Photoclubalpha

I am offended with your use of the words smug and condescending I actually found your reply above quite out of order and inappropriate as a response to my points (bow down to greater knowledge etc etc).
If you can't handle a debate don't take part in one.

I watch Bad Santa on Christmas Eve which is a good indicator as to my stance on this festive season

Season of goodwill guys, otherwise, thread locked. I believe the issue here is two different meanings to the 'legacy' word. Olympus used the OM series 'legacy' in terms of the looks - retro design - for the OM-D. Nothing beyond the look of the product.

The only alternative to ending this argument is a duel, fifteen paces at dawn, one sheet of film in your Ensign Carbine quarterplates and the victor is whoever manages first to get their opponent sharply focused and correctly exposed in the middle of the frame. Pre-focusing not allowed!

David

That big price reduction for the A99, if it comes to pass Barry will surely give a warm inner glow to those who have recently paid $3000 for one. To me it’s not a remarkable enough camera to justify such a price tag, after all it’s an SLT not a DSLR with a 100% OVF, it has breathtaking latitude yes but so does the D600 it’s not unique in that regard, it doesn’t even come with any means of doing WL flash, before you can do that you have to have or buy two flashes extra on top of the $3000, the D600 comes with a flash built in, I mention the Nikon purely from the point of view that with virtually equivalent FF sensors the picture quality out of both would be very similar. Then on top of that you need to bulk up with a battery power grip for the A99 just to equal the duration of the D600 with one battery. I do concede the A99 has some extra widgets, and the very desirable flip out rear screen, but don’t anyone tell me all about that video orientated control knob on the front or the cool new hot shoe that was primarily for video too, they mean very little to a still shooter, especially a shooter who has i-shoe flashes.
Pete I agree that the photographic industry is heading for a meltdown, honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the wheel starts to fall off soon in quite a few places. Regarding the future of the compact camera, like you I’m sure it’s in trouble, maybe even the maxi compact might have to tread carefully, only the very fittest will survive I think.
I think the entry DSLR could disappear too as they could become uneconomical if not so already and be replaced with the models further up the chain due to falling prices/competition in that segment, and so on up the ladder, it’s going to get worse for the camera makers I think and some could give camera making away, it all depends on who can hold out the longest I guess, at least until the whole thing gets back on a financial footing again, and what the camera industry will look like after all the dust settles is hard to forecast for sure, (for me anyway). Sony isn’t in wonderful shape right now, lots of red ink and they’ve been laying off staff, I don’t know what financial position all the others are in at the moment but I guess if you make cameras for a living it could be better.
Greg

Btw Merry Xmas all, from me.

Ha ha an Ensign plate camera at dawn what a blast, what ISO did they have then, about 25, and an f8 lens...yeah good one DK.
Greg

Thanks Greg

A happy Christmas to down under.

Pete

merry christmas to all, my 2 cents worth, I would not be surprised if 90% of photos are taken with mobile photos, but I would also not be surprised if the DSLR market is much larger then the Film SLR market ever was...(would also not surprised if during pre digital days, 90% of photos where taken on PnS) I see a lot more people walking around the streets of melbourne snapping away with DSLR now then I did 5 years ago..

My daughter just had her year 6 graduation at a small school and I counted 10 parents using DSLRs (not including my self) and about 20 using phones, due to the bad lighting most of the phone snappers, gave up after about 30 mins DSLRS still have a few more years to go, I hope

That's good to hear Steve, the whole industry is going through some turmoil at the moment and it remains to be seen who's head stayes above water and who sinks or what amalgamations are in the pipe line.

I remember in the good ol days of 35-mm going to many air shows over a span of about twenty years and you would see literally thousands of SLR cameras at these shows, all mostly fitted with long lenses for obvious reasons.

Have a great Christmas.
I bet your weather is better than ours!!

Oh gee! The (D)SLR is almost dead! NOT!

Remember when "real" photographers all used cameras with sheet film and flash bulbs? It wasn't really too long ago. The amateurs were all using the Brownie or maybe more advanced folding roll film cameras.

Then the pros all switched to Hassleblad and the likes during the 60's and 70's. Sure there were people using Leica 35MM all the way back in the '30's, but they were odd-balls, and couldn't get the quality of the 4x5 and larger film sizes. As late as the early years of this century, Arizona Highways magazine would take no smaller than a 4x5 neg for submission.

Finally, all the pros (except for those who didn't) switched to 35mm. At least for photojournalism. Many ad and fashion, as well as wedding pros, stuck to MF.

Then came digital, and for a few, ease and speed of shot-to-print triumphed over quality. Then digital photos came to be on a par with film, and almost every pro abandoned film for digital.

Of course, in all of this the consumers led the way, going for smaller sizes, less quality and more convenience to get a photo that was acceptable as a 3x5 print at a price they could afford.

And thru it all the Pro cameras disappeared. OOPS! They didn't! They got more popular!

Now they have cameras built into your phone that will take a photo in good light that's of almost enough quality to post at 800 pixels wide on Facebook, so the DSLR will fall by the wayside. Never mind that their lenses are poor, optical zoom is non-existent, there is no flash, nor interchangeable lenses, no settings of shutter speed or aperture to adjust and they do poorly in low light, they'll kill the high end cameras because they're cheap and everywhere!

The same argument about every other advance in camera tech over the last century. Interchangeable lens, high quality cameras exist because people like to take high quality photos. There is always someone who is willing to pay a little bit more for quality of product and quality of result.

Why am I always the one who's looked to by friends and family to take better photos than they do? It's not because I'm some type of photo-god. It's because I've invested in the equipment that puts my decent talents above theirs. I have better quality cameras, better quality lenses, flashes, I have tripod for use when needed, and I can utilize them better than they can utilize their camera phones or point&snaps. Some do really well, under the right conditions, given the limitations of the equipment they have. But I usually do better.

I get the long shot they can't get because they have no 450mm equivalent lens, can't set a fast shutter speed to freeze action or a wide aperture to blur the background. Quality equipment makes the difference, and it's not going away anytime soon. It may change, just as we went from sheet film to digital systems, and from the Bush Pressman to the D800, but it will still be around for a long, long time.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:Oh gee! The (D)SLR is almost dead! NOT!

.......Why am I always the one who's looked to by friends and family to take better photos than they do? ........

Dusty

Same here Dusty. They oooooh and aaaaaah at the photos (even ones I consider to be poor) and say they wish they could take photos like that. The fact they use their phone camera or a £80 compact doesn't help.

I can't get decent photos of my dog . She sits or stands posing then the second I raise the camera she is off at breakneck speed.
Can't win them all!

Mike

bakubo wrote: Having said all that though, I have been surprised at how many young people who have never used film camera have been so impressed by the style of my E-M5 even though I am certainly not impressed by the style. I can't tell you how many times while in the elevator, walking around, etc. a young person has asked me about my camera and told me how cool they thought the style is. My impression is that although there are some older people who like the nostalgic styling it is mostly younger people who like it. Of course, that is what one would expect. It has always been common for later generations to look back through rose colored glasses at certain aspects of the past. I have also written here about how popular with young people old 35mm SLRs from the '60s and '70s are in Tokyo these days. Sometimes I think they are carried around more as a fashion accessory, but also lots of young people are using them. I also posted a photo of a Japanese magazine in Tokyo earlier this year that had an article with photos of young people using old film cameras in Tokyo.

Saw this today. Also, in one of the camera magazines in Japan they have a Tokyo Camera Style segment every month with photos of people holding their cameras.

Street fashion: Tokyo Camera Style

http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-32232291

Good find on the Beeb there, Henry

If you like the Tokyo hipsters and their camera then I'll think you'll like what this chap is doing to old lenses. He has chosen a rather interesting name for his range of reconditioned lenses under the brand: 'Dog Schidt Optiks'

http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk

Birma wrote:Good find on the Beeb there, Henry

If you like the Tokyo hipsters and their camera then I'll think you'll like what this chap is doing to old lenses. He has chosen a rather interesting name for his range of reconditioned lenses under the brand: 'Dog Schidt Optiks'

Yep, that's a name for the ages. It reminds me of this.