Unfortunately, the public has grown accustomed to crappy cell phone quality and everyone else's garbage pics. Then they see shots from a competent photographer with good gear and assume those differences are from the gear. They of course are partially, but then they buy an SLR, never learn the craft and get terrible shots, with lots out if focus and eventually just go back to using their phones.
My daughter, though, who has been perpetually surrounded by good photos her whole life, always sees the difference. I was showing her a few pics our daycare provider had posted of her on Facebook, and she took one look at them and said, that's blurry, Dad. Yes, yes it is....
My mother in law always tries to get 'really good shots' with her phone, but she has no compositional talent and her photos are always terrible. There, it's down to lack of skill, not lack of camera, and I think she realized that a bit this weekend. I actually forgot my camera this weekend as we are visiting family, and was left shooting with my iPhone 5S. I still got some good shots, though, while she always stands super far away from everyone and take pics from above with everyone in the center.
Unfortunately, this kind of picture is what most people see nowadays, so there's no reason for the average person to shell out for a decent camera. We enthusiasts will always use them....and I thank mirrorless will eventually become quite predominant as more and more enthusiasts add them to their kits or replace DSLRs with them, though I also think DSLRs will be around for a long while.
alwang wrote:
The Picasso/Kinkade analogy doesn't work, because the difference between Picasso and Kincade *isn't* really technical quality, but artistic merit. No one is saying that smartphone images can't have artistic merit: they clearly can. The issue is that more full-featured cameras are reflective of an attention to craft, and to me, that craft is worth preserving, irrespective of artistic merit. If all cameras become more automated and simpler, we'll lose appreciation for many of the subtler decisions made in a photograph: DoF, motion blurring, exposure, focus selection. I want to live in a culture where people recognize those distinctions, because it's richer and more interesting.
I'd make a food analogy: traditional cooking involves attention to a lot arcane detail that many would argue today is outmoded and unecessary, and it's true: no one anymore needs to make their own chicken stock or make their own cheese every day. But when a vast majority of the public has *never* made their own stock or cheese, then as a culture we start to believe that the stuff that comes in cans or prewrapped slices is just as good, and our society is poorer for it. ...Show more →
I want to agree with this line of thinking, but then I'd have to go back to using film cameras and that ain't gonna happen. Saying that the use of a new mirrorless or DSLR is akin to traditional cooking seems a bit disingenuous.
surf monkey wrote:
I want to agree with this line of thinking, but then I'd have to go back to using film cameras and that ain't gonna happen. Saying that the use of a new mirrorless or DSLR is akin to traditional cooking seems a bit disingenuous.
I don't think it has to be that black-and-white. I'm not saying we all need to give up every modern convenience, I'm just saying that you need to have the more manual stuff available to remind you of what it is that you're automating. And that simpler is better some of time, but it isn't better all of the time.
alwang wrote:
The Picasso/Kinkade analogy doesn't work, because the difference between Picasso and Kincade *isn't* really technical quality, but artistic merit. No one is saying that smartphone images can't have artistic merit: they clearly can. The issue is that more full-featured cameras are reflective of an attention to craft, and to me, that craft is worth preserving, irrespective of artistic merit. If all cameras become more automated and simpler, we'll lose appreciation for many of the subtler decisions made in a photograph: DoF, motion blurring, exposure, focus selection. I want to live in a culture where people recognize those distinctions, because it's richer and more interesting.
I'd make a food analogy: traditional cooking involves attention to a lot arcane detail that many would argue today is outmoded and unecessary, and it's true: no one anymore needs to make their own chicken stock or make their own cheese every day. But when a vast majority of the public has *never* made their own stock or cheese, then as a culture we start to believe that the stuff that comes in cans or prewrapped slices is just as good, and our society is poorer for it.
As an aside: If an analogy was a perfect model of the thing it was representing-- it wouldn't be an analogy so much as the thing itself.
The point was about artistic merit, and not technological differences; the entire point was that I think the photographic-public (us, on this site) have somehow confused technical quality for something else. We think we're producing Picassos when we're just a bunch of folks with good paints making Kinkades.... and we're telling a bunch of other folks making Kinkades with slightly less high-quality paints that they are Philistines. Get it?
I agree with you to a point on food. And I think the comparison gets us some distance.
1. I find the general tone of the NYT article somewhat misleading, because it's too US/EUR centered. The fact is that mirrorless has its highest market share in Japan and Asia, and the bulk of Oly and Fuji sales are in Japan and Asia. It didnt catch so much in US/EUR, well too bad but it's not the end of the world, far from it.
2. Photography has many "compartments". In my prefered genre, street photography, almost nobody shoots smartphones, and they never will. It's not that with a smartphone you'll get a grainy photo, it's that in most cases you wont get a photo at all. It's happy times for street photography, after a decade where the only viable options were either DSLRs or ancient film cameras, we finally have suitable digital cameras that dont cost $7k and as a result we have more people shooting strangers in public places than we ever did. We're still a tiny niche, but now strong enough to sell books, prints and workshops to eachother
3. Having said all that, I couldnt care less what fuji, leica, sony and the rest of them do. I dont have shares in them, in fact I dont care if they all shut shop tomorrow and nobody ever makes another camera again. When all the market was selling was crap digicams, I survived shooting ancient cameras 30 years after they stopped making them. Now the market is flooded with nice cameras, and I know they will last me for another 30 years. Furthermore, I couldnt care less if people shoot smarphones or if they appreciate "true photography" (whatever that is). I make the photos that I like because I like making them, and I'm lucky enough to have a number of friends, around me and online that I can share and discuss what we love doing, god bless you all. I'm all set, for as long as I can walk with a camera. ...Show more →
+1
This thread it too US/European biased. Mirrorless doing fine in East Asia/Japan.
alwang wrote:
I don't think it has to be that black-and-white. I'm not saying we all need to give up every modern convenience, I'm just saying that you need to have the more manual stuff available to remind you of what it is that you're automating. And that simpler is better some of time, but it isn't better all of the time.
I get where you're coming from, I guess it just comes down to where each individual draws the line.
In regards to the success of mirrorless, the line seems to already have been drawn, and the future does look dismal. Although in Asia the market seems to be much better.
I have posted this elsewhere a few times, but in my own small world every year I am involved in a Heritage Camp and coordinate a team of photography volunteers to cover all the age groups with photos and video. It has been interesting to see each year what parent volunteers are using as a camera. Last year about half of the parents had a DSLR and half had a mirrorless. Definitely a change from previous years.
looking at Canon's strategy of getting 5 or 6 years out of a chip and being conservative with their development yen, as a business they are probably doing the correct business model. Sony wants to be disruptive and gain market share, so they risk more because they desperately want to gain more. with the disappearance of paid photojournalists and changes in the way pro photographers are paid, where is the return for Canikon to develop $8K DSLRs? i'm more grateful for what choices i have now from Sony,Olympus,Panasonic,Fuji,Sigma,Pentax than what i was offered in the past. What a great time to be a photographer. for any reason.
It's not just the IQ spread from DSLRs--SmartPhones, IQ has been denigrated for a while in the fine arts in favor of spontaneity, cultural perspective, and historical awareness. is there a greater appreciation of visual literacy in East Asian markets?
Mirrorless is doing fine in Japan. Mirrorless has 20% marketshare of interchangeable lens camera sales. These are what we call annecdotes. They are snapshots of truths in time. They say nothing about the future trends. 5 years ago, P&S were the dominant cameras sold. To project they would dominate the future would have ignored the trend of smartphones replacing P&S. Today, we see that P&S defintely had an expiration date.
If you want to predict the future, you must look at trends and you must look at the devil in the details. The trends is very, very bad for ALL camera sales, including mirrorless and DSLRs. The sales numbers are in fast decline, year over year. It is doubtful this will ever reverse. There are annecdotal data that mirrorless is starting to reverse gains in Asia, outside of Japan. The trend in Japan may also reverse in the not too distant future. Mirrorless players are largely unprofitable. There may be a blip during these next few years as the economy recovers where some of the mirrorless players get financially healthy, but devil is in the details. Some of these players are changing the product mix to reduce models and focus on more profitable high-end models. Financial health does not necessarily mean increasing sales. Increasing sales of loss producing models equals a bigger loss. Increasing sales of profitable high end models and decreasing sales of loss producing lower end models is likely the reason behind the improved financial health
Also, when looking at the devil in the details, to assume growth in interchangeable lens system would go on forever is to mistaken why the general public was buying cameras. They are not like us enthusiasts. They mostly value convenience over improved image quality. Most mirrorless fans who believe mirrrorless would take over the world are projecting their reasons for buying onto the general public. While these fans' reasons may be perfectly rational to them and logical to even the general population, it ignores how high a priority these reasons are to the general public. Apparently, better image quality, small and light lenses, bokeh, lens rendering, high ISO are much lower priorities than convenience. When looking at the trends, convenience seems to be far away the top priority with everything else a distant second.
sflxn wrote:
Mirrorless is doing fine in Japan. Mirrorless has 20% marketshare of interchangeable lens camera sales. These are what we call annecdotes. They are snapshots of truths in time. They say nothing about the future trends. 5 years ago, P&S were the dominant cameras sold. To project they would dominate the future would have ignored the trend of smartphones replacing P&S. Today, we see that P&S defintely had an expiration date.
If you want to predict the future, you must look at trends and you must look at the devil in the details. The trends is very, very bad for ALL camera sales, including mirrorless and DSLRs. The sales numbers are in fast decline, year over year. It is doubtful this will ever reverse. There are annecdotal data that mirrorless is starting to reverse gains in Asia, outside of Japan. The trend in Japan may also reverse in the not too distant future. Mirrorless players are largely unprofitable. There may be a blip during these next few years as the economy recovers where some of the mirrorless players get financially healthy, but devil is in the details. Some of these players are changing the product mix to reduce models and focus on more profitable high-end models. Financial health does not necessarily mean increasing sales. Increasing sales of loss producing models equals a bigger loss. Increasing sales of profitable high end models and decreasing sales of loss producing lower end models is likely the reason behind the improved financial health
Also, when looking at the devil in the details, to assume growth in interchangeable lens system would go on forever is to mistaken why the general public was buying cameras. They are not like us enthusiasts. They mostly value convenience over improved image quality. Most mirrorless fans who believe mirrrorless would take over the world are projecting their reasons for buying onto the general public. While these fans' reasons may be perfectly rational to them and logical to even the general population, it ignores how high a priority these reasons are to the general public. Apparently, better image quality, small and light lenses, bokeh, lens rendering, high ISO are much lower priorities than convenience. When looking at the trends, convenience seems to be far away the top priority with everything else a distant second....Show more →
Not only in cameras, but just about everything else in life. Convenience wins over any other types of improvements in all forms of electronics.
mco_970 wrote:
I totally get it, though. I don't know how many of my friends and family have taken almost all of their kids pictures growing up on their cell phone.
It's really weird, technology has brought us the ability to take GREAT pictures with tiny cameras like m4/3 or the small DSLRs. Instead, people want to use cameras that net them about the same image quality as the pictures my mom took when I grew up - chitty polaroid looking stuff. Blurry, grainy, whatever.
I get so annoyed.
what the lose in quality, they more than make up for in quantity
justruss wrote:
As an aside: If an analogy was a perfect model of the thing it was representing-- it wouldn't be an analogy so much as the thing itself.
The point was about artistic merit, and not technological differences; the entire point was that I think the photographic-public (us, on this site) have somehow confused technical quality for something else. We think we're producing Picassos when we're just a bunch of folks with good paints making Kinkades.... and we're telling a bunch of other folks making Kinkades with slightly less high-quality paints that they are Philistines. Get it?
I agree with you to a point on food. And I think the comparison gets us some distance....Show more →
You're making a lot of great points in this thread. Of course one can't expect any Joe Shmoe to suddenly become a great photographer because they bought a DSLR. There is absolutely nothing wrong with smartphone photography in principle - it's convenient and easily shareable.
My earlier point in this thread was about technical quality; I'm not going to touch artistic merit. A kid will only be a toddler once. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to have a few nice photos of decent technical quality? I'm not talking about much here–let's just start with getting something in focus. I'm not surprised that more people don't care about this, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed. In my opinion, these are the most important moments I'll ever want to photograph.
Regarding the point about smartphone photos looking just as good in most mediums: I definitely agree that they look just as good when viewed online or on a phone. I've also been involved in a bunch of situations when friends or relatives are shocked that their photo, which looks just fine on their phone, is a blurry mess when printed 5x7.
I wouldn't call this a debate about gear or consumerism, personally. I take plenty of smartphone photos myself, it's a great convenience. I think this is about valuing quality.
carstenw wrote:
This small niche may be all that is left soon. If everyone else doesn't upgrade any more, then only the fanatics are left.
My concern is that we enthusiasts have had it good for the last few years. It seems a lot of products are targeting our niche. With the apparently inevitable collapse and consolidation of the camera market, will that streak continue? I'm guessing it won't...
In some sense perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps we are overdue for a shift of focus back to photography itself rather than photographic gear. There are way too many similar products on the market right now.
I am primarily worried about continued support for what I already own. If everything keeps working, I would be happy, but if something dies, can't be repaired and can't be replaced, that would be bad. A7, I am looking at you.
I went to Art Basel in Miami few weeks ago ... it was interesting to note that majority of top world art these days is no longer photography - alternative media and techniques dominate. It makes sense. Everyone has a camera now, everyone thinks they're a photographer, and seeing / paying for photos is no longer in people's minds. And, I think true value of photography for the masses has never been capturing grand vistas or complex subjects, it was about capturing moments. In that case, technique is no longer important, and value of photography as an ART form is lessened, its more like photography is a type of 'news'. Back when the only way to capture moments was to learn proper technique, photography (and photographer) were valued. Now with full automation and intelligence built into phone cameras, it's all over for that kind of thinking.
So, at the end of the day, I do photography for myself, even if most of the photos I make will never be appreciated for all the effort I put into them.
itai195 wrote:
My concern is that we enthusiasts have had it good for the last few years. It seems a lot of products are targeting our niche. With the apparently inevitable collapse and consolidation of the camera market, will that streak continue? I'm guessing it won't...
In some sense perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps we are overdue for a shift of focus back to photography itself rather than photographic gear. There are way too many similar products on the market right now.
I hate to say it but the fate of the photography gear market lies in the hands of telecommunications companies and software companies. If cameras were as convenient as smartphones in both quick edits and sharing, then there may be a resurgence. Here in the US, that will not happen. Connected device are too expensive to operate due to the wireless data costs. The software in these cameras will also unlikely to change because these camera makers were too shortsighted to open up their platforms. Their window of opportunity has probably closed now. The market for iOS and Android smartphones are just so big and dynamic that the vast majority of consumers will never go back to standalone cameras.
I am hoping we have a few more years of aggressive innovation before these companies drastically cut investment. I can see m43, X, and A-mount all disappearing within 5 years. The EOS, F, and E mounts are probably going to be the only surviving mounts. I think the market for medium format will becoming increasingly dim. All it'll take is a series of leaf shutter lenses or a well implmented global shutter. The resolution diff between 80mp MF sensor and 54mp FF sensor will easily be forgiven if the 54mp FF sensor has much higher dynamic range and convenience factor.
sflxn wrote:
If cameras were as convenient as smartphones in both quick edits and sharing, then there may be a resurgence.
That is only one factor. The main one is that people don't carry cameras unless there is a special occasion, but they do carry phones. Game over cameras.
justruss wrote:
As an aside: If an analogy was a perfect model of the thing it was representing-- it wouldn't be an analogy so much as the thing itself.
The point was about artistic merit, and not technological differences; the entire point was that I think the photographic-public (us, on this site) have somehow confused technical quality for something else. We think we're producing Picassos when we're just a bunch of folks with good paints making Kinkades.... and we're telling a bunch of other folks making Kinkades with slightly less high-quality paints that they are Philistines. Get it?
I agree with you to a point on food. And I think the comparison gets us some distance....Show more →
...and some would even go so far as to say that the "photographic-public" have even confused/ replaced the actual experience with the photograph, as if the best moments are those fully lived and not photographed...the sacrilege!
