One car I am keeping until I cannot drive a 3 pedal any longer is my Honda S2000. Sheer driving pleasure. No traction control. No flappy paddle shifters as they only came in a 6 MT. Steerable by wheel, throttle and brake.
In the absolute sense not all that fast these days but so much fun to drive. Since my livelihood isn’t dependent upon lap times it’s a great fit.
I see my Fuji cameras as being kind of in the same vein. Dials for ss, aperture, iso, and exposure comp all right there ready for use.
Could I get better lap times in a GTR? Of course. Would it be as much fun? Nope. And the cost of consumables goes way up for a GTR.
There are bigger faster cameras out there but I’m not positive I’d enjoy the overall experience as much - just like my S2000.
Absolutely! I really like B&W and I'm still using Leica rangefinders and a Rolleiflex 3.5 E3, original Agfa APX 100 in the rangefinders and Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 in the TLR. I also have two digital bodies and they are both very low click units as I use them like film cameras.
johnvanr wrote:
Two different discussions, both interesting. One is about the enjoyment of photography, the other about the role of photography in society. Or, beyond photography, of cameras, as cameras are increasingly everywhere.
you forgot about the "cars" fork. oh, the obsessions.
Tom Conte wrote:
If you look at the progression of autofocus tracking, through face and now eye detection, you see a trajectory where machine learning will take over creativity.
One of the many insider jokes in machine learning is that you can show a toddler one pic of a cat and one of a dog, and then they will be able to tell any dog apart from any cat, but it takes 10s of thousands of images to train an AI to tell a dog apart from a cat.
Bottom line is that machine learning knows nothing about creativity. It can't tell you where to stand when you press the shutter. It can't tell you when to press the shutter. At the present time all automated post-processing flows do a horrible job that you can tell from a mile away. All machine learning does is help take care of the technical minutae of photography, so you can think more about the creative aspects.
That may change 10 years from now. But, to quote one of the AI luminaries
People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world
Tom Conte wrote:
If you look at the progression of autofocus tracking, through face and now eye detection, you see a trajectory where machine learning will take over creativity.
i am feeling that "eye detection" AF is highly overstated and over rated. my camera has it i played with it found no real use for it at this time. and it has been switched off. just another thing (yellow box) that gets in the way. i guess if i was a lazy portrait photographer. it might be fun having these things dancing around on my screen. should i use right or left eye? they will add in more and more to amuse the incapable. the data driven dance.
Most photographers experienced in action genres welcome AF advances. Deep-learning for tracking and allied algorithms often clinch the grabbing of the moment :-) Most other genres continue to do fine with 1990s era AF (eg using Nikkor AFD screwdriver lenses etc), and we almost always use single-point algorithms.
Moreover, having focus-peaking is wonderful
Ironically, besides AFC and highspeed continuous, many of us continue to shoot almost entirely on Manual, with the exception perhaps of Auto-ISO.
Photography is still an Art
Bulk film-backs to enable longer sequences with motordrives have been around And soon we there will be this: Shoot digital and/or film on the same camera, fully manual if needs be):
I'm heading towards retirement very soon. When I am free, I want to get out and shoot all I can of our wonderful state of AZ. Whether that's spending more time at the Grand Canyon (been there 48 times) or shooting the volcanic fields of Flagstaff, or heading to Seligman for street scenes, and of course soft serve ice cream at SnowCap(!), or heading south to the Tucson area for birding.
There's a t-shirt out there that has a picture of a camera on it that says "I have a retirement plan"!
liggy wrote:
One car I am keeping until I cannot drive a 3 pedal any longer is my Honda S2000. Sheer driving pleasure. No traction control. No flappy paddle shifters as they only came in a 6 MT. Steerable by wheel, throttle and brake.
In the absolute sense not all that fast these days but so much fun to drive. Since my livelihood isn’t dependent upon lap times it’s a great fit.
I see my Fuji cameras as being kind of in the same vein. Dials for ss, aperture, iso, and exposure comp all right there ready for use.
Could I get better lap times in a GTR? Of course. Would it be as much fun? Nope. And the cost of consumables goes way up for a GTR.
There are bigger faster cameras out there but I’m not positive I’d enjoy the overall experience as much - just like my S2000.
#Rant one.Another *boy-racer,* putting his enjoyment ahead of the safety of others. Here in SoCal we have a lot of people knocking over trees, street-lights, etc with Ferrari s, Porsche s, etc. They kill themselves and their passengers. The street-racers occasionally kill civilians.
#Rant two. Second-Place is First-Loser. So why would anyone find it fun to Finish-Last?
Anything that makes it easier to shoot is welcomed by most paid professionals. I've never had a client ask if I used manual focus or auto-focus.
c.d.embrey wrote:
#Rant one.Another *boy-racer,* putting his enjoyment ahead of the safety of others. Here in SoCal we have a lot of people knocking over trees, street-lights, etc with Ferrari s, Porsche s, etc. They kill themselves and their passengers. The street-racers occasionally kill civilians.
#Rant two. Second-Place is First-Loser. So why would anyone find it fun to Finish-Last?
Anything that makes it easier to shoot is welcomed by most paid professionals. I've never had a client ask if I used manual focus or auto-focus.
Is your ranting directed at me? If so you have no idea of what you are talking about.
"One car I am keeping until I cannot drive a 3 pedal any longer is my Honda S2000. Sheer driving pleasure. No traction control. No flappy paddle shifters as they only came in a 6 MT. Steerable by wheel, throttle and brake.
In the absolute sense not all that fast these days but so much fun to drive. Since my livelihood isn’t dependent upon lap times it’s a great fit."
*Boy racer* is used in the UK to describe a person who drives fast and aggressively on public roads. Sure sound like your description of your self. Every year there are a lot of deaths in SoCal caused by boy racers.
Rant two is aimed at all the forum posters, all over the 'net, not just on FM who claim that their art and enjoyment is compromised by any and all labor saving devices. Wasn't that the OP point?
c.d.embrey wrote: "One car I am keeping until I cannot drive a 3 pedal any longer is my Honda S2000. Sheer driving pleasure. No traction control. No flappy paddle shifters as they only came in a 6 MT. Steerable by wheel, throttle and brake.
In the absolute sense not all that fast these days but so much fun to drive. Since my livelihood isn’t dependent upon lap times it’s a great fit."
*Boy racer* is used in the UK to describe a person who drives fast and aggressively on public roads. Sure sound like your description of your self. Every year there are a lot of deaths in SoCal caused by boy racers.
Rant two is aimed at all the forum posters, all over the 'net, not just on FM who claim that their art and enjoyment is compromised by any and all labor saving devices. Wasn't that the OP point? ...Show more →
Your holier than thou assumption is entirely incorrect.
I am familiar with the term “boy racer”.
For the record I never said a thing about public roads. Your presumption must have affected your reading ability or comprehension.
My S2000 is enjoyed safely at the limits at track days and autocrosses. Not on public roads. I’ve raced at the amateur level at tracks all over the west and have served as an instructor as well. And yes - it’s really fun to drive at the limits.
These are all events with safety inspections, equipment requirements, insurance etc.
c.d.embrey wrote:
Rant two is aimed at all the forum posters, all over the 'net, not just on FM who claim that their art and enjoyment is compromised by any and all labor saving devices. Wasn't that the OP point?
I did not make a strong a point about everything that makes labor easier. Surely you can understand that there is a discussion to be had.
Or maybe you are just looking for a flame war. FM isn't that place. Go to dpreview.
Tom Conte wrote:
I wrote a post in the Nikon forum a while ago about losing my love of photography.
That's because I'm a luddite, I suppose.
I also drive a manual transmission sports car because I want to interface with the machine. (It's me that executes a perfect heal-and-toe downshift in a turn, not the microcontroller responding to the flippy-flappy paddles behind a steering wheel.) Ferrari no longer makes manual transmission cars since 2009 or so. The new Ferraris are dead to me.
Thus, I am concerned about where camera manufacturers and their technological arms race are heading.
Let me explain.
If you look at the progression of autofocus tracking, through face and now eye detection, you see a trajectory where machine learning will take over creativity.
Imagine if such AI were integrated into autofocus systems? All one would need to do is waive a camera around until the system detected a pleasing image, and then it would snap the picture. (There have been such systems for snapping a picture when someone smiles for about 5 years now.)
I don't like where photography is going. Do you?...Show more →
No. It's pretty well down the crapper. The obsession with videos to the detriment of still photography is like the automatic transmission in your scenario.
EB-1 wrote:
No. It's pretty well down the crapper. The obsession with videos to the detriment of still photography is like the automatic transmission in your scenario.
EBH
How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras?
chez wrote:
How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras?
Engineering resources that could have been used on improving the image processing ASIC, firmware, ergonomics, or other aspects of still photography have instead been "wasted" (as far as I am concerned ) on implementing video. I don't think I have a second of video recorded on any dslr since my first one with video (Nikon D90). I will gladly give up all video capabilities if I could instead get a one-button "backup to external drive" capability in the firmware that allows me to hook up some type of flash storage via the USB port and back up directly to it. That would have taken a fraction of the resources used on video, particularly since these things are pretty much fully recurring costs with every new body and sensor.
Yes, I realize that this is a very narrow view of the product centered on my needs, but it speaks directly to the question you asked. For a company like Nikon, with somewhat limited resources, every new feature has an opportunity cost. Conserving those opportunity costs is THE reason why Southwest is the most profitable US airline, and the only one that has never decrlared bankrupcy. They focus intensely on their core competency and core customer, and spend zero calories on "diworsification"
chez wrote:
How has still photography suffered with the inclusion of video into our cameras?
GroovyGeek wrote:
... I will gladly give up all video capabilities if I could instead get a one-button "backup to external drive" capability in the firmware that allows me to hook up some type of flash storage via the USB port and back up directly to it.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Engineering resources that could have been used on improving the image processing ASIC, firmware, ergonomics, or other aspects of still photography have instead been "wasted" (as far as I am concerned ) on implementing video. I don't think I have a second of video recorded on any dslr since my first one with video (Nikon D90). I will gladly give up all video capabilities if I could instead get a one-button "backup to external drive" capability in the firmware that allows me to hook up some type of flash storage via the USB port and back up directly to it. That would have taken a fraction of the resources used on video, particularly since these things are pretty much fully recurring costs with every new body and sensor.
Yes, I realize that this is a very narrow view of the product centered on my needs, but it speaks directly to the question you asked. For a company like Nikon, with somewhat limited resources, every new feature has an opportunity cost. Conserving those opportunity costs is THE reason why Southwest is the most profitable US airline, and the only one that has never decrlared bankrupcy. They focus intensely on their core competency and core customer, and spend zero calories on "diworsification"...Show more →
Well why don't you also bring up every other option or mode in your cameras that you never used. And what about those lenses you never bought...they must have spent many more resources on them.
As far as resources go, I would bet the extra sales the cameras have by INCLUDING video far outweighs the resources required to add video.
You still have not mentioned one thing about video that stops you from making still photos.
) on implementing video. I don't think I have a second of video recorded on any dslr since my first one with video (Nikon D90). I will gladly give up all video capabilities if I could instead get a one-button "backup to external drive" capability in the firmware that allows me to hook up some type of flash storage via the USB port and back up directly to it. That would have taken a fraction of the resources used on video, particularly since these things are pretty much fully recurring costs with every new body and sensor.