I don't understand photographers

[roxics]

I don't get what they get so excited about on new cameras. Seems to me like digital photo cameras have been amazing for about ten years now. At the very least, five years now. How many AF points do you really need? I only need five myself when I shoot photos. One in the center and one in each of the four points of a rule of thirds grid. I can move the camera around otherwise. What else is there to really add to these cameras at this point?

It just seems to me lke if you couldn't take a good photo with a 5D mkII from 2008, then you must suck as a photographer. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Help me understand.

I can understand the video complaints way more. We've been dealing with heavily compressed codecs, frame rate limitations, frame size limitations, lower dyamic range compared to photos off the same camera and audio quality issues. Everything from line skipped or cropped video to lack of headphone jacks and absolutely no raw video recording options straight out of the box.

Just seems to me like these companies should hold off on any further photo advancements for a couple years (if there are even any left to be made) and focus on getting video up to speed first.

 

[Alex H.]

I don't get what they get so excited about on new cameras. Seems to me like digital photo cameras have been amazing for about ten years now. At the very least, five years now. How many AF points do you really need? I only need five myself when I shoot photos. One in the center and one in each of the four points of a rule of thirds grid. I can move the camera around otherwise. What else is there to really add to these cameras at this point?

HDSLRs always have been, and continue to be, stills-focused cameras that offer video as a bonus. Perhaps that's one reason that Canon haven't moved so fast as some folks think they should have on their regular DSLRs: because Canon's bread and butter comes from still photographers and they are the ones who justify more of their R&D.

Stills shooters are still pretty new to digital in the grand scheme of things (after how many decades of film?), and as effective resolution increases so do the handy features that help to maximize the use of that resolution. Heck... 10 years ago, what was the maximum MP available? 12?

Canon released their 1Ds, full-frame CMOS, in 2002 with a whopping 11.4MP, a far cry from the original 1D in 2001 at 4MP. The 5D came out in 2005 at 12.8MP, and now there's the 5Ds with 50.6MP. Their APS-C crop sensor cameras now top out at 24MP.

There are a few still photographers moving to digital from film today, and some that are still finding their digital mojo, working in a world where results are instantaneous instead of "after I get it back to the lab." With that come new levels of expectation from clients to work faster and more efficiently, so features that enable that are going to be good sales points.

As for AF points, moving images allow for realtime adjustment and correction, and the occasional slightly-soft moment is not as noticeable. With stills, you have a fraction of a second to get a single image right. These are two very different practical applications, so it's not really fair to compare the needs for AF points between them.

It just seems to me lke if you couldn't take a good photo with a 5D mkII from 2008, then you must suck as a photographer. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Help me understand.

So... a photographer who gets excited about new features obviously has no talent? How does this make sense? What evidence is there that they "obviously sucked" without the new camera?

DVX-100 shooters were making some pretty great stuff, but when the DVX-100A came out with some new features, they were excited. It doesn't mean they couldn't make good video with the original model; it just means that they saw value in the new feature set and were eager to try it out.

I can understand the video complaints way more. We've been dealing with heavily compressed codecs, frame rate limitations, frame size limitations, lower dyamic range compared to photos off the same camera and audio quality issues. Everything from line skipped or cropped video to lack of headphone jacks and absolutely no raw video recording options straight out of the box.

Where some companies (like Panasonic and Sony) have latched onto the DSLR filmmaker customer base, companies like Canon have moved focus of those feature sets off to new product lines (EOS Cinema), and other companies have stepped into the arena focused strictly on the same customers (Blackmagic).

Just seems to me like these companies should hold off on any further photo advancements for a couple years (if there are even any left to be made) and focus on getting video up to speed first.

If a company makes the majority share of its sales from stills photogs, or even just a considerable percentage, why on earth would they abondon that customer base for a couple of years?

 

[Josh Bass]

long story short, whatever we have, no matter how amazing it is, becomes less amazing the second something better comes out, no matter how little we need the new thing. consumer culture etc. etc.

 

[OldCorpse]

Nah, there are a million things that could be improved for stills guys. Color science for one. But really, you can't just think about image as the be all and end all. There is a heck of a lot more to a camera than the image it produces - there's the whole workflow issue. After all, what good is a fantastic image if you can't actually get it - have you taken note of what is the #1 reason why phone cameras are popular? That's right - because they're always with us. And one big reason they're always with us is form factor and ergonomics. Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't fancy carrying around pounds upon pounds upon pounds of camera + lens + stabilizer (tripod etc.). You know what I like about the iPhone? I can carry it in my pocket. Give me the power and IQ of a top of the line - TOP - of the line Canikon all in the form factor of an iPhone. What's it that I hear...? not realistic, laws of physics? You know what my answer is? Give me MORE than the top of the line Canikon - give me a brilliant image from a macro all the way to a face-of-the-Moon telescope, from pitch dark to brilliant sunshine, perfect almost mind-reading autofocus, fully stabilized, blink-of-an-eye fast, endless battery, shoot and send, multi-terabyte storage, water-dust-freezing-melting heat proof. All in a form factor of an iPhone - and NO, not a dedicated device, because I don't fancy carrying around multiple devices, I want my personal digital assistant to have it all - communication, computation, storage, media acquisition and playback. Unrealistic? No, highly realistic. Optics a big problem? No, not at all. We've already had multi-lenses, and more importantly - flat thin lenses - complete proof of concept, and these are just bare beginnings, it'll get massively better. You won't need a honking huge zoom. You'll be able to do it on phone form factor. Marry that with massive computational ability in tiny advanced electronics and the rest of the capabilities I mentioned are solved. It's just a matter of time.

I want that massive capability in my pocket to be pulled out at any time, and not even be a dedicated camera, as that's a waste of space. I want to carry as little as possible. And one day, it will happen. You say we're all done in the stills world? Not by a long LONG shot - failure of imagination, my friend. The best part - it's completely realistic and it WILL happen. In our lifetimes. Not even so far into the future.

 

[OldCorpse]

Oh, and btw. yes, that means you are hearing the death knell of the stand-alone camera company like Nikon etc. Soon there will be just no reason for them to exist as separate companies, once their even top of the line applications are folded into digital assistant devices (of which the smart phones are just and early and primitive example). Look at what happened to stand alone GPS companies - they're fading fast. Your personal digital device will have a top of the line image acquisition capability, vastly superior to today's top of the line medium format cameras. If I had stock in a stand alone camera company, I'd sell it as fast as a buggy whip manufacturer.

 

[stip]

So... a photographer who gets excited about new features obviously has no talent? How does this make sense? What evidence is there that they "obviously sucked" without the new camera?

He didn't say that, he said it seems like if someone can't create good photos with a high-end camera from 2008 he will not create good photos whit the latest high-end camera.

consumer culture etc. etc.

I want that massive capability in my pocket to be pulled out at any time, and not even be a dedicated camera, as that's a waste of space. I want to carry as little as possible. And one day, it will happen. You say we're all done in the stills world? Not by a long LONG shot - failure of imagination, my friend.

He is not talking about consumers or people who want a camera for occasionally taking pictures.

 

[roxics]

So... a photographer who gets excited about new features obviously has no talent? How does this make sense? What evidence is there that they "obviously sucked" without the new camera?

DVX-100 shooters were making some pretty great stuff, but when the DVX-100A came out with some new features, they were excited. It doesn't mean they couldn't make good video with the original model; it just means that they saw value in the new feature set and were eager to try it out.

No. My point is that camera's were already so good back then. Unlike our video cameras at the time. The 5D2 is a 20MP camera which is still a respectable amount of resoution today and will probably continue to be so until human vision improves. Autofocus was already very good. Dymanic range as well. Best of all, you could shoot raw on it.

So I'm trying to say that if you can't shoot a good photo with a camera like that, when it's not vastly different than what is available today, then I doubt it's the camera to blame.

I've seen plenty of talented productions done on DV gear and similar, but the quality still pales in comparison to modern video/cinema cameras. Yet I bet most people can't tell the difference between a photo shot on a 5D2 versus one shot on a 1D X mkII or a photo shot on a rebel verus a 7D. By most people I mean professional photographers.

Most of the major hurdles in digital photo quality have already been achieved. Video is just starting to get there on the upper end but still not there across the board.

 

[OldCorpse]

He is not talking about consumers or people who want a camera for occasionally taking pictures.

And neither am I, if you read my post. I fully believe, for reasons I gave above, that a 100% pro user would also appreciate a TOP IQ capable image acquisition device you can carry around in your pocket that gives you the same results (or better!) than today's TOP pro cameras (including medium format!). That's the Holy Grail. And we'll get there, and not too long from now. That's the point about "still a lot of work and improvements left" in the still camera world (TOP pro level!).

 

[morgan_moore]

I don't know a single working photographer who give a toss about the latest cameras

I still make some money from stills - I shoot a nikon d3 and a nikon d600

the 12mp of the d3 can be a bit problematic if you have a big crop

but yep many working photos just don't realy give a monkeys any more

the 5d2/d600 has all the image one could want. If you do sport you may desire more responsive af. If you photograph badgers maybe you care about ISO .

I know one tog who covers the Olympics - he will appreciate marginally higher hit rate with a d5 than a d4 - every one else who thinks there is a difference is kidding them selves

if however a Dslr had 10bit video and Sdi out id buy it tomorrow !

1/1000 flash synch might be interesting stills wise but that is it.

 

[stip]

And neither am I, if you read my post. I fully believe, for reasons I gave above, that a 100% pro user would also appreciate a TOP IQ capable image acquisition device you can carry around in your pocket that gives you the same results (or better!) than today's TOP pro cameras (including medium format!). That's the Holy Grail. And we'll get there, and not too long from now. That's the point about "still a lot of work and improvements left" in the still camera world (TOP pro level!).

yes but he's talking about technical features to enhance image quality, not ergonomics.

 

[OldCorpse]

But even IQ is not a done deal. To call upon just one element I mentioned before: color is still lagging seriously - not just general color science and control of color, but things like color quality under various light conditions, including low light etc. - that has still a long, long way to go. And color is certainly a giant part of the image (unless you're doing B&W). No, I don't think we're done with IQ by a long shot.

 

[hojomo]

I don't get what they get so excited about on new cameras. Seems to me like digital photo cameras have been amazing for about ten years now. At the very least, five years now. How many AF points do you really need? I only need five myself when I shoot photos. One in the center and one in each of the four points of a rule of thirds grid. I can move the camera around otherwise. What else is there to really add to these cameras at this point?

It just seems to me lke if you couldn't take a good photo with a 5D mkII from 2008, then you must suck as a photographer. Maybe I'm being too harsh. Help me understand.

I can understand the video complaints way more. We've been dealing with heavily compressed codecs, frame rate limitations, frame size limitations, lower dyamic range compared to photos off the same camera and audio quality issues. Everything from line skipped or cropped video to lack of headphone jacks and absolutely no raw video recording options straight out of the box.

Just seems to me like these companies should hold off on any further photo advancements for a couple years (if there are even any left to be made) and focus on getting video up to speed first.

I'm not sure why you lumped all photographers into one group, as if they all have the same needs....

"Good photo" what does that even amount to? Depends on whose standard it is. On all of my IQ standards (DR, bit depth, resolution, color accuracy) the 5D falls flat on it's ass. Thinking 2008 digital cameras covered all pro photographers needs is just absurd. The best digital bodies STILL (MF included) don't even cover some of the needs of fine art photographers for instance. If you have seen a properly done 20x24 contact palladium print in person you'd know what I mean.

But what about pro shooters who need AF? Initial focus acquisition time, and tracking are the main things that have needed improvement. Kind of a no brainer, you aren't going to meet a single action photographer who doesn't want a more accurate, faster AF system. I think the D5 & 1DX Mark II are really going to up the ante and limit our ability to make excuses for not getting the shot -- but we have to wait and see a track record of use with the new models. Even still, I would love more than 15-16fps with tracking. 20fps 20mpx; and I will shut up.

The other posts have covered the other main areas: workflow and color accuracy. Still areas that have needed huge improvement. All things being equal, I will always opt for more resolution. It offers more options if you have the luxury to crop; and being a lover/producer of photographic prints; I will never get enough detail. Again, more resolution, more options.

 

[Razz16mm]

I doubt you will ever see stellar color quality under extreme low light conditions. It takes a certain amount of light to stimulate color response from paint and dye pigments as well as natural world objects like foliage. Little light, little color. This is a separate physical property from the no color scotopic response of human vision or the color filter response limitations of cameras. Color takes light.