Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
meland
Senior MemberPosts: 4,031
Like?
Re: It's all fraude! Canon is headsponsor!
In reply to HetFotoAtelier, 10 months ago

HetFotoAtelier wrote:

I think you insult World Press Photo (which incidentally is based in your country) by suggesting that it is influenced by one of its sponsors.

You might like to see how the independent judging process works:

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/2014-photo-contest/jury-interviews

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Weegee
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
Americans love "all that extra weight."
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Check out their SUVs and bodies. "More is more" and more is good should be the new motto of America.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rj conklin
Regular MemberPosts: 107
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to David Hull, 10 months ago

David Hull wrote:

rj conklin wrote:

it really doesn't matter what the world press comp. thinks---mirrorless will replace mirrors like jets replaced propellers.

Jets replaced propellers because aircraft equipped with jet engines did a specific job better than equivalent aircraft did when equipped with propellers. However, a quick look around any airport should convince you that jets have not really replaced propellers. The aircraft designers choose the propulsion methodology that best suits the intended mission of the aircraft.

The real analogy here is that mirrorless cameras will replace the DSLR as soon as they get to the point where they can do the job that the DSLR is intended to better than the DSLR does it (and for less money).

FWIW: if you do a study of how jet engines work (assuming you have not), you will see that they still have propellers but they call them fans, and probably 70% of the engine thrust comes from bypass air pushed backward by the fan (it flows around the actual gas turbine part of the "engine"). This is essentially the "propeller".

-- hide signature --

i guess i should have said piston vs. jet. anyway no progress or improvement can be made on a OVF because it is totally dependant on ones eyesight; where as with a EVF many optical options can be digitally enhanced. just stop and think of the advantages now and in the future, sony has.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bill Robb
Senior MemberPosts: 3,332
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

It means that none of the alleged advantages of mirrorless have even slightly trickled down to this specific group of serious photographers.

And is this supposed to be somehow significant? Really? It's significant that out of 55 photographers world wide, none are using a specific camera type?

Yes. Very.

Your world is a very, very tiny little place, isn't it?

Would it be fair to say that film has gone the way of the Dodo because a person could find a sampling of a handful of photographers who don't use film?

Yes. Very.

You enjoy your blissful ignorance, don't you?

Are you old enough to remember when 35mm cameras first arrived in a big way in the late 1950s, and the pros wouldn't touch them? Did you see how fast they were adopted by pros within the decade?

I invite you to track this particular group of people and come back in five years and report what sort of penetration mirrorless cameras have made in their very, very small niche market.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,238
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to Bill Robb, 10 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

It means that none of the alleged advantages of mirrorless have even slightly trickled down to this specific group of serious photographers.

And is this supposed to be somehow significant? Really? It's significant that out of 55 photographers world wide, none are using a specific camera type?

Yes. Very.

Your world is a very, very tiny little place, isn't it?

Would it be fair to say that film has gone the way of the Dodo because a person could find a sampling of a handful of photographers who don't use film?

Yes. Very.

You enjoy your blissful ignorance, don't you?

Are you old enough to remember when 35mm cameras first arrived in a big way in the late 1950s, and the pros wouldn't touch them? Did you see how fast they were adopted by pros within the decade?

I invite you to track this particular group of people and come back in five years and report what sort of penetration mirrorless cameras have made in their very, very small niche market.

Ah, you mean like the pros who have switched ALREADY and are blogging about it? Like Reichmann, who used an EM-1 exclusively on the Antarctica trip? Like the pros switching to mirrorless ILC cameras for their personal use, as an experiment, and liking the results? Like Sciorio of SCBP,and many other pros who switched for their day-to-day professional use? Like the videographers who switch to GH-series cameras, one of the most respected still-video hybrids?

SLR won't be going anywhere for a while. However, would SLR supporters PLEASE stop misrepresenting - outright lying? - about the facts. mILC sales might not be large in America or Europe but, SORRY, that is NOT the entire world (regardless of what they think). mILC's are selling quite well in Asia, thank you very much, so the fact that you choose not to take the design seriously does not mean that the rest of the world shares your opinion.

I am trying not to rally mILC support, I am trying to get the idea through that other people have other opinions, in all things, and simply because you and your neighbors don't like something does not make that law.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sportyaccordy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,487Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to Bill Robb, 10 months ago

*EDIT* Waste of time.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,725
Like?
Did not work so well
In reply to dinoSnake, 10 months ago

dinoSnake wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

It means that none of the alleged advantages of mirrorless have even slightly trickled down to this specific group of serious photographers.

And is this supposed to be somehow significant? Really? It's significant that out of 55 photographers world wide, none are using a specific camera type?

Yes. Very.

Your world is a very, very tiny little place, isn't it?

Would it be fair to say that film has gone the way of the Dodo because a person could find a sampling of a handful of photographers who don't use film?

Yes. Very.

You enjoy your blissful ignorance, don't you?

Are you old enough to remember when 35mm cameras first arrived in a big way in the late 1950s, and the pros wouldn't touch them? Did you see how fast they were adopted by pros within the decade?

I invite you to track this particular group of people and come back in five years and report what sort of penetration mirrorless cameras have made in their very, very small niche market.

Ah, you mean like the pros who have switched ALREADY and are blogging about it? Like Reichmann, who used an EM-1 exclusively on the Antarctica trip?

Seems like it did not work out to well. Did you read about his experience regarding AF?

"People shooting beside me with Nikons and Canons were nailing focus of penguins porpoising and whales sounding, but I was left standing there with my lenses racking back and forth."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/michaels_antarctica_2014.shtml

Like the pros switching to mirrorless ILC cameras for their personal use, as an experiment, and liking the results? Like Sciorio of SCBP,and many other pros who switched for their day-to-day professional use? Like the videographers who switch to GH-series cameras, one of the most respected still-video hybrids?

SLR won't be going anywhere for a while. However, would SLR supporters PLEASE stop misrepresenting - outright lying? - about the facts. mILC sales might not be large in America or Europe but, SORRY, that is NOT the entire world (regardless of what they think). mILC's are selling quite well in Asia, thank you very much, so the fact that you choose not to take the design seriously does not mean that the rest of the world shares your opinion.

I am trying not to rally mILC support, I am trying to get the idea through that other people have other opinions, in all things, and simply because you and your neighbors don't like something does not make that law.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,725
Like?
Provoking title uncalled for, but expected result
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

A near total wipeout for Mirrorless. How is that possible when they are (allegedly) taking over the photographic world now?

Mirrorless cameras arent even a rounding error in this world wide press photography competition.

That is the way it looks in the PJ-world. 85 percent uses FF DSLRs from Canon/Nikon because of image quality, speed, AF, versatility, dependability, system and support.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,824Gear list
Like?
But...
In reply to PerL, 10 months ago

PerL wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

It means that none of the alleged advantages of mirrorless have even slightly trickled down to this specific group of serious photographers.

And is this supposed to be somehow significant? Really? It's significant that out of 55 photographers world wide, none are using a specific camera type?

Yes. Very.

Your world is a very, very tiny little place, isn't it?

Would it be fair to say that film has gone the way of the Dodo because a person could find a sampling of a handful of photographers who don't use film?

Yes. Very.

You enjoy your blissful ignorance, don't you?

Are you old enough to remember when 35mm cameras first arrived in a big way in the late 1950s, and the pros wouldn't touch them? Did you see how fast they were adopted by pros within the decade?

I invite you to track this particular group of people and come back in five years and report what sort of penetration mirrorless cameras have made in their very, very small niche market.

Ah, you mean like the pros who have switched ALREADY and are blogging about it? Like Reichmann, who used an EM-1 exclusively on the Antarctica trip?

Seems like it did not work out to well. Did you read about his experience regarding AF?

"People shooting beside me with Nikons and Canons were nailing focus of penguins porpoising and whales sounding, but I was left standing there with my lenses racking back and forth."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/michaels_antarctica_2014.shtml

I did and I think you need say a little more. These were older 4/3s lenses that were shelved for a few years because of lack of PDAF. He says they're some of the finest made from an optical standpoint. And they require PDAF which is now a new thing with the OM I suppose?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,824Gear list
Like?
A note from World Press Photo Comp. - OP spanked
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

On the page where the famous chart comes from is this:

"Also notable is that despite mirrorless cameras gaining market share among the masses, mirrorless systems make up only 3% of the cameras used,"

Even the chosen website acknowledges that mirrorless is gaining share among the masses. And no one here is surprised that photojournalists are mostly Canon and Nikon users.

- OP spanked by his own evidence.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,824Gear list
Like?
Re: Provoking title uncalled for, but expected result
In reply to PerL, 10 months ago

PerL wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

A near total wipeout for Mirrorless. How is that possible when they are (allegedly) taking over the photographic world now?

Mirrorless cameras arent even a rounding error in this world wide press photography competition.

That is the way it looks in the PJ-world. 85 percent uses FF DSLRs from Canon/Nikon because of image quality, speed, AF, versatility, dependability, system and support.

Key words - support. I don't think any of the mirrorless guys have pro-support and as such, I don't think they're marketed as pro cameras (generally).

I would also suspect that professionals aren't making the money for Nikon or Canon. It's still the masses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,824Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all fraude! Canon is headsponsor!
In reply to meland, 10 months ago

meland wrote:

HetFotoAtelier wrote:

I think you insult World Press Photo (which incidentally is based in your country) by suggesting that it is influenced by one of its sponsors.

You might like to see how the independent judging process works:

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/2014-photo-contest/jury-interviews

I don't think judging has anything to do with sponsoring. Having Canon sponsor the event that happens to be dominated by Canon users is no coincidence - however that happens. It's just that the winners were judged on the merits of their work. But this doesn't mean that all the Canons that showed up for the dance were just random guys off the street. Certainly every Canon pro out there was blasted with requests to enter.

Being able to use the one tag line - "the most represented camera was the 1DX with the 5dIII and 5DII in a tie for second" is exactly why Canon sponsored the event.

To somehow hold the World Press Photo thing as some pantheon of honesty and integrity is like saying that journalists are unbiased. (We know they should be, but come on.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Salvas
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,117Gear list
Like?
SLRs Spanked by Korean War Press Photogs
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

Breaking news: despite their having been introduced decades before, almost no Korean War press photographers were seen using SLRs.

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

 Jim Salvas's gear list:Jim Salvas's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,725
Like?
Full quote from Reichmann
In reply to stevo23, 10 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

PerL wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

Bill Robb wrote:

Graham Hill wrote:

It means that none of the alleged advantages of mirrorless have even slightly trickled down to this specific group of serious photographers.

And is this supposed to be somehow significant? Really? It's significant that out of 55 photographers world wide, none are using a specific camera type?

Yes. Very.

Your world is a very, very tiny little place, isn't it?

Would it be fair to say that film has gone the way of the Dodo because a person could find a sampling of a handful of photographers who don't use film?

Yes. Very.

You enjoy your blissful ignorance, don't you?

Are you old enough to remember when 35mm cameras first arrived in a big way in the late 1950s, and the pros wouldn't touch them? Did you see how fast they were adopted by pros within the decade?

I invite you to track this particular group of people and come back in five years and report what sort of penetration mirrorless cameras have made in their very, very small niche market.

Ah, you mean like the pros who have switched ALREADY and are blogging about it? Like Reichmann, who used an EM-1 exclusively on the Antarctica trip?

Seems like it did not work out to well. Did you read about his experience regarding AF?

"People shooting beside me with Nikons and Canons were nailing focus of penguins porpoising and whales sounding, but I was left standing there with my lenses racking back and forth."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/michaels_antarctica_2014.shtml

I did and I think you need say a little more. These were older 4/3s lenses that were shelved for a few years because of lack of PDAF. He says they're some of the finest made from an optical standpoint. And they require PDAF which is now a new thing with the OM I suppose?

Full quote:

"For day-to-day use in normal light they are fine, but in low light and low contrast conditions the AF simply doesn't work all that well. It hunts. It misses, and often it simply gives up. People shooting beside me with Nikons and Canons were nailing focus of penguins porpoising and whales sounding, but I was left standing there with my lenses racking back and forth. I switched to manual focus with Peaking, but while better than nothing it just wasn't quick enough for fast action wildlife shooting.

Olympus – you have one of the world's finest lens lines with these optics. The OM-D1 is a step in the right direction, but now it's time to simply do better when it comes to AF."

Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the AF solution was competitive with good DSLRs.

For Reichmann this was not a once-in-a-life time-trip, since he arranges travels there often, but for many others it probably was. The smart thing here was to use proven technology, which is also what the PJs, who put their reputation on the line om every job, does.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PK24X36NOW
Contributing MemberPosts: 917Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to Sangster, 10 months ago

Sangster wrote:

Historic dData is backward looking. Nobody knows the future. Good example is the demise of compacts due to Smartphone cameras. Camera makers didn't see this coming in 2008 when the first iPhone came along did they?

You're making a big assumption with that (emphasized) statement. Compacts may simply be in decline because of market saturation, as are most cameras.

 PK24X36NOW's gear list:PK24X36NOW's gear list
Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PK24X36NOW
Contributing MemberPosts: 917Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless Spanked at 2014 World Press Photo Comp.
In reply to Graham Hill, 10 months ago

Graham Hill wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

I suspect a similar chart from 2002 would have had a 2% slice for digital cameras and there would be some fool loudly proclaiming that "digital got spanked."

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

Your analogy fails completely.

Digital had a steady level of growth over film once it became affordable. There was NO stopping digital. That was transparent to anyone but the clueless.

Mirrorless has sputtered, coughed, wheezed, and stalled after its early adoption. By any metric available mirrorless is in decline faster than the SLR market. By ANY metric available, mirrorless is losing their manufacturers tens of millions of dollars every quarter. We are all STILL waiting for a single, solitary mirrorless maker to post $1 in profit. Just a single $1.

Year after year after year after year, mirrorless cameras lose millions upon millions of dollars.

To expand on your point, his analogy fails because digital was better than film in virtually every respect (once sufficient resolution and reasonable prices came) whereas MILCs don't do anything better than a DSLR, and are worse at many things (like EVF vs. OVF, autofocus and battery life). Digital was a "better mousetrap." MILCs are not.

 PK24X36NOW's gear list:PK24X36NOW's gear list
Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,238
Like?
Re: Full quote from Reichmann
In reply to PerL, 10 months ago

"Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the AF solution was competitive with good DSLRs."

Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the PDAF on-chip solution was competitive with good DSLR PDAF. Reichmann failed to pack and use native m43 CDAF lenses, therefore negating any performance benefits they may have brought him under the conditions.

There, fixed it for you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,725
Like?
Re: Full quote from Reichmann
In reply to dinoSnake, 10 months ago

dinoSnake wrote:

"Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the AF solution was competitive with good DSLRs."

Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the PDAF on-chip solution was competitive with good DSLR PDAF. Reichmann failed to pack and use native m43 CDAF lenses, therefore negating any performance benefits they may have brought him under the conditions.

There, fixed it for you.

If he could not trust the marketing in the first instance (4/3 lenses), why would he trust it in the other instance (m43 lenses)? For a trip that costs 15.000 dollars?

That is the unprofessional way to do it (to get back to the subject in te OP.s post). Better to use stuff that he knows by experience is up to the task.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Senior MemberPosts: 1,238
Like?
Re: Full quote from Reichmann
In reply to PerL, 10 months ago

dinoSnake wrote:

"Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the AF solution was competitive with good DSLRs."

Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the PDAF on-chip solution was competitive with good DSLR PDAF. Reichmann failed to pack and use native m43 CDAF lenses, therefore negating any performance benefits they may have brought him under the conditions.

There, fixed it for you.

If he could not trust the marketing in the first instance (4/3 lenses), why would he trust it in the other instance (m43 lenses)? For a trip that costs 15.000 dollars?

That is the unprofessional way to do it (to get back to the subject in te OP.s post). Better to use stuff that he knows by experience is up to the task.

That is a completely ridiculous reply and one that shows a tremendous personal bias. I would expect more from a poster on this forum.

In essence, your statement is that, regardless of proven test and field results using exclusively native lenses, a camera system that is also backward-compatible with legacy lenses where the performance of the aforementioned is significantly lower than native should be completely dismissed.

You should seriously reexamine the statement and consider a retraction before credibility is questioned.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,725
Like?
Re: Full quote from Reichmann
In reply to dinoSnake, 10 months ago

dinoSnake wrote:

dinoSnake wrote:

"Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the AF solution was competitive with good DSLRs."

Reichmann took only 4/3 lenses on the trip, because he obviously believed the Olympus marketing, that the PDAF on-chip solution was competitive with good DSLR PDAF. Reichmann failed to pack and use native m43 CDAF lenses, therefore negating any performance benefits they may have brought him under the conditions.

There, fixed it for you.

If he could not trust the marketing in the first instance (4/3 lenses), why would he trust it in the other instance (m43 lenses)? For a trip that costs 15.000 dollars?

That is the unprofessional way to do it (to get back to the subject in te OP.s post). Better to use stuff that he knows by experience is up to the task.

That is a completely ridiculous reply and one that shows a tremendous personal bias. I would expect more from a poster on this forum.

In essence, your statement is that, regardless of proven test and field results using exclusively native lenses, a camera system that is also backward-compatible with legacy lenses where the performance of the aforementioned is significantly lower than native should be completely dismissed.

OK - "proven test and field results"? - where are those? Of "nailing focus of penguins porpoising and whales sounding"? That is just the problem - there is no proven track record of how m43 with native lenses would behave in the situation on the Antarctic trip.

Paying 15.000 dollars for such a trip and hoping for the best that m43 equipment would behave as well as the proven DSLRs, is that smart?

You should seriously reexamine the statement and consider a retraction before credibility is questioned.

Please, behave like a  balanced person.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads