ryanshoots: More video sucks. Buggy players, mandatory commercials at the beginning and so on. I'll take a photo by a professional any day over 99% of the punters with an iphone video.
I understand the economics of it, but don't think for a minute that quality is going up.
People will still get their fill of news photos, but they no longer go to newspapers for it. Within minutes of an event happening, photos show up on the web. When you want news, no one is looking at the artistic "quality" of the images being produced. They just want to see what's happening as quickly as it happens. If you want pretty, high quality photos, newspapers aren't the place to go looking for them.
And the days of thinking that only a "professional" can take a good photo are long past us. Frankly, I'd say that there are a heck of a lot of amateur photographers that can easily produce better work than your average newspaper photographer.
As for railing against the rise of video, it just makes you sound old and crabby. These days, when I want to see a review of any particular product, the first place I go is Youtube, because a Youtube video review is the closest thing to actually seeing and touching a product. Likewise, video of news is the closet thing to being there.
T3: As photographers, we see things in a photo-centric way. But the reality is that the Sun-Times is right on the money by moving towards "more video content with their news" and "are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements." I, for one, much prefer to see news stories that have accompanying videos, rather than static photos. When I'm on the New York Times or BBC news sites, I *always* seek their video content. After all, videos are just many, many photos strung together. Video images tend to be more informative, and allows you to "see" the news better than just looking at a single photo. After the Boston Marathon bombings, I wanted to see videos from the event, not photos. So with consumers wanting more video-centric news coverage, why keep a large full-time still-photography staff? Better to just get whatever few photos you might need from freelance photographers instead, and put your money into video instead.
@Ubilam - "BTW, video is not always better and a great photo can say alot."
Conversely, one can say that most newspaper photography really isn't that "great" at all, and as a result they can't say nearly as much as video that includes sound, movement, action, commentary, etc. Most newspaper articles have, at most, one single, static, and oftentimes boring photo next to it. And it will only give you one, single fraction of a second of time, from one particular perspective. In terms of informational density, video is so much better. For example, if there's a news story of a tornado, I'd much rather watch a video of that tornado tearing through a town, rather than a static photo. Likewise, with the Boston Marathon bombings, it was the video footage that gave me a better sense of what it was like to be there, as opposed to the photos. Video gives you a much better "eyewitness, you are there seeing it" experience.
DKCJB: I was recently at a local sports event with my kids and the local paper sent a reporter to cover it. She was using a little silver point & shoot and the next day the website had a picture and a 2 minute video and a short story describing things. She did the story & the photography. I don't subscribe to the paper anymore, just look at it for free on the internet. The internet increased demand for photography & is killing it off all at the same time.
@DaytonR - typically, a decent P&S will offer IQ that is plenty good enough for newsprint or website. They aren't shooting for museum display or billboards! Also, it's easier to shoot video with a P&S, too. And the reporter can slip it into his or her pocket. So a compact camera makes perfect sense in today's modern multi-media reporting environment. One person does the writing, shoots the photos, and records the video for the story. Gone are the days of having a dedicated writer who only writes the story, as well as a dedicated photographer with expensive camera equipment there just to take photos...especially for a local paper.
That's a good example of where news is going: multi-media content and mult-tasking. The writer writes the story, shoots some stills, and also records video. That's where things are not only going, but where things have already gone. Gone are the days of a writer who only write the story, along with a photographer who only takes photos, and no video. That's the old way...the dead way.
DotCom Editor: It was nice of them to wait until after Roger Ebert's death to do this.
I think Roger Ebert would have understood. After all, he pioneered the idea that people wanted to *watch* a movie review rather than just reading a movie review (along with maybe a few static still photos alongside it). The result was his movie review show with Gene Siskel. Even then, he realized that video was the next big thing. Likewise, the Chicago Sun-Times are simply doing that same thing with their news coverage. The Sun-Times realizes that it's not just enough to have a static photo alongside their articles. They realize that people want video. They want to watch video. They want multi-media content. They want to see and hear the news, in full-motion video. Old media was typed words on paper, and static photos. New media is typed words on anything *but* paper, accompanied by multimedia content (audio, stills, and video).
As photographers, we see things in a photo-centric way. But the reality is that the Sun-Times is right on the money by moving towards "more video content with their news" and "are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements." I, for one, much prefer to see news stories that have accompanying videos, rather than static photos. When I'm on the New York Times or BBC news sites, I *always* seek their video content. After all, videos are just many, many photos strung together. Video images tend to be more informative, and allows you to "see" the news better than just looking at a single photo. After the Boston Marathon bombings, I wanted to see videos from the event, not photos. So with consumers wanting more video-centric news coverage, why keep a large full-time still-photography staff? Better to just get whatever few photos you might need from freelance photographers instead, and put your money into video instead.
star shooter: Take away ALL digital devices and go back to film then see how many can produce a good photo. Those skills were lost when digital came in. Back when I was PJ we used TRI X and as a cadet, we spent 6 months in the darkroom learning the art.
Newspapers hung on to their staff. This is how they grew, not just producing good news and pics but loyalty form their staff. Not now. Kids coming out of Uni into journalism don't have to be trained in the art of photography. They just pull out their Iphone, a Blackberry or a Tablet and take a pic.
What's happened in the US is happening all around the world. Over here in Australia, News Ltd has sacked 1000's of photogs and journos. Instagram, Iphone Ipad pics are now being taken cadet journos.
The days of news print is numbered. Online news, video, streaming to your Tablet, Iphone, Ipad is becoming the norm and will be increased as we embrace the world of hi technolgy and digital imaging.
Frankly, I think there are more better photographers today than there were in the film days. Digital made photography more accessible, meaning a much larger talent pool. And digital made learning the craft of photography easier, faster, and less costly, meaning that this larger talent pool could accelerate their skills faster and more effectively. Additionally, digital made showing, sharing, and interacting with other photographers easier, meaning that your "photo club" becomes the WORLD, rather than some tiny local group of equally bad photographers. That means more feedback, and faster learning. Also, there are so many more avenues and resources by which to get "trained in the art of photography" than there were in the film days. Heck, there's so much photo learning you can get just off of Youtube! All these things have resulted in a higher number of good photographers producing a higher number of good photos than in any other time in history.
Andrew Maltzoff: I used to work for Tower Records when vinyl was kicked out by CD's, which are now almost a thing of the past. Yet people still listen and apreciate music with more people being able to produce them..Photojournalism is the same. Times are changing, the skill and passion hasn't. If anything it's an open market where anyone, if they're good enough can be part it.The only danger is the overall standard of Photojurnalism could diminish without a level to aspire to become.Interesting times ahead!!!!
@HowaboutRAW- as for your tip on "dealing with piles of CDs", again you're showing how outdated you are. For most of us, our "piles of CD's" disappeared years ago. What next, you're going to give tips on how to use the internet?
Seriously, though, the point of all this is that people today are far more interested in content (music, movies, shows, news), rather than old paradigms of physical media. While the older generation may still obsess about "more data on a CD", the rest of us are streaming music from the cloud, watching TV shows and movies streamed across the Netflix, getting our news on our smart phones, without the need for physical CD's, DVD's, Blurays, newspapers, or whatever physical media.
@HowaboutRAW - hate to break it to you, but most of us are out enjoying the world, WITH our music at hand, ready to be enjoyed whenever and wherever the mood suits us. Do you realize how old and outdated you sound when you say, "I'm tired of people walking around with headphones on listening to whatever." LOL. You sound like an angry old man waving his cane at the world. Yes, how terrible that younger people can do more than one thing at the same time!
And frankly, I'd put your "one can hear the difference" to a true, scientific test, where real stakes were on the line. In real world tests, most people who really think their perception is good enough to tell the difference fail at this test. In other words, if I just played a song and asked if it was FLAC or WAV or MP3, 90% of people wouldn't do better than simple chance. And more importantly, it shouldn't impede your ability to ENJOY the music.
Ak pinxit: Well , somehow I have a feeling , that after a while , the paper will acknowledge that it's need its' own man with high-end equipment on the spot .Surely the photo-stuff will be reduced drastically , but after couple of misses ( like unfit noisy JPGs from smartphone instead of 100mm L lens...) couple of photo guys will find their way back to office .
The content of a photo is far more important than differences in image quality that one might or might not even see on a downsized web photo or a print on ugly newsprint paper. Remember, we're not comparing full-resolution 100% pixel level magnified image quality! Most modern cell phone cameras can easily produce image quality that is easily good enough for downsized web display or newsprint.
And even at full resolution and magnified, many smart phones can deliver surprisingly good IQ. In the recent Boston Marathon bombings, investigators were able to get identifying images of the suspects based on the high quality, high resolution smart phone images from spectators who just happened to catch a photo of the suspects who happened to be tiny faces in the background of the images. These were example of not only the importance of the CONTENT of the photos, but also the fact that the QUALITY was good enough for the news story. No fancy L lenses needed.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Times change. The old ways yield to new ways. This certainly doesn't mean the end of photography, or the end of photojournalism. Right now, we're going through a rapid and significant change in all areas of media production, media distribution, and media consumption. It'll take a while for it to all get sorted out. This is simply evolution in action. If an asteroid hit our planet and wiped out 99% of life on earth, new life would still rise from the ashes. The same goes with the world of media, news, and photojournalism.
@HowaboutRAW - First of all, MP3 isn't the only music file. Most audiophiles use lossless music formats such as FLAC. Secondly, while CD's may technically have more data than MP3, the question is whether you can actually hear the difference! Unless you're listening with the best speakers, in an optimized listening environment, doing a side-by-side listening comparison of CD's vs MP3's, most people will never be able to hear the difference. I like to think I can, but most of the time I can't. Forget about being able to tell the difference in a car, or while walking around in the real world with headphones!
I'm glad my house is no longer cluttered with stacks and shelves of CD's. I'm glad I now can store thousands of songs on a small harddrive or tiny iPod or on my smart phone (in lossless or MP3 formats). I don't miss CD's at all. And if anything, people are enjoying their music MORE now than they did in the age of CD's. I know I am. And isn't that what music is about? Enjoyment?
photo perzon: How can a tiny sensor compete with APS sensors?
I shoot with Canon APS-C bodies, and I also shoot with an Oly Pen m4/3. The sensor competes just fine. Sure, it has a bit more noise at higher ISO, but REAL photography isn't about anal, obsessive pixel peeping. What's more important to me is that m4/3 offers a much more discreet, compact, carry-able camera system that I am much more likely to carry with me, compared to my much larger, heavier, bulkier, more noticeable APS-C DSLR gear.
Timmbits: "According to mirrorlessrumors.com the new camera will cost 2450 Euros (~$3100). What do you make of this latest rumor? Let us know in the comments."
Someone remind me why an apsc should cost this much?
Because it has a Leica red dot on it.
BBnose: When a product model called Mini. It would be smaller and less function. When it named with M. It should have the M mount. I guess it is manual focus with the M mount, cannot use R lenses without adapter, no rangefinder, focusing with high resolution live view lcd display panel, with focusing aid indicator, optional Visofles EVF2, metal cast body, less weight and smaller size than Leica M, still full frame and same resolution as Leica M, price about USD4500. Just guess, don't be too serious.
@HowaboutRAW - Why don't you tell that to Leica, because apparently they haven't received your memo. Why don't you go to Leica's own Facebook page and take a look: Leica M, Mini M, Micro M, Nano M.
M, M, M, M, on cameras that aren't using the M mount lenses. Maybe when you become CEO of Leica, you can run it the way you want. But until then, I think Leica and you have a difference of opinion regarding the use of the "M". Apparently, Leica doesn't mind being a little more liberal with their policy regarding the use of the letter M.
40daystogo: I'd be happy with a modification to the Leica X2 that adds a zoom lens. I don't need interchangeable lenses, since the Leica Vario-Sumicron zooms e.g. on the LX5 have fast f2.0 apertures.
And even if the price is not immediately affordable, one can always wait about 2 years until the model gets into the 2nd hand market.
The current generation of cameras are, in my view, so good that I'd be happy to pick one up 2nd hand in a few years time. Once you hit 16MP, there's no need to get 24, 36MP. Generally, the top of the range cameras now have reached a plateau where improvements are minor. We ourselves just have to get on with the artistic side now.
@ HowaboutRAW- "A big thing that rangefinders have, that no SLR has, is being able to see what's immediately outside the image area."
I love how rangefinder fans say this is such an advantage with rangefinders, when in reality it's just a positive spin on the fact that you're forced to frame an image using frame lines that only cover a small fraction of the actual viewfinder. The longer the focal length, the tinier your frame is compared to the actual viewfinder. Many might say that this is simply a waste of viewfinder area.
As for rangefinder focusing being faster than DSLR AF, I think that's certainly a dubious claim, at best. There's nothing in a rangefinder manual focus system that magically makes it faster than any other manual focusing system, let alone modern DSLR AF. Heck even some mirrorless AF systems are far faster and more accurate than rangefinder focusing. Look at Oly's touch focus, where you just touch the screen and that area snaps into focus. Super fast!
bmoag: Those who have used older 35mm camera lenses on a 4/3 camera understand the appeal of this camera form factor. For example I use Leica M lenses on a 4/3 camera but have to pay the price of doubling the effective focal length. An M mount camera with a full frame sensor and manual focusing based on the LCD is quite appealing. Simple adapters theoretically will allow any lens of any brand to focus to infinity. The need for manual exposure control is a plus. The cons are that it is nearly impossible to focus on an LCD in daylight and the Leica price premium will render the camera unaffordable to most users.
"The cons are that it is nearly impossible to focus on an LCD in daylight..."
A bit of rear LCD shading goes a low way. Besides, it all depends on just how bright the daylight is, and from what direction its coming from. I'd say most serious photographers avoid shooting in harsh bright daylight anyways. Plus, Leica does sell a Leica-branded detachable hotshoe-mounted EVF that I'm sure they'd love to see people. So if this new camera has no built-in viewfinder, then I'd say there's a very good chance it will accept an external EVF. Thus, no need for the rangefinder.
jaygeephoto: Just so long as we never see the Leica name/logo emblazoned on a smart phone, I'm still OK. If that ever happens I'll most likely go barracuda fishing with my old M lens caps.
Yeah, well, people used to say the same thing about the Leica name/logo emblazoned on any digital camera, let alone compact digital cameras that are simply re-branded Panasonic digicams. But obviously, that's all water under the bridge now.
M = M mount? Then why don't the Nano M and Micro M have an M mount? Clearly, the "M" doesn't have much to do with the M mount anymore. The "M" is just marketing now. "M-mount" will still refer to the Leica mount. But "M" alone (without "-mount") no longer denotes the M mount.
@NJHr '"Even something like AF is only really a benefit in high end DSLR cameras that can focus really quickly and track subject movement."
Really? I shoot weddings and portraits, sometimes for hours on end, mostly of stationary or slow-moving subjects, and I find it EXTREMELY beneficial that I don't have to MANUALLY focus every one of my shots. AF, even on static objects, is a great convenience that allows our brains to concentrate on other aspects of photography, like composition and exposure. And AF is great for tired, older eyes, and alleviates eye fatigue.
To say that "AF is only really a benefit in high end DSLR cameras that can focus really quickly and track subject movement" is really silly and narrow-minded. In fact, I'd say that AF is just as important for lower-end DSLRs where you usually don't have the best, brightest, largest, highest-magnification viewfinders, and where accurate manual focus is often very difficult and unreliable, not to mention fatiguing.