# Gripes.



## sanj (Oct 11, 2015)

What is you reoccurring, favorite gripe on this forum? This is more for fun, not to get into a particular debate or put anyone down. 
It would be nice to know what you feel.

The gripe that comes to my mind at this point is *"More DR is for people who do not expose properly."*

Anything comes to your mind?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 11, 2015)

Why is that a gripe? A gripe might be someone unhappy with a feature, or wanting a new feature that is missing.

People are griping that there is not enough DR. No one gripes or complains that we have enough.

Griping is OK. But playing it back over and over, inserting a gripe into unrelated topics, that is what I find irritating, not the gripe itself.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 11, 2015)

When it's assumed or implied that anyone who doesn't agree with a particular gripe is uninformed/unintelligent, trolling or shilling.


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 11, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
The thing I dislike most is when a post degenerates in to a slanging match between two people both absolutely certain they are correct, the posts get longer and longer and more venomous and any information pertinent to the thread is lost in the personal attacks. 
Fortunately this is a pretty rare occurrence and in general this forum is a pleasant place to visit with a wealth of knowledge freely shared. 
I think my photography has improved, and if it has it is solely down to the members of the forum sharing the techniques to facilitate this, so thank you. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## sanj (Oct 11, 2015)

EVF is useless and OVF will be superior for ever.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> EVF is useless and OVF will be superior for ever.



above statement is "eternal, self-evident truth", not a gripe. ;D  

just joking!


----------



## jd7 (Oct 11, 2015)

In no particular order ...

Canon is ******* / Canon's sensors are useless - because they are not the market leader in terms of DR at low ISO. (*Note: I agree more DR is good, all else being equal.)

A lens (or whatever) made of plastic automatically has inferior build quality to one made of metal.

Having to AFMA a lens indicates the lens is poor quality / an AFMA setting found to be required for a particular person's particular lens/camera combination is evidence of lens quality.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 11, 2015)

Why isn't Canon using Sony, Nikon, blah blah blah parts, technology etc. It's a canon forum and there is no one on here who could answer those questions, though some think they can.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 11, 2015)

The word "mirrorslapper".

But I actually like most of it - I enjoy the bitching, arguing (up to a point), etc.


----------



## sanj (Oct 11, 2015)

Yep, "Canon is *******' has to be one of them.


----------



## sanj (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > EVF is useless and OVF will be superior for ever.
> ...



hahahaha


----------



## distant.star (Oct 11, 2015)

.
I don't know about "favorite," but the most annoying to me is that Sigma (and other 3rd party) lenses are automatically inferior and can't reliably focus. Canon lenses, on the other hand are always perfect (at least after a long, sunny afternoon of AFMA treatment!).


----------



## sanj (Oct 11, 2015)

On camera flash is just worthless!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 11, 2015)

Those who take tiny, almost insignificant differences between brands and magnify them into market changing impacts: Canon is behind on metric A, therefore Canon is *******.

Related – those who take one metric and generalize across the technology: Canon has less dynamic range at base ISO, therefore Canon sensors are terrible.

People who do something stupid or unethical, start a thread about it, expect everyone to say "poor, poor baby," and then get angry and belligerent when people disagree. Among my favorites: The guy who took his new 6D out on a speedboat in the pouring rain and then was shocked that it quit working; the guy who talked a wedding photographer into letting him tag along as a second shooter and then undermined the photographer by showing the bride his "better" pictures, the guy who took a picture of an iconic building and fountain on a private school campus, tried to sell prints on the internet and was shocked that the college told him it violated their licensing requirements. Related to this are the people who have bad experience with a vendor (Canon or others), write in to the forum to complain and then get upset when others who have had good experiences with the same vendor say so. Here's a hint: if you want sympathy, tell your Mom, not an internet forum. 

The terms "Fanboy" or worse yet "Fanboi." For everyone's information, one you use either of these terms, you are conceding that you can't win the argument with logic, so you have to resort to name calling.

"Experts" who write long treatises of technical gobbledygook that are more about showing off their superior knowledge than actually enlightening anyone. (Note: these experts are frequently proven wrong when Canon accomplishes things they have said are impossible.) 

Condescending posts that imply that the writer has higher standards than others on this forum and therefore they can't possible be satisfied with technology that 99% of users find just fine. 

Art critics whose entire experience consists of buying an Ansel Adams calendar once a year. They take great pride in their ignorance and insist that established artists lack talent and vision. 

Is that enough?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> The word "mirrorslapper".



Agreed. I wonder, if the reflex was invented to day, in its present form, just what people would be saying about a viewing system that requires no power and shows everything in real-time.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 11, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The word "mirrorslapper".
> ...



+1


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The word "mirrorslapper".
> ...



I call a spade a spade. And any mirrorflipping camera is a just mirrorslapper. I'll definitely continue my tradition of calling early 20th century patents what they are: totally anachronistic mechanical contraptions. Moveable parts when all that needs to be movin' are photons and electrons. Yikes! 8)


----------



## scyrene (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Well the inference that anything old is bad is stupid. Are aircraft anachronisms? Definitely don't drive cars either, or ride trains - those are 19thC inventions! And don't read books - even older! And don't use fire for anything, or metals, or live in houses. Um...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2015)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Don't worry, we'll send AvTvM an old Pentax 6x7. The mirror action in that thing is guaranteed to drive him insane.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 11, 2015)

sanj said:


> On camera flash is just worthless!


On camera flash IS worthless..... there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ever use it.... unless you didn't bring/have an external flash, in which case on-camera flash is wonderful 

My gripe is about people complaining how fragile tilt/swivel screens are, yet I can't recall a single person on the forum who ever broke one.....


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2015)

I am in Catch 22. i would like to write my gripe is all those who gripe. But, I can't write that as I would be griping myself.


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 11, 2015)

People who complain that the 6D should have 2 card slots because they don't want to spend the money on a 5DIII.


----------



## benperrin (Oct 11, 2015)

People that insist that only the latest cameras can produce great images. I think it is more purchase rationalisation than anything else and in general newer cameras are very good but there are many out there with great new cameras taking sub-par images (myself included). People seem to actually argue that when a new camera comes out the old ceases to function.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Well the inference that anything old is bad is stupid. Are aircraft anachronisms? don't drive cars either, or ride trains - those are 19thC inventions! And don't read books - even older!



To me a digital camera with a flapping mirror and snapping mechanical shutter blades inside in 2015 is as anachronistic as a jet aircraft with propellers would be (dont mention turboprop, they are as hopeless hybrids as Sony SLTs were), or as a 2015 hispeed train pulled by a steam locomotion or as a non-Tesla automobile powered by a stinking, clattering internal combustion engine. Looking foreard to wheels being replacrd by electro-magnetic hoverboards ... 

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera. Maybe i should try one of these in 2016: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-light-camera-almost.html
More compact than an EOS M. No more 15th century glass bricks needed in front. No more mechanical aperture iris blades, no more focus rings, no cogs, no wheels, no gear. Everything as simple and pure as digital photography itself: Photons -> electrons -> image. No slapping, no flapping, no vibrations, no oil splatters, no noise. Mirrorslappers, be gone! 8)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.



Not to get too far off topic. But by the same reasoning, one could say that whatever can be done by simple physics (light reflected by a mirror) should be done so. After all, physics is a lot more reliable and durable than solid state electronics.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> (dont mention turboprop, they are as hopeless hybrids as


I believe they're used for good reason: balance of efficiency, reliability and short take-off. When supersonic jets can service small regional airports economically and without disturbing the peace, we can talk about getting rid of turboprops.



> Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.



So do I -- but only when they're ready. The lag problem is nearly solved; when the battery life, high-speed focus, and low-light focus problems are solved we'll have a winner!

Gripe: the fact that a given tech is a winner for a specific photo application does not mean it's a winner for all photo applications.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera. Maybe i should try one of these in 2016: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-light-camera-almost.html
> More compact than an EOS M. No more 15th century glass bricks needed in front. No more mechanical aperture iris blades, no more focus rings, no cogs, no wheels, no gear. Everything as simple and pure as digital photography itself: Photons -> electrons -> image. No slapping, no flapping, no vibrations, no oil splatters, no noise. Mirrorslappers, be gone! 8)



I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 12, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > On camera flash is just worthless!
> ...



I did not break one, but bought a used S5 IS that had a broken screen. It cost me $12 for a replacement screen which I installed in 15 minutes. Its actually much easier to replace than a in-body screen, just two or three screws to take the cover off, and a few more holding the screen in place.


----------



## sanj (Oct 12, 2015)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Am hoping this thread stays fun and civil. Cheers.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

sdsr said:


> I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....



To each their own!

Yes, there is a segment of "retro photographers" who enjoy touching and turning precision wheels, twist focus and aperture rings, pushing knobs, cranking film rewind levers and to "fondle" heavy, nicely machined, solid metal cameras and heavy, polished glass of yesteryear. I think of them as "machine operators" - their boyhood dream must have been to become a (steam!) locomotion engineer or (propeller!) aircraft pilot. 
That's fine with me (and no insult intended)! 

However ... me? I have no interest to try and re-create over and over again the looks of images taken with some old glass lenses that were the latest and greatest in their day but are sorely lacking in technical image quality by today's standards. Not interested either in software "art filters" to emulate the look of old Velvia film or Tri-X or some other old day chemical films. I am more interested (but admittedly not any good at) in creating new images that were never before captured, created and seen that way. I'm much more excited by the endless new imaging possibilities opening up with innovative new technology. More compact cameras to have them along at more occasions, at more unusual places, under more difficult circumstances, like where taking images or at least tripods are "strictly forbidden". Computational photography to literally see the world in a totally new light, at totally different angles and multi-perspectives - impossible to do with glass bricks or flapping mirrors that were the best available solution when chemical film was the best available solution to capture images. Today, in digital imaging mirrors are merely a "foreign object" in the lightpath. 

Yes, I'd rather want to explore the new wonders of lightfield technology, capturing light and images in a much more "comprehensive" way than ever before. Directly translating incoming photons and their angles of incidence with full information of the scene before my eys and my camera ... capturing all that and transform it to information for human eyes and brains. With as few moving parts, wheels kbnobs, rings to push and turn as possible. I don't want to select AF points by pushing buttons or a nipple on the back of a camera, I'd like to do that totally intuitively via Eye Control Autofocus - the camera knows, what I want to have in focus by analyzing what i am looking at. "Pure magic" (Canon invented ECF almost 30 years ago and successfully implemented it back then. Why still no updated, improved version 2.0?). 

My boyhood dream? To become an astronaut and be the first one to fly to Mars. In a spaceship with no moving mechanical parts ... ion beam drive or something similar. It did not pan out (yet) ... but, who knows?  

Gripe? How slowly these innovations come about. Especially at Canon.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....
> ...



I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me 

Solid state *sounds* more reliable, but is it? Electronics fail too - and it has to be said overall, they are rendered obsolete more quickly than mechanical devices. In photography, we can still use lenses from decades ago (and not just for retro/nostalgic reasons - some are still optically very good, especially compared to cheaper modern ones), but digital camera bodies from more recent times are often unusable, either because the electronics have failed, or because they use power supplies or storage that is no longer available or supported (I've been tempted by vintage DSLRs from the late 90s or turn of the century, but held off for this reason).

I totally agree with the sentiment "I am more interested ... in creating new images that were never before captured, created and seen that way" - and software offers us a great deal in that regard. I use image stacking for noise reduction in astrophotography, focus stacking for macro work, HDR, and panorama stitching - in all these cases, it's not the construction of the camera that matters, but the way we process the data afterwards. It wouldn't make any difference if the camera I used had a mirror or not.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

scyrene said:


> I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me
> 
> Solid state *sounds* more reliable, but is it? Electronics fail too - and it has to be said overall, they are rendered obsolete more quickly than mechanical devices. In photography, we can still use lenses from decades ago (and not just for retro/nostalgic reasons - some are still optically very good, especially compared to cheaper modern ones), but digital camera bodies from more recent times are often unusable, either because the electronics have failed, or because they use power supplies or storage that is no longer available or supported (I've been tempted by vintage DSLRs from the late 90s or turn of the century, but held off for this reason).



If camera includes lenses and the whole thing costs 1500 [see below] it is Ok with me should any solid state electronics component inside fail after 10 years or so. If it happens after 1 year and 1 day upon expiry of warranty, I'd be mad. But DSLRs are actually worse, as they have both types of innards: delicate mechanical ones and electronics. Twice the risk.  

Light L16 
https://vimeo.com/141273851
http://www.light.co/camera
"Using a new approach to folded optics design, the Light L16 Camera packs DSLR quality into a slim and streamlined camera body. It's like having a camera body, zoom, and 3 fast prime lenses right in your pocket."

Now that's what I call "innovation" in 2015 ... it is not about having flapping mirrors in the lightpath or not! And it is certainly not yet another one of those boring, ever so incremental, fully marketing-differentiated re-iterations of old technology that Canon keeps serving up all the time. 

"Disruptive technology", oh yes! Now let's see, whether they can deliver at all in 2016 and if so, how close that things gets to what they promise today ...  8)


----------



## scyrene (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me
> ...



Well we'll see. Very little technology is genuinely disruptive, and it's usually only possible to tell which is some time after the fact. People keep lauding 'light field' cameras, but so far nothing has come of it (I think it has the potential to become important, but the jury is out - look at what happened to 3D).

PS this new product's marketing spiel is, like almost all advertising, partial, misleading, and ultimately not borne out by reality.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently" 
* move from rangefinder to reflex cameras (with mirror) - disruptive technology, since it was now possible to see image in viewfinder through the lens at any focal length and without parallax error (and compensation mechanisms), and later on it was a pre-requisite for TTL exposure metering; the disruption from that move basically killed the once proud german camera/photo industry as Japan / SLRs took over in the 1960s/70s
* introduction of autofocus ca. 1986 ... advantages to users: no more ring twisting, more focus on image scene, moment and image; ramification for makers: Minolta moved too early and was killed by patent fighting with Honeywell; Canon moved faster and better than Nikon and took market leadership; Canon made disruptive move to fully electric lens mount (EF) - despite FD users crying murder that decision was an enlightended one 
* move from chemical film to digital imaging - killed Kodak and a few others who moved too little/too slow 
* move from reflex/OVF cameras to digital cameras with LCD and/or EVF. Customer advantages - ability to see image pretty much as it will be recorded by sensor. Smaller gear possible. Less expensive gear possible. No vibration, no noise possible. Transition currently in full swing. Ramifications on slow moving market players will become evident soon. ;D
* move to computational and/or lightfield photography gear - early stages, Lytro basically failed; Light L16 remains to be seen. Advantage user: whole raft of potential for image creation not even imaginable yet, much smaller gear, much cheaper gear. 

Gripes? None. Other than it moving so slowly. ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 12, 2015)

My biggest gripe about this site is the all too frequent ad hominem attacks. I can always tell when someone really does not understand the topic -- they devolve down to ad hominem attacks. That's an immediate loss of credibility for me. 

I wish the forum owners would get rid of this emoticon : : It is insulting and a form of ad hominem attack. It appears that there are some members who can't write a post without using that emoticon. 

Challenge the argument, not the person making it. 

But there are some posters who can't seem to ever simply answer a question without being insulting.

It makes visiting this forum less enjoyable and certainly less educational. 

Just an old guy's opinion.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently"
> * move from rangefinder to reflex cameras (with mirror) - disruptive technology, since it was now possible to see image in viewfinder through the lens at any focal length and without parallax error (and compensation mechanisms), and later on it was a pre-requisite for TTL exposure metering; the disruption from that move basically killed the once proud german camera/photo industry as Japan / SLRs took over in the 1960s/70s
> * introduction of autofocus ca. 1986 ... advantages to users: no more ring twisting, more focus on image scene, moment and image; ramification for makers: Minolta moved too early and was killed by patent fighting with Honeywell; Canon moved faster and better than Nikon and took market leadership; Canon made disruptive move to fully electric lens mount (EF) - despite FD users crying murder that decision was an enlightended one
> * move from chemical film to digital imaging - killed Kodak and a few others who moved too little/too slow
> ...



I dunno whether all those are truly disruptive. The replacement of one kind of camera (rangefinder) with another (reflex) for instance. That the newer technology is better (by some measure) doesn't make it disruptive. That's just progress.

Autofocus was certainly massively important, but again - disruptive? It made many types of photography easier and more reliable, it led to the replacement of existing lenses in most lineups, but it didn't change the scene - we still have lenses, and take photographs with them in essentially the same way (attach, point, shoot).

Digital sensors - sure, I guess it's the most disruptive in photography for many decades, as it allowed cameras to be inserted into all sorts of devices, like computers, phones, etc, and images could be recorded in vastly higher numbers, and manipulated, processed, and shared in new ways (this goes hand in hand with cheap home computers, the internet, and widespread use of mobile phones, without all of which digital cameras would not be anywhere near as different from film in use or importance imho).

OVF/EVF - really? Replacing one device with another that does the same job in a different way (even with extra features) is not disruptive, surely?

Light field etc - as I say, it remains to be seen.

I think overall your bar for 'disruptive' is rather lower than mine, or the more widespread definition. What do other people think?


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 12, 2015)

Sanj: Love this thread; thought provoking! But I have no gripes. Well, OK, maybe one, but I’ve said all I’ll say about that one.

AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.

John


----------



## Tinky (Oct 12, 2015)

Gear snobs.

The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".

Stills guys who have switched their camera into video mode, and who have therefore become DoP's.

People who have never shot any professional video ever telling video shooters how great AF is. They just don't and will never understand.. _video is contiguous. af systems, as yet, are not_ (and i've been telling folk _'as yet'_ for the last 25 years)

People who confuse somebody stating an anecdotal opinion with emperical absolute fact. Context: Somebody might say, off the cuff, throwaway like _"I think canon are losing the plot with the M10, it doesn't even have a hotshoe! haha" _

And somebody is bound to reply "_And where is your evidence for this? Do you have an assesment of the Canon boards mental health? CSC sales in South Taiwan are up this quarter against Olympus, so really you don't know what you are talking about"._

People who don't understand that their opinion alone does not make something, or something not art. Regardless of the artist, they will say as fact that somebodies work isn't art because they don't get it. Philistines basically. Not on the basis of specific taste, but general artlessness.

A7 zealots. Yeah, we get it. (or rather, "we don't")


----------



## Pookie (Oct 12, 2015)

Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.

Crying, demanding and insisting how screwed a self purchased Canon camera owner is by not getting 42 stops of DR when they can't use 4 stops.

"Pros" here claiming lens X, Y or Z can't be used for a,b, or c because they can't figure it out (and everything needs IS). The answer to bokeh is a 200 f/2, for everything. These are the same people that know they just need the next "best" new lens to fix it all.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2015)

Truncating to save space:



scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently" ...
> ...



Agree with Scyrene.

Move from rangefinder to SLRs didn't kill the German camera industry. Cheap, but high quality, post-war Japanese labor killed the German camera industry. 

Autofocus was a natural evolution, like autoexposure. It made some camera and lens models obsolete, but it didn't disrupt the industry.

OVF vs. EVF is evolutionary as well. Not disruptive. Jury is still out on whether or not one will displace the other, but if it eventually occurs, most consumers won't notice any difference and all camera manufacturers will be well equipped to adapt.

Light field, if perfected, will indeed be disruptive. Companies have huge embedded investments in focusing systems. If the need to focus the camera and lens were to disappear, it would indeed disrupt the industry. The question is: is it a real possibility and how long will it take for it to be perfected?


----------



## NancyP (Oct 12, 2015)

" A DSLR is so much heavier than a mirrorless camera. "

Depends - yep, a lot heavier than a point-and-shoot with integral lens. Not so much, if A7ii?A7Rii plus adapter plus your favorite old lenses from the SLR.

"Big and Bulky DSLRs" (we're talking "consumer" models, not the 1DX/ D4 high end pro models)
Last time I looked, my hands fit pretty well on the mid-sized DSLR (6D). The Rebels were too dinky for ideal ergonomics. 

Dynamic resolution is a consideration for some landscape photography situations. The old-style way of dealing with the problem is a graduated ND filter set.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 12, 2015)

Pookie said:


> Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.



+1

If you hadn't used the phrase 'photography professional' I would have almost certainly sworn I knew who you were talking about.


----------



## benperrin (Oct 12, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.
> ...



+2


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.



I expect glass lenses to be replaced by a combination of something along those 2 approaches (or similar):
a. multiple camera modules with very small, simple and cheap lenses [smartphone modules, most likely using plastics rather than glass or even liquid lenses) + Cpu + software - again see this prototype/project: http://www.light.co/camera (I have no stake in it and not even pre-ordered one .. yet).
b. replacing glass lenses with curved surface elements with flat, liquid-crystal lenses, operated by electric fields -> e.g. http://lensvector.com/en/technology/how/

Combining something like these two approaches might/should/will ? eventually ! ... yield extremely powerful, extremely small, dirt cheap" cameras that capture extremely high technical image quality and can do all sorts of things that are impossible to do with current cameras, and most definitely not with big, clunky mirrored cameras.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

> I dunno whether all those are truly disruptive. The replacement of one kind of camera (rangefinder) with another (reflex) for instance. That the newer technology is better (by some measure) doesn't make it disruptive. That's just progress.



I don't think SLRs necessarily replaced rangefinders. I was still selling Leicas, contax's, hexars and voigtlanders in the early noughties. I think our shop sold at least one RD-1...

A colleague who was a bit of an afficianado (i would ask "When are you going digital?" "I'll probaby want to go TTL first") once demonstrated in great detail the joys of using a rangefinder, the spare viewfinder space around the brightframe helping you anticipate 'the moment' - he likened slrs to being like looking through a periscope, the lack of noise, the lack of vibration, the lack of silly hidden functions (if anybody has ever tried to use an f4...) you would concentrate on the image, and also the joy of using something nicely constructed from quality materials.

He didn't convince me about Leica's but I still hanker after a g2...

Anyway, I'm being pedantic, SLRs didn't disrupt or replace rangefinders. Even SLRs were very very expensive, my grandparents had a folding six and a box brownie respectively.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 13, 2015)

I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry. 

Of course you can discuss how big and sudden the change needs to be to be called "disruptive". 

First recording of music certainly was more disruptive than moving from vinyl records to CDs and from CDs to USB-sticks and from there to streaming audio. But each of these steps was rather disruptive to multiple indurties and changed customer experience quite significantly. 

Of course SLRs killed rangefinders, just as CDs killed vinyl, even if some retro people prefer to hang on to the previous tech stuff. And the german photo industry was kileld because they were so enamored with their rangefinders and heavy metal knobs, levers and dials-studded camera bricks rather than quickly adopting the new technology and figth the japanese makers. 

And boy, what a disruptive change the advent of Autofocus was! I've expoerienced it first hand. Got myself a Minolta 8000 as soon as I could afford one. Manual camweras were dead in the water almost overnight (transition took only 3 years or so 1986 to 1989 and then it was all over. Nikon de-throned, Canon on top. Cameras taking care of the mundane and boring technical aspects of photography. Draw focus. Set exposure. Not real fun. Better left to the machine. Catch the moment, create and compose your image, control the light! That's what's fun in photography. Not cranking rewind levers, twisting focus rings or setting shutterspeed on carved-metal nicely engraved but totally mono-functional shutter speed dials or trying to guessestimate DOF using distance scales on 50 year old lenses without proper coating. 

Similar with EVF vs. OVF. SLR OVF was a major improvement over rangefinders since it gave us the veiw through the lens, "as the film would" see it. And EVF adds full visual information how the sensor will capture the image. No a small achievement. Along with all the other benefits of cameras without flapping or fixed mirror in the lightpath! It is disruptive. Canon and Nikon may be killed by Sony, if they don't release really good mirrorless cams rather than just trying to milk their customers with incremental re-iterations of their DSLRS. 

But again, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

Slrs sold in much greater numbers because they had a lower entry price point generally and had economies of scale, and were for many, more agreeable in use.

That doesn't mean they replaced rangefinfers, as they are still produced to this day...

Is it impossible for you to accept that not everybody likes using DSLRs? There are technical, aesthetic and user experience reasons why somebody may prefer to use a rangefinder, I personally prefer the SLR form and operation, but I can't say they are wrong, no more than I can say medium format or large format users are wrong (I did have a medium format camera, an SLR type Bronica ETRSi, I had a WLF, and using the horizontally inverted mirrorwas a hoot sometimes, but again, an experience quite removed from an SLR, better or worse? No, different strengths? Yes.

No need to be so digital, in the discursive sense.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

And actually, I loved my days with a minolta sr-t super.bright viewfinder, microprism and split image screen, simplicity and control. I shoot a lot of video so manual focus, manual iris, fixed or manual shutter etc are old friends who's company I'm comfortable in.

You must have missed my bit earlier when I recounted the benefits, as my colleague saw it, of rangefinders...
The fact you could see a subject before it entered the brightframe can in some situations be very beneficial.

It's a preference (and dare I add, not mine) rather than a fact. I'm not saying you are wrong about the impact and popularity of DSLRs, and i prefer the user experience too, just suggesting that you can't always paint with such a broad brush.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 13, 2015)

I wish new lenses didn't cost so much!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 13, 2015)

Tinky said:


> It's a preference (and dare I add, not mine) rather than a fact. I'm not saying you are wrong about the impact and popularity of DSLRs, and i prefer the user experience too, just suggesting that you can't always paint with such a broad brush.



SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact. That some Leicas and a few other even more exotic rangefinder cameras are still produced today and bought by extremely few camera purchasers does not change this a bit. As a matter of fact, if the latest rumors regarding a possible Leica Type 601 FF mirrorless cam are true, the days of rangefinder cameras might come to an end even at Leica. In their case the M line of rangefinder cams have survived disruptive technology #1 [SLRs] only to be "killed" by disruptive technology #2 [electronic viewfinders] some years later. There is no escape from disruptive technologies. Until the next one comes along. ;D

btw: no broad brush. Laser-sharp focusing. Some things in life ARE digital.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

It's your use of the word relevant... maybe not relevant to you...

They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.

I prefer DSLRs myself, but rangefinders are different. You can keep on saying 'fact' is if that actually means anything, I will just keep saying 'opinion' because the facts go against you.


----------



## sanj (Oct 13, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Gear snobs.
> 
> The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".
> 
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 13, 2015)

Tinky said:


> They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.
> I prefer DSLRs myself, but rangefinders are different. You can keep on saying 'fact' is if that actually means anything, I will just keep saying 'opinion' because the facts go against you.



have fun splitting hairs! SLRs killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace. SLRs superseded rangefinder cameras in the history of photography gear. SLRs were disruptive technology ... even though it took decades, until the design concept got some traction in the market ... but then, boom bang! Rangefinders relegated to one luxury item manufacturer. 

Just as mirrorless cameras with EVF are superseding DSLRS with OVFs right now. If you don't believe the facts, then go ask Zeiss Icon, [and more recently Cosina/Voigtlander] why they are not producing rangefinders any longer. 

Luckily the disruptive technology of mirrorless/EVF cameras finally brings together ALL relative advantages of rangefinders and SLRs without any of their relative disadvantages: small size camera possible (like RF), lower production cost possible (than RF or SLR), no parallax problems to solve (RF), through the lens viewing and metering (like SLR), both full AF-compatibility (unlike RF) and all sorts of visual aids to support manual focusing PLUS - this is new, first time ever - visual control of exactly how the image will be captured ... before it is captured. Only item missing compared to RF: larger angle of view in viewfinder than that of lens mounted. But that feature apparently was not valued highly by most photographers. It could presumably be added if desired by some type of hybrid OVF + EVF viewfinder.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Just as mirrorless cameras with EVF are superseding DSLRS with OVFs right now. If you don't believe the facts...



Can _you_ provide the facts for this statement. Let's have the statistics to prove EVFs are superseding OVF _right now. _

My understanding is that in terms of sales volume this just isn't the case.

And to keep sanj's thread on topic: this is my gripe: people who have a particular desire / hobbyhorse and then repeat it over and over again as fact. Who are they trying to convince ? Themselves ? 

And Tinky, yea, I agree with you. A7 zealots.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.



So you are using it differently to how I understand it. That's fair enough. For instance:

"SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact."

The replacement of one subclass of product with another is not, imho, disruptive. I don't drive, but I'd maybe use the example of manual versus automatic gears - people still drive cars, even if they work a little differently.

This thread is great in that respect - I like to understand people. Your position and motivations are totally understandable, and I respect that, even though I differ in one or two respects. It's easy to gripe until you realise people are talking from a different position


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.
> ...



Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.

They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.

SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

They also both said that comparing two different types of camera as if they were competing for the same customer was silly. And that you should stop it. Gospel truth. Fact.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 13, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Gear snobs.
> ...



It was aimed at anybody who doesn't get that art can exist outwith their own taste, purview, experience or knowledge, and people who confuse it with craft, skill or aptitude.

If that shoe fits then I guess I was.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 13, 2015)

benperrin said:


> People that insist that only the latest cameras can produce great images. I think it is more purchase rationalisation than anything else and in general newer cameras are very good but there are many out there with great new cameras taking sub-par images (myself included). People seem to actually argue that when a new camera comes out the old ceases to function.



+1.

The inference whether it is a new Canon or a new Sonikon, is that everything I now have equipment which cannot take good photos. Whereas as you say, most of my worthless shots were as a result of the operator, not the equipment. I still have shots taken on a 10D which I think are good photographs. Does it require more effort to get the best out of the sensor? Sure does. Would I go back to it? Nope. Ask 99% of the public whether it was taken yesterday or last century and most of them would go, no idea.


----------



## jarrodeu (Oct 13, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
> 
> They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
> 
> ...


This is great! Thanks for putting the effort in to crush his opinion with facts.

Jarrod


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 14, 2015)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.
> ...



Wikipedia probably has a reasonable definition

_"A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology"_

Would that not mean that quite a few of the technologies highlighted are indeed disruptive? 

As you gave a great example, I've always been interested why the UK and I think, but cannot be sure, Europe, still has a preference for manual over automatic? Further I fine it amusing when there is a perception that it suits older (ie cant drive as well), types. However, in North America, isnt it fair to say automatic is indeed disruptive and only a small portion of the market has manual ? Again, not a native, so only based on rental vehicles...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 14, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
> They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
> SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.



Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles 
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and 
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and 
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far) 
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innovation?". Yes it is! 

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
> ...


And we are debating this using yet another disruptive technology..... Which I will now turn off, pick up my obsolete book, and read for a while before going to sleep.....


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2015)

I decided to go to the source: the guy who coined the phrase.



> Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen coined the term disruptive technology. In his 1997 best-selling book, "The Innovator's Dilemma," Christensen separates new technology into two categories: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technology relies on incremental improvements to an already established technology. Disruptive technology lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application. (Such was the case with Alexander Graham Bell's "electrical speech machine," which we now call the telephone.)



Here is what he says on his website: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Why is that a gripe? A gripe might be someone unhappy with a feature, or wanting a new feature that is missing.
> 
> People are griping that there is not enough DR. No one gripes or complains that we have enough.
> 
> Griping is OK. But playing it back over and over, inserting a gripe into unrelated topics, that is what I find irritating, not the gripe itself.



Hear hear! I agree, +1 here.


----------



## benperrin (Oct 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."



I don't think cell phone cameras appeal to a limited audience nor do I think that they lack a practical application. I don't think they are superior to professional grade photographic equipment but they are used by many many people.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
> ...



Haha! I'm guessing you've never ever put a even one roll of film through a rangefinder... you're entrenched now so I guess it's hard to back up, but the two types of cameras are very different. Rangefinders have never been mass market. I've proven with facts that they were developed and produced longer than film SLRs, they famously still get manufactured... why does it have to be this false dichotomy of either or?


----------



## Tinky (Oct 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world.



Stop. Read back. Read again.

This is really the most shizrophenic of sentances.

Killed. Superceded. Except where they are not.

I rest my case.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 14, 2015)

benperrin said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."
> ...



Smartphone cameras were disruptive to the compact camera market, they created a new sub market and although they have not killed off the compact camera, it is dying. 

I like the wiki definitiion better personally....


----------



## benperrin (Oct 14, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Smartphone cameras were disruptive to the compact camera market, they created a new sub market and although they have not killed off the compact camera, it is dying.
> 
> I like the wiki definitiion better personally....



No doubt about it. I do think though that the whole point of a compact camera is for portability and decent image quality. Smart phones now have that covered so why buy a compact camera? Also another area where a cell phone camera adds value is the ability to text or share an image through social media straight away. Not a feature that I personally need but many people love that aspect. The only thing I use my s6 edge for is to take photos of notes so I can remember stuff later. I really can't use a dslr for that.


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2015)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



The discussion was for HIGH art. Please.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> The thing I dislike most is when a post degenerates in to a slanging match between two people both absolutely certain they are correct, the posts get longer and longer and more venomous and any information pertinent to the thread is lost in the personal attacks.
> Fortunately this is a pretty rare occurrence and in general this forum is a pleasant place to visit with a wealth of knowledge freely shared.
> I think my photography has improved, and if it has it is solely down to the members of the forum sharing the techniques to facilitate this, so thank you.
> ...



Hear, hear!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2015)

Tinky said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...


4x5 and 8x10 cameras are still being made 

The one I like best is how computers will make paper obsolete, yet the emergence of computers has been the greatest boon ever to the printing industry....


----------



## sanj (Oct 14, 2015)

Tinky said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world.
> ...



What he is saying is that automobiles did that for _general person_ transportation. Which it obviously did. At least where I live and wherever I have travelled.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2015)

I think I have a new gripe.

People who pick up on phrases that have a specific meaning, like "disruptive technology" and then apply it to everything imaginable.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 14, 2015)

unfocused said:


> People who pick up on phrases that have a specific meaning, like "disruptive technology" and then apply it to everything imaginable.



Don't get me started on trash phrases...

"Build quality" -- a term invented by failed journalists who end up working for marketing organs like DP Review. Intellectually lazy and dull individuals who do not know what to say about a product so they fall back on the wholly meaningless term "build quality." No managing editor (including myself) would ever allow such drivel in decent copy. Eventually, of course, it ends up in every forum and feedback post in the English-speaking world.

"Price point" -- a term within a specific marketing context that does not mean what a buyer pays for something. It probably found its way into a press release and from there infected the world. Now every dingaling with a keyboard thinks he'll sound sophisticated by using "price point" instead of "price."

And now back to your regularly scheduled gripes...


----------



## scyrene (Oct 14, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I read that article. I suppose it's hard to be sure how to interpret the definition - one type of car replaced by another type of car doesn't strike me as disruptive, as the overall market and landscape are the same (and I can't as a non-car person tell what the internal workings are). The car replacing horse-drawn transport on the other hand, would be truly disruptive (to add yet another analogy).


----------



## scyrene (Oct 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
> ...



Ha! I hadn't read this far down, someone else used the horse vs engine example before me.

The difference between the two forms of transport is far greater than the difference between rangefinder and SLR. There was a whole ecosystem of horse breeding and raising, stabling, not to mention the vast quantities of dung and older animals that had to be disposed of. Not to mention the increased speed and range of cars meant that modern motorway-based societies could develop (and that had a knock-on effect on railways etc).

Both rangefinders and SLRs are portable machines made in factories. You could replace one with the other without much in the way of other effects.

I still think your bar is too low. Any product replacing another is disruptive? So did the iPhone 3G disrupt because it replaced the original iPhone?


----------



## Tinky (Oct 14, 2015)

sanj said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



The units could be microwaves and paraffin flames, could be led bulbs and candles. Its the samantics i'm questioning, and the wrong assertion that rangefinders were superceded by slrs...

It's like saying tapes wiped out vinyl. The two technologies co-wxisted quite peacefully for 60 years. SLRs may have won the mass market, but that isn't the same thing as a causal demise.

For him DSLRs are better, for me two actually, but the user experience and app,ications ffor rangefinders are so different that it actually wasn't unheard of for folk to have both.

He says SLRs killed off rangefinders. They didn't. They honestly really didn't. Not from my experience of camera clubs, or my experience of camera retail.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 14, 2015)

Actually I guess if it's to mean anything, 'disruptive technology' (and I promise this is my last post on it, as it's way off topic) has to be seen as a spectrum. Like most things I suppose.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....
> ...



Is referring to "retro photographers" as "machine operators" much different from Truman Capote's dismissal of Kerouac as "typing, not writing"?


----------



## distant.star (Oct 15, 2015)

.
Kerouac was one hell of a typist though!!


----------



## Tinky (Oct 15, 2015)

I switch my EOS DLRs to M mode, I often use centre weighted metering as a guide, rather than an ev scale based on evaluative metering, I prefer my ovf to live view for many situations, and I still hanker after an FM2 or an OM4ti.

My images are 14 bit RAW, 18MP, analogue at the sensor but digitally sampled and processed.

I use MF lenses, AF lenses switched to MF as well as AiServo when it suits the subject?

Am I a retro photographer? Do I care? Does antbody?

Somebody with a rangefinder will get images I couldn't, and I will get images they couldn't. I've used many rangefinders through previously working in a camera shop (I'd take a Hexar, A contax or a Minolta CLE over a Leica body, for my budget) but I've only ever owned a film GR-S, An original GR-D and a powershot s40, which are rangefinder derived designs, much like some of the powershot s and g ranges,mand in fact any canon powershot or ixus compact with an optical non ttl viewfinder.

Yes, its true! Canon still make rangefinders to this day!

Am I a retro photograppher, or one of these sad folks who cares more about the inages produced than the kit ysed to produce them? 

I can be as anorakky, as pedantic, as stubbornly semantic as anybody.

And once again I can state, with evidence, that the bold sweeping statement that SLRs KILLED or SUPERCEDED rangefinders is demonstrably incorrect.

No smoke and mirrors or facile analogies.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 15, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Is referring to "retro photographers" as "machine operators" much different from Truman Capote's dismissal of Kerouac as "typing, not writing"?



hehe ;D 
but no, not at all. Although some "machine operators" are as occupied with their "retro gear" as many of the digital natives with their latest and greatest electronic toys - leading to both being "more typists than writers". 
But as I wrote already: no insult intended. 

I see little if any correlation in "quality of images created" between photographers who prefer "electronic gear with mechanical components and retro-styling" vs. those who prefer to use "electronic gear with as little movable parts as possible inside and touchscreens on the outside". 

Certain types of sujets may be captured in higher TECHNICAL image quality by the retro types who (I believe!) tend to control and set all photographic parameters with great care and conscious consideration. "Action shots" on the other hand may not be that group's forte, they may not be quick enough to focus that MF Biogon wide open and set all the knurled dials fast enough ... although i am fully aware of the fact, that many great action images were captured using fully mechanical, non-electronic gear. Back then however, it usually was the latest, greatest and most advanced and definitely not "retro". Oscar Barnack certainly did not put a block cloth on the Leica 1 just in order to celebrate "many decades of past photographical tradition" or the 10.000th camera produced in the history of mankind. 

No gripes here. 8)


----------



## sanj (Oct 15, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> Sanj: Love this thread; thought provoking! But I have no gripes. Well, OK, maybe one, but I’ve said all I’ll say about that one.
> 
> AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.
> 
> John



Thank you John.


----------



## Tinky (Oct 15, 2015)

and yet photographers managed, using things like anticipating the shutter speed they might use for say a sports shot, or by using prefocusing and letting the subject hit the spot/mark, or zone focusing...

All useful skills that can enhance the af shooters lot, rather than just depending on the camera, thinking about the physics of it, thinking sbout timing, about not shooting everything wide open...

These can make everybodies work better.

Autimatic images often jump out a mile.


----------



## sanj (Oct 15, 2015)

Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.



UH-OH!

I hear another can of worms being opened...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 15, 2015)

sanj said:


> Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.



even worse than that: it means FAKING REALITY!  ;D


----------



## Northstar (Oct 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.



Uh oh, you caught me.


----------



## slclick (Nov 26, 2015)

"Waaaaaaaa, you didn't make the camera like I wanted!"


----------



## zim (Nov 26, 2015)

"Waaaaaaaa, you made the camera exactly like I wanted and I can't afford it!"

;D


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 26, 2015)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.
> ...



+1

I spend all day playing with antennas, radio silicon, processors, embedded code and so on.

When it works it's brilliant

When it goes wrong it's a nightmare... and it never gives you a heads up it's about to fail, which is the huge problem I have with electronics.

My old unreliable 1984 vauxhall cavalier never left me stranded as every fault gave me plenty of notice... since '99 I've only driven mercs... I've been left stranded 3 times becasue things have gone totally and utterly wrong without notice... all three times (in about 500k miles) it was electrical faults, or faults masked by electronics until it couldn't be masked any more.

I adore purely mechanical solutions to problems.


----------

