The Economist talks mirrorless cameras

[Damphousse]

The writer is a dinosaur. While I do subscribe to the economist, maybe technology is one of the areas on which they shouldn't write.

 

I'm a "dinosaur" (ie someone who shoots film and DSLRs).  The author is not just a dinosaur.  Even a dinosaur like me is aware of the GH4 and knows that cameras like it will never disappear or at least not in favor of DSLRs.  My concern is a matter of compitence.  Subscribing to and reading something like the Economist is supposed to keep me a couple of steps ahead of the general population.  I am supposed to find out about trends all over the world early.  We are already two generations away from the hacked G2.  Everybody and their brother who works in or covers the consumer camera scene should know about the incredible work Panasonic is doing, the developments at Sony, and the disruption Blackmagic is causing.

 

Even if Panasonic went out of business someone would scoop up their technology.  And the fact of the matter is a company can do a fraction of the business of Canon+Nikon and still remain a profitable going concern for years.  You don't have to supplant DSLRs.  Just carve out a small niche and do what you do well.

[johnnymossville]

I can't go back to optical viewfinders.  I think even a mediocre EVF is better than an optical viewfinder.  hey I could be convinced otherwise, but that's my opinion for now.   shooting video without an EVF on a bright day is misery. 

[Tim Fraser]

my next experiment will be to shoot a modern wedding with a film camera.

any suggestions on the camera welcome, i need cheep film stock.could be bolex or a super8 film camera, 

i want to have both options the digital which is the commercial and easy and the analogue that is the tricky & magical..

I especially like Joel Serrato's film 1, he is quite brave only using super 8 for weddings.  

 

But he achieves a great look IMO.  And a very clever web showcasing of low res work!  You may have to reload the page, I'm not sure his web server is too brilliant.

 

I have a canon 514 super 8 camera and it lacks the full control needed to do this commercially.  For that you would want the Canon 814.  I think the difference was that the 814 gives 1/3 stop exposure adjustments (important as you have to adjust to modern versions of super 8 film available), but it was a while ago I looked at this.   These Canons were the pinnacle of super 8 camera development and there is also a sound version which you can still use ordinary film in, but it will be heavier to use so loses appeal.  You probably know Super 8 film with the audio track is no longer made.

 

You might go through three or four examples before you find one that you feel you can depend on.  Some on ebay will have partially corroded battery compartments and light meters no longer working etc.

[Inazuma]

I was skeptical when Christina suggested Super 8 for weddings, but now im convinced its a bad choice. There is nothing special about Joel Sarrato's work. He does the same boring shots of wedding shoes that everyone else does and his sense of framing in general is poor. Add to that the look of Super 8 (including zooming in and out of shots) and it literally just looks like a home movie. May as well have asked a friend to do it.

 

Super 8 should be left to experimental films.

[Quirky]

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21603182-photography-mirrorless-digital-camera-aimed-people-who-want-take-more

 

I am a dinosaur.  In addition to owning cameras with mirrors in them I also subscribe to print magazines!  I was working my way through my backlog of Economist issues and stumbled on an article about mirrorless cameras.  I just posted an excerpt from the article.  There is a link you can follow.  I can't really say I learned anything from the article.  It did seem to paint a bleaker picture for Panasonic and Olympus.  Absolutely no mention of video nor the GH4 nor BMPCC. 

 

What that article shows is that the Economist doesn't know much about cameras, and their view is a typical US-centric at that, borrowed from some other site or publication, and edited slightly. Looks like typical copy-paste journalism in action, or just another meaningless filler story. 

Next story, please.

 

If they are leaving stuff like that out of their mirrorless articles it makes you wonder what they are leaving out of their articles on fixed income securities in Botswana.  

 

That sentence has a strange logic. It's a bit like saying that if, for example, you don't buy the official 911 story, you must also be a 1969 moon landing and a holocaust denier, UFO nutter, and a rabid home grown terrorist nut job. And so on. Or that if you don't write about the Fisker Karma, Chrysler Volt or whatever geeky car designed by some South African tycoon, you can't know anything about motorcycles, either.

 

I believe the Economist do know a thing or two about a number of issues, but mirrorless cameras just aren't one of them. Which is hardly surprising.