[Photomy]

I think it'll be tough to sell that, since the Olympus Pens (with the smaller film size) were actually pretty hard to sell to anyone but serious photogs who had the bigger systems already and wanted something teeny-but-serious for when they knew what they didn't need.

But it's just grand someone's making them. If I were rich enough to buy a whole other system and not make it Leica/Voigtlander/Epson, (get with it, Epson,) if Olympus came along and said, "Hey, we're making a new Pen F. Interested?" I'd applaud. Heck, I'd just be glad to see it out there, but I don't see the technophiles' view of reality *really* taking over. A lot of the novelty's wearing off, and I observe that people who *care* about photography are looking to it as a way to get *away* from computers, and interact with something real. (In fact, I'd prognosticate that eventually what we'll see is digital cameras that behave *more* like film where you don't need a powerful home PC and attachments to make it look good and get the output you want.)

I think the point where cameras stop being a device to do photography and communicate with a digital world, and become a mere intrusion of the digital world into the rest of life, well, that's when they stop being 'instruments' and start becoming 'appliances.' Sure, people'll take 'getting and having' images for *granted,* but they won't be photographers.

The very *appeal* of still photography, both artistically and even sentimentally, is *not* trying to make a poorly-stage-managed TV show out of things. When people look at old photographs, whether they're of artistic or technical merit or not, it's more contemplative than that. Folks are going to need things as always, to *stir* memory, not supplant it.

'I serve an important function in this city of amnesia.'

Whether a particular camera design is an "instrument" vs. an "appliance", I do not believe has anything to do with whether or not it has a mirror and glass prism or has high tech digital with no moving parts. My large format camera certainly does not. Nor, whether it is slower and hard to use at times. It is a device to capture still photos and that is all. It is better to not let the fact that video capture is now an option change the fact that these are primarily still image cameras. All designs of cameras can be intrusive, depending on the photographer's usage. The better the final images produced, then the better the camera is regardless of the design elements and engineering. A smaller, handier, faster camera is going to get more quality pictures than my large format film camera so in some ways a K7 or other futuristic APS-C EVF version might be a better camera.

I will admit though, there is something wonderful about an all mechanical, all manual camera that does not use a battery. Maybe it is akin to the joy of riding a horse across the countryside. There is a kind of freedom that highway driving does not have.

[Art Vandelay II]

I think it'll be tough to sell that, since the Olympus Pens (with the smaller film size) were actually pretty hard to sell to anyone but serious photogs who had the bigger systems already and wanted something teeny-but-serious for when they knew what they didn't need.

I think the point where cameras stop being a device to do photography and communicate with a digital world, and become a mere intrusion of the digital world into the rest of life, well, that's when they stop being 'instruments' and start becoming 'appliances.' Sure, people'll take 'getting and having' images for *granted,* but they won't be photographers.

The very *appeal* of still photography, both artistically and even sentimentally, is *not* trying to make a poorly-stage-managed TV show out of things. When people look at old photographs, whether they're of artistic or technical merit or not, it's more contemplative than that. Folks are going to need things as always, to *stir* memory, not supplant it.

Yeah, you just described the enthusiast and pro market I talked about that currently use D300's, 5D's, etc. However, the Canon Rebel/Nikon D40 market is something totally different (and much larger). That is the market which I think EVIL's will rule over.

Times have changed since the days when the original Pens were the small format. The 4/3's sensor may be smaller than APS-C and FF, but it's huge compared to every single P&S camera on the market now. I wouldn't have wanted 1/2 frame in the film days myself, especially since old manual 35mm SLR's were much smaller then today's DSLR's. However, these days 4/3's has more than good enough IQ. I'd venture to guess 4/3's IQ is already better than what 95% of camera owners actually need. How many people make prints larger than 8x10 or 11x14? I don't know anyone other than enthusiasts that do.

I just hope Olympus throws us enthusiasts a bone and makes one weather sealed model sans scene modes and built in flash. I don't care if they make a dozen models to compete with the K-M so long as they make one model that competes head-to-head with the K-7/D300/50D....albeit it in a package half the size.

[wll]

In the not-so-distant future, electronic viewfinders will have effectively no lag, imperceptibly high framerates, and more resolution than can be perceived by the human eye. The high end market will change too.

But it's not happening this year. Or next year. Or in five years.

Mattdm,

I agree 100%

wll

[Ratmagiclady]

Whether a particular camera design is an "instrument" vs. an "appliance", I do not believe has anything to do with whether or not it has a mirror and glass prism or has high tech digital with no moving parts. My large format camera certainly does not. Nor, whether it is slower and hard to use at times. It is a device to capture still photos and that is all. It is better to not let the fact that video capture is now an option change the fact that these are primarily still image cameras. All designs of cameras can be intrusive, depending on the photographer's usage. The better the final images produced, then the better the camera is regardless of the design elements and engineering.

I think it's a key distinction, not to say digital things don't have their place, but if you're not actually *looking* at the light you're making an exposure with, you could be doing it by remote, almost.


There are of course lots of different kinds of cameras: I just think it really crosses a line when the camera actually and literally comes between you and the actual light falling on your subject. Especially in context of some notion of a future camera that records all and sees all and needs post-processing even to make something recognizable as a photograph. I'm pretty sure some engineering limitation will come in long before that happens, but in all the techno-geeky rush, ...best not to lose what we're all, at present, here for.

The world's *awash* in data. Always has been, in terms of images. But data of all kinds... It's getting worse, really. Photography isn't really about getting more more more.. what would you do with it? It's about cutting out the rest, sorting meaning out of the overload. .....to be philosophical about it, there's a kind of intimacy there that I don't think I'd be prepared to lose, ...really taking 'digital' from 'another photographic medium' to ....something else entirely. Which may well have its good points. But the mirror and prism isn't something bulky and slow and in the *way,* it's kind of what all the different lenses are there to carry, as distinct from any other 'box with a shutter that holds a lens.'

[uccemebug]

The very *appeal* of still photography, both artistically and even sentimentally, is *not* trying to make a poorly-stage-managed TV show out of things. When people look at old photographs, whether they're of artistic or technical merit or not, it's more contemplative than that. Folks are going to need things as always, to *stir* memory, not supplant it.

Amen, sister! Very well put.

Quite frankly, my jaundiced view of video gelled when I saw a family watching recent video footage of a child playing on the floor while that same child played on the floor by himself unattended.

[thibs]

Amen, sister! Very well put.

Quite frankly, my jaundiced view of video gelled when I saw a family watching recent video footage of a child playing on the floor while that same child played on the floor by himself unattended.

LOL
It all depends on the use we make of our tools. I agree the situation you described is hillarious

[uccemebug]

LOL
It all depends on the use we make of our tools. I agree the situation you described is hillarious

To go back to what RML was saying ... you're supposed to be evoking memories, not pinning them down through the narrow range of what was picked up by the video camera. Or worse yet, foisting your recordings on people who'd have gone with you if they were all that interested.

Now that I've started on this particular topic I'm going to vent. Because I have other anecdotes that all seem to go back to the lack of thought that goes into video recordings and maybe the way that it encourages use without thought.

At a public square I saw a man with two small children watching a glockenspiel. The man was mumbling into his video camera and recording the glockenspiel while completely missing the look of rapt awe on the faces of his children that had me transfixed.

I couldn't count how many times I've watched people record themselves reading a posted sign to their video camera. I saw a man recording the selection of snacks for sale in the vending machine of the Honolulu airport.

And I can't count the number of times I've had people shove the things in my face trying to shoot something behind me as if I weren't there. I'm tall, and I position myself well to take my photos (e.g. somewhere worth photographing) so I suppose I present something of an obstacle. But perhaps due to the "always on" urgency of the medium, I wind up with someone deciding that they have to hold their video camera in up to do what they can (not even framing the image, naturally).

Over the years, I've seen home video footage in which the presenter recited the same thing they'd said while recording the thing (repeating their own mumbling). It's all mind-off stuff (Bad exposure and frequent jostling of POV seem to be mandatory to the medium, too, but I suppose that's a different rant).

I've also been shown footage of the user's feet as they walked about. They'd lowered the camera without properly stopping the record, then gone through a terrible cycle of only recording when they thought they were recording (and to not record when they had something interesting to look at). As you can imagine, that level of disaster led the user to show it anyway because it was the only footage they had.

My last comment is on the form factor. I don't see why anyone would choose to use a DSLR to record video. It's not an inherently suitable shape, weight and bulk even for taking still photos; why use a form that's got video tacked on when video cameras are ideally suited because they were designed for the task and have been evolving for years.

Full disclosure: I recently posted a video recording of my own. It was my first, and it was made with decidedly marginal equipment, a Fuji point and shoot. To tackle the project (a recording of my wife's first-ever public singing performance), I scouted a location, framed the shot, planted the camera on a tripod and walked away to take photos with my still camera. I let the performance speak for itself and did not attempt to use the camera in an interactive fashion.

The results, such as they are, are here:
YouTube - Mari's singing debut

[Art Vandelay II]

Over the years, I've seen home video footage in which the presenter recited the same thing they'd said while recording the thing (repeating their own mumbling). It's all mind-off stuff (Bad exposure and frequent jostling of POV seem to be mandatory to the medium, too, but I suppose that's a different rant).

My last comment is on the form factor. I don't see why anyone would choose to use a DSLR to record video. It's not an inherently suitable shape, weight and bulk even for taking still photos; why use a form that's got video tacked on when video cameras are ideally suited because they were designed for the task and have been evolving for years.

I agree, I can't stand 99% of most home videos, so I have no interest in watching them, but I imagine if I had my own kids I'd love to record them and watch them years later. Hell, I'd love to have video of myself when I was younger just to see what I was like. That aside, I'd love to do some "moving photo" type of videos where you just set the camera on a tripod and let it record. And as far as why use a DSLR instead of an actual video camera...for sensor size and interchangeable lenses of course. Just like DSLRs vs. P&S cameras you have to use a DSLR if you want decent low light performance and shallow DOF.

I agree on the form factor. I don't see how you could easily shoot video on the K-7/5D/D90, but the Panasonic G1 with its rotating LCD would be perfectly fine to use IMHO.

I supposed if you were extremely serious about video you could buy one of these:

The Scoop - DVideography News From The Source: New Shoulder Mount for Carrying Smaller DSLR Video Cameras

[redpigeons]

the future for Pentax

a small hybrid camera with FF sensor and no mirror
it will be quiet as a mouse with no shutter vibration
and will have HD video

for the price of about $2K US

and it is all true BC I said so and BC this is my dream camera

[eyou]

mirrorless shutter with EVF is the future. what are we going to do with all our lenses when they have to change the mount is the real question

[redpigeons]

mirrorless shutter with EVF is the future. what are we going to do with all our lenses when they have to change the mount is the real question

ha see that's the trick keeping the same mount... hey I am allowed to dream

but if that really a problem they can keep the mirror just keep it very smooth and quiet like they did in the K-7

[uccemebug]

I supposed if you were extremely serious about video you could buy one of these:

The Scoop - DVideography News From The Source: New Shoulder Mount for Carrying Smaller DSLR Video Cameras

I have a hard time picturing anyone who uses video for action (e.g. kids recording their skateboard antics) using a setup like that! 8^D

[kthung]

I disagree. EVF is an answer to consumers' demand.
This is particularly true to those graduating from P&S. Many new comers grew up without ever used optical viewfinder before. This is the main reason why you see Live View in most new DSLRs, and why the Sony's entry level DSLR took over 3rd place from Pentax.

I disagree. People never used the optical viewfinder in P&S because they were tiny and didnt show exactly what was going to be in the frame. Granted many people moving up to dSLRs from P&S like live view because theyre used to it, I think the original reason for having live view is to allow for composition without needing to have your eye up to the viewfinder (high/low angle shooting)

Overall, regardless of how high resolution an EVF may be I will never choose it over an optical viewfinder. You simply cant match the clarity and responsiveness

[Photomy]

the future for Pentax

a small hybrid camera with FF sensor and no mirror
it will be quiet as a mouse with no shutter vibration
and will have HD video

for the price of about $2K US

and it is all true BC I said so and BC this is my dream camera

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. First version will be APS-C, then later a larger sensor version in basically the same body.

I can't wait.

[Samsungian]

One of the better hands on reviews of GH1 is up. I still don't know if I'll choose to buy a dslr in the first wave of HD Dslrs, but it fun to read about them all:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Review | Digital Camera Resource Page

I agree, I can't stand 99% of most home videos, so I have no interest in watching them, but I imagine if I had my own kids I'd love to record them and watch them years later. Hell, I'd love to have video of myself when I was younger just to see what I was like. That aside, I'd love to do some "moving photo" type of videos where you just set the camera on a tripod and let it record. And as far as why use a DSLR instead of an actual video camera...for sensor size and interchangeable lenses of course. Just like DSLRs vs. P&S cameras you have to use a DSLR if you want decent low light performance and shallow DOF.

I agree on the form factor. I don't see how you could easily shoot video on the K-7/5D/D90, but the Panasonic G1 with its rotating LCD would be perfectly fine to use IMHO.

I supposed if you were extremely serious about video you could buy one of these:

The Scoop - DVideography News From The Source: New Shoulder Mount for Carrying Smaller DSLR Video Cameras