JohnHoppy: I suspect many respondents here have not actually read Andrew Reid's full article. It repays reading. It may well be true that traditional photographic devices are in terminal decline, but unless innovation is allowed to flourish, that decline is most certain. The advent of new technology such as mirrorless is only part of a process that seeks to perpetuate a specific device for the enjoyment of photography as we know it. Market leader Canon's EOS-M was a poor effort that really said, "Our SLR is the thing to buy" and Nikon's 1 series was weakly conceived too. By steadfastly opposing mirrorless and throwing its weight against what it represented rather than embracing and adapting it, Canon in effect has projected its own possible fate. Things will have to change or Reid's scenario may be a reality in a few years.
IQ in mirrorless is the same as DSLR, if the sensor size is the same. AF lags for the most part, but isn't bad. It's catching up and good enough for most use.
marike6: Just got back from B&H in NYC, where everybody was walking around with their cameras. The overwhelming majority of people, lots and lots of people, were carrying FF and APS-C DSLRs, quite a few with high grade pro zooms.
Lots of armchair predictions about the direction the camera market is taking. But if DSLRs are dying, the huge number of people I saw walking around one of the world's largest camera shops apparently didn't get the memo.
You're looking at a very small niche of camera users. That's great that NYC can support a camera store, but around the rest of the country, camera stores have been closing. I don't think that's a sign of a healthy DSLR market.
baloo_buc: There were a lot of people that have no idea of photography that bought dSLRs just to brag about. They are now sucked by the 41 MP in a smartphone. There will be a reduction of dSLRs sales in the following years because less people will need good quality photos when the only use is on facebook or other websites that are very low quality from the photographic viewpoint. I have a camera in a smartphone and I use it only in emergency cases.
I had an old phone camera that was really awful, but my newer ones are pretty decent. They do take the place of a P&S many times. They'd be fine for what most people use a camera for, the web or small prints.
davids8560: I find Eye-Fi cards and cameras with built-in Wi-Fi solve the "instant uploading" problem rather handily, if need be, although I eschew editing on my iPhone unless it's absolutely necessary. I actually don't even upload much to the 'Net anymore, now that so many sites make legal claim to whatever pictures I elect to post. So now, generally speaking, if I want to share a pic with friends and associates, I just attach it to a regular email. And that suits me just fine,
A highly-placed friend of mine in Apple's iPhone camera department told me that keeping the slimness and overall size of a cellphone to a minimum precludes much advancement in smartphone camera features and capabilities.
So I think there always will be at least some demand for fully-featured, stand-alone digital cameras. The market is definitely going to shrink, however, and get quite a bit shook up, too, by and large, I expect. I'd say the days of the simple 3-5X zoom point-and-shoot are really quite numbered now.
Yes, the cameraphone will always be limited compared to a real camera, and yet most people are going to find that quite alright.
sportyaccordy: Phones are successful because people HAVE to replace them often, and they can do a hundred different things. If Nikon wants to stay alive, it needs to make smartphones.
In the early days of digital cameras, people "had" to replace them because newer ones were so much better. I think the case will be the same for cellphones -- eventually, both products will mature and you won't feel a need to buy so often.
If Nikon made a smartphone, they'd have to make sure the camera was kinda meh to ensure that it didn't compete with their DSLR line. ;-)
danieljcox: Without the artist creating this image, there is no image. Why should he not get paid for his vision and creativity? Would anybody have bought this stamp had it just been a blank, white stamp without any sort of art? No! They bought it because it had something of interest that the artist created. The artist should be paid. Without the art the artist created, there is no stamp to sell. People who create good ideas or good art deserve to be paid.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
Yeah, the USPS probably lost money, if you want to look at it that way. Even if they were to make a slight profit, it wasn't because that this particular photo was all that compelling, it was because people wanted stamps to mail a birthday card or whatever.
Should the sculptor get paid for the use of his work? Are photographers going to have to avoid photographing any public sculpture? Maybe any monument, building.... Hey, that was someone else's work! They deserve a cut. I already see notices on some tickets for certain venues that photography is for personal use only and you'd have to get special permission for commercial use -- I think that's fair enough if you have to buy a ticket to enter property, but if you're on "public" ground, that should be different.
M Lammerse: **Both new iPhones offer 8MP cameras — is Apple still innovative enough to entice photographers**
Maybe the following title would be better above this infotainment
"Both new iPhones offer 8MP cameras - is Apples marketing still good enough to lure people who take pictures with a phone."
It's good if it's what I happen to have with me and it takes a photo that I want. Every photo does not need to be fine art, printed at gallery sizes. Even in low-light, I've taken some photos I've enjoyed, using the iPhone. It's not my preference, but in a pinch, it does work pretty well. What do you want?
NAwlins Contrarian: Sorry, but he doesn't get to dictate the pronunciation just because he created the file type. Standard pronunciation rules apply. Insofar as the G in GIF is for "graphics", which has a hard G, then GIF should likewise be pronounced with a hard G.
Gary is not pronounced the same as Jerry, even if Geoff is pronounced like Jeff. English is inconsistent like that.
Anyway, it seems natural for most people to assume that GIF uses a hard-G. Although I can't say that I really care how it's pronounced, it's not as if people are nutty for picking one way over the other. (Nutty? No pun intended in comparison to Jif brand peanut butter.)
There used to be an internet service you could send a short video clip to and they would print out a flip book for you. The only negative is the time it took to edit video to get the clip you wanted. (Unfortunately, I forget the name of the service; I wonder if they're still around?)
My iPhone is 8mp. It's handy as the camera I always have with me, and it actually has good color.
Is that enough for the above photos? It seems so. I can count the whiskers and eyebrow hairs. What would you do with more resolution? Count the threads in the uniform?
Anyway, I don't think newspapers need quite the resolution that a magazine would, and magazines vary in quality themselves, so I guess I'm not too surprised that a phone photo could be used.
I like to think that at least some of my iPhone photos are worth taking and keeping, so I guess for some of us, maybe this will be some validation that it's not a complete waste of time. But if this is the only camera you have with you, you gotta work with what you've got!
Are you sure it's Dragon Ball inspired? This reminds me of the old Street Fighter games, which I recall before DBZ. The SF character even says "Hadouken" when you throw a fireball move. Anyway, I guess my point is that these kind of magical energy attacks have been in various Japanese media for a while.
An episode of Gumball (an American cartoon) recently did this meme, with the two main characters battling with words but kind of pretending to be in what appears to be a Street Fighter type game, complete with energy meters, scoring, etc.
Anyway, I agree, these photos look like fun at least.
As for other memes, "owling" came and went pretty fast too... Owling and planking had some surprise or shock factor ("What is he doing up there?") but I agree, they weren't that interesting for the most part.
DxO version 8 doesn't feel like a huge upgrade over 7, but they have done a good job of giving simple controls that give great results quickly. Your preferred settings can be saved to a preset.
How much is your time worth?
As for the upgrade pricing, it's less than the retail price, although I wouldn't mind if it was cheaper. Compare it with the other software I use, Corel's Paint Shop Pro: the upgrade pricing is so silly, it's often just as cheap to buy it at full retail, if I can find it on discount. I just looked up Lightroom upgrade, and I paid less for DxO's (since I don't need the Elite version and caught them when they released the update when they put it on sale).
If the price is so burdonsome, go use one of many free RAW converters -- UFRaw, Raw Therapee, etc.
Adobe never gave me the rebate I submitted. Do I go on forums and post multiple messages about it? ;-) So if you want to make service the issue, I'm sure you can find poor service from time to time anywhere.
chibachan: This is really odd.
Most people here just take what you got into account but never care about what you lost!
How about scenes of night food market or street performances?
I have taken some night and low light pics with the iPhone, and it's not nearly as good as an APS-C sensor, but not much worse than a compact P&S. I have a couple of results that I'm happy with and probably cannot print large - 4x6 is sufficient for snapshots. Or maybe I only need web-use. But it does get grainy as the light gets dimmer and the shutter gets very slow, so you have to hold it steady (like a P&S). But I can recall a few years ago where I had a P&S camera that was about unusable in similar light, so I think it's pretty impressive in that regard. It's all relative. I don't want to replace my other cameras, but if this is the only camera I have handy, I don't have a problem using it, and maybe the results are usable!
showmeyourpics: I am an older part-time pro. Many years ago, I purchased a Rolley XF 35 as a go-everywhere pocket camera. When the lab developed my roll of test slides, they asked me permission to print a poster out of one of the pics and hang it in the store. I mention this because it is true that a good photographer can take good pictures even with a can of tuna. It is also true that technology, while not being self-determinant, nevertheless establishes the boundaries of what people can do with it. The pics in the article are good because the photographer is a pro and the shooting conditions fell within the quite limited capabilities of the phone. I agree with the fellow posters commenting that this article is frivolous and, wanting to travel very light, Mr Holland had the choice of many, much more capable pocket-size cameras.
I appreciate the challenge as well. It may not be the right choice for a pro, but fun nonetheless.
I think the iPhone camera is pretty decent for what it is, and I can get good results. I haven't noticed a lot of "social" benefits, aside from being able to upload to Facebook, which is significant, actually.
I noticed even with my old iPhone 3GS (I now use a 4S), I could occasionally get a really good photo. Even technically, not bad. Grainy in low light, sure, but without that watercolor NR mess you seem to get on today's P&S cameras. I think the iPhone photos have a good "look" about them. If I don't have another camera handy, I don't have a problem using the iPhone, and on a short business trip, that may be the only camera I have; on such trips, that's usually sufficient, as I don't expect to run into a lot of photo opportunities. I'd rather use a better camera, but when the battery died on my Nex on one trip and I didn't have a replacement battery, I made use of the iPhone. I don't think I've tried any large prints with it, though. P&S replacement? Maybe!
Pavel Kohout: The point is that the Oregon coast picture would be much better if it showed the starfish in detail only, not the boring stone, sand and sky.
That sounds like great advice, to take a wider shot of the environment along with a close-up. Sometimes you can get an interesting-looking photo, but I agree, it's nice to have some context. I need to keep this in mind more. It's not always as clear a decision as perhaps this case, though.
mark moe: I use Sony's in camera HDR on two different cameras...my experience is that going beyond + - 3 ev is risky past that on most shots it looks too flat. With post processing, I've kept a ccuple 4EV spreads. I'll try some vivid color space like the author used, this may keep things from looking flat,.
BTW: Sony's in camera HDR micro aligns the pics for all hand held shoots, WAY easier and nice results.
For hand-held, I agree -- Sony's built-in HDR works much better for me than my software HDR and does a great job of aligning. The Sony Nex HDR has a very natual look, but a bit flat -- I often add contrast in post-processing.
For software, I'm using Paint Shop Pro -- you can do either natural-looking or the over-the-top HDR. It seems to me that achieving a natural look is more than "restraint" but software settings.
Strangely, I can usually get good-enough results using DxO's "one shot HDR" effect.
At any rate, I personally prefer the "natural HDR" look, but I don't have "hate" for anyone who wants to try something wild for artistic effect. I just like it to either be all the way or natural. :-)
I followed the link, and saw a few other photos credited to him that looked good to me. This one posted here is just obnoxious. But funny, I suppose. Like an 8 year old getting photographed.
Scott Nicol: Been using 7 for a few weeks now and can say that its a great upgrade if you need the new profiles (e.g. Sony A77) with some nice interface tweaks and a noticeable speed increase on my PC (less so on my Macbook Pro but that was already fast). If you have version 6.6 and don't need the new profiles / were happy with the speed, its a nice rather than essential upgrade as core image processing functionality is the same. The upgrade cost for existing users is reasonable compared to some I've seen, support has been excellent - I had a few issues with 6.x and every time I contacted DXO, I had personal responses within 1 working day from people that seemed to know what they were talking about rather than reading off a help sheet. I recommend DXO to all my photog friends but they seem obsessed with Adobe products - and then moan about the time it takes to learn how to use them! DXO is the most powerful EASY to use Raw processor on my PC.. and I've got 8 of them installed at the moment!
I agree -- it's easy to use. I usually only need a few minor adjustments to get what I want. But initially, I did have to spend time to come up with a preset that got me close to what I generally want. So now, I start with that preset and only need to vary a bit.
As long as the upgrade cost is not too great, I'll upgrade. I'm not sure why the negativity - I have my own wish list that will probably not be implemented, but I could come up with a list for any software.
As for DxO, the NR is easy to fine tune and has a nice fine grain that I love. It's easy to set it to default to a nice color mapping. The lighting is like HDR. Usually I only need to tweak a couple of settings and I'm done.
The main addition I'd like to see is the "lens softness" for "unsupported" lenses. I realize the full benefit would not be realized, but I still think it should be better than unsharp mask. I don't expect to see support for my old DSC-V3, but I may have some old raws I can revisit. And I can't expect every obscure lens to be supported for my other cameras. But if I can manually adjust, that may be enough.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review