[Regular guy]

"World’s Smallest DSLR Camera": Chobi One Valid counterexample?


I think the competition is rather in the "I have enough of P&S and bridge cameras but I will not spend more than (say) 500$ for a (small) body/system" clientele .

Actually, I would drop $1500 on the right camera body in a heartbeat, and I think that there are a lot of people like me. I just don't want to have to buy a trailer to take it with me.

[jogiba]

Video owns the future and still only cameras will be for old farts that want to live in the past. I have shot more videos with my K-7 than still shots and I have had my GH2 for over a month and have only used it in video mode. My grandkids are only into video and the 4/3rds sensor is the sweet spot for video.

Vimeo

[deejjjaaaa]

If Pentax joined MFT, then it would have lenses available

Pentax is not interested in that.

and a market for its own lenses.

but they do not need to have a body for that... they can just make lenses - directly or indirectly (cooperate w/ Tokina)... Sigma has a good business just in lenses and it does not look that C/N/S/P/etc can do a thing about that regardless of Sigma's reverse engineering...

[deadwolfbones]

Video owns the future and still only cameras will be for old farts that want to live in the past.

What's true for you is not necessarily true for everyone else.

[Roberts]

Video owns the future and still only cameras will be for old farts that want to live in the past. I have shot more videos with my K-7 than still shots and I have had my GH2 for over a month and have only used it in video mode. My grandkids are only into video and the 4/3rds sensor is the sweet spot for video.

I think You are very wrong. The same was said about cinemas, when home video was introduced, the same was said about paintings when photography became popular, and there is many similar situations in history, but Cinemas, paintings and other things are still here.
Of course, there will be electronical books and magazines were instead of pictures will be videos, BUT... not only videos, there will be stills, too. And there allways will be stills for interior designs (not always as framed pictures, there is many ways to use still photos in interior designs), and there allways will be printed books/magazines, and even maybe these ptinted media will be more stylish and expensive than electronical books.
I agree that video on consumer level (for facebook, youtube, family use) will more or less replace photography, but there will be always niches for photography.

[ghelary]

Video owns the future and still only cameras will be for old farts that want to live in the past. I have shot more videos with my K-7 than still shots and I have had my GH2 for over a month and have only used it in video mode. My grandkids are only into video and the 4/3rds sensor is the sweet spot for video.

There is a big difference between the technology (film vs digital) and the media (photo, video, writting, whatever) An old technology can be replaced by another, and sometime disapear, but media just adds up, newspapers didn't dispareared when radio came in, and radio is still very much alive decades after the apparition of television. Same goes for the Internet now.

It's been approximately 20 years now that video hit consumer market at low prices. Even if now we have devices that produce decent video quality and decent picture quality, there is still no reason to believe that one practice will overhelm another.

[eddie1960]

Video owns the future and still only cameras will be for old farts that want to live in the past. I have shot more videos with my K-7 than still shots and I have had my GH2 for over a month and have only used it in video mode. My grandkids are only into video and the 4/3rds sensor is the sweet spot for video.

This might be true for family snapshots, but video (and film) can't have the same impact as a moment in time frozen by a photograph. I can't think of many news stories on video where it made a deep impression on me. I can think of many photographs that have. Freezing that moment achieves something motion can't by focusing your attention. Both have their place but I truly think Photographs are far better at evoking memories (course I'm an old geezer)

I have the video on the K7 and haven't used it much yet. Probably will at some point but I'm more satisfied by producing a good image. I have rarely seen home video that is interesting, and producing and interesting short visual clip is more work than most people will do. You can tell a story with video but it takes a lot of pre planning and work. with a photo you can tell a story by being there and just capturing the moment in time

[Art Vandelay II]

What's true for you is not necessarily true for everyone else.

+1

Seems to be a lot of that online when discussing products. I could easily say that video doesn't matter because neither myself or anyone I know regularly shoots video, but I know that doesn't prove anything.

I will say this though, it is my belief that wide spread video will mostly be shot using iPhones and other smart phones, not from the camera world. That young generation jogiba speaks of carry phones with 5 megapixel cameras that cover their needs just fine, and also make it very easy to upload directly to Facebook and Youtube.

I have shot some "snapshot" videos with my iPhone just because it's dead simple to upload and edit on there, but I personally have zero need for any serious video capabilities. I've only used video once on my K-7, and that was on the first day I had it as a test. To properly do video you need booms, external mics, dolly's, heavy duty tripods, continuous lighting, and a seriously fast computer with a massive hard drive. I simply have no desire to do that as a hobby. Photography for me is about art, it's not about snapshots of my family...and creating art in video form is such a massive undertaking that I have no desire to start.

[jogiba]

I did not say video only, I said still only cameras are for old farts. I still shoot stills like I did this morning of our 7th snowstorm of the season along with video. I have not seen any photo that shows life as it really is compared to video.

Vimeo

[eddie1960]

+1

Seems to be a lot of that online when discussing products. I could easily say that video doesn't matter because neither myself or anyone I know regularly shoots video, but I know that doesn't prove anything.

I will say this though, it is my belief that wide spread video will mostly be shot using iPhones and other smart phones, not from the camera world. That young generation jogiba speaks of carry phones with 5 megapixel cameras that cover their needs just fine, and also make it very easy to upload directly to Facebook and Youtube.

I have shot some "snapshot" videos with my iPhone just because it's dead simple to upload and edit on there, but I personally have zero need for any serious video capabilities. I've only used video once on my K-7, and that was on the first day I had it as a test. To properly do video you need booms, external mics, dolly's, heavy duty tripods, continuous lighting, and a seriously fast computer with a massive hard drive. I simply have no desire to do that as a hobby. Photography for me is about art, it's not about snapshots of my family...and creating art in video form is such a massive undertaking that I have no desire to start.

Well said plus 1 rep for this

[Singulariter]

Totally in agreement here, you can't put the genie back in the bottle imo, so why even try to have that argument.

I guess it's hard for those who have not seriously been into the professional film/video production market to understand how desirable removable lenses are in that area (and how much of a premium access to that ability used to demand) That said, I do understand how one could feel like their space has been invaded

[eddie1960]

Totally in agreement here, you can't put the genie back in the bottle imo, so why even try to have that argument.

I guess it's hard for those who have not seriously been into the professional film/video production market to understand how desirable removable lenses are in that area (and how much of a premium access to that ability used to demand) That said, I do understand how one could feel like their space has been invaded

I would agree the SLR with Video is a big game changer for video production. Interchangeable lens video cameras have been far too expensive particularly if you are shooting documentaries where the cost was prohibitive. But I don't think it can replace photography. It just gives another market to the makers of DSLRs. That being said I wish Pentax would get with this program properly and provide manual controls in video mode so they could compete with Canon. Really the K5 could be a hell of a Doc camera (particularly with the wealth of great lenses available for use)
The m4/3 sensor does make shooting video easier as DOF isn't as short, but sometimes you want that narrow DOF and can't get it with this sensor. Apsc seems the best trade off for this use.
Still for me the ability to produce a striking still is far more satisfying and the video aspect will likely be something i don't use a lot (never say never though, I've yet to cover a big music fest with the k7 and haven't been on a vacation either)

[Singulariter]

Spot on Eddie, without a doubt.

[eddie1960]

Spot on Eddie, without a doubt.

My closest tie to video film production has been providing some stills for a doc n production. don't know if they will get used beyond promo material, right now it's out of control, he's got it down to 6 hours of footage from close to 250 (shades of Dig here). now he's stuck, he really needs someone to come in and edit it down from here who has no ties to the subjects and can get it down to a couple of hours. it's a labour of love though and has had no outside financing at this point so that likely won't happen. there is some talk of putting out a 6 hour interactive dvd version, he just needs a programmer for that

the ongoing saga is detailed below (it's a follow up to the first thing he ever shot over 30 years ago)

The Last Pogo Jumps Again

[ghelary]

I would agree the SLR with Video is a big game changer for video production. Interchangeable lens video cameras have been far too expensive particularly if you are shooting documentaries where the cost was prohibitive. But I don't think it can replace photography. It just gives another market to the makers of DSLRs. That being said I wish Pentax would get with this program properly and provide manual controls in video mode so they could compete with Canon. Really the K5 could be a hell of a Doc camera (particularly with the wealth of great lenses available for use)
The m4/3 sensor does make shooting video easier as DOF isn't as short, but sometimes you want that narrow DOF and can't get it with this sensor. Apsc seems the best trade off for this use.
Still for me the ability to produce a striking still is far more satisfying and the video aspect will likely be something i don't use a lot (never say never though, I've yet to cover a big music fest with the k7 and haven't been on a vacation either)

Producing videos is a far more demanding task than taking a picture. If we want to compare, let's say a fiction movie crew and a fashion shoot crew. It's not just about equipment. Shooting video demands someone to take care of image, another of sound, one another of the lightings, to get a good plan, need to take care of the framing, but also about the fluidity of the movements of the camera. Often, having the camera on a fixed tripod is dull (weither on documentary or fictions) so you may need to hand hold it or put it on a dolly.

Clearly the "big" sensors and interchangeable lenses are a breakthrough for videographers, but it remain that shooting video demands a lot more of know how and involvment to reach a professional result than photography does.

Now regarding statements that photography is for old fart, I would remind that film sales is increasing again because the younger generation likes to play with it. Radio and music were the medium of expression of the younger generation in an era (1960's / 1970's) where television and movies were much more conservatives.