T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 4842, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dgumshu: Makes sense for long lens users. Why reinvent the wheel. I can’t see an 800 F5.6 M mount. Throwing away a perfectly good EF mount does not make sense. Keep the mirrorless lenses to the range most often used.

There's a whole new generation of users who will be mirrorless-native, meaning that they will have never owned a DSLR or DSLR lenses. In time, there will definitely be new lenses made specifically for these new mirrorless mounts, across the entire focal length range. It's inevitable.

As for "Why reinvent the wheel", that's just how technology works. Companies are constantly "reinventing" products and ways of doing things. Good luck trying to stop change! It's a losing battle.

No one is "throwing away a perfectly good EF mount." However, as we move forward, people will have a choice to choose EF mount or EF-M mount. And ultimately, the market will decide which one becomes the more dominant or popular mount. But they aren't going to throw anything away as long as it sells. Only when those sales drop below a certain point will they discontinue it. But that won't happen for a very, very long time, if ever. In the meantime, consumers will have the option of both.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: The safe way for both Canon and Nikon is to copying the pentax k01 concept. At this they can sell their traditional lenses .

That's playing it too safe. People forget that there is a new generation of buyers who will have no DSLR lenses. They will have never owned or used a DSLR. They'll go straight to these new mirrorless systems. They will have no need for using "traditional lenses." So it's a non-started to go with the K01 concept. No point in keeping that huge flange distance if it's just a useless empty box between the lens mount and the sensor. Better to go with the new short-flange designs that allow for new lens designs that are dedicated to mirrorless, and just use an adapter to put "traditional lenses" at their required register distance.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

breivogel: I can see a mirrorless, as long as it can be adapted to existing Nikon (or Canon) lenses. Don't see the point of a new mount only having a few primes and no ability to use legacy glass. Certainly a niche product at best and waste on engineering resources for Nikon.

Mirrorless has all the advantages mentioned, but it also has the disadvantages (like battery life, evf resolution and brightness). I really like my RX-10, some of the time, but prefer Nikon DSLRs at others.

@Per Inge Oestmoen - "Why should we accept having to insert additional gadgets between our cameras and our lenses?"

You don't have to accept it. Just buy a DSLR. However, mirrorless is a new system using new technology and will have new lenses dedicated to it. The adapter is simply a means for people who have existing lenses from the older system to still get use out of those lenses. In the long run, it's simply a stop-gap measure to be a bridge between the old and new systems. But the future generation of photographer will most likely be mirrorless-native, meaning they will have no need to adapt DSLR lenses. Most of them will probably never have owned or used DSLRs. They will only know mirrorless.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: fortunately, Canon has already positioned itself progressing to a totally interchangeable modular mount system:

▪allows all EF, TSE, EF-S, FD, FL OEM Lenses to work with interchangeable modular mounts, two, so far:
1) EOS 54mm mount
2) EOS 47mm mount
3) PL mount
4) EOS ??mm (not yet announced) mount
5) Any "module" that fit between 1, 2, and 4, can be OEM, or 3rd-Party-friendly

Modular mounts can be:
A) Plain Modular mounts
B) Specialized Function mounts (open, ideal for 3rd-party diversity)

The mirrorless-only interchangeable lens option Sony and others have opted, mean their own OEM lenses are "orphaned" to only their own OEM bodies or "same mount" (like m43)

How many Sony "Mirrorless-Only" OEM FE Lenses work on non-Sony cameras?
Can they work with specialized modular mounts, with electronic variable ND filters, or Shift features on Sony FE bodies?

No?
Of course not!

Such dead end "zero flexibility" NICHE is NOT a viable path for EITHER Canon or Nikon to take.

...

@PhozoKozmos - The "lag" argument is a red herring. People who think it somehow limits or impedes your ability to shoot "faster pace moments" are just talking nonsense. Here's a very demanding fast-motion situation that simply would not be possible to capture if lag were truly an issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQH_praFbk

People are just grasping at straws! There are just too many reviews and users out there that totally dispel the outdated notion that EVF can't keep up with "faster pace moment". For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eBgzkPb01Q&t=1735s

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 06:18 UTC
In reply to:

CarpentersEye: An adapter is the only way; but why not simply include the (no glass) no connection-speed-loss AF/AE/VR capable adapter? Now folks can use legacy flange distance lenses or new ones. This would incidentally make it easy to look good, sleek and matched.

Speed booster could be an option.

But wait. Until a hybrid VF (combo meaning comprehensive benefits system) is BETTER then it's all a waste of time.

Hybrid VF is probably a dead-end. To have an OVF, you need a mirror. But to have an EVF, you need the mirror to be out of the way of the image sensor. In order to have both, you'd need a pellicle mirror which results in light loss both for the image sensor and for the optical viewfinder. Furthermore, you would have to have some way to overlay an EVF image onto an OVF image. How? With a translucent EVF screen? With some kind of projection? All of this sounds like it would be hard to pull off, not to mention adding to the cost of DSLRs. Adding cost is going to be very bad for DSLRs that are going to have to compete with mirrorless cameras that already use far fewer components and therefore are going to be less expensive to produce compared to DSLRs. It's a losing proposition.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 06:03 UTC
In reply to:

breivogel: I can see a mirrorless, as long as it can be adapted to existing Nikon (or Canon) lenses. Don't see the point of a new mount only having a few primes and no ability to use legacy glass. Certainly a niche product at best and waste on engineering resources for Nikon.

Mirrorless has all the advantages mentioned, but it also has the disadvantages (like battery life, evf resolution and brightness). I really like my RX-10, some of the time, but prefer Nikon DSLRs at others.

"Don't see the point of a new mount only having a few primes and no ability to use legacy glass."

No ability too use legacy glass? Canon has an adapter for their mirrorless cameras so you can use their legacy glass:

https://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/canonstuff/eosm_4.jpg

https://i1.adis.ws/i/canon/eos-m5-ef-lenses-1?qlt=70&w=1200&fmt=jpg&fmt.options=interlaced&bg=rgb(255,255,255)

Nikon had an adapter for so their Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras could use legacy glass:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/lenses/mount_adapter_ft1/img/img_01.png

http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/5454_ft1_side_thumb.jpg

They've patented a new adapter for their new mirrorless cameras:
http://thenewcamera.com/exclusive-nikon-patent-af-adapter-to-use-dslr-lenses-in-mirrorless/

So to say that there is "no ability to use legacy glass" is 100% false.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Lee Taylor: Do you want small size or do you want FF? You can't have both. Not even with mirrorless. Especially not if you want DSLR like battery life.

Quite frankly I want more sharp small prime lenses for EOS M. And an EOS DSLR with hybrid viewfinder that uses the mirror for optical and the sensor for EVF mode.

"Do you want small size or do you want FF? You can't have both."

Of course you can have both. A Sony A7III + 50/1.8 is smaller than a Canon Rebel T7 + 35/2 IS (I'm trying to get the same approximate effective focal length between the two). As a street shooter, I'll take the smaller Sony FF kit over the APS-C Rebel kit any day!

https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.580,774.306,ha,t

"Especially not if you want DSLR like battery life."

The A7III will give you 700 shots per battery. That's plenty for the average user. That easily lasts me a day of shooting. I don't shoot 1000+ images per day. And carrying an extra battery is really no big deal. People act as if changing the battery is like doing open heart surgery, lol.

"There are very few lenses where the FF Sony's gain a significant size/weight advantage."

But that does not mean that you can't achieve lower size/weight. If you use a big lens, you get a big camera; if you use a small lens, you get a small camera.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 05:39 UTC
In reply to:

noisephotographer: "Telephoto lenses for mirrorless are just as long as their DSLR counterparts, so there's no size benefit to throwing away your mirror."
The lenses might have the same size, but the overall size is smaller. Furthermore mirrorless is not just about the size.

Yes, people tend to ignore overall size. A smaller body still lowers the overall size and weight of a camera setup. Besides, a lot of photographers work, travel, and carry more than one body, oftentimes carrying several bodies. So the lower body weight gets multiplied across all these bodies.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - I hate to break it to you, but the only constant is change. New and better things come along, and people naturally move to those things. Forget about old timers who are resistant to change; just consider the next generation of photographers and buyers who have no past history with DSLRs. How do you think Canon EOS rose from zero market share in 1987 to being the dominant SLR system? It didn't come exclusively from getting existing pro Nikon users with tons of existing gear to switching over. No, it mainly came from enticing new users rising up the ranks of photography who had no existing gear to hold them back from choosing whatever they wanted. And many of these new users chose Canon EOS because it offered newer, better technology than Nikon had at the time (entirely electronic communication between lens and body, ultrasonic focus motors, image stabilization, etc.). Were any of these things "indispensable" to photography? No. But it was enough of a difference!

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

"You don't write better because you have a word processor. You don't take better images if you use a Sony."

*Sigh* You still don't get it. It's never been about being able to write "better" books or take "better" photos. It's always been about being able to do it more easily, more conveniently, more effectively, with less impedance. If you want to go back to shooting with manual cameras with match-needle metering, or AF cameras with only one focus point, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. But the rest of the photographic world will continue to move forward with newer technology as they always have throughout the history of photography. Technology is constantly changing. Cameras are not immune to this. Cameras are simply another piece of technology. Photography more or less has stayed the same, relying on the vision of the photographer. But the tool he uses to capture that image continues to change and evolve. Mirrorless is simply the latest evolution of our photographic tool.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - You can be in denial all you want, but the reality is that cameras with higher specs and capabilities, whether it be more AF points covering a wider area, or more intelligent AF systems that can recognize people, or faster frame rates, all of these things do contribute to higher success rates in photography as well as greater convenience in the service of photography.

"This may change over time but right now it is reasonable to assume pro DSLR users are not fools and have made a decision that meets their requirements."

Yes, it will certainly change over time. It's inevitable. Even old-timers like esteemed photojournalist David Burnett are switching because they see the advantages and benefits of this newer technology:

https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/photographer-david-burnett-switches-sony-40-years-shooting-canon/

Watch his video. “I have to say, I kind of feel like I’m finally stepping into the 21st century with these cameras,” he concludes in the video.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - "However we are both going to struggle with a point we can’t easily quantify and support with comparative data."

Actually, it's something that is quite easy to quantify. For example, I can easily quantify how often I have to do focus-recompose or to manually select off-center AF points because my DSLR is incapable of recognizing faces, or quantify how often I lose focus lock because the subject has moved outside the AF area on a DSLR. All these things are easy to observe and quantify. It's because it's easy to measure how much more area Sony's focus sensors cover compared to a DSLR, as well as Sony's focus system's ability to identify faces compared to a DSLR. These are all quantifiable, measurable things.

This is the Canon 6D II's weak AF coverage:
https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II/AF-Points/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.gif

Here's Sony A7III's:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/A7-III-phase-points-693.jpg

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 14:06 UTC
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1232 comments in total)
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Almost as big and heavy as Nikon. Why buy Sony?

@stevef1961 - "Let’s go shoot birds in flight and watch the Sony trip all over itself."

Sony AF tracking in action with birds in flight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQH_praFbk

More, even with adapted lenses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OhmqCew6L0&t=10s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxaLeiJvX1A&t=23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLgQT-oRS4Y

As you can see from the first example, Sony's full-frame AF coverage is very valuable.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - Here's Sony's wide area face/eye AF tracking in action using a Zeiss Batis 85mm lens at f/1.8 (shallow DOF). It's ridiculously effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhHdN4cObAc

To me, it's like automatic transmission in a car vs manual transmission: automatic transmission is not "indispensable" to driving a car, but it sure does mean that you no longer have to think about switching gears! You don't have to think about it, it just works! You can just concentrate on steering and enjoying the drive. The same goes for face/eye AF. No matter where the subject moves in the frame, it just works! You can just concentrate on composition and capturing the decisive moment. If you would rather buy a camera without this capability, that's certainly your choice. It's a free market. However, most people can see the advantages and benefits of having this technology.

Past writers wrote many great books by pen and typewriter. But today they mostly use new technology such as PC's.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - What you aren't seeing is the countless missed shots, the out of focus shots, the shots that weren't even attempted because they were too difficult, etc. You're not seeing the rejects. Yes, people got shots back then with older technology. But the success rate, the hit rate, was lower. If you want to go back to using older technology, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. However, technology moves forward, and so does the market for such technology. It's not whether newer technology is "indispensable" to photography. It's whether you want those benefits/advantages that are now available. As someone who used to shoot DSLRs and now uses Sony mirrorless with face AF and wide-area AF coverage, I can tell you that I'll never buy another camera that doesn't have these features. These capabilities just make photography more enjoyable, easier to get the shot, and frees up my mental energies so I concentrate on composition and capturing the decisive moment.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2018 at 02:00 UTC
In reply to:

Charrick1: Oh boy. I'm chomping at the bit for Canon and Nikon to release their mirrorless cameras, so I can throw back some people's comments like "Mirrorless cameras aren't any better than DSLRs!", "No good. I have big hands.", "No optical viewfinder, no buy.", and of course the well-worn "But its native lens selection is much smaller! It will take YEARS for its native lens selection to compete." when the people who have said those things for years will be singing another tune.

"Umm...mirrorless are better these days." "I'll just buy the grip." "EVFs have gotten good enough...this year." "I'll just adapt lenses for the time being."

"Why the change, all of a sudden?", I'll ask.

@Stanchung - "Just like apple with the smartphone. Everybody wanted in."

So what happened to Nokia and Blackberry?

https://www.gsmarena.com/the_rise_dominance_and_epic_fall__a_brief_look_at_nokias_history-blog-13460.php

https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/30/13119924/blackberry-failure-success

I think the second article about Blackberry has a very keen observation:

"FOCUSING ON THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF CUSTOMERS IT ALREADY HAD, BLACKBERRY MISSED OUT ON THE BILLIONS THAT WERE TO COME
While all the tumult and furious evolution was happening on the Android front, BlackBerry was more concerned with protecting what it already had instead of conquering new lands."

That isn't to say that mirrorless will have "billions" of new users. But the point is the same: in an effort to protect what they already had, they failed to look at future customers. In the end, both Nokia and Blackberry came with too little too late.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - Use what you want. But you can't fault people for wanting convenience.

"Let’s try again, henri cartier bresson took photographs of moving things, yes?"

Cartier-Bresson used zone focusing. He pre-focused for a specific zone of focus and typically waited for subjects to enter that zone or shot subjects within that particular zone of focus. In other words, most of his images have a comfortably large depth of field. Most of his images were probably shot around f/8 or deeper. Furthermore, he was shooting with mid-20th century 35mm film which had considerably lower resolution than today's 21st century high resolution sensors. Today's shooters are shooting at much higher resolution and much shallower DOF with sharper lenses, so the demands of accurate focus are much higher. If we were shooting at f/8 with much lower resolution sensors, then critical focus wouldn't be as much of an issue with us either. Some of us might be OK with just zone focusing at f/8 like Cartier-Bresson.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - "It would be absurd to argue that Angel Adams etc were held back by tech."

He wasn't held back because of the subject matter he shot. Last time I checked, mountains and landscapes don't move very fast and he shot with very deep DOF. That's why all he needed was a big heavy wooden tripod, a field camera, sheet film, a handheld spot meter, and manual focus.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - But not everyone has this kind of narrow attitude towards advancement in technology coming to the photography world, thankfully. Even a lot of old-timers embrace advancements in technology. For example, David Burnett just switched to Sony after being a Canon shooter for 42 years (he went from Canon FD, to Canon EF/EOS, and now to Sony mirrorless).

https://www.slrlounge.com/one-of-the-100-most-important-people-in-photography-has-moved-to-sony-after-40-years-with-canon/

It just goes to show that even extremely experienced photographers such as Burnett still find value in new camera technology. And it doesn't take away from their creative expression; it enhances it.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: I think Sony gets more coverage than it deserves because the photography press is essentially about technology rather than photography. Yes, this includes dpreview. That's what draws views, it's what people want to hear.

No one wants to read about a Nikon dSLR that's just as good as the last Nikon dSLR, even if the last dSLR was, really, pretty great.

I don't think a lot of the innovation Sony brings to photography makes photography more enjoyable necessarily, certainly not cheaper, or even easier, but the positive and intense press coverage is the dividend Sony gets for being more innovative than the competition. So maybe it doesn't deserve it, but it's fair.

Ultimately it's the customers who will decide what innovation is worthwhile or not, so as a reward for it's R&D at least I don't actually have a problem with the coverage. I just think readers should be a little more discriminating between technology in the service of photography and technology that ultimately impedes it.

@George1958 - By the way, people were saying the exact same things that you are saying now...but they were saying it 10, 20, 30 years ago! They all claimed/worried that it be the downfall of photography, and that photographers would become unthinking "morons" who would create nothing but "banal" photos. Obviously, that hasn't happened. It's the same old over-blown, elitist, fear-mongering non-sense. The same kind of reactions happen in response to any new technology. We just have better and better tools to express our creative energies and creative visions.

I think there are a group of purists who wish that photography would remain difficult, inaccessible, and technically more challenging than it really needs to be. I just find this to be an elitist, exclusionary attitude. I guess they don't like the idea that photography is being made easier for the unwashed masses, or even for the skilled masses.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 17:50 UTC
Total: 4842, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »