Woodworm65 Loc: Lombard, IL

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I prefer smaller cameras. Forty years ago I learned to put my right thumb under the body and right forefinger on the shutter button; left hand is used to balance the system. I've never seen a good reason to change that procedure, although recent DSLR's basically force me to modify what I do.

repleo Loc: Boston

I stand corrected. It was Xerox. I knew it was a Rochester NY based company, but didn't know the GUI was developed in Palo Alto.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Huh! I do not disagree, but I don't see the difference with modern DSLR systems, my current Canon APS-C cameras. 80D to AE-1, is there that much difference?

DesRose Loc: Phoenix, Arizona

This is the latest report on Nikon's 2017 financial status and it's not very good. Their medical market took a hit which is only subtracting from their camera market income. Hopefully mirrorless cameras and further D850 sales will help turn things around. https://petapixel.com/2017/05/13/nikons-year-digging-latest-financial-results-2017/

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

A 100mm f/1.2 would have to have a front element of approx 83 - 84mm in diameter; simple mathematics. How would a 35 - 42mm fit ?

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Deep pockets control the computer processor and compatible programs. On many college campuses, it's hard to use a Mac or Word Perfect because of compatibility and printer issues brought on by infringement settlements in litigation. Having been in the classroom with students frustrated over compatibility issues with their preference programs and computers and having to deal with the repercussions of both is very frustrating for the student and the professor. Programs and processors don't necessarily die because of technological advancements, but rather deep pocketed competitors who can infringe and litigate successfully. This is what I have seen personally, and have researched thoroughly. Just my thoughts.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

They had their chance! As an industry insider, I met many times with Kodak staff when they were developing their professional dSLR cameras, digital printers, and film scanners in the '90s and early 2000s. Their undoing was hiring an Israeli company to make the sensors for the 14n. The initial run would overheat and get terribly noisy at ISO 200, so it was virtually useless for serious work. They sold lots of them at $5000 each. Most of them went back for replacement of the sensor, or a refund. At the same time, Nikon and Canon had their first pro dSLRs on the market, and they were a lot less expensive than Kodak's modified Nikons and Canons! What's more, they didn't overheat as easily.

Senior management could not understand how to make money on digital cameras. They knew film and paper. But they didn't understand that the Internet, social media, digital cameras, and smartphones were going to kill off their amateur film and paper market, and greatly reduce the market for school portraits and big box store studio portraits. The rapid decline in demand killed them.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

At a summer festival this year, I asked three photo vendors what camera they were using for their work. Two replied the Canon D5, while the other was Sony Mirrorless, but could not remember the Alphabet Soup name. I asked the Canon users where they saw the future of photography, and they both replied mirrorless. As I continued with the conversation, I asked what advantage they saw in mirrorless, and their reply was weight and new lenses. I asked the current mirrorless user the same question and his response was weight. I was struck by a prior inquiry at a festival when the 810 was introduced and listened intently with the litany of technological advancements that the new Nikon had that made this camera a must have. I guess my point is that the mirrorless audience speak of weight and lenses as the issue, while the Nikon upgraders speak of technology advancements. I guess you can draw your on conclusion from my simplified research. I just upgraded to the 850.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The Catch 22 of reaping benefits from mirrorless cameras is *how do we reduce lens weight?* If we want less weight, we have to use a smaller sensor format and native lenses made specifically for that format.

Putting full frame lenses on a full frame mirrorless camera will save just a few ounces, at best.

Putting APS-C or DX lenses on an APS-C or DX mirrorless body will save maybe 1/3 the kit weight over full frame.

Putting Micro 4/3 lenses on a Micro 4/3 body will save 2/3 to 3/4 the size, bulk, and weight of your kit.

Life is full of little trade-offs. Choose your priorities and a camera platform, and don't look back. If you change your mind, there's always a way to sell gear on the used market.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Well, isn't it interesting all the information and miss-information about Kodak and digital photography that is circling the stage coach. It might behoove all of us to do some basic research before we make pronouncements from our position of authority and advanced knowledge to take pause and GOOGLE WICKIPEDIA for an answer. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that provides a wealth of information about virtually anything...including Kodak.

UPNort Loc: Kingsford MI

If only those two companies could get a toe hold in the business they could do well! ;-0

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Weight savings with mirrorless is insignificant given like for like comparison (FF vs. FF, APSC vs APSC, MF3 vs MF3, etc.) - by far most of the weight is in the L-E-N-S. You get a bit of savings in weight and bulk in the body but it's not much to speak of the way I experience it. Vibration and quietness is another story - yes mirrorless is great in those regards, as well as perhaps higher fps, predictive shooting for action shots (the live video aspect of still photography a la OLY OM-D M1). Weight and bulk would not be my reasons for going ML.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Warning: OFF TOPIC

I'm sure the guys who were in the digital imaging engineering labs in Rochester have a different story to tell from the one on Wikipedia. Kodak was ALMOST successful in the amateur digital imaging market, long after they ceded the pro market by bungling their product line. Their consumer market demise was mostly due to the switches to digital capture and digital viewing of images. Film died in the mid-2000s for most of us. Prints died a slow, gooey death beginning with the advent of the World Wide Web in 1993, accelerating very significantly with the availability of cheap digital cameras, then accelerating quite rapidly with the advent of the iPhone and the growing popularity of social media in 2007.

At the school portrait pro lab where I spent my career, we began switching to digital film scanning and digital printing in the mid-1990s. The optical printers were all gone by 2003, replaced with Noritsu digital mini-labs. We started switching to digital cameras in 2003, with our biggest roll-out in 2005. In early 2008, the film processors were ripped out and recycled. Lifetouch bought our lab in 2011, and closed it in 2015.

I can remember watching the semi-tractor trailers backing up to the loading dock in the 1980s and unloading FULL loads of master rolls of photographic paper, each about 40 inches wide by over a mile long. We bought several truckloads each year, and slit it into smaller rolls for our optical printers. Most of it was used from August through December. We had to have a huge area of floor space dedicated to storing and slitting paper.

Before digital capture took over, we supplied our customers and retail photographers with film. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, we had a HUGE refrigerated room full of professional color negative films, mostly in 35mm, 46mm, and 70mm 100' foot rolls (unperforated). We were a medium size school lab. When they bought us, Lifetouch was 13 times bigger. They were Kodak's largest customer at one point.

Other big labs that did big box portrait studio store processing saw similar declines from the late 1980s forward. There were several bankruptcies, and a huge round of consolidation in that market.

With much of the volume gone from the major "portrait and social" segments of the photographic market, and the digital camera market margins collapsing with the "commodity market race to the bottom," Kodak simply could not hang on. No one orders 4x6 prints from every frame they expose. The mini-lab market popular in the 1980s and '90s is all but gone. We used to see them all over, in malls, drug stores, even drive-through buildings that used to be hamburger joints. Smartphones and tablets have replaced both film and digital point-and-shoot cameras for most people, and social media have replaced the photo album.

How quickly things can change! Kodak was a sleeping giant that wouldn't wake up until it was too late, and they were dying from 1000 cuts.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Weight and bulk reduction were a nice thing for me, but hardly the only reason I switched to Micro 4/3. The key reason was to be able to record all the stills and video I do with one kit. The Panasonic GH series is perfect for that. I love my GH4. For the work I do, it is all I need. It is a REAL video camera, not a dSLR that records some video on the side.

The GH5 is getting rave reviews for its balance of still and video photography features. Do a YouTube search and you'll find hundreds of video reviews of it.