The history of purists

Started Sep 11, 2008 | Discussions thread
theboymike Regular Member • Posts: 195
Re: The history of purists

With the exception of video, all other "purist's nightmares" you mention are designed to aid in the capture of a still image; to get a better photo or make that capture easier to obtain.

Video is a completely different end; one that I don't care for in an SLR as it has the potential to compromise in-camera photographic features and raise cost for the sake of what amounts to a marketing gimmick.

How many of us would be happy with less pixels in return for lower high ISO noise? I know I would, but as usual the manufacturers continue to push the pixel count as average joe buys on numbers.

Tbh I think a video feature would put me off buying an SLR - I buy a camera to take stills; if I want to take video I'll buy a video camera.

Mike

Photovalve wrote:

A response to those who think that video mode in a DSLR is potent of
the end of civilisation. With tongue in cheek

35 mm - you'll never get a decent picture on that (c. 1930)
Bayonet lenses - if you need to work that fast you're not concentrating
Zoom lenses - no fast apertures and you should use your feet anyway!
TTL Metering - can't do incident with that
Auto Modes - for beginners only
Programme Modes - for people who can't be bothered to learn photography
Autofocus - a gimmick and now I need new lenses!
Digital - it will never outresolve film (even I thought that!)
Video in a DSLR - not in a serious camera surely!

All of these things represent progress and after a while become
standard. Personally I hope it does have a video mode, because if I
get one I will definitely use it, as it will allow me to be creative
in a different way.

Also, more features means broader appeal which means mroe sales which
means cheaper cameras. That benefits everyone.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
z2a
T3
T3
T3
T3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow