The Decisive Monent(s)

[amateriat]

Brought to you by Casio, it appears.

Somehow, it seems it was only a year or so ago that I had a dream–nightmare?–of something like this coming to market. Not the "perfect" machine of my REM percolations, but a bit too close for comfort nonetheless.


- Barrett

 

[lZr]

I don't like this beast. I need only the moment I want, or better to use some video camera to select the frame from.

 

[Riaz Mesbah]

Do these companies get it that their cool doodads make it harder to make a living in this industry. It used to be that the price for entry for things like this where in the thousands in not 10s of thousands of dollars. Oh well. It still wont help sports much because I very much doubt that it can focus fast enough or track well enough for this to work well on a subject moving towards or away from the plain of focus.

 

[amateriat]

I say the biggest headache cameras like this present comes in the form of editing. For me, "editing" always begins at the shutter-release button; the "hit-and-hang-on" school of photography never held much appeal, but that seems to be held out as the ideal for this age. It might work for some people, however.


- Barrett

 

[Larky]

I love the idea, I'd try one out.

 

[Jonathan R]

I think the decisive moment in most situations is a lot longer than 1/60 sec.

 

[petronius]

Would anyone play a game when (s)he knew that (s)he always would win ?

 

[nimcod]

Obviously this is on a professional level (running at about $25,000 for a full setup) but still the "red one" video camera can now separate frames for stills which are a extremely high increase in quality over most single frame capture from video.
this thing may truly negate the decisive moment though only for the rich!

link to camera samples, stills and movies: http://www.red.com/shot_on_red

btw no link at all to the company! only just been made aware of it and think its quite a big development, even if its only running at a pro level

 

[lZr]

Perhaps for clarity, I want to state it so: This specialty camera shoots stills, but the timeline is not in connection with any decisive moment. One must review the result and select the moment. This situation precludes the true decisive moment as we know it, or as far as I know it. I prefer my 5/sec (D)SLR images for the same reason

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I'm speechless (in a very bad way).

The art of photography is now officially dead and buried.

Ara

 

[Keith]

Whatever the details of this camera are, this changes everything. When Canon or Nikon run with the idea in a $2,500 camera, I wouldn't want to be trying to make money as a sports photographer anymore. In fact, it would make it trivial to capture many photos that are extremely difficult to capture. Interesting.

That's an interesting prospect and possibly, will indeed be the next major progression in digital development ... which when you think about it still is in it's infancy really!

I don't know if I'd be against it in the way someone who will be directly affected by it would be. It will indeed make a mockery of sports or event photography having a lot to do with camera craft!

 

[Bobfrance]

Neato! This is a very clever piece of kit.

It's really not my cup of tea at all but I can see how it will be very useful for some photographers. I no longer have a problem with the relentless advance of camera technology. In fact I really like the fact that film rangefinder photography is becoming an odd little craft that only a few people understand (both how and why). I think this moves us closer to the art world than we have ever been.

As for the Casio - my girlfriend will love it. She works in casting and the ability to film and take good pictures will mean she wont have to carry two cameras around.

 

[teo]

I wouldn't take this so dramatically. It's just a bridge camera (ie: contrast detection, so pretty slow AF, no predictive and 3d AF, unusable AF in low light, and all those things) with a high burst rate. It won't replace big white lenses, and crazy fast DSLRs for professionals. Just like those big Panasonic big zoom could never do one of those sharp but also razor thin DOF football photos you see on Sport Illustrated.

I guess that the consumer user will get bored soon to review every photo 60 times (well, the "bursted ones"), just to pick one. Just like they (me too!) grew bored of RAW editing and choosing photos from a 5fps burst.

my 2€ cents

 

[Keith]

I don't understand how you're making the assumption that it shoots at 1/60sec ... I've read back through the article and I can't find confirmation of that. Only that it will shoot sixty frames per second ... there's no mention that each of those frames is shot at 1/60th shutter speed.

Or have I missed something? 😛

[edit] ... this is worth a look! http://www.exilim.com/intl/ex_f1/

 

[Pherdinand]

it has nothing to do with the "(death of the) art of photography."
Also not with "staying laive in the industry".

First of all: today if you wanna sell a something (a digital camera is a very good example), you HAVE to come op with something really new and cool. Don't bash the inverntors/developers for making something that can sell. Or do you bash the steel factories for producing steel for guns and kitchen knives used (occasionally) to kill people.

Second thing: It is always the same. Same story with autofocus. Same story with light meter, TTL meter, flash. With motor drives. Everything that is new and makes shooting easier or faster or cheaper for a certain group of people, will be considered heresy by other groups who do not really depend on it nor want it in their daily shooting style.

By the way: This is what really excites me in this device: "Most stunning of all, this camera can film at outrageously high frame rates: 300, 600, or even 1,200 frames a second." NICE!!!

 

[Pherdinand]

i dont see a reason why the shutter speed should be longer than in case of single-shot mode.
The minimum shutter speed in single-shot mode seems to be 1/2000, or in shutter priority mode, 1/40000. Four zeroes, yes, not three. I am still wondering if it is a typo or reallt fourty-thousand.

 

[Keith]

i dont see a reason why the shutter speed should be longer than in case of single-shot mode.
The minimum shutter speed in single-shot mode seems to be 1/2000, or in shutter priority mode, 1/40000. Four zeroes, yes, not three. I am still wondering if it is a typo or reallt fourty-thousand.

Yes ... I saw that too and wondered if it was a typo. Maybe they intend offering an optional future upgrade back to 1/4000! 😛

 

[tripod]

The concept is great for prof sport photographers and for scientists and for industrial applications, but for a hobbyist, it's as much fun as fishing with dynamite: guarranteed sucess for sure, but where's the fun or the challenge? Also, think of target shooting with a shotgun: one of the pellets will hit the center, unless you're very unlucky.