Extremes?

Messages
2,790
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
Yes
The words may have changed but I remember articles along these lines in the printed magazines of the 1960s, when the differences between cameras were far fewer and of much less importance.

If you have a need to capture 80 frames per second, then it's nice if others agree with you and will buy the same camera, increasing the volume of sales and with any luck, reducing the price. These specialist cameras are chasing what seems to be a rapidly contracting market and therefor the manufacturers have to put everything into their products that might achieve more sales.

The problem for camera manufacturers, I think, is the same as that faced by the car manufacturers: the more gimmicks and gadgets are added to the cheaper models, the cleverer the facilities have to appear, in order to sell the more expensive ones.
 
I start at the end result I want and work back from that to decide the kit and the settings. That's the theory but in reality I do prefer a "FF" camera because the lenses are then at their intended (for FF) focal length / field of view and because I can't resist pixel peeping and I do like to see relatively nice file quality.

I can't really blame anyone who buys kit with features and abilities way beyond what they need as... life is sort.
 
Cameras include lots of features individuals don't want/need because the alternative would be to make lots of cameras with individual feature. Which ain't gonna be profitable. If you don't want a feature all you have to do is ignore it.
 
Cameras include lots of features individuals don't want/need because the alternative would be to make lots of cameras with individual feature. Which ain't gonna be profitable. If you don't want a feature all you have to do is ignore it.
This^
And that article also uses phrases like 'pro people photographer' and 'pro aviation photographer' as if us amateurs that shoot animals, people or aircraft don't benefit from the technological advances. And the video FPS? 'who needs 60FPS when 20FPS will do'; well it won't will it? Cos we need 30fps to be able to shoot for TV, and then 60fps is handy for slo mo.

Typically written by someone who has a narrow skillset and doesn't have a clue what other peoples needs might be.

Also misses the absolute game changer that global shutter means for flash shooters, just because everyone else talks about rolling shutter elimination.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it's much harder to generate hits by writing sense than it is by being controversial.
Which side of the fence does this comment fall? :D :D (Hint - it’s sense)
 
Strange this popped up in my Google feed this morning, as I was thinking about this very subject yesterday..... hits the nail on the head for me.

I read through this and find that it's mostly true as well. I personally had to come to the point that I starting buying a generation back when updating my camera body and have almost always bought used from what I call the big three, KEH, B&H and Adorama. But of course I'm in the states. I am guilty of looking for the faster lens. But I did draw the line at f2.8. Most of my lens when I upgraded were kit zoom lenses from the 1990's and it only made sense to me to get the best glass I could afford.

I think folks like us, who are pursuing photography as a creative endeavor, or as a passion, are going to have different standards then the masses. I think only one family member even owns a camera and he has a very basic point and shoot the rest just use their cellphones exclusively. Which is what I think most folks do. I think that at some point that is going to be the standard, Pros, Prosumers and the super rich will utilize the camera industry and everyone else will just use their cellphones.
 
Well if you are shooting for US TV perhaps. In the UK and EU 25fps is the standard.
I don’t shoot video and I know that we have a different standard.

However, the fact remains, for enough of the potential market 30fps is the standard. Whether that’s ‘us’ or ‘them’ makes no difference
 
Interesting enough article but it's a bit, well, erm, click baity.
 
Cameras include lots of features individuals don't want/need because the alternative would be to make lots of cameras with individual feature. Which ain't gonna be profitable. If you don't want a feature all you have to do is ignore it.
I agree. My TZ80 compact is crazy complicated compared to say a 5D, most of the features I'll never use.... even if I can figure them out....
 
Strange this popped up in my Google feed this morning, as I was thinking about this very subject yesterday..... hits the nail on the head for me.

What happened to ordinary photography? Taken over by the cameras we all carry with us all the time, smartphones.

So personally, yes I am looking for the extremes to capture moments smartphone cameras can’t (yet).
 
No "we" don't. Some people might want the best of everything.

Most people probably want the "most suitable" of everything.

I know that's the category I fall into.

This really. I want a great sensor and AF, decent viewfinder, controls that aren't too complicated. That's pretty much it. The camera can be packed with a thousand features I never use and that's completely fine as long as it does what I need easily.
 
I understand the point of the article in a sense but I also think it's missing a huge point to why there is such a focus on feature superiority.

Manufacturers need the 'fear of missing out' to shift their new models. It's then wilfully whipped up by YouTube and social media culture whereby any interaction, no matter how negative, drives engagement and success.

Back in the day I had multiple playground arguments over whose video game console was better. Now I'm grown up I realise that usually it's down to personal choice and nobody should be getting so vehemently attached to what is essentially a plastic box of components. This growth however doesn't seem to reach the loudest subsection of any community so if you can get them squabbling in a comments section you can show your worth to the algorithm gods.

In the scheme of things for a hobbyist or amateur, does it matter than their device shoots 12fps vs 15fps? Probably not. But if you assigned a brand or device as a personality trait you're going to feel personally attacked when someone points this out, especially when it's done in ways that are designed by the content creator to provoke a response.

Best approach is ignore it all and shoot with whatever gets you the results you need.

Balance, knowledge and restraint does not sell in this world. Anger, reactionism and zealotry does.
 
I broadly agree with the article in a way. Yes, features trickle down, but there is still a real focus on the professional end of photography, where manufacturers have given up on the beginner end somewhat to mobile phones. That doesn't mean pushing these boundaries shouldn't happen, I just think there are other more impactful improvements that would affect many more people than global shutters or insane framerates.

DJI are taking a very different approach to their cameras, and I wonder how disruptive that will be. I know loads of people at work who LOVE photography, but see even micro 43 cameras as "too big" or "too complicated". My mother in law has a lumix point and shoot and finds it too complicated (lx15). She got on just fine with film slrs and even my Sony a350 but they are too big.

Step zero should be to erase the need for card readers. This could eventually trickle up to the pro models, but beginner cameras really shouldn't require people to buy a card and reader on top of the camera. Scrap the buttons on the back, and make it a full size mobile phone touchscreen. Buttons/dials around the lens and on top of the camera would present useful creative control (aperture ring on lens, shutter speed dial, iso dial and shutter button covers stills, have a nice dial for film sims a la olympus pen) without being overbearing to a new user, and all other functions can be brought about through a familiar feeling touchscreen.

It'll never happen :) but one can dream.
 
.... but see even micro 43 cameras as "too big" or "too complicated".
Quite early on, there were much smaller cameras available.

My favourite is the Ixus 70 from Canon, which was put on the market in 2007. It's amazingly small, occupying much the same volume as the Minox spy cameras and very simple to use...

Canon Ixus 70 and Minox C SP570uz5020017.JPG
 
I'd rather keep removeable storage - cards and SSDs can and do fail so having user serviceable storage is a better option than having to fork out for a "repair" to get a failed unit changed.
I'd also rather keep buttons and dials - my fingers often don't work touch screens for some reason (and my nose does keep altering settings when I bring the camera to my eye!)

I'd like to see completely cordless charging and downloading so that waterproofing can be made better.
 
I'd also rather keep buttons and dials - my fingers often don't work touch screens for some reason (and my nose does keep altering settings when I bring the camera to my eye!)

I'd like to see completely cordless charging and downloading so that waterproofing can be made better.
If your fingers cannot work touch-screens, but your nose can, maybe you could train your nose to be prehensile? :exit:
 
Problem is, I can't see which "buttons" I'm pressing with my nose!
 
Easier to avoid it.
 
I blame YouTube bro's for all of this.

Every video is like "this camera has 300 megapixels, 20 gazillion autofocus point, shoots 5,000 frames per second, instant autofocus and has 15 memory card slots" and then they go on to poo poo on any other camera that doesn't live up to those standards.

I bought my Fujifilm X-T4 when it was brand new but the end result are no different from older cameras. I still use my Canon 5D Mark II. There's really no issue at all with older gear.
 
Back
Top