Photography industry changes...

[Apple fanboy]

What's this SD card of which you speak?

My main camera is the D800, and I have a D300s for back-up work as well as where I want a fast(er) handling DX body. I also use a D200 for Ebay/cataloging since the small JPEGs and having a dedicated camera fits into my workflow well.

I've started collecting first and second gen Nikon DSLRs also, as well as the cameras from other makes based on them. They're often cheap even for lightly used examples(although I did pay plenty for my Kodak DCS 14/n and it was a huge IQ let down when I got it).

In any case, both my D800 and D300s have SD cards in them(a kind of pricey 64gb Sandisk in the D800, a smaller generic one in the D300s), but they hold the "back up" JPEGs and I rarely touch them. I use CF cards as my main removable medium for RAW files in those camera, and most of the others I have either take only CF or take CF and some other storage medium(early Fujis take SmartMedia, the Fuji S3 takes the now extinct and all but unavailable XD card, although the Kodak will take SD).

Of course, I do have to segregate my cards since some older cameras will roll over and die with >2gb cards(when I bought my D100 and was testing it in the store, it took about 10 minutes for it to format the 64gb card they handed me) and something like a 512mb card is a joke in a D800. My main wallet has few 64s, a bunch of 32s, and nothing smaller than 16. I have a second wallet with 1gb-8gb cards that I carry sometimes as a "just in case" and then a box that has 2gb and smaller cards.

BTW, thanks for the info on the older 24-70-I admit that I hadn't looked THAT closely at it. As I said, I won't buy "E" lenses, and that's because there are no film cameras that they're compatible with(I'm not dropping ~$2K on a lens that won't work on my F5 or F100). I just wish it went back far enough to have an aperture ring. The even older 28-70 2.8 AF-D-which does have an aperture ring-is too long for me on the wide end.

I was lucky and picked mine up for not much. Through work. Paid no more than £150 for most of what's in my signature. Only my 200-500, 105 macro and 50mm were bought new.

 

[bunnspecial]

I was lucky and picked mine up for not much. Through work. Paid no more than £150 for most of what's in my signature. Only my 200-500, 105 macro and 50mm were bought new.

I have a rule about buying new equipment...I don't do it . I've bought exactly one lens new-that was the DX 35mm 1.8, and mostly because it was about $25 more than an Ex+ one from KEH(although I don't usually buy lenses that nice).

BTW, that applies to pretty much everything photography related I own...aside from film of course. I also do buy cards new most of the time. It kills me to pay HUGE money for filters when my local(used) shop will often either them to me or charge me a token amount if it's something really nice. About all he charges me for are Hasselblad-branded Bay 50s, Nikon branded filters(he knows I'll pay, plus they're good quality) and things like high end polarizers. I think I've bought exactly one filter new-a Hoya R72(filter for IR film). After spending $60 for it, I'm actually kicking myself for buying it in 72mm instead of 77mm...at the time I didn't have any 77mm lenses, but I do now.

Also, I do usually buy bags new, but I haven't bought one in a while. I might have to change that, though, since LowePro has discontinued a lot of my favorite lines and also doesn't really make any "film friendly" bags anymore.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have a rule about buying new equipment...I don't do it . I've bought exactly one lens new-that was the DX 35mm 1.8, and mostly because it was about $25 more than an Ex+ one from KEH(although I don't usually buy lenses that nice).

BTW, that applies to pretty much everything photography related I own...aside from film of course. I also do buy cards new most of the time. It kills me to pay HUGE money for filters when my local(used) shop will often either them to me or charge me a token amount if it's something really nice. About all he charges me for are Hasselblad-branded Bay 50s, Nikon branded filters(he knows I'll pay, plus they're good quality) and things like high end polarizers. I think I've bought exactly one filter new-a Hoya R72(filter for IR film). After spending $60 for it, I'm actually kicking myself for buying it in 72mm instead of 77mm...at the time I didn't have any 77mm lenses, but I do now.

Also, I do usually buy bags new, but I haven't bought one in a while. I might have to change that, though, since LowePro has discontinued a lot of my favorite lines and also doesn't really make any "film friendly" bags anymore.

I have a Lowpro Flipside 400. Good enough for my needs.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Just curious, was the recent 50mm lens the Sigma Art lens? I've been debating whether to buy that lens or the 85mm f1.4 Sigma Art lens for my D850.

Yeah, it was the Sigma Art Lens. Fine for the D750, but not for a body of any higher resolution.
[doublepost=1519857825][/doublepost]

For my purposes, phone cameras are lacking in 3 key areas:

1. Ultra wide angle

2. Extreme macro(the type I do on a heavy tripod with bellows and other odds and ends)

3. Ability to sync with external lighting

4. Movements as from a view camera.

Of the above, #3 might be addressed, but I don't see 1 and 2 being done satisfactorily. When can I get a cell phone with the FOV(and IQ) equivalent of my much loved Nikon 14-24 2.8? Pair that with my D800 and I have a heavenly combination.

#4 can be mitigated somewhat in Photoshop, but not completely-you can correct the distortion that you would normally avoid by using rise/fall and shift on a view camera but it's hard to to mimic the Scheimpflug effects you can get from tilts and swings. In theory, you can focus stack but you need a secure mount for the camera(phone) to keep the framing consistent. If you don't want to go all the way with a view camera, at least a tilt shift lens(Canon) or PC lens(Nikon) will give ALMOST as much as I can get with my Speed Graphic.

BTW, those of you who complain about weight are sissies . I regularly use(although not at the same time generally) a Nikon F2AS or other F/F2 bodies, a Nikon F4, Nikon F5, Hasselblad 500C, Mamiya RB67, and a couple of different 4x5 cameras. Obviously, I don't wear the 4x5s around my neck(although I did once photograph a basketball game with my Speed Graphic-it's doable if you zone focus, are generous with composition, and ideally have a Grafmatic back). The amount of time I can tolerate the Mamiya is limited, but I could carry one of the others and a couple of lenses all day. My D800 with the 24-85 3.5-4.5 VR I keep as a walk-around lens is weighs less than my F2AS body(I refuse to buy a 24-70 2.8 because the older version doesn't have VR and the current version is an E aperture lens-I'm not spending that much on a full frame lens I can't use with film).

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how to put one of these in my iPhone. They fit in my 500C easily.

View attachment 752728

Those are all professional use cases that absolutely require a discrete high-end camera.

But I think back to all the times that I've gone to the local botanical gardens only to see guys with no idea of how to use their new DX cropped-sensor camera (with the longest zoom lens that they could afford). Shooting on auto... Saving to JPEG... and asking me what all these buttons do...

 

[Precision Gem]

Thought I would try a real life test of an iPhone X vs Olympus OMD EM1. The lighting is pretty typical for your everyday shooting. Mix of different types of bulbs. All shots hand held, auto focus, no post editing. Just right out of the camera. All images were exported through Lumina to the same size images.

The first shot is with the iPhone standard lens, no digital zoom.

Next is the same shot with the Olympus

I wanted to zoom in on the lens cleaner bottle. With the iPhone I used the 2x lens, and also some digital zoom in the phone to get in close. With the low light, there was a lot of noise in the image.

Same shot, this time with the Olympus and a 150mm zoom lens that I paid $60 new for.

These last two are crops from the first image looking at the Brother printer.
iPhone image first.

Now the Olympus

The Olympus is just a Micro 4/3 camera, so the results would be even more dramatic if comparing to a full frame DSL.

Same crop, this time from my Nikon D750

 

[mollyc]

I think unfortunately most people nowadays don’t print their photos. They just share them on Facebook and get panicked when they lose them in the cloud with a failed backup. Those people will never care about a “big” camera or resolution or noise.

Those of us interested in preserving memories or creating photographic art do care about such things and will always be interested in good gear.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I think unfortunately most people nowadays don’t print their photos. They just share them on Facebook and get panicked when they lose them in the cloud with a failed backup. Those people will never care about a “big” camera or resolution or noise.

Those of us interested in preserving memories or creating photographic art do care about such things and will always be interested in good gear.

So true.

 

[bunnspecial]

Those of us interested in preserving memories or creating photographic art do care about such things and will always be interested in good gear.

And, in that vein-I've had folks' jaw drop when I handed them a "real" B&W print. That's not to say I'm an outstanding photographer, but just the overall look you get with with an optically printed B&W is hard to beat.

This is true whether you're printing pushed Tri-X 35mm to an 8x10, or if if contact printing an FP4+ negative. They both certainly have their own look and their own place, but there's something great about it.

BTW, not to brag but I've given away a few 16x20s and 20x24s(mostly made from 6x6 or 4x5 negatives) that folks have prominently hanging in their homes.

Also, I've been working for a few years on documenting central Kentucky distilleries. I have an uncle who is fascinated with them, and my mom and I worked together to put together an album with probably two dozen photos. Some were digital originals, some were film scans, but most could not have been taken with an iPhone(space often dictates wide angles, and some of the more "technical" shots are a lot easier on a view camera). There were some 8x10s and a lot of 5x7s. If I could flesh it out a bit better, I would mind taking a shot at a short run publication of it, although I don't have the time or inclination now.

 

[robgendreau]

Since I read the article the OP citied, I saw two things that I think bode well for the industry. One is the is the Pentax K-1ii. It sports some impressive tech that relies on substantial camera brains, like pixel shift, not just being an appendage to nice glass. And it also has Astrotracer, something that is unique as far as I know in camera-dom. And I also think that is is the first such camera to offer users a brain transplant, i.e. they can improve some of the features of the body by getting a new computer in the camera. Innovations like that will continue to keep DSLRs relevant.

And second, there was the Sony 7iii. While still a technical marvel, and especially in regard to video, it's notable because it offers so much at such a price point. I see tons of posts around the photo forums from folks who wanna graduate into making better video, esp by being able to utilize different lenses, and this (along with say the GH5) should appeal to them.

And both these bodies can use a lot of old lenses. Which kinda bums me, cuz I'm seeing a lot more competition in bidding for old screw mount Japanese and Russian lenses. And Lomography is churning out even more retro lenses, like the Daguerreotype Achromatic.

Since any smartphone user with a good app can churn out blurred water shots, HDRs, time lapses, 4k video, etc etc, it's important the camera companies keep making products like these that are different, and appeal to those who want more than just a higher resolution shot.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Thought I would try a real life test of an iPhone X vs Olympus OMD EM1. The lighting is pretty typical for your everyday shooting. Mix of different types of bulbs. All shots hand held, auto focus, no post editing. Just right out of the camera. All images were exported through Lumina to the same size images.

The first shot is with the iPhone standard lens, no digital zoom.

Next is the same shot with the Olympus

I wanted to zoom in on the lens cleaner bottle. With the iPhone I used the 2x lens, and also some digital zoom in the phone to get in close. With the low light, there was a lot of noise in the image.

Same shot, this time with the Olympus and a 150mm zoom lens that I paid $60 new for.

These last two are crops from the first image looking at the Brother printer.
iPhone image first.

Now the Olympus

The Olympus is just a Micro 4/3 camera, so the results would be even more dramatic if comparing to a full frame DSL.

Same crop, this time from my Nikon D750

Did you use a RAW photo app on the iPhoneX? There's a HUGE difference in the quality you get when the image compression is removed.

 

[robgendreau]

Did you use a RAW photo app on the iPhoneX? There's a HUGE difference in the quality you get when the image compression is removed.

I'm curious about the compression you're referring to: JPEG or HEIF? I shoot DNG in my iPhone, and I prefer for all the reason I prefer it on my cameras, but HEIF is pretty amazing. Still, I haven't tried manipulating the HEIF and I'm curious about whether it is better for edited images than trying to edit a JPEG (and obviously it wouldn't be better than raw).

And HIEF is interesting in that as I understand it, it requires considerable computing power to generate. So in this case cameras would have a disadvantage vs phones in generating better quality smaller images, unless there's say a dedicated chip that would allow for their creation. And licensing too I guess. But an awful lot of people shoot JPEG, even on DSLRs, and so it will be interesting to see how cameras adapt.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

Long exposures are possible on an iPhone using Live Photos - see https://ios.gadgethacks.com/how-to/take-long-exposure-photos-your-iphone-ios-11-0177938/
& https://iphonephotographyschool.com/live-photos-long-exposure/
Obviously IQ will not be up to DSLR standards, but still it is possible

Cheers

Hugh

Possible, but isn't the aperture fixed? Makes for an unbalanced exposure triangle IMO! But not a problem for all those instergramer youngens!

It's quite easy to do, take a LiveView photo, view it, swipe up from the centre of it and a hidden menu comes up. Scroll across to Long Exposure and Bob's your uncle!

It's not too bad, but you do have to frame up larger than the end result as it crops into the images taking into account your movement.

This was my first test of it, it's not too shabby really. I think I've used it a couple more times since then, but I've deleted them from Photos. I have bugger all photos in Photos really.

To do HDR you need multiple exposures typically 3 or more of the same scene. The HDR software then combines these. The HDR feature on the iPhone is nothing close to using multiple exposures and layering them.

Did you use a RAW photo app on the iPhoneX? There's a HUGE difference in the quality you get when the image compression is removed.

If you want to investigate better quality HDR's from your iPhone, take a look at an app called PureShot, it's only a few buck$ in cost and gives you full control of everything on the iPhone. It even has live histograms, movable spot metering, RAW (DNG) file saves, bracketed shooting, and every control you would have on a DSLR, apart from the aperture of course.

The downfall is that you then need an image editor to combine your bracketed shots and edit all your RAW files.

The image quality of the iPhones RAW files is much better, but still not the super crisp detail that you are after when looking at a 100% pixel rate. I don't think that's actually achievable on such a tiny sensor.
[doublepost=1520025505][/doublepost]

I'm curious about the compression you're referring to: JPEG or HEIF? I shoot DNG in my iPhone, and I prefer for all the reason I prefer it on my cameras, but HEIF is pretty amazing. Still, I haven't tried manipulating the HEIF and I'm curious about whether it is better for edited images than trying to edit a JPEG (and obviously it wouldn't be better than raw).

And HIEF is interesting in that as I understand it, it requires considerable computing power to generate. So in this case cameras would have a disadvantage vs phones in generating better quality smaller images, unless there's say a dedicated chip that would allow for their creation. And licensing too I guess. But an awful lot of people shoot JPEG, even on DSLRs, and so it will be interesting to see how cameras adapt.

Will have to do some experiments in this regards. Taking the same shot on a tripod so it's the same image to be compared. Shooting one as a RAW (DNG) file and another as a HEIC file to compare the differences. Will be interesting to see the results.

 

[maflynn]

Thought I would try a real life test of an iPhone X vs Olympus OMD EM1.

I'm goinging to go out on a limb and say that for the majority of people the need to crop falls outside of the realm of real life testing. For those who go to Disney, or on a cruise, they or just a hike I think they're less likely to do any post processing.

I agree that the iPhone cannot compete with many dedicated cameras when it comes to cropping, but other then prosumers/hobbyiests is that really an issue?

 

[Precision Gem]

I'm goinging to go out on a limb and say that for the majority of people the need to crop falls outside of the realm of real life testing. For those who go to Disney, or on a cruise, they or just a hike I think they're less likely to do any post processing.

I agree that the iPhone cannot compete with many dedicated cameras when it comes to cropping, but other then prosumers/hobbyiests is that really an issue?

I see people at concerts taking pictures constantly with their phone, and for the most part they are doing full digital cropping to try to get in closer with the shot. My little pocket Panasonic camera with a 10x lens does a much better job at concerts than a phone camera.

For many people a camera is for taking selfies, and then posting every move the make on social media. For that you can't beat an iPhone.

If you are at all half interested in slightly serious photography, then you need a real camera.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

I see people at concerts taking pictures constantly with their phone, and for the most part they are doing full digital cropping to try to get in closer with the shot. My little pocket Panasonic camera with a 10x lens does a much better job at concerts than a phone camera.

And so it should, it has a much bigger sensor and it has optical zoom. You're not really comparing like against like here...

 

[Precision Gem]

And so it should, it has a much bigger sensor and it has optical zoom. You're not really comparing like against like here...

That’s the whole point of this discussion. THe idea floated was that iphone cameras have gotten so good that the need for a DSLR, mirror less or even slightly advanced point an shoot camera is gone.
I have only pointed out that while the iPhone camera is very good for what it is, it really is no replacement for a real dedicated camera.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

That’s the whole point of this discussion. THe idea floated was that iphone cameras have gotten so good that the need for a DSLR, mirror less or even slightly advanced point an shoot camera is gone.
I have only pointed out that while the iPhone camera is very good for what it is, it really is no replacement for a real dedicated camera.

Not really. The discussion started off with a link to an article encapsulating one persons opinion about developments to camera gear for 2017, and it went all over the place from there!

But yep. A mobile will never be a dedicated camera replacement, well, in the foreseeable future anyway. To try and compare the two as the same is inherently biased though on the behalf of better glass and sensors available in cameras!

Having said that, if you see an amazing, once in a lifetime thing happen and you don't have your camera with you, you are still gonna have a go at capturing it with your mobile, aren't you? They do serve a purpose, but as you've said, a different purpose.

 

[Ledgem]

Phones are developing at a faster pace than cameras, and are using software to even things up. Phone photographers used to gawk at shallow depth of field photography from "real" cameras - something the small sensor couldn't compete with - but now they have dual lenses, can sense depth, and can simulate the blur. Heck, you can even adjust the blur in post-processing, choosing the characteristics and how deep or shallow you want it. That was one of the promises of the Lytro camera system, and now we have it on our phones.

Portrait Lighting is another interesting feature. No more need for professional-grade flashes to get that studio-looking appearance; it's done in software. (It's not perfect, but it can and will get better.)

There are plenty of applications where phones can't compete right now, but phones can clearly evolve into practically anything. The software development is one thing, but even the hardware isn't limited. We went from single-lens phones to dual-lens phones, which led to interesting developments (depth sensing). What's next? Add more lenses? Put the FaceID sensors onto the back of the phone for mapping and even further sensing? Leverage the computing power for smarter autofocus?

By comparison, cameras seem practically stuck. We've gone to mirrorless, and cameras with in-body image stabilization can do neat tricks like pixel shifting... but what's next? We're stuck with the old paradigm of one sensor and one lens. And while the phone is a pocket-sized computer, the camera is a... camera. Yes, it runs software, but will it ever be as versatile as a phone?

I'm not selling my cameras or lenses any time soon, but I don't doubt that there may come a day when the iPhone outclasses many cameras. In most cases, it's just a matter of getting the software right.

 

[maflynn]

But yep. A mobile will never be a dedicated camera replacement, well, in the foreseeable future anyway. To try and compare the two as the same is inherently biased though on the behalf of better glass and sensors available in cameras!

but it is. Visit any amusment park, Disneyworld or even a hiking trail. You see people using their phones more then you see someone lugging a camera, be it a P&S, Mirrorless or DSLR.

This graph is quite telling, and I got it here and while it doesn't have 2017, I think the tale of the tape is quite evident. We are seeing an erosion of sales related to "real" cameras and smart phones taking over. I admit that there will be some periods of time, that we'll see an uptick in some of the camera sales, but overall the industry is evolving and the days of stand alone camers are numbered.

 

[Apple fanboy]

but it is. Visit any amusment park, Disneyworld or even a hiking trail. You see people using their phones more then you see someone lugging a camera, be it a P&S, Mirrorless or DSLR.

This graph is quite telling, and I got it here and while it doesn't have 2017, I think the tale of the tape is quite evident. We are seeing an erosion of sales related to "real" cameras and smart phones taking over. I admit that there will be some periods of time, that we'll see an uptick in some of the camera sales, but overall the industry is evolving and the days of stand alone camers are numbered.



View attachment 753186

Whilst this is true there will always be an argument for quality over quantity.
As we continue to push the envelope with 4K, 8k, HDR, 3D etc. the consumer seems increasingly happy to accept lesser quality images and videos.
Yes smart phones are getting better and they are convenient. But I rarely use mine for any content I plan to keep or share.

 

[maflynn]

Whilst this is true there will always be an argument for quality over quantity.

I agree, and to some degree, the high end professional cameras will continue to exist. I do think however as people use their smart phones more and more, we'll start seeing a consolidation of the camera makers

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

but it is. Visit any amusment park, Disneyworld or even a hiking trail. You see people using their phones more then you see someone lugging a camera, be it a P&S, Mirrorless or DSLR.

Yeah, and I'd be pretty sure the same sort of thing happened back in the 70's when Polaroids came out!

What I said was:

A mobile will never be a dedicated camera replacement, well, in the foreseeable future anyway. To try and compare the two as the same is inherently biased though on the behalf of better glass and sensors available in cameras!

I still stand by this. It is basically exactly the same as what @Apple fanboy said with his:

Whilst this is true there will always be an argument for quality over quantity.

That, was the point I was making.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yeah, and I'd be pretty sure the same sort of thing happened back in the 70's when Polaroids came out!

What I said was:


I still stand by this. It is basically exactly the same as what @Apple fanboy said with his:


That, was the point I was making.

Great minds and all that.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

Great minds and all that.

Indeed, now where did I put my house keys?

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

I'm curious about the compression you're referring to: JPEG or HEIF? I shoot DNG in my iPhone, and I prefer for all the reason I prefer it on my cameras, but HEIF is pretty amazing. Still, I haven't tried manipulating the HEIF and I'm curious about whether it is better for edited images than trying to edit a JPEG (and obviously it wouldn't be better than raw).

And HIEF is interesting in that as I understand it, it requires considerable computing power to generate. So in this case cameras would have a disadvantage vs phones in generating better quality smaller images, unless there's say a dedicated chip that would allow for their creation. And licensing too I guess. But an awful lot of people shoot JPEG, even on DSLRs, and so it will be interesting to see how cameras adapt.

Try comparing the RAW to your HEIF captures.
[doublepost=1520264264][/doublepost]

I see people at concerts taking pictures constantly with their phone, and for the most part they are doing full digital cropping to try to get in closer with the shot. My little pocket Panasonic camera with a 10x lens does a much better job at concerts than a phone camera.

For many people a camera is for taking selfies, and then posting every move the make on social media. For that you can't beat an iPhone.

If you are at all half interested in slightly serious photography, then you need a real camera.

True. But most people aren't interested in serious photography. If they buy a DSLR, they'll be shooting JPEGs on Auto 4-5 times a year. That's the issue. The iPhone's camera is very good (all things considered), and facebook/twitter will resize and recompress the hell out of the image anyway... And they won't notice the difference.
[doublepost=1520264821][/doublepost]

That’s the whole point of this discussion. THe idea floated was that iphone cameras have gotten so good that the need for a DSLR, mirror less or even slightly advanced point an shoot camera is gone.
I have only pointed out that while the iPhone camera is very good for what it is, it really is no replacement for a real dedicated camera.

Not gone. Just irrelevant to the casual+ market that used to buy the low-end APC-C DSLRs.

DSLRs are now for pros and/or high-end hobbyists only. Meaning the people who understand how a camera works and precisely why they need such a large, heavy one with all of those expensive interchangeable lenses. It's a similar sort of market shift to what's happening in computers. Phones/Tablets are outselling them, and most users are holding on to the laptops/desktops they have 2-3 times longer than they used to. It's only the professional users who still see the need to upgrade every 3 years to the latest tech.
[doublepost=1520265098][/doublepost]

I'm not selling my cameras or lenses any time soon, but I don't doubt that there may come a day when the iPhone outclasses many cameras. In most cases, it's just a matter of getting the software right.

Which is why camera software needs an overhaul. Better UI, better sharing methods, ability to run 3rd party apps that optimize specific use cases, etc.
[doublepost=1520265422][/doublepost]

Whilst this is true there will always be an argument for quality over quantity.
As we continue to push the envelope with 4K, 8k, HDR, 3D etc. the consumer seems increasingly happy to accept lesser quality images and videos.
Yes smart phones are getting better and they are convenient. But I rarely use mine for any content I plan to keep or share.

Consumers are always happy to accept less quality than pros. That's what makes us pros.