Damphousse Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Snapped in the middle That has left mirrorless cameras squeezed between increasingly sophisticated smartphones that cost much less, and entry-level DSLRs that cost not all that much more. Lacking robust sales, the worry is that mirrorless cameras could be starved of research and development funds. If that happens, the innovation they have brought to photography could falter. 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. 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. In fairness I've always felt video is a niche product compared to the large stills market but it is a puzzling oversight... I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Economists only know about things that already happened, and most of the times not even that. Mirrors will be history in a few years. Andrew Reid and sunyata 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxotics Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 One of my favorite jokes about economists. Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away. "Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?" "Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you." JohnBarlow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Can't read the article, but if they didn't mention that mirrorless will be the way to go in the future because of cost issues, then it's not forward-looking enough. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Many photographers will always use DSLRs because they can attach their Nikon and Canon lenses to them (work with af, is, metering). 60-70 years legacy of DSLR lenses gurantees DSLRs will stay here for quite some time. There are millions of these lenses out there and people will want to use them on bodies that are optimized for, and work fully on. And Canon and Nikon will keep providing these Bodies. When we get to the point where we have mirrorless cameras that are just as good as DSLRs (i.e, 1Dx/D4s) for professional use (which is soon), mirrorless WILL take a huge chunk of the DSLR market, half of it, but not all of it. There will always be hardcore photographers who prefer DSLRs. I speculate they will co-exist rather than kill one another, and each format will have it's upsides and downsides, that's why the smart Canikon are making both formats (well, smart in business at least!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Ava Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography. mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least. i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is. check this guys film wedding photography, http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2 no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic. sunyata and maxotics 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography. mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least. i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is. check this guys film wedding photography, http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2 no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic. I'm with you on that.. I miss working with Cineon scans, it was well documented, standardized, looked great even at 2k. You should read this: http://jamesriverfilm.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-true-cost-of-filmmaking-in-the-21st-century/ I'm watching on an Epson HD projector a Jean Rollin film, with horrible effects.. bad acting, gratuitous nudity, of course it looks awesome. It was shot on location somewhere in the french countryside, early 70's. Could I watch a movie this bad if it was shot on a GH4? I probably would have stopped after around 15-30 seconds. (He's got serious focus pulling issues btw, but it makes no difference) The other issue is digital projection. If you love film, you're going to have a hard time finding a theater that will project light through it. We're basically watching high quality TV in theaters now. From the article: “Here’s a surprising fact that independent producers may want to consider before they write off film as “too expensiveâ€: There were 120 films in competition at Sundance this year. Based on our research and conversations with Kodak and Fuji only 5% were shot on film… and yet that small minority took 100% of the most coveted Jury and Grand Jury prizes in the US and World Dramatic competitions, as well as winning the Excellence in Cinematography Award in the US Dramatic category. It’s true that producers of sub-$1M independent film need to watch the bottom line… but isn’t the ultimate goal to win awards and thereby sell the movie?†Maybe at some point in the future though, someone will invent an affordable chip with a 3-layer process, flaws and all, with natural grain.. then this argument will probably be over. Christina Ava 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damphousse Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Economists only know about things that already happened, and most of the times not even that. Mirrors will be history in a few years. While the publication is call The Economist I'm not sure an economist wrote that article. Actually I'm not sure who wrote it at all. I couldn't locate an author's name. I hate it when they do that. The problem as I see it is with journalists regardless of what their degrees are in. Even a high brow publication like The Economist can be very superficial. If I am reading that magazine to help me with my investments I would just right off Panasonic and move on. Even if I don't think Panasonic is a good investment there are tons of companies doing all kinds of innovative things catering to the cameras Panasonic and Blackmagic are releasing. It may not be the multibillion dollar business that Canon and Nikon are doing but anyone that looks at what is going on with the GH4 and Blackmagic cameras and assumes there is even a chance mirrorless will be gone in 5 years is delusional. innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography. mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least. i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is. check this guys film wedding photography, http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2 no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic. I still shoot my Rollei medium format film camera. It produces the hands down best images. I don't have to emulate any film looks. I just shoot film! I hven't done it in a few months but believe it or not I can get my 120 rolls of C-41 and E-6 developed at Walmart through their send out service. I'm looking at a receipt right now. 88 cents to develop a roll of 220 Portra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 While the publication is call The Economist I'm not sure an economist wrote that article. Actually I'm not sure who wrote it at all. I couldn't locate an author's name. I hate it when they do that. The problem as I see it is with journalists regardless of what their degrees are in. Even a high brow publication like The Economist can be very superficial. If I am reading that magazine to help me with my investments I would just right off Panasonic and move on. Even if I don't think Panasonic is a good investment there are tons of companies doing all kinds of innovative things catering to the cameras Panasonic and Blackmagic are releasing. It may not be the multibillion dollar business that Canon and Nikon are doing but anyone that looks at what is going on with the GH4 and Blackmagic cameras and assumes there is even a chance mirrorless will be gone in 5 years is delusional. I still shoot my Rollei medium format film camera. It produces the hands down best images. I don't have to emulate any film looks. I just shoot film! I hven't done it in a few months but believe it or not I can get my 120 rolls of C-41 and E-6 developed at Walmart through their send out service. I'm looking at a receipt right now. 88 cents to develop a roll of 220 Portra. You can also develop E-6 yourself with this kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 21, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 21, 2014 The article I think is a good primer on the situation facing the low end mirrorless market but it does not address the high end of the mirrorless market at all, such as the A7S, A7R, Fuji X-T1, GH4, etc. so it is far from a complete article. I always thought interchangeable lenses as a step up for smart-phone users was a silly idea. None of these users wanted to buy lenses or swap multiple primes while shooting, they all stuck to the kit lens and anyway a phone or low end DSLR is enough for their needs mainly. The manufacturers have now seen this in the sales and gone back to focussing on the high end mirrorless technology, as they should have continued to do right from the start. The PENS and GFs were never going to work long term vs the mighty smartphones. They only had such strong sales to begin with in 2009 and 2010 because smartphones back then were still not quite so good at what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography. mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least. i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is. check this guys film wedding photography, http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2 no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic. Actually, I'm pretty much done with film... 35mm film at least. Digital has pretty much overshadowed that, even m4/3. MF and LF are different things, which is why they're still around, in the background. SLRs will probably go that way in the future - supported by a small group of people who either don't want to change or need its unique advantages (eg, ultra low-light photography to preserve night vision). The rest will go with mirrorless for its cost and availability. Or even not that, who knows what the future will bring? Wearable cameras? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWill Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 innovation? i just shot a wedding in film, an old rolleiflex and a leica, saw some of the photos and in terms of quality and beauty there is nothing that will ever overshadow film photography. mirrorless photography is a step back in photo-quality. dslrs are not that good, m43 are mediocre to say the least. i think we have forgotten what quality in photography actually is. check this guys film wedding photography, http://www.parispetridis.com/photo.php?m=b&id=p5&p=p5p2 no amount of filters and photoshop will ever reach the feeling of film, digital photography will always hit a ceiling, as it lacks the organic. I don't disagree with you, but it did make me laugh that you shared a link to a digital copy of the photo, which makes a point - that while film is beautiful, to reach an audience through the internet, you need to take a digital image at some point, through some manner of digital sensor, and if you loved that photo because you saw it on your screen, you loved a digital photo, not the original film! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inazuma Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Film is good but there are some variables which you have little control over. I have shot my fair share of 35mm stills where the photographs didn't turn out great because of either the lens, the film stock, the negative development or the process on to paper or digital. Of course, once you have spent a lot of time and money experimenting with different lenses, film stock and processing companies, you will be set. And of course the results will be magical. Christina & sunyata.. if you are such advocates of film then why don't you shoot with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Ava Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 i am not a photographer, but i chose film for my last job as an experiment,i paid a photographer to come and shoot for me to see if it works out on a job i took. from now on i am going to incorporate film photography in my work, in terms of quality wedding portraits for my couples :) 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.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtinMinorKey Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It will be a while before mirror-less replaces the real high end. Maybe never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 It will be a while before mirror-less replaces the real high end. Maybe never. Product photography, fashion,etc... are all going live view, or atleast tether and check. Sports will benefit a lot from the fast speed. Once the view finders stop looking awful there won't be a reason to keep the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunyata Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Film is good but there are some variables which you have little control over. I have shot my fair share of 35mm stills where the photographs didn't turn out great because of either the lens, the film stock, the negative development or the process on to paper or digital. Of course, once you have spent a lot of time and money experimenting with different lenses, film stock and processing companies, you will be set. And of course the results will be magical. Christina & sunyata.. if you are such advocates of film then why don't you shoot with it? Well, I do with stills but just for personal use, and I develop my own E-6 and scan it, it's just a hobby. Cibachrome is dead now, the chemicals are too old, even if you can find them, so that's another issue with the end chemical printing format dying. Deluxe closed it's Hollywood lab in March of this year, and although people can still make prints, that's a clear sign of things to come. Avatar effectively killed film projection when all the theaters had to upgrade to digital to show 3D (Even the historic local theaters like the "Bruin" in Westwood are proudly digital now). But TV shows like American Horror Story are still shot on film - mastered to 2k and you can still benefit from the look of film, even seeing it through a digital medium, that doesn't exactly convert it to be the same as digital native. There is a tribe of younger cult-movie vegans in Los Angeles that are desperately trying to find Christina Ava 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Cibachrome is dead now, the chemicals are too old, even if you can find them, so that's another issue with the end chemical printing format dying. Ah, I loved Cibachrome back in the day. Still, modern inkjet techniques come pretty close for me. What I really miss is working with a master Cibachrome printer. Thanks for reminding me about it. sunyata 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtinMinorKey Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Product photography, fashion,etc... are all going live view, or atleast tether and check. Sports will benefit a lot from the fast speed. Once the view finders stop looking awful there won't be a reason to keep the mirror. Power is one reason. I agree in fashion, when you can have a whole setup, it isn't as important. But then again why rely on a tiny screen when you might as well tether to a real monitor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.