The Future - your thoughts?

Basically, a stupid statement (by the emailer), if you can produce a product with a Brownie Hawkeye Flash that you like then use it, and get Pulitzer, then do it.
 
Last edited:
Bye Dslr´s

Bye Dslr´s

Hi, very interesting thread.

As lcd´s are getting better and sensors are getting big enough i think dslr´s are in geopardy.

I don´t think users like or need particularly their size and mirrors.

So something smaller between rangefinders and dp2´s are the future, put in them zooms or fixed focal lenses!

Bye! Dslr´s
 
Actually what bothers me more than anything with the vast majority of these compacts are the ergonomics and viewfinder. Obviously the IQ is not as good as a full size DSLR (although there is no reason why compact with an APS sensor shouldn't be able to deliver the goods), but good enough for many things. Even small sensor cameras like the S90 and GRD can produce excellent results at lower iso.

But the ergonomics are a problem. Most of these cameras are not setup for anything but AF. Support for manual focusing is cumbersome, slow and a multistep process. Some companies like Ricoh get scale/zone focusing right, while this feature is totally lacking from camera like the GF-1 / EP-X.

That's a deal breaker for some people, but unfortunately the tyranny of the masses dictates what features are added to a camera. Let's hope that such features are added in the future.

I think AF will get considerably faster in the next year. That's a good thing.
 
Harry Lime said:
...the ergonomics are a problem. Most of these cameras are not setup for anything but AF. Support for manual focusing is cumbersome, slow and a multistep process.
Click to expand...

Although I don't have anything approaching the qualifications of others in this thread, I do want to say that, in addition to the AF emphasis, many new small cameras are simply to small to be used comfortably. At least, by someone with my hands.

Something the size of a credit card is certainly very easy to carry. On the other hand, a camera that small can be difficult to hold steady and difficult to operate. I find myself wondering if collapsible extensions could be incorporated in some of these small bodies.
 
Coming in late to the thread, I'm just recalling when I was a shooter in the 1970s & 80s--mid-sized daily newpaper. Using Nikon F and F2 cameras with motors, the "lightweight" alternative was a Nikon F or F2 without the motor. Maybe a Nikkormat for some and, later on, the FM. Few newspaper photographers of my acquaintance at the time owned Leicas--they were already too expensive for our pay grade. I picked up an Olympus XA at some point to carry when off-duty (I still have a couple of those around here somewhere). It was carried a lot and used little. It was a "there" camera. Comparing the images of the XA to those from SLRs of the day was about the same as comparing pocket digital images to APS-C or full frame. They may not have been as good technically but they were good enough and--well, hell--you wouldn't have gotten the shot at all if you hadn't had a camera. Content was more important than technical quality.

Come the digital age. Emphasis on technology. Too much, methinks. Stanley Forman's blurry photo of the black man being beaten by a mob carrying an American flag may not even get published today, let alone win a Pulitzer, given such lofty demands for technical perfection. Lots of great news photographs can't stand up to being printed big but that doesn't make them any less great.

I wish the pocket cameras were a little more user-friendly for documentary purposes, as noted above. It's hard to use some of them in a reactive way very quickly. They are better than earlier models but not perfect. Once the work-around is figured out, they can be very effective--I think Bill has shown this to be the case with his use of the Canon G-series cameras.

The question asked concerns the pocket digital replacing the rangefinder for photojournalists. I think it already has done so, given the subject of the email Bill quoted. They are convenient, capable of good results and, more importantly, they are "there". Although I'm no longer a shooter, I still take pictures occasionally:) . I don't use my Leicas or my DSLR as much as I used to, I carry a Canon G-10 a lot and, sometimes, a Panasonic Lumix. The G-10 is a fine documentary camera and the resulting images range in technical quality from excellent to more than acceptable. (I still qualify "acceptable" as Tri-X shot at EI 1600.) The Lumix is not bad either but I don't find it's high ISO capability to be very useful. But it can still be "there".
 
I've only dipped my toe into the digital world with a Canon G10 and I got to use it for a while before the wife liberated it. The wife actually uses it and actually remembers to charge the batteries and download the hundreds of useless images that have literally clogged her hard drive.

I'd like a point and shoot digital camera, the size of a Canon G10 but will be ready to shoot without having to turn the damned thing on and waiting till it boots itself up. I don't want to have premeditate charging the camera the night before a excursion. I don't want the menus........blah......blah.......!

I want a digital camera with the same readiness as my Pentax Spottie with it's cheap zoom lens. I cannot find one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom