MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This I believe is truth  (Read 10903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rinderart

« on: September 11, 2016, 20:24 »
+1


« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2016, 22:53 »
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGp3JXKtHBM
I watched the presentation and have to agree. Personally sold all my Canon gear in favour of Panasonic.

gyllens

« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2016, 00:06 »
+4
Haha!  maybe for stock photography but you try and do commissioned, assignment work and show the client or art director youre shooting with a smart-phone. You would be replaced within five seconds.
However I do agree with you in this world of micro-stock I'm not sure it matters anymore and especially when quality have been replaced by quantity. Who cares?

« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2016, 10:52 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.

« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2016, 11:04 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.
I've used the Panasonic GH4 for shooting interiors for clients. I had it  connected to an iPad via WiFi and they totally loved it. Previews are huge, no one has to bend around and try make out what is happening in a teeny screen. You can use the iPad as shutter release, focus, etc etc. They can see the shot after it's taken, okay it and move on.

« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2016, 11:08 »
+3
Maybe the the camera manufacturers should add a phone in their dslr :p

« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2016, 11:14 »
+1
Maybe the the camera manufacturers should add a phone in their dslr :p
It isn't just phones that use android and ios.  My tablet doesn't have a phone but it has a lot more photo sharing apps than my camera.

« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2016, 14:14 »
0
Haha!  maybe for stock photography but you try and do commissioned, assignment work and show the client or art director youre shooting with a smart-phone. You would be replaced within five seconds.
However I do agree with you in this world of micro-stock I'm not sure it matters anymore and especially when quality have been replaced by quantity. Who cares?

heh heh, it's like the scene of the wedding photographer when dslr came out,
john's cousin ask why we need to pay a "pro" when albert has the same camera
and a bigger lense.

so you see a repeat, except this time, the manager ask the art director ,
"whatderfark did you have to hire this clown when you have the same smart-phone???"

but in all seriousness, i am glad in a way that i can use my grand-child's smart phone
to shoot for shutterstock, since that way, i won't grumble earning 35 dollars a month
if this IT screwup of missing portfolio and lost sales continue!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 14:18 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2016, 15:48 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.
I've used the Panasonic GH4 for shooting interiors for clients. I had it  connected to an iPad via WiFi and they totally loved it. Previews are huge, no one has to bend around and try make out what is happening in a teeny screen. You can use the iPad as shutter release, focus, etc etc. They can see the shot after it's taken, okay it and move on.

You can easily do the same with Canon and a $30 credit card size TP-Link WiFi access point.
But I give you it is more convenient to have it embedded in the camera.

« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2016, 20:23 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.

We're all wondering about this.  I think the camera companies just don't have the engineering resources to make this happen.  The Android group probably supports phones to the max and supplies a complete platform kit for anyone wanting to make a phone. A camera is a different game and would require a lot more software development which companies like Sony and Nikon aren't able to do.  They're just not big enough, and they're not software companies.

gyllens

« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2016, 00:51 »
+3
Personally when I'm out shooting stock or on assignment I don't want some silly phones in camera or other stupid android hokus pokus. I dont even take a mobile with me. I don't want to be reached or disturbed let alone talk or make conversation. Just want to come back home with good shots.

« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2016, 02:54 »
+1
Maybe the the camera manufacturers should add a phone in their dslr :p
It isn't just phones that use android and ios.  My tablet doesn't have a phone but it has a lot more photo sharing apps than my camera.

I just try to imagine a dslr able to send the photos directly on a remote server.
For example a reporter or a sport photographer could send the photos in real time to the publisher he works with, automatically from the camera, without needing to transfer the photos on a phone, a tablet or a computer.

« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2016, 03:03 »
+1
The dream for consumers it is to have from a small piece results of DSLR quality, with which they can play after, or use directly. It is not there yet, but will come. And many physical limitations of a small piece will keep market of DSLR alive very long time more, but shrinked. And current smartphones are very good often because user will never see at 100% on his screen. Small prints hide the problems too. Anyway i will not risk to shoot wedding with a smartphone, but often provide such photos additionally if quality is acceptable.

« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2016, 05:16 »
+6
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.


« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2016, 07:28 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.

We're all wondering about this.  I think the camera companies just don't have the engineering resources to make this happen.  The Android group probably supports phones to the max and supplies a complete platform kit for anyone wanting to make a phone. A camera is a different game and would require a lot more software development which companies like Sony and Nikon aren't able to do.  They're just not big enough, and they're not software companies.

I think it doesn't have to be that hard. They just need to allow us to put our phone in place of our screen on camera that will be connected to work as screen and to store images directly on phone. Maybe taking one picture will take a little bit longer time but I think it could be possible to do.

« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2016, 07:34 »
0
It isn't going to be that way round. Cameras on phones will continue to improve until standalone cameras are defunct for most professional uses. Lenses will fit on phones for a while where necessary until they think of a way around that too.


« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2016, 07:43 »
+2
I find i cant hold a phone properly for taking photos - the phones are so thin and flat its hard to grip it and try not to get your fingers in the way.


« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2016, 07:48 »
+1
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

So true!!

Last Sunday I was walking with my wife in a very nice park close to the river; a quiet place, with nice trees, flowers, soft green lawn, birds singing, fishermen close to the water, and the sun caressing our skin.

We decided to take attention to people using their mobile phone.
Some were sitting in a bench reading or typing on their phones.
Some other were doing the same thing, but walking.
Other were just using it just to speak.

But what we have found very surprising was that 80% or 90% of the people around were using their phone!!

Sheep Different!


« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2016, 07:55 »
+3
Personally when I'm out shooting stock or on assignment I don't want some silly phones in camera or other stupid android hokus pokus. I dont even take a mobile with me. I don't want to be reached or disturbed let alone talk or make conversation. Just want to come back home with good shots.

but that's you , gyllens!!!
we discussed this at our last family reunion only last week. my eldest was complaining how old she felt sitting in a bus or whatnot and be the only one not having her head stuck to a smartphone .
she complains it's either ipod or giant cans before, and now it's a park full of kids doing whatyoucallit
and grownup with smartphone waiting for an emal from a friend.

she says, why wait for a reply from that invisible friend when there are tons of lonely people
sitting next to you or walking by you every single minute doing the same thing...???
waiting for an email from that invisible friend

the world has come to be infatuated by an invisible friend with a face shaped like a smartphone.

« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2016, 07:56 »
+1
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

So true!!

Last Sunday I was walking with my wife in a very nice park close to the river; a quiet place, with nice trees, flowers, soft green lawn, birds singing, fishermen close to the water, and the sun caressing our skin.

We decided to take attention to people using their mobile phone.
Some were sitting in a bench reading or typing on their phones.
Some other were doing the same thing, but walking.
Other were just using it just to speak.

But what we have found very surprising was that 80% or 90% of the people around were using their phone!!

Sheep Different!

wow, ESP...
i was just typing the previous comment when you sent this.
i will print your comment and give it to my eldest;
she will be happy to realise she is not alone .

« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2016, 08:05 »
0
Personally when I'm out shooting stock or on assignment I don't want some silly phones in camera or other stupid android hokus pokus. I dont even take a mobile with me. I don't want to be reached or disturbed let alone talk or make conversation. Just want to come back home with good shots.

but that's you , gyllens!!!
we discussed this at our last family reunion only last week. my eldest was complaining how old she felt sitting in a bus or whatnot and be the only one not having her head stuck to a smartphone .
she complains it's either ipod or giant cans before, and now it's a park full of kids doing whatyoucallit
and grownup with smartphone waiting for an emal from a friend.

she says, why wait for a reply from that invisible friend when there are tons of lonely people
sitting next to you or walking by you every single minute doing the same thing...???
waiting for an email from that invisible friend

the world has come to be infatuated by an invisible friend with a face shaped like a smartphone.
Mixed feeling.
Here is the same, people prefer remote communication. Do they feel themselves more physically secure with online communication than with real one?

« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2016, 08:08 »
+2
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

Not to mention the level of intelligence going down, i.e. one word answers or grunts while staring at said phone, writing and spelling skills deteriorating, etc.  ::)

« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2016, 09:11 »
0
Mixed feeling.
Here is the same, people prefer remote communication. Do they feel themselves more physically secure with online communication than with real one?

this is different. we are "communicating" with others globally.
i was referring to ppl in the same city, town, block,... even walking around side by side...
on a date (actually happening )...
they don't utter a single word or face each other,
they walk side by side (on a date) but both spend their face in the smartphone
instead of conversing with each other.

you walk in to mcD and sit next to them, they actually still, not look at each other,
but both looking and responding to someone else??? maybe.. or LOL to each other..
on the smartphone.

i once, at the start of emails, also had a friend who would email his friends living next door.
i asked him why don't you just meet and talk???
(it's no better today)

« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2016, 09:13 »
0
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

Not to mention the level of intelligence going down, i.e. one word answers or grunts while staring at said phone, writing and spelling skills deteriorating, etc.  ::)

LOL, i would consider myself lucky if i even got a grunt !!!
if i get a "have a nice day and a smile!" i would be jumping for joy that i actually
got a reaction from these cyborgs???
they make those botox faces look smiling

« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2016, 09:19 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.
I've used the Panasonic GH4 for shooting interiors for clients. I had it  connected to an iPad via WiFi and they totally loved it. Previews are huge, no one has to bend around and try make out what is happening in a teeny screen. You can use the iPad as shutter release, focus, etc etc. They can see the shot after it's taken, okay it and move on.

You can easily do the same with Canon and a $30 credit card size TP-Link WiFi access point.
But I give you it is more convenient to have it embedded in the camera.
I looked into these and could see some benefit but couldn't find an app as slick as Panasonic's for operation. Each of us has different requirements and Canon and Nikon have failed to meet mine. Panasonic was one of my last choices in systems and yet it's what I shoot on these days.

« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2016, 10:08 »
+2
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO. 

« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2016, 10:42 »
+1
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO.
Yep "You canna change the laws of physics captain".......but for many the phone camera will be good enough for their personal use and even stock applications. Enthusiasts and high end pros will still want the best IQ and that comes in a physically larger format. Don't forget DSLRs and their sensors will continue to improve.

« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2016, 14:09 »
0
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO.

i agree with you wholehearted on your last statement. i remember how it was when i edited with the first DSLR on vacation with those never to re-experience images trekking across hiking trails and going cross expedition ,etc
when i came home, i was disappointed to see my "best eyeballed" frames was not impressive at all.
of course, in those days, a 16 gig mem card would have cost as much as the camera
(120 dollars for 1 gig)... so we had to edit like it or not.

compare this to smart phone editing today, i even cannot understand how anyone would want to surf the web using a smart phone, never mind shooting an event with it.

this must explain why i kept getting, 'waaa, your email is soooo long!" fromsending a 5 sentence email LOL.

finally, i was also wandering about how incredible those notebooks and smartphones were
with all these hands up in the air at a certain event i was at last month.
i went to flickr to look and i see alot of overexposed, blue cast, oof (shutterstock perfect style, LOL)
... of that event. which i gather were from all these notebooks and smartphone.

i have yet to find a single notebook smartphone shoot that equal to a cheap PNS,
never mind your nikon, canon or even the mirrorless lumix. but call me a cynic...
it took me 5 years to give up my Nikon F for a dslr  8)

« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2016, 14:14 »
0
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO.

to continue...

i think the limit is the mirrorless which already has the size of a PNS and weigh less.
it also has the touch screen shutter and focus one touch capture which is the technology of the
notebook and smartphone.
it also has the same advantage of the leica and you can also use wifi and everything like you do with dslr except you don't have the weight .
i can see the advantage esp with the larger zoom lenses. and you don't have to walk around
looking like a "pro" anymore.   nobody pays attention to you because you
look like some one's grand-dad taking snapshots with his tiny camera  8)

« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2016, 14:53 »
+1
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   

you , Einstein, is correct. it cannot be no smaller .
take 35mm SLR, we didn't go to Minox or 1/2 frame 35mm. it just wasn't better.

i cannot see a smartphone with interchangeable lenses. the only thing smart phones are good for is selfies, ie. if you think your puff-up face is flattering. ironic, how the same ppl who say
they do not enjoy having their photos taken because they look fat,etc...
are now having a scrapbook of 1001 selfies.
except now, they don't look fat, they look like a goldfish 8)

« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2016, 15:34 »
0
I figure cameras will go much the way of the Personal Computer. For years everybody had to have a computer faster than the next guy down the block. Specs were important. The new speed processor was old within days of purchase. Now the specs have reached a level that most any PC will do the jobs the people need. How much power is needed to surf the web and read an Email? Only a few gamers (and maybe photogs with huge databases and batch processing) care about processor speed.

So it is with cameras. Sensor pixel sizes are now big enough that most people don't care and don't compare the specs. Gains in sensors now are size and noise - but most of the public don't notice. The cell phone is always with us, and takes good enough pictures, that the general public now doesn't even compare camera specs when buying a phone. The phone is now such a commodity that most everyone carries a camera (in phone). The phone is such a commodity that most people may not even need that computer. So I tend to agree with the video, only the few of us pushing the technical limits will be buying cameras as the cell phone camera is near good enough for the masses.

alno

« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2016, 17:29 »
0
Apps to apes.

Social media (& vanity it feeds) is death also to humanity. Just look at people walking with their eyes glued on the phone.
See the human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

I guess vanity is not related to having or not having a smartphone. It's quite an ancient thing :)
Truth is the world doesn't need 6 billion genius inventors, architectors or writers. The most supposed just to spend, consume and watch more and more content made with help of the members of this stock forum.

« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2016, 20:34 »
0
glued on the phone. .. human evolution going reverse & posture dropping back to the chimp style.

Truth is the world doesn't need 6 billion genius inventors, architectors or writers. The most supposed just to spend, consume and watch more and more content made with help of

true too, if i understand you correctly, irina!
as technology progress one step, humans move back two steps.

consider when you had to carve stones to make "art", more ppl thrive to be artists and philosophers.
when guitar was not that easy to play, more ppl thrive to be good musicians and practise harder
than today when most are impressed with reality TV or some dudes miming or playing air guitar
and actually cheer them like it was joe pass or segovia playing guitar they practise so hard to be virtuosos.
where barbie dolls were not so available to the poorer nations, children make their games more creatively using sticks and paper cutouts.

the more accesible our entertainment, the more options we have to not use our brains,
the more zombie we become. it's like resident evil, only it's not an endemic of flesh eating monsters
but more brain-dead sub-humans exerting even to utter a grunt.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2016, 20:40 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2016, 07:19 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.


We're all wondering about this.  I think the camera companies just don't have the engineering resources to make this happen.  The Android group probably supports phones to the max and supplies a complete platform kit for anyone wanting to make a phone. A camera is a different game and would require a lot more software development which companies like Sony and Nikon aren't able to do.  They're just not big enough, and they're not software companies.
That can't be right because Nikon have used android in a few compacts like this one compact http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-s810c.html
Samsung have android in an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/nx/

So it can't be that difficult, they just haven't got it right yet.  The compacts were too low quality and the Samsung meant that most people would have to buy another set of lenses.  If Canon or Nikon made an android camera that used their current lenses, I think it would sell very well.  A higher quality compact with android should do well, if they used it in a 1" sensor camera, I would buy it.

« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2016, 09:30 »
0
I don't know why the camera manufacturers haven't used amdroid more.  There's a few cameras using android but not many.  Then they could have apps like instagram, snapchat etc. on the camera.  I use dropbox to backup my phone photos, would be great to be able to use that on my camera.

Sony and Olympus have tried cameras that use a smartphone for the screen and connect wireless but they didn't do a good job.


We're all wondering about this.  I think the camera companies just don't have the engineering resources to make this happen.  The Android group probably supports phones to the max and supplies a complete platform kit for anyone wanting to make a phone. A camera is a different game and would require a lot more software development which companies like Sony and Nikon aren't able to do.  They're just not big enough, and they're not software companies.
That can't be right because Nikon have used android in a few compacts like this one compact http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/compact-digital-cameras/coolpix-s810c.html
Samsung have android in an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/nx/

So it can't be that difficult, they just haven't got it right yet.  The compacts were too low quality and the Samsung meant that most people would have to buy another set of lenses.  If Canon or Nikon made an android camera that used their current lenses, I think it would sell very well.  A higher quality compact with android should do well, if they used it in a 1" sensor camera, I would buy it.


Interesting, I didn't know about those.   Well maybe they were one-offs, a subcontracted project that became a dead end.  That's often what happens when a big company wants a software product but doesn't want to actually hire the people to do it.   Maybe the 'integration' with Android was actually pretty shallow and didn't amount to much, or was clunky to use.   A platform like Android could let a camera do all sorts of useful things but just planning it out, deciding on the feature set, designing a good UI, are big challenges to companies that are barely able to come up with usable interfaces to what they have now.

Just speculating of course.

Another issue is the cost of connectivity.  I'm not willing to pay for a second phone that I'll never actually talk on, and wi-fi doesn't cut it.  Maybe all I want is a Bluetooth connection between camera and phone that lets me see the photos on the phone and transfer those files.   That's already happening:

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/13/nikon-snapbridge-for-ios-version-1-0-1-released.aspx/

« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 09:35 by stockastic »

« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2016, 09:47 »
0
The reviews of the Samsung android camera were good and I think it sold well because I can't see it being discounted, like many other experimental camera and I can't see any on Ebay in the UK.  It wasn't cheap either.  The Nikon wasn't as good, poor image quality and not many reasons to use instead of a smartphone.

If Sony used android in the RX100 series or any of the manufactures tried it with a camera of that quality, I think it would sell well.

« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2016, 12:34 »
0
We could have had this same discussion a year ago, and a year before that, and the camera makers never get anywhere.  I think they all feel trapped and somewhat desperate in a shrinking market and just aren't willing to launch a big software initiative, one that amounts to a major re-think of the interface.   Even though that might be the only thing that would save them.


« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2016, 12:47 »
+1
They can't. They don't have the know how or the budget for the r and d. Specialist phones will be the camera. Lenses will just clip on. An app will do the rest.

« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2016, 02:28 »
0
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO.


Laws of physics are law of physics.
But we dont know all the laws of physics, we have probably a lot to discover yet.


You cannot change the laws of physics (says Pauws)
Sometimes the already known laws of physics are wrong or badly interpreted.
Einstein himself has made very big errors, in his Theory of Relativity he has just put some constant number aimed to support the veracity of his theory
So, Einstein, as others, has changed the law of physics.
(Search on the Internet for Einstein Mistakes you will see that they are a lot).

In optics things evolve too.
They are developing new technologies to build lens, have you heard about liquid lenses, or lenses composed with only one planar lens? (http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-lenses-future-thinner-light-focus/)

Optics will still be optics
We are not even sure that in the future the cameras will still need optics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7181

These new technologies could have a very big impact on the future of photography.
Today we cannot really predict the future.
For this we need a crystal ball, or maybe today it will be a liquid ball :)

« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2016, 02:40 »
+1
I'm no Luddite, I worked as a software engineer for 30 years, but I'm not buying the idea that the phone replaces the camera.   Einstein once said something like "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".   Just substitute "small" for "simple".   Ergonomics will still be ergonomics, optics will still be optics.  You can do a lot of tricky image processing in software but a lot of it doesn't really satisfy the eye or the brain because it's an oversimplification or an exaggeration.  You say WOW out loud but your visual cortex is whispering FAKE.   Or you look at 100% and it all unravels.  There isn't anything called "DSLR quality", it's more like "flexibility". 

Yes, new optical materials will make those tiny lenses better and better but not next week. There are some mathematical relationships involving size and angle, for lenses and sensors, that aren't going to change. 

And people trying to compose an image on a tiny screen at arm's length are still going to look like dummies IMHO.


Laws of physics are law of physics.
But we dont know all the laws of physics, we have probably a lot to discover yet.


You cannot change the laws of physics (says Pauws)
Sometimes the already known laws of physics are wrong or badly interpreted.
Einstein himself has made very big errors, in his Theory of Relativity he has just put some constant number aimed to support the veracity of his theory
So, Einstein, as others, has changed the law of physics.
(Search on the Internet for Einstein Mistakes you will see that they are a lot).

In optics things evolve too.
They are developing new technologies to build lens, have you heard about liquid lenses, or lenses composed with only one planar lens? (http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-lenses-future-thinner-light-focus/)

Optics will still be optics
We are not even sure that in the future the cameras will still need optics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.7181

These new technologies could have a very big impact on the future of photography.
Today we cannot really predict the future.
For this we need a crystal ball, or maybe today it will be a liquid ball :)
Fair point but I suspect we won't see any radical change in the next few years. Phones are still using the same Optics technology as cameras with some very fancy software. I never said that it was Scotty from Star Trek ;-)

« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2016, 07:33 »
0
^^

Of course it will not happen in 6 months.
In fact we don't know how much fast (or slow) the technology can evolve.
But we can be surprised by how fast changes can happen sometimes.

When we begin to hear enough often about some new technology this does not mean that this technology is new from last month, or even from the last year, it means that this technology has reached a level close to the accomplishment (ex: electric cars or autonomous cars).

« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2016, 17:05 »
0
They can't. They don't have the know how or the budget for the r and d. Specialist phones will be the camera. Lenses will just clip on. An app will do the rest.

hmm, no one mentioned r&d...good point JAP!
i think we are at a crossroad where camera makers are wondering if they would be wasting time
reinventing a better camera when even the ppl using images are not caring much about
quality and resolution.
news media are asking readers to submit their mob snapshots,
yuri has been pushing for mob to replace cameras for stock images,etc..

you attend an event and you see more notebook and mobs going up in the air
vs only a handful of old school still using the big mothers and heavy dslr nikon and canon.

i was at an event when the bunch of "press" photogs actually told a photographer
"don't use your flash; you spoil our shots!!!"... as apparently they are shooting at ISO beyond
old-school... without flash.

so, ya!! definitely rethink of whether you want to spend another bundle to get
the latest and greatest nikon or canon when it no longer pays to spend that much!

« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2016, 02:48 »
0
For now all  "revolutionary" technologies or are on theoretical / working concept stage or can give something usable for web only. Greeting all new, i will keep DSLR for normal and big printable works. Clients prefer clean sharp images when they pay real money.

« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2016, 16:02 »
+1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGp3JXKtHBM


The end is near, prepare to meet thy maker. Of course we've been hearing this over and over for years. On the doom forums from the doom people who like nothing and are never happy, it will never stop.

2012  https://suspectphotography.com/2012/09/26/dslr-is-dead-long-live-dslr/

2013 the DSLR is dead  http://www.lightstalking.com/death-dslr-greatly-exaggerated/

But Microstock is dead I read it here for at least 10 years.  ::)

If you keep repeating something long enough, it might come true?

« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2016, 16:09 »
0
If you keep repeating something long enough, it might come true?

Self-fulfilling prophecies!

« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2016, 23:44 »
0
 Both Android and DNG are set to become standards. The decision was probably made decades ago, but industries no longer leave the choice up to the consumer co's it costs money. The carefully steer people in the right direction until it sticks. Of course the decision might have been to use iOS and the whole Android things a big spin job!

Sent from my E6853 using Tapatalk


« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2016, 03:31 »
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGp3JXKtHBM


The end is near, prepare to meet thy maker. Of course we've been hearing this over and over for years. On the doom forums from the doom people who like nothing and are never happy, it will never stop.

2012  https://suspectphotography.com/2012/09/26/dslr-is-dead-long-live-dslr/

2013 the DSLR is dead  http://www.lightstalking.com/death-dslr-greatly-exaggerated/

But Microstock is dead I read it here for at least 10 years.  ::)

If you keep repeating something long enough, it might come true?
People love to "catastrophize" on here yep the DSLR wont last forever and neither will microstock but we are talking a decade I reckon rather than next year. The overall "look and feel" of the SLR/DSLR is an absolute classic. The Praktica camera I picked up in about 1976 doesn't look much different from todays SLRs and apart from the film being replaced by a sensor and works pretty much the same.

« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2016, 02:47 »
0
So is it just a matter of money and marketing? What is yelled about louder is also sold better? I always wonder are the differences between giant brands equipment really so great it is a cause of online wars and fiery discussion or is it just a matter of PR and well fanboys? No offense, please. I am genuinely curious.

« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2016, 03:53 »
+2
So is it just a matter of money and marketing? What is yelled about louder is also sold better? I always wonder are the differences between giant brands equipment really so great it is a cause of online wars and fiery discussion or is it just a matter of PR and well fanboys? No offense, please. I am genuinely curious.
You are right of course some people feel the need to support their purchasing decision by making overblown claims about one product or another. When I chose an SLR I felt  Nikon was marginally better for my needs but I daresay If I'd chosen Canon I'd have been just as happy.

FlowerPower

« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2016, 10:29 »
0
So is it just a matter of money and marketing? What is yelled about louder is also sold better? I always wonder are the differences between giant brands equipment really so great it is a cause of online wars and fiery discussion or is it just a matter of PR and well fanboys? No offense, please. I am genuinely curious.
You are right of course some people feel the need to support their purchasing decision by making overblown claims about one product or another. When I chose an SLR I felt  Nikon was marginally better for my needs but I daresay If I'd chosen Canon I'd have been just as happy.

I shoot both and some others and I concur. The other part if we keep buying DSLRs they will keep making them. When there's not enough market, they will make less and less new models. As we see there are new and bigger every year, plus new and smaller. They keep being better which is the way that works. Bigger, better, smaller better, we have to buy new models. DSLRs have wifi now and gps, what's next? Maybe a phone.

« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2016, 10:41 »
0
They do get better but with technology often for the consumer the gains in practical terms get less and less. I have a Nikon D7000 sure the 7200 is better but will it really make that much difference for me? Same with lap tops and phones the snazzy features are nice but aren't going to change my life. (except Samsung who might burn my house down). Thats why they spend so much on marketing.

« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2016, 11:00 »
0
The original article referred to how DSLRs are an island in technology cut off from things we take for granted in other devices, connectivity, device sharing, USB charging etc and some earlier posters wrote how Nikon and Canon dont have the software technology to improve features.  Thats complete nonsense.  I work in software development and have been on many projects where high tech companies have outsourced development of phone apps, or IC design or embedded software because they dont have an in-house facility.

Now, if a UX developer came to me on a project with the menu design Nikon use for their in-camera software Id strangle him with his own wireframes.  However, Ive used Nikon all my days from film onwards and I know how things work.  Its not a decision whether its better or worse than Canon.  I know if I need to make setting changes, or even swap a lens really quickly in the dark at a gig, I can do it without thinking.  Its brand loyalty by Stockholm syndrome.  Ive been held hostage by poor ergonomic design for so long Im comfortable with it and dont want to change to something equally badly designed but in a different way.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1997 Views
Last post February 06, 2009, 17:36
by tan510jomast
26 Replies
9576 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 21:15
by elvinstar
11 Replies
4311 Views
Last post June 28, 2011, 11:21
by RacePhoto
45 Replies
10096 Views
Last post August 21, 2012, 17:16
by Ed
7 Replies
2874 Views
Last post May 24, 2015, 17:24
by Sammy the Cat

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results