Further Discussion of the Demise of Cameras as we Know Them (Page 5): You would be surprised as to how many HERE, yes, HERE use the DSLRS as P&S!!! Then they call...

chaman

ldef wrote:

The real question is how many of the 99% would ever have owned or used DSLRs as they were designed? Even those that purchased SLRs or a DSLR at COSTCO probably used them as P&S. Not a criticism but an observation. The point is there is no "disruption' sown by the phones. Maybe ardent photographers will only constitute 1%--so what!

You would be surprised as to how many HERE, yes, HERE use the DSLRS as P&S!!! Then they call themselves..."artists", what a trip! LOL!

ggttc Loc: TN

I have a confession...my wife and I have a d810,d7100 and d5200 and a variety of long zooms and other lenses...

To be completely honest...if you put a gun to my head I coudn't take a picture with my smart phone...dont know how to use it...probably should learn.

EdM Loc: FN30JS

I have over $5k invested, and I use it as a point and shoot also....so what? The investment doesn't make me an artist, and at this point, I am not sure, what, if anything, can.But am having fun and it is cheaper then drinking...

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Interesting discussion. Of course, the same was said about digital in reference to film!

BTW if National Geographic felt they were worth publishing I will take their editor's opinion over my fellow UHHers.

Regarding the birds in flight comment, the same could be said for a $4,200 fixed Leica Q!

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

MUCH, MUCH BETTER! Thanks.

blackest wrote:

This link is better br url http://erickimphotogra... (show quote)

backroader Loc: Wherever we park our motorhome

I don't think the iPhone will cause the demise of dslr but the p&s market is likely to suffer a lot. Seems to me a lot depends on how much Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica, etc. rely on that p&s market as to how much they are going to have to change in their market strategy.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Good one QuickDraw, "phonie" photographer.
Duane

quixdraw wrote:

I guess they'll just all be "phonie" photographers.

What is the ratio of good shots to bad in glare or difficult light conditions?

Just went through a few days working with screen only on a new used mirrorless while waiting for the EVF to arrive. Not my cup of tea, and inferior to viewfinder except under ideal light conditions.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

charles brown wrote:

Just read an article written by Eric Kim, internat... (show quote)

A phone might be sufficient for a lot of people, like you said, but never for a photographer. A phone will always be good for snapshots in situations were it is hard to have a camera at hand, but that's all there's too it, nothing more!!

bcrawf

charles brown wrote:

Just read an article written by Eric Kim, internat... (show quote)

I do not know whether "Demise" is your term or that of the article writer, but it is in error unless it has the trivial meaning of referring to everything now existing as moving to obsolescence, since technological development continues. The smartphone puts a snapshot camera (though not too shabby) into every owner's hands, including a lot of folk who would not previously have been picture takers. Some of those people might have been potential customers for a bit more advanced and have decided they are satisfied with their cellphones, but I doubt any significant number have dropped DSLRs for cellphone photography.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

shot with a i phone 5S

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5349132175/nat-geo-5s-scotland

A phone, a brownie hawkeye, a p&s, etc are all very good cameras if in the hands of a capable photographer.

Remember owning a Steinway grand piano will not get you to Carnegie Hall only practice, practice, practice will!

speters wrote:

A phone might be sufficient for a lot of people, like you said, but never for a photographer. A phone will always be good for snapshots in situations were it is hard to have a camera at hand, but that's all there's too it, nothing more!!

chaman

ole sarg wrote:

shot with a i phone 5S

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5349132175/nat-geo-5s-scotland

A phone, a brownie hawkeye, a p&s, etc are all very good cameras if in the hands of a capable photographer.

Remember owning a Steinway grand piano will not get you to Carnegie Hall only practice, practice, practice will!

You just don't get it...and will never will. Practice will never overcome the system shortcomings for your intended images. If the system can't cope with it it will not matter what your level of practice will be. So, a cell phone will match the optical qualities of a classic Leica lens...sure. You standards are quite low or you just don't know about quality optics and how to appreciate them. Which is not a problem at all.

Have you ever tried to get a DECENT BIF image? Do you know what the basic specs are needed from your camera to even attempt one?

Keep reading NatGEo and everything they publish....knowledge of real photography is elsewhere in case you care for it.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

I have a son-in-law that says he likes his pictures with his cellphone over his wife's Nikon. He claims he as seen better pictures. So when confronted I asked if he knew how to use the Nikon. He confessed that he did not. So I asked him if he would like a lesson. He declined. My daughters Nikon was not set right, she did not know how to use it either so I fixed and the shots that she took on vacation were amazing. There is hope there yet.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

JohnSwanda wrote:

I can only see going back to film if I were selling prints. Almost everything I do professionally is for publication or the web, and both of those require images in digital form. If I shot film, I would just have to scan it, and I believe digital capture beats scans from film.

That is probably true for most publication work, but there is a richness that you get from a print made from a negative or transparency that is almost impossible with digital without hours of careful post processing. It is a bit like the difference between listening to music from an LP and listening to a CD. If you display your for sale in a gallery, there is something intangible that only the discerning eye can see. If you want your work to be taken seriously, you either have to shoot film, or be a wizard at post processing. That is the only way you can set yourself apart from the "momtographers".

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I agree with your priority of having fun. But I also like drinking!

EdM wrote:

I have over $5k invested, and I use it as a point and shoot also....so what? The investment doesn't make me an artist, and at this point, I am not sure, what, if anything, can.But am having fun and it is cheaper then drinking...

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Real photography in my humble opinion is not birds in flight!

Real photographers are published. Their works are shown for all to criticize. They pass the eyes of critical editors.

Equipment is worthless in the hands of those who do not have an eye for composition, light, and the situation in which they find themselves. In short, taking 1,000 shots in a row of some bird flying over a lake is well just boring!

I guess you could not have been a photographer before you were able to have auto focus, multi shot cameras, pp systems and all the rest.

I use NG as an example well because it goes into millions of homes each month. I am sure it is not viewed by as many eyes as your BIF shots but they try.

Although NG is not the end all in photography it is the most viewed. I don't know what that says but it seems to say a lot.

As for pixel peeping, sharpness of image, and all that garbage it is fine if you are busy testing equipment for who knows what reason. Most photos will be viewed either on a screen or at about the most 16X20 and if viewed from a gallery distance one will never know the pixels or sharpness of the lens at least if the picture is in focus.

But, who am I to say that your money spent was not worth what you get, only you can judge that, but don't count on others to agree with your appraisal of the shot because of the equipment used.

As is said: Great meal, what kind of stove do you use?

chaman wrote:

You just don't get it...and will never will. Prac... (show quote)