Thread: 'Will the DSLR die? Will small cameras rule the world?' at The Visual Science Lab

The biggest argument against video for me is *I* want to decide how long I want to look at something. That, plus 99.999999% of "amateur" video is nausea-inducing rubbish...

Originally Posted by Lightmancer

The biggest argument against video for me is *I* want to decide how long I want to look at something. That, plus 99.999999% of "amateur" video is nausea-inducing rubbish...

I will simply state that still photography will not die in my lifetime because I'll continue to do it. It may reach a point where its terminal, but its up to each of us to keep it nominally alive. I'm just not interested in video except to shoot the occasional short burst to capture something that a photo wouldn't. Like a child's play or recital or ball game or the guy playing two flugelhorns simultaneously in Washington Square Park or the guy singing opera in Central Park down by the boathouse...

The argument that 99.9% of video is nausea inducing rubbish irrevlevant - 99.9% of EVERYTHING (photography included) is garbage! Why should video be any different??? Didn't keep painting from replacing hieroglyphics or photography from replacing painting...

-Ray

Video has been there for more than a century. I see no reason why it should kill photography. I think text, stills and video have there own strengths each and will continue to coexist.

hmm.

there was a time, let's not forget, when the advent of still photography was supposed to portend the death of painting

oils, watercolours, prints and most sculpture don't move ... will they die too now? Killed by small cameras that make videos?

I think there's a point that's getting missed entirely. What the Red Epic shoots is not just video, it shoots full resolution RAW images (5120 X 2700 pixels) at 24 frames per second. That's a full frame DSLR (actually slightly smaller than full frame with a cinema aspect ratio) with a "burst rate" of 24 frames per second (Peter Jackson is currently shooting "The Hobbit" on Red Epics at 40fps), for as long as you hold down the shutter. So it's not about shooting video, it's still about shooting stills, only about a huge amount of stills. The way a photographer (not videographer) would shoot this camera, would be in short bursts of 3-5 second videos and pick and choose his "decisive moment" in post. The end result would be a still photograph, selected out of many still photographs that made up the "video".

Of course memory management would be an issue and currently most computers wouldn't be able to keep up with the sheer amount of data, but SSDs are getting cheaper by the minute, soon we'll think nothing about having 300-400TB drives. We're a while away for any of this being pocket-able though, so I won't be holding my breath.

Originally Posted by Landshark

For me the agenda comes with the dialogue the choice of descriptors, not implying he is being paid just the slant of the viewpoint becomes too subjective with little objectivity.
I think he wants so badly too make the point that small cameras are better that he makes a very bad case, that large DSLRs are the size they are only because of the “marketing machine of the PRO camera”.
Like you said they had to make the cameras the size they are because they really had no choice, trying to get all that crap and technology in there. They also are bigger because they are more rugged in everyway.
Just take my Kodak DSC doorstop is easily twice as big as my Canon MkIVs, to say nothing of the dramatic weight difference. . For me the argument is more; that most people do not need a “Pro” camera for their everyday image creations. But one could make the same argument for every tool that has a “Pro and Amateur version”, power tool, hand tools, kitchen tools, cars, trucks and so and so on.

+1

I knew I didn't need the that $899 imported Italian coffee maker that takes up my whole counter and makes a demitasse cup.

I have a D700 + assorted heavy lenses. Unfortunately, there isn't an X mount version of the Nikon 35mm F1.4 G. I've also used an variety of APSC and MFT cameras. To be honest I haven't used the Nikon since I got the X Pro. In the end all these cameras do a lot of things well. It's just you can do more with a D700 than you can with an X Pro or MFT camera.

I'm not sure the size of the camera has much to do with photography anyway. It's more an argument about cameras than photography. You could give me a Leica S2 and William Eggleston a Holga and he will be the better photographer every frame. Undoubtedly the two are not mutually exclusive but there is a difference between between cameras and photography.

well, I think there're 2 seperate stages we need to recognise in this discussion: capture and presentation.

In terms of capture, it may well be that cameras start shooting bursts and you can choose your favorite still image, although I'm sure many people will not want to bother with that and just keep shooting single still shots.

In terms of presentation, stills aren't going anywhere. No way! A still image that you can let your eyes glide over for as long as you want is just too powerful, and pausing a video to look for that perfect moment and then take it all in will be too bothersome for most consumers - there'll always be a market or an audience for carefully selected moments frozen in time. Sure, with people often not bothering to read anymore, a video might be a convenient way for many journalists to tell their story, maybe even a more viable one. That doesn't take anything away from the difference in experience that exists between watching a still image (whether or not it's taken from a video feed is irrelevant) and watching a moving image.

Originally Posted by Boid

I think still photography as a medium will die out. Replaced with short bursts of video. Hopefully in a small enough form factor to be pocket-able.

There will always be some form of stills but yes sadly video is the overall future.

Originally Posted by bartjeej

well, I think there're 2 seperate stages we need to recognise in this discussion: capture and presentation.

In terms of capture, it may well be that cameras start shooting bursts and you can choose your favorite still image, although I'm sure many people will not want to bother with that and just keep shooting single still shots.

In terms of presentation, stills aren't going anywhere. No way! A still image that you can let your eyes glide over for as long as you want is just too powerful, and pausing a video to look for that perfect moment and then take it all in will be too bothersome for most consumers - there'll always be a market or an audience for carefully selected moments frozen in time. Sure, with people often not bothering to read anymore, a video might be a convenient way for many journalists to tell their story, maybe even a more viable one. That doesn't take anything away from the difference in experience that exists between watching a still image (whether or not it's taken from a video feed is irrelevant) and watching a moving image.

I agree with you that an average consumer might not be interested in sifting through a huge amount of images to get to the one he wants. But for pro photographers, answerable to clients, who don't care how the image is made as long as they get the right image, its a huge blessing.

At no point is still photography going away, I'm not suggesting that at all. An image one can ponder on, will always have an audience, be it on screen or as print. I do think the way we arrive at the image will change (is changing). Currently we are in the very early stages of development of this new kind of camera, and they are huge and hugely expensive. But that will change.

Here's an example of David Fincher shooting for Vogue on the Red Epic - Red in Vogue | The Inspiration Room

The thing that I hate about video is that it requires my attention for exactly 2 minutes and 47 seconds (or whatever) to get it's message across. A still image I can choose to view for as long or as little as I like.

I also don't want to be sifting through hundreds of near identical images for the best one. I generally find that taking one image is sufficient to capture what I want.

I guess that I do have the luxury of being able to choose to do what I want since what the paying consumer wants does not impact on my bottom line.