[interested_observer]

Here are some postulates that I have written before, and I'll list here again...

• Most cameras are better than most photographers.
• Most cameras frustrate their owners with too much complexity and unneeded and unused functionality.
• Most cameras are highly flawed in one way or another, but their users just don't understand how and why.
• It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say.
• A high quality lens will always trump the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality.
• Sensor size and high megapixel count matters little, unless one is making very large exhibition sized prints.

Assuming that at least a few, if not all of the above have some truth to them, no wonder that the camera industry is in trouble.

• What Matters

[MadMathMind]

It doesn't take more than one or two camera upgrades or brand changes for one to realize that the latest model touted on DPReview or LuLa isn't going to make them a better photographer, and that image quality improvements over last year's model will be hardly of significance much of the time, if at all.

A better photographer? No, certainly not. But all this fancy stuff allows me to do things beyond what practicality or my skill allows. High ISO performance is an example of one of these. A highly skilled photographer can invest in a powerful flash and diffusing equipment and learn how to use this to get images that look like they were shot in natural light. Or they can put it on a tripod--but that's not practical or allowable in a lot of circumstances.

Aside from being able to edit the final image (and other processing tricks), digital cameras do nothing film cameras couldn't, with the help of a lot filters and knowledge. Now, I don't need a tungsten filter and a light meter to make my images come out natural and not all orangey inside buildings. The camera does that part for me, for the most part.

This is where improvements are to be made, on automating common image improvement techniques. It reduces the amount of technical knowledge needed to take nice photos, but not the artistic component. No automation is ever going to change that. We just won't have to look at abysmal photos taken by mom and Grandma any more--they'll be able to take decent snapshots. That's a good thing.

Most cameras are highly flawed in one way or another, but their users just don't understand how and why.

Every product that costs a reasonable amount of money is highly flawed in some way. That's the basic premise of engineering: how to achieve quality at a reasonable price. To eliminate all flaws, even serious ones, would be so costly no one could afford the result--or really tell much difference!

[panoguy]

Reichmann always has something to say, even when he just restates the obvious with some niceties to make his readers pat their Leicas and say "aha, see? We're better." That was basically a fluff opinion piece, IMHO.

I almost choked on my chocolate milk when I read "It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say" in the context of the camera industry being in trouble. As if that has *ever* mattered to any part of the industry that makes cameras, lenses, film, etc.

Sometimes he does have insights and some interesting takes on things, but I've really gotten tired of these broad ranging opinion pieces that seem to pander to a dilettante, elitist photo-nerd readership while deciding that "the camera market" is dead, dying, or in trouble. The dedicated readers of LuLa, that Michael is addressing, are an incredibly tiny and monetarily insignificant part of the market. If they all went out and sold their homes and cars (and high-end audiophile systems), and then put all that money into camera gear, even Leica wouldn't notice the trend.

Perhaps he's just bored and filling up space to keep his site running... I don't know. Seems like the last few years have been vacuous at that site.

[monochrome]

I didn't even read it. I know what he wrote from the comments. And I don't care. As I wrote on another thread, when I had put all my cameras away because my wife told me everything had already been done - my daughter said, "But Dad, you haven't done it."

That's the only thing that matters.

[EDIT:] I came back and deleted most of this post because it was really just a rant. The gist of what I wrote (and I'm putting this back because jon404 below responded) was that I shoot for me. I know my cameras and my own skills and limitations. I will get better with the equipment I have and I will try new and used stuff for the fun of it. I wish the camera did less. I wish I could do more. I've never (really!!) used green mode.

If I want to shoot with an SV and a hand-held meter and a 1958 lens or a SuperTak then I'll go out and do that. If I want to take the K3 and a Limited out at the crack of dawn or the deep blue twilight, I'll do that. If I'm in Malibu and I try to capture the green flash (way cool, but I didn't get it) then I'll do that. (Thanks jon)

If I want to take the Q bag out and goof around or maybe push things to see what I can get, well then that's what I'll do - or if it was all I took to Boca Grande because airplanes and it was enough for the shade of the palm and the blue and green water or the sunset caster - it was enough. I was happy, not disappointed.

I have the luxury to do this for myself - I don't need to print display-sized.to put food on the table. If MR is correct and the vast majotiy of camera buyers have reached their frustration points because cameras are too good for them and they're neither patient enough nor curious enough to keep trying then I feel sorry for them, not for the industry.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-15-2014 at 02:07 PM.

[jon404]

@monochrome -- about that green flash -- here in San Diego, I look for it on chilly days, when the air over the sea is absolutely clear -- no clouds, no haze, no smog -- and when the sea is a deep blue with a thin dark purple line along the horizon. Guaranteed flash! But it also happens at other times -- now and then -- unpredictable. It is NOT an optical illusion -- when you see it, if there are other people around, everyone will see it.

The problem photographically is that the last blip of pure sunlight is still so much brighter than the sky around it -- so you meter off the sun, or the sky right next the sun... and that will capture a green flash -- but not as bright as what you see with your eyes... also the severe underexposure make the sky change color... and the photo doesn't look like what you see. Here's one from late last year --

[monochrome]

@monochrome -- about that green flash -- here in San Diego, I look for it on chilly days, when the air over the sea is absolutely clear -- no clouds, no haze, no smog -- and when the sea is a deep blue with a thin dark purple line along the horizon. Guaranteed flash! But it also happens at other times -- now and then -- unpredictable. It is NOT an optical illusion -- when you see it, if there are other people around, everyone will see it.

The problem photographically is that the last blip of pure sunlight is still so much brighter than the sky around it -- so you meter off the sun, or the sky right next the sun... and that will capture a green flash -- but not as bright as what you see with your eyes... also the severe underexposure make the sky change color... and the photo doesn't look like what you see. Here's one from late last year --

Yes! That was it (but there was also a thin line extending out from the sun and of course it wasn't underexposed). Most strikingly, the sea/waves appeared just about exactly the same. Thank you for posting that!!

The people I was with (business) took me out on the odd chance we would see it and - they were really surprised that we actually did. It was indeed a completely clear day, blue water, in early March. Must have been a bit of cabin fever the day before because the surfers were all buzzing around all afternoon like they hadn't gotten out in a while.

Very very neat that you caught it. I didn't know how and I likely won't have another chance living in St. Louis and all.

[Winder]

Here are some postulates that I have written before, and I'll list here again...
Most cameras are better than most photographers.
Most cameras frustrate their owners with too much complexity and unneeded and unused functionality.
Most cameras are highly flawed in one way or another, but their users just don't understand how and why.
It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say.
A high quality lens will always trump the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality.
Sensor size and high megapixel count matters little, unless one is making very large exhibition sized prints.
Assuming that at least a few, if not all of the above have some truth to them, no wonder that the camera industry is in trouble.

Most camera's are better than most photographers.

Camera's have so many functions and complexity because manufacturers try to make a camera that has as many features as possible to appeal to the most people. There are dozens of functions on my K-3 I have no interest in, but that others have a significant interest in. HD video as an example. I have never even tried it out or played with it. Pentax could delete that function and I would never know it, but there are a large group of buyers who would. Pentax could make a specialized camera with fewer functions, but it would appeal to a smaller user base. I would love a K-3 monochrome without HD video simply to clean up the control buttons and menus. The camera would be a lot less complex few a lot fewer buttons/menus/technology, but it won't happen.

I would like clarification on how "most cameras are highly flawed". IF the camera is already better than most photographers, then the flaw is probably not important. If the camera is "highly flawed" then its probably not better than the photographer.

"It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say." No $h!t

"A high quality lens will always trump the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality." But it doesn't matter what lens you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say.

"Sensor size and high megapixel count matters little, unless one is making very large exhibition sized prints" People seem to ignore how the lens and sensor size work to produce an image.

[millsware]

There are dozens of functions on my K-3 I have no interest in, but that others have a significant interest in.

Kind of like cable television. I get over 100 channels and watch about 10, but it is easier for the cable company to just offer the whole package as a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing.

[RGlasel]

I shoot for me

Same here. And to the "nothing worthwhile to say" argument, I take photographs because I want a souvenir of something I experienced that I made myself. Sometimes I am so proud of the souvenirs I make, I want to show other people. Reichmann's latest essay is really a sequel to his "Nobody Knows Anything" essay, which also has an unchecked presumptuousness that any one person "knows" the camera industry and what floats that person's boat should be adopted by the hundreds of millions of camera owners in the world.

Yes, the global camera market is down to only 100 million or so units per year, and a lot of that decline can be explained by looking at the lifecycles of high tech consumer products. If you have a billion dollars to invest, don't invest in a camera manufacturing startup, the established players can roll over you without an extra nickel in capital investment. On the other hand, if you already have the means to build and market cameras, there is no reason you can't continue to make money by satisfying the wants of current and future camera owners for decades to come.

[jon404]

You know, Pentax could bring a 'drone camera' to market very quickly... with what, a wide-angle lens I guess? Something with whatever you need to attach it to the aircraft, if you can call them that.

With an catch-in-focus option for backyard sunbathers, of course.

[monochrome]

"Nobody Knows Anything" essay, which also has an unchecked presumptuousness that any one person "knows" the camera industry

In my About Me I immediately removed everything but gear, location and, "I know nothing."

[jogiba]

You know, Pentax could bring a 'drone camera' to market very quickly... with what, a wide-angle lens I guess? Something with whatever you need to attach it to the aircraft, if you can call them that.

With an catch-in-focus option for backyard sunbathers, of course.

The future is lightweight 4K cameras using drones.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[panoguy]

The future is lightweight 4K cameras using drones.

awesomesauce

[monochrome]

If you have a billion dollars to invest, don't invest in a camera manufacturing startup, the established players can roll over you without an extra nickel in capital investment. On the other hand, if you already have the means to build and market cameras, there is no reason you can't continue to make money by satisfying the wants of current and future camera owners for decades to come.

Hmmmm. Pentax has the means to build and market cameras. Ricoh has money - maybe not a spare billion dollars laying around - but money. Maybe we should stop fretting about whether Ricoh can stay in the enthusiast camera business and start thinking about how fortunate we are that no one else can get in.

[jon404]

"...and start thinking about how fortunate we are that no one else can get in... "
That's well-said. The Chinese certainly aren't jumping in, are they? No equivalent to the popular old 120 film Seagull cameras, this time around. I guess that in their semi-command economy, the government may see digital cameras as a loser.