Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PetaPixel)   The photography industry is entering the death match phase. Who will survive?   (petapixel.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, compact camera, image quality, DSLR, nikon, Fujifilm  
•       •       •

2802 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Jan 2014 at 8:46 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-04 06:55:44 PM  
Just like the film format wars of the 80s, the majority will use camera phones, a small percentage will use high-end point and shoots and even smaller percentage will use high end cameras.

/My father and I always had 35mm SLRs, my mother used a high end 35mm point and shoot every one else in my family used 110s and Kodak Disc cameras.
 
2014-01-04 07:47:52 PM  
Whoever gets the quad RPG first.
 
2014-01-04 08:12:52 PM  
fuji is going down swinging then because the new x100s are already digging into the SLR market.  within a few years full-frame mirrorless cameras will come to dominate the mid-level market.
 
2014-01-04 09:02:54 PM  
I already kind of got screwed when I got an Olympus E-330 as a starter DSLR. Luckily, I only paid $300 on sale at Fry's with a 18-180 lens included. It's just a pain to not really be able to easily upgrade lenses without hitting eBay.
 
2014-01-04 09:03:42 PM  
Love my Canon Rebel xsi and just bought a 85mm/1.8 lens for it which produces nice pictures. But I love the phone camera for those quickie pics to post to social media. I really want to buy a Canon Mark 5 lll but at $3,000 I don't think my photog skils are goos enough for that camera or that I would use it enough to justify the purchase.
 
2014-01-04 09:28:41 PM  
When our point and shoot decided to die, we figured rather than buying another point and shoot we bought a Canon Rebel 4si. If we need a point and shoot we use our phones, if we want nice desktop pictures out comes our Rebel.
 
2014-01-04 09:36:21 PM  
My HTC smartphone takes pictures easily good enough for holiday/general use. Even blown up, cropped and printed A4 size with my inkjet on glossy photo paper they look great.

The best camera is the one you have on you. An SLR would be lovely but who is going to carry one around 24/7?

/Things smartphones are killing: Sat Navs, compact cameras, camcorders, alarm clocks, road maps, calculators, MP3 players...
 
2014-01-04 09:43:02 PM  
The snapshots most people take are not photographs. No photograph has ever been taken on 'auto'.
 
2014-01-04 09:55:16 PM  
Decent 35mm camera bodies and lenses are starting to show up in thrift stores more and more now.

 Is it true Kodak has stopped making film all together??
 
2014-01-04 10:00:31 PM  
What will be left of them?
 
2014-01-04 10:02:37 PM  
Pintoboy: Kodak is a shell of what it once was. It basically exists on paper. If you want to buy film consistently, Fuji is currently the way to go.

Yeah, I think now is an incredible time to own a film or pro level digital camera. Nikon is probably unlikely to ever upgrade their F6 film camera but boy, what a jewel of a camera. As someone who does a fair amount of photography I describe the current state of the market as like aviation around WW2. The old empires have fallen away and we're left with two big super blocks. Nikon and Canon both make truly excellent cameras and it's very hard to make a bad choice but I think we'll see high end point and shoots as the new bottom of the market.

Everything else will be done with camera phones. However, if you need to take photos of things that are more than two paces away, or need off camera lighting, then no smart phone will cut it. The market will necessarily reflect that.
 
2014-01-04 10:03:05 PM  

assjuice: The snapshots most people take are not photographs. No photograph has ever been taken on 'auto'.


You might like to search the Interwebs for a documentary by a chap called Anthony Armstrong-Jones, where he shows how to take a portrait using a railway station photo booth, of all things. If you've never heard of him, you might like to set Google on automatic and take a look. The hard bit is framing and lighting - not setting the exposure (pace Adams).
 
2014-01-04 10:04:56 PM  

assjuice: The snapshots most people take are not photographs. No photograph has ever been taken on 'auto'.


Lol.
 
2014-01-04 10:19:30 PM  
DPReview Connect comparison of smartphones vs. 10 years of DSLRs

Per this article: give the phone makes a few more years and they'll be at parity, at least for wide shots.

I bought a DSLR 6 years ago. It's not gotten much use lately, and my iPhone 5 goes off contract this year so I'll be replacing it.
 
2014-01-04 10:30:16 PM  
I love my phone camera but the big boys like Canon and Nikon are not going anywhere anytime soon.  It will be a long, long time before any cell phone telephone camera lens will be able to compare to say Canon's 70-200 f2.8.
 
2014-01-04 10:33:31 PM  
Who would have ever known that Ansel Adams would have the Fark screen name of "assjuice?"

Not the most intelligent post there friend.
 
2014-01-04 10:48:21 PM  
I lately have been interested in the Nikon 1 AW that just came out, even though it is expensive. I just realized the form factor reminds me of my late mother's Canon VT.
 
2014-01-05 12:22:07 AM  
I think there will always be a small percentage that have little use for a smart phone and prefer a regular digital camera for taking pics.
 
2014-01-05 12:29:28 AM  
I see a market for a "professional" smart phone thingy..  Twice as thick with a much better and larger lenses and sensors..etc.
 
2014-01-05 12:34:09 AM  
Just wait until they're able to put a 4D light-field camera into smartphones. Then with the right image processing tools, you won't even need a big fancy lens to get an amazing photograph from a snapshot taken with your phone. The image taken by the light-field camera contains all the information needed for focusing and stabilizing the frame after the fact. You could probably even simulate aperture size and exposure time.

The SLR camera will never truly go away, of course, just become more of a niche application than it is even now.
 
2014-01-05 01:48:08 AM  

mrlewish: I see a market for a "professional" smart phone thingy..  Twice as thick with a much better and larger lenses and sensors..etc.


It's called the Galaxy S4 Zoom. I have one, it's surprisingly good for casual stuff. It can't replace my Nex-3 for "real" photos, but I've gotten some very good shots with it.
 
2014-01-05 01:52:38 AM  
I started using Olympus in 1975 with an OM1. I moved to OM2, OM4T and then slowly tiptoed into digital in the late 90s. I now have an E3 and E30 which I use regularly.

When i move to the next toy, it will likely be Nikon or Canon...Olympus seems to be fading fast. But like with any system, when you get a new body, those last generation lens usually don't cut it...so flipping systems is not too bad.

Now, I will keep the E30 and E3 because I can still use my old OM glass and shift lens and bellows. Time marches on.
 
2014-01-05 02:23:46 AM  
Sadly, it is my understanding that the Panasonic cameras are quite good in most aspects... Would be sad to see them go the way of the dodo..  That being said, I am a huge fan of the new Sony Alpha system, they are super fast-great for photographing sporting events and impromptu situations.

Although I am a Sony fan, both Cannon and Nikon have earned the great respect they have among most photographers.
 
2014-01-05 02:31:00 AM  

skinink: Love my Canon Rebel xsi and just bought a 85mm/1.8 lens for it which produces nice pictures. But I love the phone camera for those quickie pics to post to social media. I really want to buy a Canon Mark 5 lll but at $3,000 I don't think my photog skils are goos enough for that camera or that I would use it enough to justify the purchase.




Goos enough, I'm sure.
 
2014-01-05 03:56:51 AM  

luxup: I love my phone camera but the big boys like Canon and Nikon are not going anywhere anytime soon.  It will be a long, long time before any cell phone telephone camera lens will be able to compare to say Canon's 70-200 f2.8.


As opposed to a cell phone purple monkey dishwasher?
 
2014-01-05 04:22:56 AM  
I believe Samsung is working on this.
 
2014-01-05 08:33:24 AM  

pintoboy: Decent 35mm camera bodies and lenses are starting to show up in thrift stores more and more now.

 Is it true Kodak has stopped making film all together??


The film part of Kodak is now called Kodak Alaris and is now british. Agfa is now Adox. And Ilford is still Ilford. There is a viable market for film, but not enough to support behemoth companies. The new film manufacturers will be small , and there are new players making specialty boutique product (Rollei and CineStill for example).

It's actually an interesting time to be shooting film.
 
2014-01-05 08:59:28 AM  

BolivarShagnasty: The film part of Kodak is now called Kodak Alaris and is now british. Agfa is now Adox. And Ilford is still Ilford. There is a viable market for film, but not enough to support behemoth companies. The new film manufacturers will be small , and there are new players making specialty boutique product (Rollei and CineStill for example).

It's actually an interesting time to be shooting film.


Exactly...it's pretty obvious.  As with desktops, laptops, and tablets, the "old" way of doing things will still always have a market, just a much smaller niche one.  The vast majority of people who don't need the full-featured product will go for the newer, stripped-down version.  Most people are just fine trading away supreme image quality for the tiny sensor on their phone, which will never be as good as a "real" camera but has improved enough to be passable.  Slap an Instagram filter on it and it becomes acceptable for sharing.
 
2014-01-05 09:00:19 AM  

Ray Vaughn: But like with any system, when you get a new body, those last generation lens usually don't cut it...so flipping systems is not too bad.


10/10
 
2014-01-05 09:02:10 AM  

luxup: I love my phone camera but the big boys like Canon and Nikon are not going anywhere anytime soon.  It will be a long, long time before any cell phone telephone camera lens will be able to compare to say Canon's 70-200 f2.8.


Pretty much this. When someone builds a phone that can freeze the action of a basketball game in a high school gym with four properly exposed and not-unusably-grainy shots per second, come talk to me. Until then, the DSLR and the big glass are coming to the game. 40 megapixels is useless when the picture is completely black.
 
2014-01-05 09:11:55 AM  
I used to use a Nikon DSLR (D90) with an SB-800 flash and I had 7 or 8 lenses... Took great pictures but over time I realized that the expense and the need to switch lenses made taking pictures more work than fun. Sure, if I were a professional I'd use a DSLR but for the average person it's just overkill... I sold everything and bought a Sony DSC-HX300 and I'm very happy... It has a 50x zoom, which is the equivalent of 24-1200mm, which would be ridiculously expensive to duplicate with separate lenses... It takes very good pictures in low light, even without the flash (actually, the flash tends to wash out highlights, I almost never use it). It's not perfect, but 90% of the pictures come out really, really good and I've been a pretty active amateur for the last 20 years so I think I have a pretty good opinion about what is good and what isn't... The ability to just pick up the camera and go without having to take a big bag of lenses or spend time figuring out what lens to use means that I take more pictures, and that's made my hobby fun again.
 
2014-01-05 09:15:46 AM  
Why the hell hasn't somebody made a device that fits inside a 35mm camera and captures digital images. A guy has made one that captures 720p video for old Super 8mm film cameras. I'd love to have a 10mp+ cartridge I could stick inside a 35mm film camera and capture digital pictures with.

I really don't have the time or desire to set up my darkroom to use my old 35mm cameras.
 
2014-01-05 09:21:07 AM  
Tillmaster:

You might like to search the Interwebs for a documentary by a chap called Anthony Armstrong-Jones, where he shows how to take a portrait using a railway station photo booth, of all things.

Dammit! The railway station where I live has no photo booth. The only photo booths are in the mall. Is the technique cross compatible?
 
2014-01-05 09:22:35 AM  

Ghastly: Why the hell hasn't somebody made a device that fits inside a 35mm camera and captures digital images. A guy has made one that captures 720p video for old Super 8mm film cameras. I'd love to have a 10mp+ cartridge I could stick inside a 35mm film camera and capture digital pictures with.

I really don't have the time or desire to set up my darkroom to use my old 35mm cameras.


Such things may be on the way--search for "35mm digital back."  Larger-format high-end cameras (like Hasselblads) have already had these for years.

However, I suspect the market for 35mm will be fairly small, since for a given level of quality it would probably be cheaper to just get a new camera.  Especially since old lenses work on new digital bodies anyway.
 
2014-01-05 09:27:38 AM  

Ghastly: Why the hell hasn't somebody made a device that fits inside a 35mm camera and captures digital images. A guy has made one that captures 720p video for old Super 8mm film cameras. I'd love to have a 10mp+ cartridge I could stick inside a 35mm film camera and capture digital pictures with.

I really don't have the time or desire to set up my darkroom to use my old 35mm cameras.


Oh, they have...there's lots of hurdles: there's no one-size fits all insert, so they would have to make dozens, if not hundreds, of different inserts.  We're so far removed from 35mm that not too many people would want one.  Even if something like this were available, I wouldn't want to use my old Konica set up because I'm done with manual focus (usually), it's so heavy, etc.  There's also issues of sensor size (most sensors are far smaller than the 35mm film area), not being able to immediately view the image, and many other  things that make it impractical.

It's like saying "can't I just convert my horse cart to a motorcar?" in 1975.
 
2014-01-05 10:06:02 AM  

Ghastly: Why the hell hasn't somebody made a device that fits inside a 35mm camera and captures digital images. A guy has made one that captures 720p video for old Super 8mm film cameras. I'd love to have a 10mp+ cartridge I could stick inside a 35mm film camera and capture digital pictures with.

I really don't have the time or desire to set up my darkroom to use my old 35mm cameras.


Leica had a supplier do it for them but given the rapid evolution of sensor technology, and the tolerances involved, and the need for the electronics to talk to the lens, there's not much point. In a few years once the technology development curve flattens into a stable mature technology the economics will probably turn in favour using swappable backs for DSLRs like they do in medium format but we're not there yet. The circuitry keeps changing size and voltage each few years so backwards compatibility moving forward is just pointless right now. With medium format, they're dealing with larger budgets and existing cameras that have always had cartridge backs since the 1940s so -- no surprise -- digital backs rule. With a 35mm, the film cartridge is housed inside the body and everyone used slightly different internal arrangements as Earguy noted above.
 
2014-01-05 10:09:41 AM  

Ray Vaughn: I started using Olympus in 1975 with an OM1. I moved to OM2, OM4T and then slowly tiptoed into digital in the late 90s. I now have an E3 and E30 which I use regularly.

When i move to the next toy, it will likely be Nikon or Canon...Olympus seems to be fading fast. But like with any system, when you get a new body, those last generation lens usually don't cut it...so flipping systems is not too bad.

Now, I will keep the E30 and E3 because I can still use my old OM glass and shift lens and bellows. Time marches on.


This is one of the reasons I love Nikon. You can buy 30 year old lenses and still make great photography with them. No auto anything.
 
2014-01-05 01:09:33 PM  
I have a cheap-ass Tracphone. It's for making/taking calls/texts. Period. I have no desire for a smartphone. I have a Nikon Coolpix 810. Not pro-grade but I love it. Xmas present a year ago and I have taken 1600 pix with it in the last 53+ weeks.
 
2014-01-05 01:45:13 PM  

doublesecretprobation: within a few years full-frame mirrorless cameras will come to dominate the mid-level market.


Came to say this.

With a good prime lens, my Sony NEX5 mirrorless is just small enough to fit in a coat pocket.  I got it because I was tired of taking dark and blurry pictures at evening parties.  It is also nice to not stand out as a tourist with a DLSR hanging from your neck.

Although, I have thought of ditching the NEX for a Cybershot DSC-RX100 and then getting a DLSR for more scenic locations.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:19 PM  

jpo2269: Sadly, it is my understanding that the Panasonic cameras are quite good in most aspects... Would be sad to see them go the way of the dodo.


Yeah, although I have a bag full of Canon gear that's paid for itself many times over, I've been eyeing Micro Four Thirds with interest, and would like it if all the options between "smartphone" and "full-size DSLR system" didn't just cease to exist.
 
2014-01-05 04:08:16 PM  

Dinjiin: doublesecretprobation: within a few years full-frame mirrorless cameras will come to dominate the mid-level market.

Came to say this.

With a good prime lens, my Sony NEX5 mirrorless is just small enough to fit in a coat pocket.  I got it because I was tired of taking dark and blurry pictures at evening parties.  It is also nice to not stand out as a tourist with a DLSR hanging from your neck.

Although, I have thought of ditching the NEX for a Cybershot DSC-RX100 and then getting a DLSR for more scenic locations.


How does it do in low light with no flash with a prime lens? No reviews I looked up had any examples at, say, 1/30 shutter speed at 1600 ISO. Since I do a lot of candids in dim places, I haven't switched from film yet because all the cameras in my price range yield really noisy pictures-- and my 1970s camera can go in my pocket while DSLRs are really clunky and too big.
 
2014-01-05 04:16:14 PM  

psychosis_inducing: Dinjiin: doublesecretprobation: within a few years full-frame mirrorless cameras will come to dominate the mid-level market.

Came to say this.

With a good prime lens, my Sony NEX5 mirrorless is just small enough to fit in a coat pocket.  I got it because I was tired of taking dark and blurry pictures at evening parties.  It is also nice to not stand out as a tourist with a DLSR hanging from your neck.

Although, I have thought of ditching the NEX for a Cybershot DSC-RX100 and then getting a DLSR for more scenic locations.

How does it do in low light with no flash with a prime lens? No reviews I looked up had any examples at, say, 1/30 shutter speed at 1600 ISO. Since I do a lot of candids in dim places, I haven't switched from film yet because all the cameras in my price range yield really noisy pictures-- and my 1970s camera can go in my pocket while DSLRs are really clunky and too big.


I do a lot of street in dodgy lighting with a full frame DSLR and it's the same size as a film body. You should have no issues with a FF DSLR. The smaller sensors are noisier. As for mirrorless, it's possible that they'll dominate over viewfinders but a) you can't do long shoots with them because you're holding them up instead of steadying them with your forehead and b) the battery life will always be worse because of the need to run a screen. Battery life is a feature and product managers overlook it at their peril.
 
2014-01-05 06:02:14 PM  

psychosis_inducing: How does it do in low light with no flash with a prime lens? No reviews I looked up had any examples at, say, 1/30 shutter speed at 1600 ISO. Since I do a lot of candids in dim places, I haven't switched from film yet because all the cameras in my price range yield really noisy pictures-- and my 1970s camera can go in my pocket while DSLRs are really clunky and too big.


For low light indoor scenes, the noise isn't bad. I'd never use it for long exposure photography, though.  The camera does allow you to save to RAW if you want to bypass the somewhat soft noise filter in the JPG module.

My main issue with the NEX is that the OSS is built into the lens, not the body.  Many of the fast prime lenses on the market seem to omit it, like my Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/2.8 units.  So for low light, they're sometimes better, sometimes worse than the stock 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens when it comes to subject blur.

The camera does include an option to allow photos to be quickly taken in groups of three, where the camera tries to pick the least blurry of the bunch.  It helps, but isn't perfect.  You can also tell the camera to save all three photos, which I like because I can hand pick the best photo later on.  Great for weeding out closed eyes.

But as gaslight pointed out, the sensors in the mirrorless cameras are often too small if image noise is your main concern.  My NEX uses an APS-C sensor (28.4mm diag) while many DSLR cameras use a full-frame sensor (43.2mm diag).  The only compact camera I've seen with a sensor that large is the Leica M9 rangefinder, which costs 10× as much as my NEX5.  Also, mirrorless mount lenses (Sony E, Nikon 1, micro 4/3) tend to ramp up in price faster than DSLR mount lenses when getting into the higher-end since they're still a niche product.
 
2014-01-05 06:31:51 PM  

psychosis_inducing: No reviews I looked up had any examples at, say, 1/30 shutter speed at 1600 ISO.


Here are some of my NEX5 night and low light images up on Flickr with the metadata intact.
 
2014-01-05 08:37:43 PM  

Dinjiin: psychosis_inducing: No reviews I looked up had any examples at, say, 1/30 shutter speed at 1600 ISO.

Here are some of my NEX5 night and low light images up on Flickr with the metadata intact.


Thank you!
 
2014-01-05 10:44:54 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I already kind of got screwed when I got an Olympus E-330 as a starter DSLR. Luckily, I only paid $300 on sale at Fry's with a 18-180 lens included. It's just a pain to not really be able to easily upgrade lenses without hitting eBay.


Um, Olympus still sells four thirds lenses.  Though I prefer to buy used just because I am cheap.

Some very, very fine lenses are available for your camera.  The 18-180 is not one of them.
 
2014-01-06 01:26:01 AM  

Dinjiin: But as gaslight pointed out, the sensors in the mirrorless cameras are often too small if image noise is your main concern.  My NEX uses an APS-C sensor (28.4mm diag) while many DSLR cameras use a full-frame sensor (43.2mm diag).  The only compact camera I've seen with a sensor that large is the Leica M9 rangefinder, which costs 10× as much as my NEX5.


You're using a NEX5, but you're unaware of Sony's own RX-1B?  And it only costs 4-5x as much as yours!
 
2014-01-06 02:20:01 AM  

dbirchall: You're using a NEX5, but you're unaware of Sony's own RX-1B? And it only costs 4-5x as much as yours!


I actually came back to correct myself.  But I was going to point out the new Sony Alpha 7 series I just read about this evening, as opposed to the fixed lens RX-1B.

Seems that Sony is retiring the NEX name and is consolidating everything under the Alpha name.  The mirrorless cameras will continue to use the E-mount, while the DSLR cameras will continue to use the A-mount.  They're also releasing new E-mount lenses for the full frame models, but you can use older APS-C lenses with reduced resolution (cropped mode).

Now that mirrorless cameras are graduating to full frame sensors, it makes me wonder when the DSLR market is going to shift to medium format sensors, like the 54mm diag sensor in the Lecia S2 and the 55mm diag sensor in the Pentax 645D.
 
2014-01-06 04:40:25 AM  

gaslight: As for mirrorless, it's possible that they'll dominate over viewfinders but a) you can't do long shoots with them because you're holding them up instead of steadying them with your forehead and b) the battery life will always be worse because of the need to run a screen.


The better mirrorless cameras have viewfinders:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/slrs/oly_em5
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report