If I took a trip to the Grand Canon and sent a beautiful pic to my daughter, she would say it looks like her cellphone screen is cracked. I only send quick snaps of the cat now. My grandson is into photography, but she won't encourage him.
Last summer I sent a photo of a friend of mine taken with my cellphone. Got a message back asking what that "big purple flower" was. I said the flower was named Ken.
Anymore I shoot for competition and enjoyment. You want prints? I'll make some walllet-size for you.
carstenw wrote:
FF is the new medium format. Few people care, and most of those who do are in it for the status, not the image quality. I think Fuji is sitting in the sweet spot right now. I hope that they are making profits.
I think Fuji have done a lot of things well for enthusiasts. However, mirrorless cameras in general are too poorly marketed, poorly distributed, and finicky for the average person. The only people I know who buy mirrorless are those who are basically enthusiasts. That's really a pretty small niche. After all, especially to someone new to a nice camera, the benefits or mirrorless are not obvious and in general it costs more. Even on this forum, there are plenty of people who don't see the value proposition in an A7 compared to a DSLR.
millsart wrote:
"SLRs are heavy and noisy, whereas mirrorless are small and quiet."
How ironic I've owned a good number of SLR/DSLR that were all far quieter than my A7r lol
At least the lenses focus pretty quietly. Actually, I'd say in general mirrorless cameras are kind of noisy. My Fuji certainly had a loud shutter and the lenses seen to emit all sorts of noises.
Camera choice is a matter of desire, experience and/or education. Most people don't need a more advanced camera. But at some point they might find they want something more than can be accomplished with a simple camera, whether a camera on a phone or less comprehensive point and shoot, etc. They see someone's results in the way of a video, a large wall print, a tougher to achieve shot of some sort. Then they begin to ask, "How can I do that?"
A certain amount of common experience/wisdom is that the professional camera or best answer is the dslr.
With luck there will still be some people out there to help. And not just the gear snobs or those who, otoh, disregard gear and suggest it's all in the hands (eye, mind, whatever) of the photographer.
Hopefully enough old, tired dslr owners will have migrated to the mirrorless to keep that range of cameras on the market long enough for more people to learn what cameras of different sorts can and can't do.
Ugh, tell me about it... Every photo of my nephew is blurry or focused on the background instead of him, noisy, crappy color, etc. I totally understand the convenience factor with smartphones, but if you're just sitting around the house then maybe you could break out something a little better.
I think the QX-100/QX-10 will find a market or several markets. the article says that strong sales have surprised Sony the other surprise is that people are using the QX units remotely from their phones and tablets. the next step is for Sony to release a component camera. i am so glad that the A7r arrived with good remote wi-fi control so i can put the camera where i think the picture should be shot from. free from having to use the CamRanger-Canicon to take the images how i want. Sony is doing a good job playing the disruptive role and i am grateful.
I'd buy an RX1r as my first choice if it had wi-fi so i could use a tablet or phone viewfinder or maybe even some remote viewer that i wore over my right eye.
@itai195
Not only that but then they bust out the Instagram filters. I did a baby shoot for some dear friends of mine a few years back when I had the 5D and 35/1.4 ZE. They couldn't stop raving about them and had them plastered all over Facebook. Later that Christmas they asked me about camera recommendations. I truly thought there was hope. Fast forward two and a half years and it's nothing but iPhone pics with an occasional Instagram filter when they're feeling fancy. Facepalm doesn't begin to describe it.
itai195 wrote:
Ugh, tell me about it... Every photo of my nephew is blurry or focused on the background instead of him, noisy, crappy color, etc. I totally understand the convenience factor with smartphones, but if you're just sitting around the house then maybe you could break out something a little better.
Same here! Almost all the photos of my brother's kid are horrible. It makes me sad.
If I didn't have so many brothers and sisters, I'd buy them decent cameras.
And my sister DOES blow up my web sized images and print them for her wall. I offer to send her full size originals, but no, she's happy with that. WTF!!
I do not understand the kids these days (get offa my lawn!). Facepalm x 100.
This discussion mirrors the market for Hugh end audio. Why do mp3 on cheap Bose systems or bad headphones when CD quality is better, SACD or DVD audio even better, etc? Convenience and marketing matter much more than quality. Same issue for fast food. The local restaurant across the street will be better and healthier, but folks want predictability, speed, and convenience more than quality. One some level, it is true that time is our most precious resource and thus an argument could be made for efficiency of time trumping all other considerations, but I suspect vast ignorance and apathy are more likely explanations.
I'm not sure why any of this is a surprise. Convenience has trumped quality in consumer photography for over a hundred years -- "good enough" has long been, well, good enough. And honestly, the "good enough" technologies people use today are better than many of those from decades past. For every family with a 35mm SLR in the '70s and '80s, or Rolleiflex or Zeiss Ikon in the '30s, there were dozens shooting disc film, 35mm disposables or terrible compacts, and Brownie box cameras.
I do hope that mirrorless holds its ground, but this is not a new issue.
As a side note, I just saw a collection of AA's 48-print museum collection again today (there are multiple sets of this collection that he made specifically for museum display, and several tour periodically). Any sense that his photographs have become cliches evaporates when you look at those magnificent, luminous prints.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Aw, that's just some old hippie.
; )
As a side note, I just saw a collection of AA's 48-print museum collection again today (there are multiple sets of this collection that he made specifically for museum display, and several tour periodically). Any sense that his photographs have become cliches evaporates when you look at those magnificent, luminous prints.
Were these larger prints (16 x 20 +) or small? Interestingly, AA originally printed many of what would later become iconic images small but later printed them larger for commercial purposes. Seeing the earlier, smaller versions alongside the later larger ones is interesting as one can see how much he often changed things over time (ala "the negative is the score, the print the performance" AA).
dthrog00 wrote:
People in the US by and large use cars to transport themselves around. Usually only people in very large cities or those without the cash to buy a car travel by public transit. If you take your own car then equipment size is not that big of a deal.
Dave
I lived in Prague for a year and hauled a 1D mark IV and lens almost every day on trams, buses, and the Metro. It's really not a big deal.
What is different (just in this past month in fact) about mirrorless is that miniaturisation now has no downside and no compromise in image quality compared to larger DSLRs - for the things that most people do with cameras. It is too early to draw conclusions based on pre-a7(r) models, it is much harder to dismiss something as good as anything out there.
Mirrorless needs to build outwards from the AA enthusiast base, (i) snaring users of DSLRs and (ii) attracting upgraders and hip newcomers. Mirrorless will appeal to some youngsters over time, as they look like a camera version of a smartphone (small and neat) whereas a DSLR looks like a pro camera, weighed down with all the paraphernalia of flashes, huge lenses etc. = old paradigm of 'system camera', loads of stuff and necessary knowledge, same old bodies.
Not everyone will be happy with phone images, they look and are ephemeral - see once then throw away. It might be easier to design in 'good enough' connectivity to a camera than it is to design image quality into a smartphone?
carstenw wrote:
I am with your wife here. I of course bought a PS3 and started buying Blu-Rays, but apart from the incredibly annoying forced content increase, and the constant "is this blu-Ray allowed to go online" nagging (NO, IT MAY NOT, no way to turn it off permanently that I can see), I found that for almost all movies, I prefer SD. The extra detail actively distracts me from what is really important: the storyline; it makes me look places that don't matter.
I have started buying DVDs again. I even sold a couple of Blu-Rays and re-bought on DVD.
Of course, I might feel differently if I had to watch NTSC....Show more →
I found it distracting for a week or two, but I'm more used to the extra detail now and much prefer it, though I have no problem watching good 480p on a 1080p display.
They really need to do more advertising for mirrorless, or they just won't sell all that well.
Lutefisker wrote:
I lived in Prague for a year and hauled a 1D mark IV and lens almost every day on trams, buses, and the Metro. It's really not a big deal.
It didnt use to be, but now everyone is so geriatric that every last gram of weight matters.
Regarding "mirrorless/CSC/EVIL" cameras, the problem isn't the concept; it's the heretofore execution.
And by execution I mean every detail under the sun: either price, size, ergonomics, system maturity, belief that the maker will persevere, etc. etc.
On one criterion or another, everybody has missed the mark so far.
Lastly I also argue that DSLRs, while they've grown in size and heft once digitized, aren't the seeming behemoths that a lot of people make them out to be.
I think Canon and Nikon are at risk even more due to the use of cell phones. Most people using cell phones (for most of their needs) don't make the difference between mirrorless and DSLR's. Those very few enthusiasts left out there surely know the difference and the benefits (weight wise) of a mirrorless over a clunky DSRL.
I have kids and attend lots of kids activities at their schools during the school year. At one big event I see probably 100-150 people taking pictures of their kids. Most of them use cell phones, a few Sony alpha systems and very few DSLR's, mostly Canon. What surprises me the most is the use of old Canons, like the 300D or 20D. People use them until they die. Nikon is in the worst spot right now, as they rely entirely on cameras.
Olympus, Panasonic, Sony or Fuji have more than cameras.
It makes me sad. 
