Teila Day: Articles like this make me gag. It's essentially saying "hey, your kid is dumb as a bag of rocks, so instead of getting your kid a camera s/he can learn shutter speed, aperture, iso relationships and change lenses, let's let them be cute and amuse us as they wallow in ignorance with their new toy..."
The best camera for kids to use are cameras like an old Pentax K1000 if they're the type of kid that wants to experiment and be surprised later after the film is developed, and old DSLR and a lens or two. Even an old used cheap view camera is an option.
This article demonstrates the same mentality that makes public schools so behind the times.. The take away here for me is that this article should demonstrate to parents that you have to take charge of your kid's life; as opposed to being directed by those who are clueless.
Article says: "We wouldn’t trust any toddler or the vast majority of 10-year-old boys with an advanced point-and-shoot, but for a teenager or pre-teen that's wise beyond their years and genuinely interested in photography, a compact with a lot of zoom and manual controls to grow into might be a great fit."
1. If you can't trust a 10 y/o with an advance point-n-shoot, then as far as I'm concerned, that's not a good reflection on the parent(s). Amazing how a 10 y/o boys are often trusted with BB guns and boomerangs, riding lawn mowers, 4-wheelers, and motorized go carts, but can't be trusted with grandma's point-n-shoot.
2. But for a teen or pre-teen (here it comes) "wise beyond their years and genuinely interested in photography"... a **compact** with great zoom and manual controls? ;)
It's all about a child's conditioning and exposure (no pun)... I'll leave it at that. Merry Christmas and the best of the new year to you and your family Simon :)
NikonMark: Discovered after purchasing a couple of decent Point-and-Shoot cameras for my kids, they just weren't enough for them to really learn on. Ended up getting my son (11 at the time) a good used Nikon D70 and 18-55 lens (total around $150) - have seen him grow and learn photography since! 2 years later and he is becoming a really good photographer. Just my $.02
That's because you're using your common sense. This article is just plain nuts.
Articles like this make me gag. It's essentially saying "hey, your kid is dumb as a bag of rocks, so instead of getting your kid a camera s/he can learn shutter speed, aperture, iso relationships and change lenses, let's let them be cute and amuse us as they wallow in ignorance with their new toy..."
Emadn13: Dslr for FF are not bad,but in apsc size all of them(canon,nikon,pentax) should switch to mirrorless,it's a must end of story... i had 2 apsc dslr and now i buy a6000 and never gonna use a dslr in apsc size,never of course FF mirrorless are good too,in the traveling outdoor portrait and for daily use are so much better than big dslr FF,DSlr are for sports and wild pro
@Emadn13, I shoot a lot of action portraits (kids running through the surf with their dogs; women in ball gowns in the surf, couples on Waverunners, portraits in large cities, etc.) I've shot a lot of events in the past as well which benefits from high frame rate.
There is no way on the planet, do I ever want to be restricted to looking at a screen to compose my photos... how the heck am I supposed to do that in bright sunlight, bouncing up and down in a boat, trying to shoot someone in a tux water skiing behind the boat? Can I attach my huge Metz flash to the wireless camera? Can I connect a studio strobe or pocket wizard to the camera while the hot shoe is occupied like I can on my Nikon/Canon cameras?
I'd rather have a traditional dslr for street photography as well. I'm glad it works for many others though and I appreciate the mirrorless technology. :)
john494: 16 MP is more than enough for me but, going to 20-24 MP wouldn't hurt. 4K video is not really needed, but couldn't hurt. Another stop in ISO performance, is always nice. But you know what I would really like to see? AUTOFOCUS that works!!! The group AF in the D4S is nice, but nice for sports and action. What about portraits, weddings, etc where we have to aim that single point AF on an eyeball. Canon nailed this on the 1DX, where it's fast, locks and stays locked on. Waiting for Nikon to catch up with this. Would definitely upgrade the D4 and the D4S if they pull it off on the D5. Sony claims they got technology that autofocuses in complete darkness, (I think -4EV) would love to see that happen with Nikon D5 also.
!@HowaboutRaw: "This isn't really a wedding or portrait camera."
The heck is isn't! Many photographers have been waiting over a decade for a fast shooting, hi-res, pro body. 6fps doesn't catch everyone in the wedding party with their eyes open as well as a short 10fps burst does. The same is true for action portraits, 6 fps isn't even remotely as useful as 10fps or more when shooting a client running in the surf in a ball gown where many of the frames will have droplets of water in front of the face, fabric looking weird, eyes closed, etc.. so many variables that a fast frame rate eliminates.
It doesn't matter if you're shooting a wedding, child photography, pet portraits, events, etc.. the fact of the matter is that a fast camera is just pigeon holed as a "sports" camera, when they actually are used across the board in ANY capacity that can use the strengths of their attributes.
Hopefully in the next 10 years we'll see 40mp (or more) @ 10fps. I can put that to good use.
Johnedlt: Is this the first time they pre-announced officially? Wouldn't the norm be for a gadget company to release something into the grapevine (rumor mill) if they wanted to generate interest prior to market? ; )
Does it mean they have something that isn't linear in terms of upgrading the line? Something that will get people to pluck 6Gs again? Haha!
Craig from Nevada: "I have a feeling that Sony is beginning to cut into sales."
Yes... of course...when I (and most others who'd realistically plunk down $5-8k for a fast camera) think of a fast raw shooting camera with a great buffer, where I can affix a 800mm, 600, 500, 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 200 f/2 lenses, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200VR f/2.8, etc., with excellent 3rd party support all around the globe ... the first companies that cross my mind are Sony, Oly, Pentax, Fuji, and all the other companies *other* than Nikon and Canon :/ (((chuckle)))
Ktrphoto: Typical camera business nonsense from Nikon. Make a vague announcement ("even higher level of performance and image quality") long before the product is ready, so as to discourage everyone from buying whatever Canon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, ... etc. have available right now.
@Ketrphoto, It's not "nonsense". Those most likely in the market for the D5 aren't even remotely looking to buy any other brand besides Nikon or Canon for that type of camera body anyway. Nikon's so-called announcement isn't going to deter someone from buying the aging 1Dx, especially since the D4s is comparable in the first place- and no other manufacturer makes (fast shooting) cameras on the same level with the same support and lens assortment as Nikon/Canon.
The announcement is merely something that people who actually buy professional bodies could figure out by using their common sense. Hey! Guess what... Canon is working on a 1Dx successor! ... as if most professionals or seasoned amateurs actually need an "announcement" to figure that out ;)
@Emadn123, I wish people would stop going on about how fast shooting cameras are for sports and wildlife. Cameras like the 1Dx, D4, etc., are simply for those shooting anything that can benefit from that type of camera body. That includes wedding photographers, event photographers (a few xtra fps can make a big difference at events), fashion, action portraits, etc..
Currently, I'd rather travel with a D4 or 1Dx and the lenses of my choosing than any mirrorless camera on the market today. While you might think that mirrorless is "so much better" than big bulky dslrs today, many photographers do not. ;)
canonpro: ****To all those haters, who say his work is poor, etc. Your just out of touch, Cooper really is an innovator, the firey trash the dress shot for example is from 9 years ago, seriously think of photos 9 years old and show me something from then that was this well done. How many photographers out there have tried to immulate his trash the dress themes. To the haters, look at your photos from 2006, and post them, to show us how great your work was.
Don't get dramatic. Cooper has interesting work. Know that people have been lighting dresses on fire and photographing such before I was knee high to a grass... (never mind); the point is that, for most of us who've been shooting brides-in-dresses in unusual places for more than a decade, 'emulating' Cooper hasn't even crossed our minds.
Most photographers have their own style & concepts to wrestle with. To be fair, (though I'm no "hater") here's an "oldie" shot of mine from 9 years ago (look at those poofy sleeves!). Taken with my old Nikon D2hs, 4mp, around midnight, 17-35 f2.8 lens at f5, 32mm, 1/60th if you care about superlatives. Great? No, not by any means- but fun as always. :)
Many photographers were shooting burning dresses, dresses in the mud, sand, food, etc.. Like many others, I prefer simple shots. The "innovation" you speak about was done decades... before 2006.
ZOIP: Great wedding photography is about telling stories that last generations, stories that bring a joyous tear to the eyes of Mum and Dad, amaze and delight your yet unborn children and grandchildren.
Most cutting edge work is not about stories but about confection and bride bragging on Facebook, it sells and keeps photographers fed, but its ultimately shallow and short term, These pic represent arty, technically competent and creative work, not wedding photography, but good.
There is nothing wrong with placing couples in non traditonal situations but it should have something to do with the reality of those getting married, for example a Guy who is a super keen skateboarder being shot in a skate park with his bride and mates behind in skate gear makes sense, it would have context and meaning, or say the Bride and Groom in an industrial kitchen if the Bride is a chef of super keen foodie, or a couple on a mountian top if they are both avid bushwalkers and met via that activity.
...considering how long marriages last today, at least the bride will have some "artful" perpetual photographs that she can enjoy with friends. I've never been a fan of the "trash the dress" concept where the dress is destroyed.
In this day and time, the dresses last longer than the marital union.
KlaasK: Reading all the messages below, I get the impression that I am one of the few people that can not afford to buy a new camera(system) every year. I have a DLRS camera, and a nice set of lenses, so i hope CANON will keep supporting their DLRS/APS-C customers. Even though some of you think that this system is completely outdated.
shleed... Good comment. People who use good common sense and good purchase decisions when buying their equipment, most often have equipment that serves them well for 5 or more years as you describe. Many others buy equipment just because they like the idea of buying something new; not because they need it.
Nothing wrong with either camps. I buy with 10 years in mind unless newer technology can very *noticeably* better image quality or reduce my workload, etc..
dark goob: It has FANS inside it? FANS? In a tablet? WTƒ?
I'm mystified. This is supposed to compete with iPad somehow?
I'd be surprised if it survived for a year. It's not even solid state! It has moving parts INSIDE! FANS! lolol
As long as it holds together, I really don't care what they use. :)
The Mac OS is my favorite for most things. There are some system/software nuances as well. I prefer photoshop on the mac but ms office on the pc.. Still a lot of business programs that won't support Mac sans Parallels/Boot Camp, etc.. The OS has been solid for me for the most part and I prefer browsing using Safari over all others. I wish the OS had a much more comprehensive firewall/cookie management, etc.New PCs still come with a lot of bloat. I used to immediately format the drive & customize it myself. Those days are long gone (chuckle).
I keep my PC workstations from updating due to updates considerably slowing some software. They're dedicated offline machines (win7 pro) w/no data input, so no updates needed- security or otherwise. Mac hardware is great! Simple and no fuss. The PC stuff is bland/ugly in comparison. (chuckle)
tkbslc: Saying you can get the same or better quality from a print lab for less is like saying JPEG is just as good as RAW. Printing on your own gives you ultimate control just like RAW does.
Depending on your business or personal needs/wants, etc., printing at home CAN be unwise from a pure monetary standpoint. The opposite can also be true, though far less likely for most photographers professional and otherwise.
I've been computing (and online) since the 80's as well. Kaypro, Apple III, Trash80's, Amiga100 & 2500, and a gaggle of clickity-clack keyboard types. Back when it was hard to find people that knew what Email was, let alone how to connect to another computer with a modem... back in those days it took all day to transfer a file over the phone lines. I built my fair share, programmed; now I'm just an end user who finds it easier to buy an app or plunk down the required for whatever system I require. Those were the good old days! BBSs, digitizers!, etc., but I'd neither want to go back to those archaic machines, parallel ports, and $600 Hayes modems... nor shooting with film ;)
My Mac frustrations stem from parts that have failed that apple replaced free of charge on several macs. Aside from that my Macs/ipad have been a dream.
Reality: If you don't print much and work with a great lab to print your 20x30in and larger prints, it's often much cheaper to use the lab than pay $5k for a 200lb large format printer. If you print smaller, sell little, and have access to a great lab, it can still make better financial sense to pay the lab, than paying $1.5k printer + inks + insurance/maintenance, etc.
With the lab there's no worries about down time, banding, clogs, print head replacement, wasted ink, printer sitting for extended periods of time in off or sleep mode, $2.5k for ink replacement, etc.. The bottom line is that if you print daily/sell often, having your own printer can make a lot of financial sense. Otherwise, it's best the photographer take a serious look at finding a great lab.
Careful not to be too presumptuous- the truth of the matter is that many old geezers at the labs can crank out better prints, using better equipment (that's used daily), than photographers who own their own printers. :)
Had apple revamped the Macbook PRO with a fanless much cooler version, I would've purchased it over my fanless Macbook or the current Macbook pro.
@HowaboutRaw... I've torn apart enough computers since the 80's to know whether or not my notebook has a fan ;)
My Macbook has no fans and it's been VERY useful to me. It's slower than my large Toshiba of course, but when I'm sitting at the coffee shop milking a Vanilla Bean Frap., while processing a few photos for a client, I don't always need a Quad I7, 32mb, photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator open concurrently, etc...
So, this really thin/light Macbook isn't for everyone, but I've been working the stew out of it. When I need more processing power or larger screen, I just pick up or sit down at the appropriate computer. It's just that simple. Working with both platforms daily, I prefer OSX. On that note, Win7 still ranks as my favorite OS yet when it comes to stability. My macs have been the most problematic systems that I've ever owned, but the most joyful for me to use... and the best looking in my opinion.
Whether or not something is "really useful" depends on the user and the application. For many like me, the new Macbook is just peachy.
Michael Ma: I hate the fact that you can get 1TB on the Surface Pro 4, but only 512GB on the Surface Book which is arguably more Pro that would require more storage space. C'mon Microsoft, always giving me a reason to hold off on my purchase. I waited a year to get 16GB RAM on it. Now another reason to wait. See you next year...maybe.
nerd2 actually it's not "better than a giant iPod touch..." for many people. The bottom line is it just depends on what you do with your equipment. 5 years ago using the original iPad, I was able to take aerial photos of property damage, etc., and have the photos emailed to Japan before the aircraft got back to the airport via AT&T wireless. Each time I experiment with the Surface in a store, I don't like it as much as the iPad environment, and I use PC workstation/notebooks on a daily basis along with iMacs and and a 2015 Macbook. For most things I do not prefer the Windows environment over ios/OSX.
People are different, with different likes and needs. For me, a person who uses mac/pc daily, I prefer the mac/ipad environment more overall. I was hoping Microsoft was going to wow me with the Surface, but I as disappointed. I think I'll wait for a fanless Macbook pro to replace the current low powered (but great for light editing while at the coffee shop!) Macbook.
I'm not too sure. Fanless is a big plus for me and a huge reason behind my matchbook purchase earlier this year. If Apple would've had a thin, Mackbook Pro, 16g, 512 ssd, quadcore 3.0 "isn" ghz., with the new touchpad, etc., they would've gotten over $2k from me at the drop of a hat.
I agree with dark goob., fans in a notebook for many people are an ancient pain in the neck. I like being able to sit the Macbook on any fabric and not having to contend with the fans howling for air.
Bravin Neff: My favorite comment from the Youtube ad for the Surface Pro 4:
"RIP Ipad Pro (2015-2015)."
I love the iPad, **but I could't agree more**. I think Apple had a great opportunity to really wow with the iPad pro and they failed. I'm still using my orig. iPad (awesome when it debuted) because the subsequent 'pads didn't make far enough strides to tickle my purse... and having to use iTunes to manage files, etc.? I wan't to be able to connect sd cards to my pad, add/delete/move files natively, more processing power, etc..
At first glance, the new iPad doesn't do it for me. I'll reevaluate my opinion once I get my hands on one.
Springsnow is 100% correct. *Most* people will use the surface as a notebook, most of the time, which means that for most people, it's not worth the money. I like being able to use a tablet in bed, on the BART/plane, etc., but the idea of screwing around with a Microsoft tablet doesn't make smile. I'll stick to the iPad and fanless mackbook bedside, and iMac and PC workstations/ notebooks for more heavy duty work.