....the camera of the future isn’t from the past...

[jsrockit]

How true to all!

Read this - White guy photography....

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/06/white-guy-photography/

Ah, wow... I see. I'll stop photographing NYC immediately because some tool had an epiphany about photographing "others." I don't photograph different races because they are exotic. I photograph them because, like people from my race, they are outside doing things.

 

[willie_901]

Calling all optics experts......report to this thread immediately!

How long to phone sized nocti speed medium format rigs, crazy sharp, with dreamy bokeh?

tap tap tap.......

that's my biological clock ticking....

Just like the car that gets 200 miles on a gallon of gas. The "phone sized nocti speed medium format rigs, crazy sharp, with dreamy bokeh" already exists. The problem is a vast conspirecy of government, mining, electronics industry, advertising and military internets are suppressing its release.

 

[Sparrow]

I never said they were the same.

... that's OK then, because they are completely different disciplines

 

[flyalf]

All of us have now been through some futures, and and in all those the camera of the future HAS BEEN the camera of the past. Its all about first controlling the basic (4) parameters of camera/lens and recording on a light-recording medium, and secondly to adapt this into something its easier to actual see and then share . For non-photographers a large degree of automation have been made available.

So until a real paradigm change comes its fair to assume that the camera of the future is the camera of the past. It follows that it makes sense to use the concepts that works, and based on the way we are "designed" as humans. So the design of the future is the design of the past. Some call this retro. The other stuff is just marketing gimmicks, or new functions to ease the sharing. Lets not confuse this with photography.

What the author could have said is that sharing (the publishing) of photos in the future is based on the past, but might not be the same.

 

[uhoh7]

Well this seems to be a flashpoint piece on the subject:

The graying of traditional photography and why everything is getting re-invented in a form we don't understand.

"The people driving the market are predominately over 50 years old and at least 90% of them are men. We're the ones who are driving the romantic re-entanglement with faux rangefinder styles. We're the ones at whom the retro design of the OMD series camera are aimed. We're the ones who remember when battleship Nikons and Canons were actually needed to get great shots and we're the ones who believe in the primacy of the still image as a wonderful means of communication and even art. But we're a small part of the consumer economy now and we're walking one path while the generations that are coming behind us are walking another path. And it's one we're willfully trying not to understand because we never want to admit that what we thought of as the "golden age of photography" is coming to an end as surely as the kingdom of Middle Earth fades away in the last book of the Lord of the Rings trilogy."

"Where is photography going? Where it always gone. It's going along for the ride with popular culture. It's the traditionalists that feel a sense of loss but the sense of loss is from the constant evolution of tastes and styles. If you look at photo history you'll see generational warfare at every junction. Resistance to smaller camera formats! Resistance to color film! Resistant to SLR cameras! Resistance to automation!"

Kirk Tuck


Ouch!

 

[willie_901]

I abhorre smartphones, instagram, facebook, digital photography and all the social media. In my eyes, it is a de-personification of the human being. You do not count, only the crowd counts, the instant "cute" or "hip" thing, that you cheer, and then forget in a heartbeat.
Not everybody wants to become a McDonald burger.

Especially my pet cow Millie.

Seriously, there is a dehumanizing aspect to modern life and instant, convenient communication. The thing is we actively pursue these sorts of things. These technologies are extremely new. People really haven't adjusted to one of the most rapid, profound changes in human history. But we have developed powerful short term strategies on how to make money off of designing, manufacturing, promoting, selling and providing content for these new technologies.

Teleologically, the 1944 Louis Jordan song "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby" asks a question few have given serious consideration.

 

[Bob Wilson]

The future ain't what it used to be...

 

[thegman]

Whether you agree with this or not, it is an interesting article. And, it is most probably true. We here at RFF are a niche. A small club. Doesn't matter how many people you all know who carry this or that. Or how many people you know young and old who still shoot film. We will not drive the market of the future. Only the here and now. The camera my 4 1/2 year old son will hold when he is my age, will have almost nothing to do with the past.

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/06/camera-future-isnt-past/#more-125409

No doubt about it, but I won't drive the market for sweetened fizzy drinks either.

I'd say there is quite a lot 'blah' in that article, and one which misses the point of the Df in a big way. The point of the Df is that it looks like a 'vintage' camera so that people will buy it.

It's nothing to do with being good, or a change from black molded plastic designs. It's about selling things.

I have no problem with that, jobs need to come from somewhere, but the future of the camera market would not appear to be related to the future of photography, as far as I can tell.

 

[Peter de Waal]

One fact that such debates seem to ignore is the centrality of Japan to future digital-optical production. Currently most high-end optical chips are fabricated there, and it takes 6-7 years to build a new chip fab. I have a friend who's worked for AMD for over 20 years doing just that, and there is no way to speed up the fab development process. This is a problem for would-be future-camera imaginers because the population of Japan continues to be irradiated from the out-of-control nuclear disaster at Fukushima. People who know what they are talking about, like Dr. Helen Caldicott (http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/categories/fukushima.html) suggest that there will be widespread illness and death in Japan in the near-future because Fukushima has caused about twice as much radionuclide material to be released into the environment to date, compared to the total fallout from Chernobyl - which after all only irradiated 40% of Europe. Apparently the Japanese government's deliberate misinformation during the crisis also caused millions of people to flee to areas directly under airborne plumes of fallout. During the cold war every Western news outlet had it in for the USSR, so we had wall-to-wall coverage of that disaster. Entire communities are still resident in dangerous areas in Japan, whereas the equivalent endangered populations were evacuated by the Soviet govt. within days. Albeit, after prodding by the Western powers reporting the sudden spike in airborne radionuclides over their territories. Currently Japan Inc. is running at a huge financial loss because they are having to import large volumes of oil and gas to replace the cheap electrical generation of mothballed nuclear power generation facilities. The Japanese population seems very hostile to a resumption of nuclear generation, with demonstrations, etc. Given these facts I think the 'camera of the future' will very much resemble 'the cameras of the past' as they will be one and the same. The people of Japan are renowned for their industriousness, but it's a bit of a stretch to ask them to continue producing for us when they are dead.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I'm waiting for the full-frame 36mp Google Glass camera.

 

[BlackXList]

I did eye up the little mountable Sony lens when I saw it in the window of a camera shop recently, it's pretty well priced for what it is, but I already have an RX100, and I think I'll let someone else test them out and see about picking one up used just to have a play with.

In general though a lot of the most recent "advances" don't appeal to me at all, I don't need wifi in a camera, I don't need nfc, geotagging, I especially don't need to be instantly uploading anything to Instagram etc.

I take the photos, I go home, edit the selection, post process the images, and THEN upload them, until that point they're not finished. So no thanks, I don't want to upload an heavily compressed unfinished version.

Editing, and post processing what you shoot are important skills, but it seems this "progress" has a side effect of cutting both of those stages out.

 

[kbg32]

Ah, wow... I see. I'll stop photographing NYC immediately because some tool had an epiphany about photographing "others." I don't photograph different races because they are exotic. I photograph them because, like people from my race, they are outside doing things.

I photograph the "human race", which, like chocolates, comes in all sorts of varieties.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The principal irritating thing about that article is its assumption of unity. The camera of the future. It's as silly an assumption as the person of the future. As though there'll only be one. The second irritating thing about the article is an assumption that this is an exercise in nostalgia. . . . .

Beautifully put. It's an exercise in "Hey, look at me, I'm cool, I understand all this stuff."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Linkert]

I don't know alot about painting or paintbrushes, but I would bet a paintbrush from the 20's is pretty much the same as a paintbrush from today?

I use old second hand thrift store film cameras because it's a tried and true medium. It lasts the test of time. Not because it's easier, not because it looks better, nor that it has that 'film look'. A negative will last for a long time, also it's one of the two mediums of photography that has hold my interest in photography for longer than a couple of months. The first medium was my iPhone 4 by the way.

Hm?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Beautifully put. It's an exercise in "Hey, look at me, I'm cool, I understand all this stuff."

I'm glad someone does. I've been an IT tech for more than thirty years and I'm darn sure I understand around 1% of what's going on.

🙄

 

[Buzzard]

I am very new to photography and my interest is towards photography as a art form. I understand that camera's have come a long way and are being further advanced on a yearly basis as well.

But in the same sense that artist still use brushes and oil based paint instead of tablets; I think there will always be a place for film and more manual vs auto type cameras.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I'm glad someone does. I've been an IT tech for more than thirty years and I'm darn sure I understand around 1% of what's going on.

🙄

Hahaha, also in IT and I can relate to this. The longer I stay in this field, it feels like the less I know...

As far as the article, it just seems kind of... pointless? Great photographers have always made great images with the equipment available at the time. That will continue, regardless of whether or not camera companies have declining sales. BFD.

 

[mwoenv]

I didn't know the current DSLRs like the D800 were used mainly by "50 year old white guys". This type of language tells me the author is an idiot writing another meaningless article.

But on the subject, who cares? Use what you like, photography is not the camera but you. Besides, all this is about camera makers having to come up with new stuff to sell. If you're into keeping up with that, it's probably interesting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I didn't know the current DSLRs like the D800 were used mainly by "50 year old white guys". This type of language tells me the author is an idiot writing another meaningless article.

But on the subject, who cares? Use what you like, photography is not the camera but you. Besides, all this is about camera makers having to come up with new stuff to sell. If you're into keeping up with that, it's probably interesting.

Yes, it's an interesting exercise in racism, isn't it? "Sorry, bo', cain't sell ya a D800 'cause y'all the wrong cullah. How 'bout this heah Instah-Matic?"


(Apologies to my Southern friends for an outdated parody. But speaking of outdated parodies, as the writer of the referenced article was...)

Cheers,

R.