Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 05 Dec 2013 (Thursday) 14:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Last Days of the DSLR

 
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:10 |  #61

Landcruiser wrote in post #16506725 (external link)
No, "One" DSLR for you....

If a DSLR is too heavy for you, then you got other problems that need addressed.

I get more than a hundred miles of hiking in each summer in the Colorado/Wyoming/Monta​na Rockies. The 5Dii, Zeiss 21mm, 24-70 and 70-200 weigh more than three times the X-E1, 14mm, 18-55 and my Canon FD 80-200mm f/4L. Thanks but no thanks.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:12 |  #62

Mark0159 wrote in post #16506916 (external link)
you know I had thought about getting the fuji x-e1 but when I looked thur the EVF I didn't like it. I was in a store and it seemed to lag a little.

Likely because the room was dim. That's when it gets lag. Outdoors it's very good. Like everything, there are trade-offs.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:21 |  #63

Bonbridge wrote in post #16504325 (external link)
For some reason I don't like the future at all. I am scarred of the future when everyone could create awsome pictures because the cellphone camera's will outperforms a D800.

I like DSLR's. It makes a distinction between photo fans and normal people who don't give a damn how a picture could look like.

So for you it's a snob thing? Superiority complex much?


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:24 |  #64

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16504355 (external link)
You know what this report reminds me of the prospects of 3D HDTV. When initially introduced it was supposed to take away standard HDTV forever. Look at it now I do not see any 3D versions fly off the shelves during Black Friday or any Friday for that matter. On top of that this new 4K HDTV was next to conquer it all. Well unless any of the big broadcast networks spend the $$$$$ to broadcast any 3D or 4K programming I'd say their hope and promise are dead in the water. This will go the same with the mirror less camera. It is a niche item and most consumer will not get rid of their legacy equipment just to replace all of it. Just my 2 cents.

4K will come eventually but a lot of stations JUST got 1080i so it''s not going to happen yet.

3D requires special glasses and that's pretty much why it never caught on. People either can't afford the glasses or they can't wear them due to their own prescription.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OuttaCtrl
Senior Member
Avatar
381 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:31 |  #65

exactly people. think of the 3D glasses as a new set of lenses for your mirror camera. :rolleyes:.


Cameras: 5D III Gripped | 1D MK 3 | 70D
Lens: 18-135 STM | 24-70 L MKII | 70-200 L IS MKII
PC: i7-3930K | 32GB Kingston Hyper-X | nVidia Quadro 4000 | Asus P9X79 Pro | 27" Samsung SA monitor | 34" LG 34UM95-P | Spyder 4 Elite

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2013 16:34 |  #66

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16507155 (external link)
exactly people. think of the 3D glasses as a new set of lenses for your mirror camera. :rolleyes:.

Not quite the same since we have lenses for our dSLRs already. We're used to buying them so if dLSRs die off, we won't really be any worse off.

The average person isn't going to want to spend money on multiple lenses though, let alone carry them around so I agree there.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Dec 06, 2013 17:22 |  #67

Landcruiser wrote in post #16506674 (external link)
Do you go on a run and gun shoot for hours on end with no batteries, or the camera powered off? You don't need anything for that...

http://0.tqn.com …mposition-viewfinder3.jpg (external link)

Yes, because that is accurate and reliably accounts for a 200mm lens... :rolleyes: For all the good that does I can achieve something just as useful to me with my hands at my sides.

But yes, I have gone on long hikes with my camera at the ready, but not powered on. I can stop, double check a viewing, and then make a decision as to whether or not the image might actually be worth it before I even need to power the camera on.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Dec 06, 2013 17:33 |  #68

Luckless wrote in post #16507244 (external link)
Yes, because that is accurate and reliably accounts for a 200mm lens... :rolleyes: For all the good that does I can achieve something just as useful to me with my hands at my sides.

But yes, I have gone on long hikes with my camera at the ready, but not powered on. I can stop, double check a viewing, and then make a decision as to whether or not the image might actually be worth it before I even need to power the camera on.

Turning it on and off like this, probably uses as much power.. as it would in sleep mode. It probably (if you have it so-set), does a sensor clean on shut-down, and default was both on and off.. IIRC.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bidkev
Goldmember
Avatar
4,847 posts
Gallery: 2123 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 12834
Joined Jul 2013
Location: From Blackpool UK to Brisbane Australia 20 yrs ago
     
Dec 06, 2013 17:34 |  #69

magwai wrote in post #16505712 (external link)
How do you find the x100s? It is the one small camera that tempts me.

Amazing if you can stick with the fixed lens. It's the only camera that has me shooting jpegs and it's so unobtrusive for street work.


See my fishy photography here: https://kevindickinson​fineartphot.smugmug.co​m/Tropical-Fish-2/ (external link)
Olympus PenF | Olympus OM-D E-M5 mkll x 2 gripped | Olympus OM-D E-M10 mkll gripped | Olympus 12-40 2.8 pro | 14 -150 | 17mm 1.8 | 9mm BCL | Panasonic 12-32 | 25mm 1.7 | Panasonic Leica 8-18 | Panasonic Leica 100-400 | Godox TT685O speedlite

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
v35skyline
Goldmember
3,572 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Dec 06, 2013 18:56 |  #70

I love my X100s. Waiting for the X-Pro 2, but tempted to get an X-Pro 1 as there's no sign of an XP2 yet. I've picked up my 5D2 maybe 3-4 times in the past 12+ months.


X100s | X-Pro1 | X-T1 | XF 14 | XF 18 | XF 35 | XF 56 | XF 60 | XF 10-24
Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,557 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 960
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairie of northwest Minnesota, USA
     
Dec 06, 2013 19:39 |  #71

I thought I had posted here already but, looking back over the past 5 pages, I guess not.

Like many of you, I have read about large publishing companies closing out their photographer staff and just letting the reporters get the images with the point and shoot, or cell phones.

Then I see the flood of poor quality images being published with photos from amateurs readily excepted, not to mention the micro-stock market.

I think back in the 1930's - 1980's people were more discriminating and expected good photography to accompany good journalism.

Today we have neither.

Colorful two dimensional gaming in the palm of your hand has now overwhelmed the visual senses while instant 24-hour news media flash a few seconds of an image onto the screen, just enough to illustrate the point, and then it is gone.

Photography is well past its infancy, wonder and glory days. It is now at the point where it only serves to reinforce a particular point for a few brief seconds - and then it is gone.

Until the purists, such as you and I, step in. We understand what goes into making a good photograph and what separates a good one from a great one. There are others out there that understand this, too. Those are the people that still buy Adams, Weston and other professional images. They understand the ART of photography.

Thus, like any retro product, photography - good photography - will come full circle and those that shoot from a "purist" tripod will be appreciated as a "photographer" over the multitude of digital graphic artists.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,240 posts
Likes: 2934
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Dec 06, 2013 21:13 |  #72

Naturalist wrote in post #16507498 (external link)
I thought I had posted here already but, looking back over the past 5 pages, I guess not.

Like many of you, I have read about large publishing companies closing out their photographer staff and just letting the reporters get the images with the point and shoot, or cell phones.

Then I see the flood of poor quality images being published with photos from amateurs readily excepted, not to mention the micro-stock market.

I think back in the 1930's - 1980's people were more discriminating and expected good photography to accompany good journalism.

Today we have neither.

Colorful two dimensional gaming in the palm of your hand has now overwhelmed the visual senses while instant 24-hour news media flash a few seconds of an image onto the screen, just enough to illustrate the point, and then it is gone.

Photography is well past its infancy, wonder and glory days. It is now at the point where it only serves to reinforce a particular point for a few brief seconds - and then it is gone.

Until the purists, such as you and I, step in. We understand what goes into making a good photograph and what separates a good one from a great one. There are others out there that understand this, too. Those are the people that still buy Adams, Weston and other professional images. They understand the ART of photography.

Thus, like any retro product, photography - good photography - will come full circle and those that shoot from a "purist" tripod will be appreciated as a "photographer" over the multitude of digital graphic artists.

Your mixing two very separate things, photography and the tools of photography. Though I see your point but good photography has less to do with the equipment being used and more to do with the technique. A SLR is not neccesary for good photography. The example you use, reporters using cell phones, the issue is not the cell phone but the reporter/photographer not caring about the image.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2013 21:39 |  #73

gjl711 wrote in post #16507649 (external link)
Your mixing two very separate things, photography and the tools of photography. Though I see your point but good photography has less to do with the equipment being used and more to do with the technique. A SLR is not neccesary for good photography. The example you use, reporters using cell phones, the issue is not the cell phone but the reporter/photographer not caring about the image.

Yep I could take print worthy images with my cell if I wanted to as long as it's not under extreme conditions. It's quite a good sensor/lens combination.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Dec 06, 2013 21:57 |  #74

cdifoto wrote in post #16507699 (external link)
Yep I could take print worthy images with my cell if I wanted to as long as it's not under extreme conditions. It's quite a good sensor/lens combination.

I'd rephrase 'extreme conditions' to read 'anything less than ideal conditions'




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ Love ­ Cats
Senior Member
269 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 06, 2013 22:18 |  #75
bannedPermanent ban

Mark0159 wrote in post #16504187 (external link)
http://gizmodo.com …ys-of-the-dslr-1465327158 (external link)


in a nut shell cameras like the Sony A7 and other mirrorless cameras are going to change the face of cameras and photography and the like of DSLR are going to be history.

I think it's neach market.

And the printing press will kill education.
And TV will kill radio.
And the telephone will stop visits.
And the internet will kill books.
And the machine gun will make war obsolete. No that was the tank. No mustard gas. No the airplane. No jet aircraft. No atom bombs.

You don't have to look far to find hundreds of things people believe that just aren't true.
Like tomato juice kills skunk smell.

And it is niche.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

27,080 views & 0 likes for this thread
The Last Days of the DSLR
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ArcticRose
693 guests, 279 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.