they largely pass beneath care or notice; except perhaps at APUG.
The unique thing about photography isn't cameras or lookable pictures made and displayed any old how. It is that photographs are generated exclusively from light-sensitive materials and as a consequence their authority to describe subject matter comes not from resemblance but from direct physical causation.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
You no longer have to leave disposable cameras on the table at a wedding receptions...
I am looking for a parts Synchro Compur #00.
I frequent digital forums as well as APUG, and my recent experience is that there is no slackening in people's appetite for "better cameras", more pixels, sharper lenses, higher ISOs, and so on. Discussions about the two or three recent new "full frame" digital cameras absolutely dominate the scene. (Capitalism marches on, I suppose)
Originally Posted by Eric Rose
I'm not having a poke at digital cameras, digital photography or digital photographers, by the way. Just making an observation that my experience is different.
If "high end" digital photography goes the boutique route, well ... it'll be just like film is now, really ...
I tend to agree with you there except for maybe the pixels. I think a lot of people kind of see the pixel rating as mere noise (every pun intended). I suppose it depends on what forums you read (for example, somewhere like DP review is going to be all about the gear). The DF mentioned above is only 16MP (which is not much for a 35mm sensor - I refuse to call it a so called full frame). That being said, things like high ISO performance is a real world gain and IMHO actually quite a useful feature that is being continually developed.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
As for the Df...well, that is a bit of a mystery camera. I am not going to hide the fact that I possibly will be in the market for a new digital camera within the next 12 months (wash my mouth out with soap). If and when I buy a digital, I want to ensure that I future proof it as much as I can. I would tend to think that the camera that I buy next will last me a good while. I have looked at it (& even discussed it at length with a sales guy that I know quite well) and the DF brings nothing more to the table. The only thing going for it that I can see is its retro looks and maybe the fact it shares the sensor with a camera that is nearly double its already excessive price.
But there is something else that I feel will mean the end of SLR's and that is the implementation of electronic viewfinders, such as those used by Sony. The more moveable parts that are eliminated, the more efficiencies can be made with both frame rates and reliability. In the end, I see it as a win win for that type of photography. These EVF's are still in their infancy (for high end gear). Give them a few more years and people will be saying "Pentawhat?" (well, except for us on who still like to place pieces of film in the back of their cameras!)
(OK, that's enough for now - I am sure I am on the bubble for getting this thread closed and myself banned).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
sounds good to me ..
and when the solar flare screws everything up
my k1000 will be worth thousands ...
i can't even imagine how much my crappy box cameras will be worht .
Seems strange to see the use of a dSLR described "like slow food cooked with natural, genuine ingredients." Up until now all the ads have been about the ease of handling and limitless possibilities the next dSLR will offer. Not exactly slow food but perhaps they only compare themselves with smartphones and not to film shooters.
I can not take any issue with what you say above, except to say I think you have missed my point. The overwhelm majority of people who make photographic images do not frequent gear centric forums such as APUG etc. The mistake I think the majors are making is putting to much effort into satisfying this rather very small market segment. Most people using digital cameras are quite happy with whatever they are using "today" and will only think of replacing it when it breaks, not when there are more mega pixels, better AF or sharper lenses available.
Originally Posted by pdeeh
I use a Nikon D700 and it does everything I need it to do for my professional photography. I can't see replacing it for a very long time. It works perfectly with all my old Nikkor glass from the 70's and 80's so I don't see what all the fuss is about with the new retro Nikon. If my D700 breaks I will look at what's available at that time. Whatever is going on with cameras in the interim is just a distraction from creating photographic images.
Sure you do, if you want film pictures! About 6 months ago my sister-in-law got married. They hired a professional photographer, who brought a DSLR with one of those long lenses that screams "pro photographer." There were several others there shooting pictures with DSLRs and even digital P&S. I was the only one shooting film. Because I was shooting film, I decided to also shoot B&W, since everyone else was shooting color. I loaded up a roll of Tri-X, and her wedding present from me was 37 B&W pictures of her wedding and reception, negatives, and a lab scan of the negatives on CD. She really liked that these were B&W and so different from what everyone else was doing.
Originally Posted by dehk
Ilford has a line of disposable cameras loaded with HP5+ and XP2 Super. You can get them from B&H for about a ten-spot.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Good job. Because when she's long dead and her grandchildren are going through her drawers to clean out the estate and sell the property, your pictures will be there. All the others will be gone long ago.
Originally Posted by ME Super