A Photographic Philosophical Change is Coming ?

Dom · 05-14-2009, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc.

Mike

p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned.

I couldn't have put it better my self. If I want to take video I'll use a video camera.
This is why the K20D will probably be the last APS / full-frame, my next digital camera will have to be a medium format.

OregonJim · 05-14-2009, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc.

Mike

p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned.

I'm with you, Mike. A specialized tool, or a general purpose tool? It's a no-brainer when you want quality. Unfortunately, the general public thinks otherwise.

RawheaD · 05-14-2009, 07:59 AM

It's a logical progression, nothing more. I remember as a child, at 7 years old, when I was given my very first camera, a Yashica rangefinder (with autowind, w00t!), I was already thinking "Wouldn't it be nice if this thing could record a 5 second video clip, so that I can have movement and sound". It was just 30 years late in coming.

Before the iPhone, people thought that music player capabilities on a cell phone was just a gimmick, even when Sony––SONY, for crying out loud––did it. Now, nothing makes more sense (at least to me) than having my iPod and smartphone integrated. And the iPhone does both things arguably better than individual, dedicated devices, to boot. E.g., I can access not just the 8GB of media on my iPhone, but also 200+GB of music on my home network on the go using SimplifyMedia. This is only possible because my music player and 3G network smartphone are integrated into one.

I digress.

Not to suggest that everyone will, or should want to, use an integrated device. But just think about it.. think forward 5 years 10 years. Who would NOT want a "still" camera that can record video at 4K HD @ 30fps (or 60fps or 120fps), from which you can choose the best "moment" as your still shot of choice?

txsbluesguy · 05-14-2009, 08:03 AM

I haven't seen any of the things you mention in a sub $2000 camera in almost a half decade
lets see in the last two years has anyone released a camera under $2000
that had:
3 CCDs larger then 1/3 inch
a focus ring because AF down .04 lux still isn't accurate enuff to trust
a iris ring or even some control not buried in the menu
mic inputs with level control or better yet even have separate mic and headphone jacks where you have to choose one or the other ....

yes if you compare to a $3500 video camera you start to get those things back .... but for that price imagine the SLR and lenses you could get ...

Originally posted by Venturi

You mean those clunky little square boxes with the tiny 3:2 lenses and an SD or CF card? Why would I ever want that when I can have triple CCD sensor tech, reliable continuous AF down to 0.4 lux, up to 60fps, 16:9 1080i, DV tape and/or HDD support, quality stereo sound, I/O ports tailored to a wide variety of AV needs and a bevy of effects and editing tools built into my camcorder?

OregonJim · 05-14-2009, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by RawheaD

Who would NOT want a "still" camera that can record video at 4K HD @ 30fps (or 60fps or 120fps), from which you can choose the best "moment" as your still shot of choice?

Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is *not* photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

wll · 05-14-2009, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by OregonJim

Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is *not* photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

OregonJim,

I understand your point well ....... but ....

There are folks that say digital is a cop out and film is what photography is "suppose" to be.

Time and technology moves on and things change. For me it is a bit hard to get used to as we all have our comfort zones and like things to "stay the same" --- as the great writer Thomas Wolf said "you can't go home again" ..... sad but true.

wll

*isteve · 05-14-2009, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by wll

With the news and rumors of the K-7 (and other makers) it comes apparent that photographic tools are now becoming an "Imaging device". No longer will we see dedicated "Still Cameras" or "Movie Cameras" as we did in the past.

What are your feelings on this .... I for one, growing up using film still cameras, was never much a film movie guy.

I think people are forgetting about some of the downsides compared to dedicated video cams. It really is NOT a direct replacement for a dedicated video camera. Its something new.

Yes you can use fast lenses for shallow DOF, but you would also need huge telephoto lenses to cover the range of a normal video camera, and at long focal lengths shallow DOF is a real pain. Try keeping up with a racing car or BIF with a 600mm lens - an SLR's normal PD optical system can just about manage (though its not smooth) but a contrast detect system? Dream on.

SLR autofocus is nothing like as smooth and quite as video AF. It doesnt need to be - it needs to be fast and accurate. Perhaps the contrast AF system is being developed just for this, but its not "free". Do you want stills lenses to have smoother and quieter AF at the cost of speed? . Do you want to have buy new lenses just for video, especially as most of the old screw drive lenses will drown out any sound? Pretty soon it gets expensive.

You have to manually zoom, which means you really require a tripod much of the time.

You cant use the VF when shooting which means on really bright days you cant accurately verify exposure and focus. At least with micro 4/3 you dont have this problem. In fact without the mirror assembly, I see video as a far more natural extension of the micro 4/3 and micro APS concept. It just makes more sense to me.

Plus your still camera is carrying the additional cost of lots of technology licensing on the video side. Without this, the K7 would likely be a couple of hundred dollars less.

Now dont get me wrong, if I was a photojournalist, wedding or event photographer I would pretty soon need one to compete with all the other guys offering video. I could even see the point in it. But I just dont think most people other than indie movie makers are going to be able to exploit it that well. Its quite technically challenging to shoot movies on larger formats.

Personally I would like to have the OPTION of a camera without all this for a couple of hundred dollars less. Perhaps the K7 limited?

OregonJim · 05-14-2009, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by wll

OregonJim,

I understand your point well ....... but ....

There are folks that say digital is a cop out and film is what photography is "suppose" to be.

Time and technology moves on and things change. For me it is a bit hard to get used to as we all have our comfort zones and like things to "stay the same" --- as the great writer Thomas Wolf said "you can't go home again" ..... sad but true.

wll

I don't care if photography evolves with technology (it's inevitable). But photography and cinematography are completely different fields. They should each have their own tools, regardless of the state of technology. It has nothing to do with 'comfort zones'.

**Hannican** · 05-14-2009, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by OregonJim

Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is *not* photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

I don't like that idea either, but I DO want a video camera capable of the stats you suggested =) And if that same camera could do spectacular still imaging, then sign me up!

txsbluesguy · 05-14-2009, 08:33 AM

tell that to the "Directors of Photography"

Originally posted by OregonJim

Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is *not* photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

nosnoop · 05-14-2009, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by wll

What do you guys and gals think about the merging of still and movie in one photographic device ?

Why is this posted in the News and Rumors forum?

OregonJim · 05-14-2009, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by txsbluesguy

tell that to the "Directors of Photography"

I have no idea what you're talking about.

txsbluesguy · 05-14-2009, 08:41 AM

what are you doing when your looking through the view finder?? you're watching time and pick the single moment to press the shutter to capture an image in time ....

and i don't think very many people are going to just let the camera run and pick the one image ...... your right there is no craft in that .... except the guys who want 10FPS like the sports shooter ....

Originally posted by OregonJim

Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is *not* photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

wll · 05-14-2009, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by nosnoop

Why is this posted in the News and Rumors forum?

Because it is news ... it is the way we as photographers are headed in thinking about photography as we once knew it, and the change that is happening to Pentax and all other camera manufactures in the age of information and the "I want it all in one mentality".

wll

Mister Guy · 05-14-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by txsbluesguy

what are you doing when your looking through the view finder?? you're watching time and pick the single moment to press the shutter to capture an image in time ....

and i don't think very many people are going to just let the camera run and pick the one image ...... your right there is no craft in that .... except the guys who want 10FPS like the sports shooter ....

Sure, if you're using hot lights or ambient. When I'm looking through the view finder, I'm framing a shot which I then immediately change into something different via flashes...

05-14-2009, 08:03 AM	#19
txsbluesguy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 103	modern video cameras I haven't seen any of the things you mention in a sub $2000 camera in almost a half decade lets see in the last two years has anyone released a camera under $2000 that had: 3 CCDs larger then 1/3 inch a focus ring because AF down .04 lux still isn't accurate enuff to trust a iris ring or even some control not buried in the menu mic inputs with level control or better yet even have separate mic and headphone jacks where you have to choose one or the other .... yes if you compare to a $3500 video camera you start to get those things back .... but for that price imagine the SLR and lenses you could get ... Originally posted by Venturi You mean those clunky little square boxes with the tiny 3:2 lenses and an SD or CF card? Why would I ever want that when I can have triple CCD sensor tech, reliable continuous AF down to 0.4 lux, up to 60fps, 16:9 1080i, DV tape and/or HDD support, quality stereo sound, I/O ports tailored to a wide variety of AV needs and a bevy of effects and editing tools built into my camcorder?

05-14-2009, 08:33 AM	#25
txsbluesguy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 103	throwing out craft tell that to the "Directors of Photography" Originally posted by OregonJim Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is not photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

05-14-2009, 08:41 AM	#28
txsbluesguy Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 103	picking a still what are you doing when your looking through the view finder?? you're watching time and pick the single moment to press the shutter to capture an image in time .... and i don't think very many people are going to just let the camera run and pick the one image ...... your right there is no craft in that .... except the guys who want 10FPS like the sports shooter .... Originally posted by OregonJim Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is not photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hope and Change , "Hey mister can you spare some change?"	seacapt	General Talk	19	04-13-2010 05:56 AM
Photographic Bravery	Rondec	Photographic Technique	30	09-07-2009 07:53 AM
A philosophical question	wildman	Photographic Technique	12	02-03-2009 07:21 PM
Photographic portfolio	MrA	Photographic Technique	7	04-21-2008 12:11 AM
Photographic accidents	Chako	Post Your Photos!	5	09-02-2007 09:18 AM

05-14-2009, 07:53 AM	#16
Dom Guest	Originally posted by MRRiley Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc. Mike p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned. I couldn't have put it better my self. If I want to take video I'll use a video camera. This is why the K20D will probably be the last APS / full-frame, my next digital camera will have to be a medium format.

05-14-2009, 07:58 AM	#17
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by MRRiley Just like All-in-One printers.... they do it all OK but don't do any one thing very well. Frankly, the more crap they put in my still camera to make it do other things, the less I like it. I want a still camera to take still photos. If I want movies I will buy a camcorder or movie camera. If I want a coffee maker or phone I will buy one. This stuff just takes up room in the body that could be used to further improve the still photography experience, like improved or larger sensors, GPS, working live-view, etc. Mike p.s. I like the shape of still cameras today. They are ergonomically fine as far as I am concerned. I'm with you, Mike. A specialized tool, or a general purpose tool? It's a no-brainer when you want quality. Unfortunately, the general public thinks otherwise.

05-14-2009, 07:59 AM	#18
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	It's a logical progression, nothing more. I remember as a child, at 7 years old, when I was given my very first camera, a Yashica rangefinder (with autowind, w00t!), I was already thinking "Wouldn't it be nice if this thing could record a 5 second video clip, so that I can have movement and sound". It was just 30 years late in coming. Before the iPhone, people thought that music player capabilities on a cell phone was just a gimmick, even when Sony––SONY, for crying out loud––did it. Now, nothing makes more sense (at least to me) than having my iPod and smartphone integrated. And the iPhone does both things arguably better than individual, dedicated devices, to boot. E.g., I can access not just the 8GB of media on my iPhone, but also 200+GB of music on my home network on the go using SimplifyMedia. This is only possible because my music player and 3G network smartphone are integrated into one. I digress. Not to suggest that everyone will, or should want to, use an integrated device. But just think about it.. think forward 5 years 10 years. Who would NOT want a "still" camera that can record video at 4K HD @ 30fps (or 60fps or 120fps), from which you can choose the best "moment" as your still shot of choice?

05-14-2009, 08:14 AM	#20
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by RawheaD Who would NOT want a "still" camera that can record video at 4K HD @ 30fps (or 60fps or 120fps), from which you can choose the best "moment" as your still shot of choice? Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is not photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft.

05-14-2009, 08:26 AM	#21
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773 Original Poster	Originally posted by OregonJim Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is not photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft. OregonJim, I understand your point well ....... but .... There are folks that say digital is a cop out and film is what photography is "suppose" to be. Time and technology moves on and things change. For me it is a bit hard to get used to as we all have our comfort zones and like things to "stay the same" --- as the great writer Thomas Wolf said "you can't go home again" ..... sad but true. wll

05-14-2009, 08:27 AM	#22
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by wll With the news and rumors of the K-7 (and other makers) it comes apparent that photographic tools are now becoming an "Imaging device". No longer will we see dedicated "Still Cameras" or "Movie Cameras" as we did in the past. What are your feelings on this .... I for one, growing up using film still cameras, was never much a film movie guy. I think people are forgetting about some of the downsides compared to dedicated video cams. It really is NOT a direct replacement for a dedicated video camera. Its something new. Yes you can use fast lenses for shallow DOF, but you would also need huge telephoto lenses to cover the range of a normal video camera, and at long focal lengths shallow DOF is a real pain. Try keeping up with a racing car or BIF with a 600mm lens - an SLR's normal PD optical system can just about manage (though its not smooth) but a contrast detect system? Dream on. SLR autofocus is nothing like as smooth and quite as video AF. It doesnt need to be - it needs to be fast and accurate. Perhaps the contrast AF system is being developed just for this, but its not "free". Do you want stills lenses to have smoother and quieter AF at the cost of speed? . Do you want to have buy new lenses just for video, especially as most of the old screw drive lenses will drown out any sound? Pretty soon it gets expensive. You have to manually zoom, which means you really require a tripod much of the time. You cant use the VF when shooting which means on really bright days you cant accurately verify exposure and focus. At least with micro 4/3 you dont have this problem. In fact without the mirror assembly, I see video as a far more natural extension of the micro 4/3 and micro APS concept. It just makes more sense to me. Plus your still camera is carrying the additional cost of lots of technology licensing on the video side. Without this, the K7 would likely be a couple of hundred dollars less. Now dont get me wrong, if I was a photojournalist, wedding or event photographer I would pretty soon need one to compete with all the other guys offering video. I could even see the point in it. But I just dont think most people other than indie movie makers are going to be able to exploit it that well. Its quite technically challenging to shoot movies on larger formats. Personally I would like to have the OPTION of a camera without all this for a couple of hundred dollars less. Perhaps the K7 limited?

05-14-2009, 08:31 AM	#23
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by wll OregonJim, I understand your point well ....... but .... There are folks that say digital is a cop out and film is what photography is "suppose" to be. Time and technology moves on and things change. For me it is a bit hard to get used to as we all have our comfort zones and like things to "stay the same" --- as the great writer Thomas Wolf said "you can't go home again" ..... sad but true. wll I don't care if photography evolves with technology (it's inevitable). But photography and cinematography are completely different fields. They should each have their own tools, regardless of the state of technology. It has nothing to do with 'comfort zones'.

05-14-2009, 08:33 AM	#24
Hannican Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 485	Originally posted by OregonJim Me, for one. Picking a still shot out of live video is not photography. You've just thrown away 150 years worth of craft. I don't like that idea either, but I DO want a video camera capable of the stats you suggested =) And if that same camera could do spectacular still imaging, then sign me up!

05-14-2009, 08:36 AM	#26
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by wll What do you guys and gals think about the merging of still and movie in one photographic device ? Why is this posted in the News and Rumors forum?

05-14-2009, 08:38 AM	#27
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by txsbluesguy tell that to the "Directors of Photography" I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2009, 08:50 AM	#29
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773 Original Poster	Originally posted by nosnoop Why is this posted in the News and Rumors forum? Because it is news ... it is the way we as photographers are headed in thinking about photography as we once knew it, and the change that is happening to Pentax and all other camera manufactures in the age of information and the "I want it all in one mentality". wll

05-14-2009, 08:55 AM	#30
Mister Guy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 244	Originally posted by txsbluesguy what are you doing when your looking through the view finder?? you're watching time and pick the single moment to press the shutter to capture an image in time .... and i don't think very many people are going to just let the camera run and pick the one image ...... your right there is no craft in that .... except the guys who want 10FPS like the sports shooter .... Sure, if you're using hot lights or ambient. When I'm looking through the view finder, I'm framing a shot which I then immediately change into something different via flashes...