2017 Camera News
tbray.org
tbray.org
Another factor is focal range. With a bigger sensor it's easier to have a wide field of view, again an advantage dedicated cameras have.
I disagree about APS-C and FF being the winners. I think FF has peaked, the traditional advantages of FF are compensated for in smaller formats by better sensor silicon (getting to better low light sensitivity for a given pixel size) and optics (F1.8, F1.4 and even F1.2 lenses). FF still has its place with pro photographers but for amateurs the cost, size and weight (not just the camera - that primary factor here are the lenses, which become very big and very expensive as you climb up the sensor size) make it impractical.
I think FF will rule for pro photographers and MFT, which is smaller than APS-C, will rule the amateur market. MFT cameras are pushing the definition of pocketable already, but they can be carried along with a small lens and be with you everywhere. I can probably fit my PEN-F with a 14mm Lumix pancake lens in my jacket pocket without too much hassle - and as the old saying goes, "the best camera is the one you have with you".
As long as bigger cameras perform better (and there's a demand for better performance) they will keep growing until they take up the entire back of the phone.
My bet is on micro lenses so small that the camera becomes a flat rectangle taking up most of one side of the phone, along with some crazy insane software processing.
The problem I see with that though is
1) it's still too big 2) it's still too expensive and 3) I bet it adds an enormous amount of complexity to manufacturing
Lytro had really awesome technology something like 10 years ago for a camera that could focus on anything in the image (it didn't take pictures exactly, which was one of the problems, how do you manage the files which also happen to be gigantic). Awesome idea, but it just didn't work in the consumer market.
I would LOVE to see Light succeed and have a substantially better camera integrated into smartphones, and would even pay a few hundred dollars premium for it, but if that happens at all it's going to take years and I doubt many people will be happy to pay that much more when they just want to use Instagram.
I hope the technology is awesome, but based on what I've seen (and heard from employees) it's not going to live up to the hype.
They're working on a light field camera and stack that they advertise will allow the viewer to don a VR headset and view a live-action scene with 6 DOF, so long as the viewer doesn't move their head terribly far.
- the demo photos, like you mentioned have either a softness like you mentioned or colors that seem a bit too vibrant. Would like to see more examples of action photos, up close macros, and night shots.
- no stabilization - in their talk they mentioned this isn't practical and they'll sell a stick gimbal, though it seems odd when a smartphone has this.
- the delays, it took about a year longer than I initially expected (preorders are shipping this July)
- My own needs - I'm realizing I'm not that nuts of a photography enthusiast lately for the price of the camera.
There's also some hesitance when reading the founders mit technology review article where he hints that the end user will do more things in post with their first product until they leverage an fpga/asic for processing (I think they're currently using a snapdragon 820 with an fpga for triggering)
Still rooting for them though since I hated carrying even a micro 4:3 camera
As someone who does research on inverse signal recovery, what can be recovered nowadays is absolutely mindblowing. I work on the group synchronization problem, which aims to extract an underlying ground truth signal from noisy, shifted copies of that signal. In my case, I am extracting atomic environments from noisy rotated and permuted copies of an "archetypal" atomic environment, but I imagine the same technique applied to photography would produce stunning results. You would be surprised with the amount of noise for which you can still recover the true signal.
See https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03464 for an idea of what's become possible recently.
Actually, landscape photographers care more about resolution and dynamic range than low light performance since most of the time they're shooting at base ISO on a tripod. Which is why cameras like the Sony A7R II (42 MP) and Nikon D810 (36 MP) are popular with landscape photographers.
Photographers who care about low light performance are typically shooting video or sports/wildlife so they shoot with cameras like the Sony A7S or Nikon D500.
The size of a sensor defines the fundamental "look" of the format, which is simplistically stated as the DoF for a given focal length, and not just the general field of view. That "look" is also made up of the lens characteristics, and in general, those lenses most popular or available for said format, i.e. 35/50mm for FF/35mm, 75/80mm for 645 or 6x6.
Creative decision making takes place outside of the moment of shooting, too, and having those options is a key reason my kit cupboard hosts everything from half-frame to 6x6, as well as mirrorless and FF digital cameras. In the past, fewer options have meant that amateurs and professionals alike operating on the same or similar platforms. In modern times, few amateurs that I know run digital medium format cameras. Actually, none.
While it's marvellous that my iPhone's performance is so good, but once past the pixel pushing, the tiny sensor is mercilessly exposed by my geriatric Leica M9 despite its "rubbish" sensor, because the look of FF combined with Zeiss glass is just fantastic. And it's always ready to do its job.
I think the best camera is the one that gets out of your way. iPhones are ponderous to get ready for shooting if locked, and when I need to take a picture, I need to take that picture.
(edit: apologies for any incoherence, just gotten home after 7.5 hour drive)
I think what you mean is the sensor changes the effective focal length: a 50mm lens on FF is 50mm, on a Canon crop factor it gets a 1.6x multiplier, on Nikon I think it is 1.5x (sorry, haven't shot Nikon since film).
Eventually the only thing we'll care about in a sensor/lens system (with possibly more than one of each) is the amount of information they can capture, and how fast. All the other parameters (sensor size, optical design) that currently influence the final photographic features will be simulated in postproduction, similarly to how today we can accurately simulate digitally the classical chemical films (Velvia, Tri-X, ...), enabling a great deal of artistic freedom.
EDIT: I recommend watching this excellent presentation from the CTO of Light, a camera based on a sensor array, it goes into a lot of technical detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKmC9xWHhM4
It just requires large amounts of computational power to work in realtime, and this is becoming feasible now.
> He’s still using 4×5" and 8×10" film cameras, but I bet those medium-format puppies at #1 above could do the trick.
Perhaps that comment comes from not working with a large format camera, so there's plenty to forgive the author. A 55mm sensor, no matter how subtly it captures the light, can never produce a comparable picture.
There's a particular quality that enthusiastic photographers may have noticed when moving up sensor sizes. Despite the very similar field of view, there's a different look to a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera vs a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera. It's a factor of the character of the lens design in combination with the resulting field of view.
The images produced from a well-handled large format camera can be truly spectacular. Looking at a good, large print from an 8x10, you'll notice a much greater dimensionality in the image. The shadows may have subtleties and a level of smoothness that are unrecognised.
This isn't a digital/analogue snobbery thing - I love digital photography, and haven't shot film in quite some time. It's purely a physical size thing. I just doubt we're going to get an 8x10 sensor in a camera any time soon, so for now film still has a unique advantage, at least for those people willing to go through the hassle.
It may be difficult to make a direct comparison to digital, since pixel size and density vary so much across cameras, and those variable have a somewhat different affect on picture quality.
Large format cameras allow you to get closer to your subject (while achieving the same framing) and obtain an extremely shallow depth of field. Here's an example taken with a 4x5 camera [0]. Notice how her eyes are in perfect focus but the rest of the scene melts away into softness. A phone camera would put almost everything in this scene into sharp focus, making the foreground and background elements a lot more distracting.
Combine that with camera movements [1] and you can achieve many effects that are simply impossible with an SLR, let alone a P&S or phone camera.
As well, doing this, you can modify the plane of what is in-focus, which cannot be corrected for in current cameras. A typical example would be tilting the front of the camera (with the lens mounted on it) so that both near and far flowers would be perfectly in focus. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle
Also, see http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html for an idea of file sizes and current # of pixels available: a 4x5 scanning back that does both 24bit and 48 bit color at 8000x10600 pixels is available for less than many medium format setups.
One major thing I discovered recently is that iPhone 7 (and maybe earlier models?) supports shooting RAW. With an app such as Lightroom or VSCO, you can shoot DNG images, and you get much better effective dynamic range. Blown-out bright spots or murky dark areas can be pulled down or up to bring out detail that would otherwise be lost with plain JPEG images.
That's been a game-changer. It almost makes the RX (which also does RAW) unnecessary. I use Lightroom because it syncs to the desktop version, so you can continue editing there, although the iPhone app is surprisingly good, too.
Smartphones make great pictures for normal people and its great but they don't have anything to do with a DSLR.
Consumer are using Smartphones. Consumers like my mother, who do not use smartphones daily and prefer pictures over smart, use compacts when taking pictures in there holidays.
Hobbieists might use a Mirror Less instead of a DSLR.
Pros will still use DSLRs.
I still use my Canon 60D and prefer it that way. Having a mirror instead of a display makes it faster and it uses less energy.
Leica, just forget it. Its price is for the craftmanship not for the image quality. Ifyou have nothing better to buy, of course but don't do it for the image quality. it is very good but not worth the price.
> Pros will still use DSLRs.
I imagine Kodak said something like this in the 90's: "Hobbyists might use digital cameras, but pros will still use film."
Your view is shortsighted. Mirrorless cameras don't beat DSLRs yet, but they're improving fast. Eventually they will be better, and DSLRs will go the way of film: a niche for a few devotees, but not used even by most professionals. The greater reliability afforded by having no moving parts guarantees it.
Mirrors rarely (read: never) break through normal usage; the main advantage of mirrorless is not having to accommodate the mirror box which means cameras can be smaller.
Want to increase battery life? Build a bigger battery. Want to protect the sensor? Build a mechanism to cover it when changing lenses.
Is there actually a technical reason you can't make a mirrorless as good as a DSLR?
There are tradeoffs that a DSLR makes to provide a through the lens optical viewfinder and phase detection autofocus. Mechanical complexity of a moving mirror and the bulk of a pentaprism in addition to the mirror bulk are among them. For some applications and some people the tradeoff is worth it for others it isn't.
If smaller size and lighter weight are more important then a mirrorless is more likely to be better.
If the reason for getting rid of the mirror is mechanical reliability I don't think it's a good idea to add something else that can break.
There isn't a technical reason, but rather which trade offs do you want to make? You can make a mirrorless camera that has every feature of an DSLR, but there is no point to do that if you lose the advantages of a mirrorless system (small and light).
One application where DSLR provides advantages over mirrorless cameras is photographing moving objects (e.g. sports and wildlife) because optical viewfinders and phase detection autofocus provide a faster response than an electronic viewfinder and contrast detection autofocus. In rapidly changing scenes, the difference between a great shot and 'meh' is often a fraction of a second.
Another area might be the diversity and quantity and quality of available 35mm lenses due to decades of manufacture. There's a lot of existing good glass out in the world. Likewise, film still has a role when resolution really matters because a large format negative has several times the resolving power of even the most advanced medium format digital cameras.
Consumer grade DSLR's are pretty reliable, typically rated to 50,000+ shutter activations (which don't occur when shooting live view or videos). That's more than ten shots a day for more than ten years. Over a period of several years, most people are far more likely to replace their digital camera for the sake upgrades than because the shutter broke and most people are more likely to break their camera by dropping it than by taking too many images.
That's nothing against mirrorless cameras. They have advantages for many people and since a lot of people shoot their DSLR's in program mode without making technical considerations, mirrorless cameras are a reasonable (though not necessarily less costly) alternative.
Also, a lot of consumer DSLR buyers don't buy much more than a slow superzoom or a kit lens duo (~18-50 + 70-210/300), so they're not truly benefiting from the potential of their purchase beyond the larger sensor.
Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5
I did not say that though. I only said that they're not benefiting from the potential of their purchase.
Besides, a lot of consumers who buy DSLR kits are doing it on someone's recommendation. They aren't going to bother learning the craft of photography, and once the honeymoon period is over, they're going to get tired of carrying a bulky camera around and their whole purchase will start to collect dust.
Even WRT the larger sensor, there are a bunch of much lighter and more compact mirrorless cameras that are either APS-C or micro 4-3rds.
Also you can adapt any 35mm film DSLR lens to almost any mirrorless due to the short flange distance (between back of lens and sensor) so you can still use legacy glass.
And they won't displace SLRs until they electronic viewfinders have much higher quality, in several dimensions. I don't doubt that that will happen, but we're a long way from that.
A digital viewfinder gives you the picture the camera gives you. This uses lots of energy and sucks in low light performance.
I've played with mirrorless, bought one for my kid, I think they are a joke if you are shooting as a pro. I just don't see why I would want one. A phone or a point and shoot will fit in your pocket and they do a great job. If you want better results you step up to full frame. Mirrorless seems like a solution to a non-problem. To me.
> I imagine Kodak said something like this in the 90's: "Hobbyists might use digital cameras, but pros will still use film."
It's quite clear they were not saying this in the 90s, because Kodak was selling insanely expensive professional digital cameras for all but one year of that decade.[0]
They were ahead of their competition in adapting to the digital era. They lost because Nikon and Canon ate their lunch with vastly superior digital cameras.
For any sports shooting, mirrorless is a joke. Why? Because the viewfinder lags the action, you can't time a shot and get the puck going into the goal. Your only option is to shoot burst. Which sucks?
Why does burst suck? Because we're trying to take pictures to sell to the players (or more likely, the parents or SO of the players). We are expected to deliver a folder of "keepers" to the table where they are selling pictures. This is a low margin, very short half life type of deal. It's on us, as photographers, to delete all the non-keepers from the card before handing it over. All while being expected to get a keeper every 8 seconds (the actual pros can do that regularly, I average a keeper every 17 seconds in the last tournament).
My keeper rate is about 60-80%, closer to 80%, when I shoot single shot (I used to play hockey, I can time the shots pretty well). That's when I'm alert, dialed in, just shooting, not messing with the camera. That's with pro gear, used to be Canon 5DIII, now is Canon 1DX II. If I shoot burst, my keeper rate goes down to 2% (1DX bursts at 14 frames per second). It's simply not possible for me to shoot burst, delete all the ones we don't want, and get back to shooting every 8 seconds.
tl;dr: sports photographers disagree (both pro and enthusiast)
Sharpness and low light performance have less to do with the type of camera you're using than the sensor and lens combination you have. DSLRs might still be faster than mirrorless for action, but for the average person, that speed difference probably isn't meaningful enough to justify the added bulk.
For most people, the best camera is the one you have with you, and for most people, I highly doubt that's going to be an DSLR.
The price point of mirrorless cameras suggest to me that a substantial part of what is driving them is manufacturer's desire to introduce new systems for consumer sale. The problem with point and shoot cameras (also mirrorless) is the lack of follow on lens sales to create the idea of investment. Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. Those savings are not reflected in retail prices.
Not true. I use a mirrorless APS-C camera with a prime lens, and it's small enough to carry in a case on a backpack's shoulder strap while running. A DSLR would probably require a chest harness.
But you do have an electronic viewfinder and you're cramming things into less physical space--at the offsetting benefit of eliminating some moving mechanical and optical parts which have been optimized over decades.
I don't have the numbers but I'm unconvinced absent evidence that mirrorless cameras are so much higher margin. The fact tht they're new systems that can't piggyback on decades of development may well play a role.
https://m.dpreview.com/news/1896381164/sony-is-now-2-in-the-...
In the longer term, mirrorless will overtake and pull further ahead of DSLR.
And even the quicker is not necessarily any more true. The AF systems of the top of the line Nikon and Canon cameras are still the best, but the Olympus E-M1 MkII comes close to that - and no DSLR matches its up to 60 fps at full resolution.
I do know that DSLR and Mirror Less can/are often the same quality.
That said, Sony has been kicking butt in sensor land, enough that the Nikon D800/D810 bodies sport Sony sensors, I believe the same ones as the a7 series.
SLRs have been quicker but that advantage is diminishing fast.
However, you're right about batteries, I use a Fuji XT-1 and carry a couple of spare aftermarket batteries around in my camera bag. Which isn't a problem, I find.
Lots of pros are going mirrorless.
Can you please provide a citation for this? Where is this advantage coming from? The shorter flange distance?
The flange distance shouldn't have any effect [I think].
So basically that advantage is untrue. I thought your claim sounded fishy.
Mirrorless does not have a 1/2 stop advantage over a DSLR. When the mirror is flipped, there's nothing reducing the amount of light hitting the sensor beyond the lens. The advantage over the DSLT isn't noteworthy since very few people bought Sony Alpha DSLTs, and they're basically out of production.
If that's not working, you can also tap and hold which will take a burst. All the burst images will be saved, but modern gallery apps will automatically find the least blurry shot so you don't have to.
My Canon T2i only supports video recording up to a certain amount (the size-limit of a single file in a FAT file system) or duration which I believe is 12 minutes—whichever comes first. Apparently this is based on European Union import laws about what constitutes photography equipment and what is a video capturing equipment and different tariffs.
Whether or not it's AVCHD or a single large-file does not matter to me. It seems like video is rarely reviewed in depth.
I know that Green Lantern can auto-restart video recordings, but I noticed that it can't really do that smoothly without dropping at least a second of video—at least on my T2i.
> Technically, the major challenge is heat management. This is a stills-oriented camera, primarily, and that’s one of the reasons why [video recording] time is limited to 30 minutes. If we wanted to provide a more video-oriented product, we’d have to overcome heat.
[0] https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/6838833139/cp-2017-olymp...
Thus article says they were looking to renegotiate it in 2012, but I'm not sure what happened. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0794343949/wto-looking-at-...
And I think one reason it isn't reviewed in much depth is that DSLR shooters are likely to do one of the following:
- Use a dedicated video camera rather than an SLR.
- Not care about a 30 minute time limit, how often do you need 30 minutes of continuous video?
- Use an external recorder like a Ninja Assassin, which doesn't have a time limit.
The scaled resolution modes work by rendering at 2x then downsampling. So in the mode you quote it is actually rendering at 3840x2400 (!!) then downsampling, but there's still only 2880x1800 physical pixels.
I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed.
I've read some great reviews of mirrorless cameras, but they always seemed a bit fan-boyish -- and I don't want to invest in gear simply because it's something all the cool kids are doing.
All I care about is the art, and I understand that there's always going to be trade-offs. Quite frankly, the main attraction to me right now with mirrorless cameras is the incredibly high ISO I'm seeing. But since photography is a long-term hobby, and since I don't go out and buy the new stuff simply because it's the new stuff, I figured the DSLR guys will be along in a few years with just as good sensitivity only it'll work with all of my other stuff, right?
I have no problem shooting with a cell phone if I think I've got a good shot. The problem is when I gear up and specifically go out to try and get something. At that point, what does mirrorless really get me? (assuming the DSLR bodies catch up over the next few years) I'm already hauling stuff. I'm thinking the mirror itself is a nit either way at that point.
Like I said, I need to keep an eye on this. The field is evolving quickly.
That said, for my typical trip I take my Fujifilm gear because it's so much lighter and more compact. I just wish they'd do an X-E3.
I'm not going to get rid of my DSLR gear because I do use it but I know people who have.
Old school management thinking. The most common speculation as to why Canon and Nikon are behind in mirrorless is that they're afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR product lines.
As soon as you've said you have to start over again (Maybe with some kludgy options for existing high end telephoto glass) you've basically eliminated whatever advantage you may have as an incumbent.
It's as if Microsoft introduced a great new operating system that couldn't run any existing applications. (This has been done in various ways like Apple with Intel but it's hugely painful.)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
Reminds me of the Porsche Boxster/Cayman. Mid-engined cars is a fundamentally better design than the rear engined 911 but the company culture and legacy requires that the best performing Porsche models are the 911s.
I'd love to see Canon/Nikon build a 918 equivalent, just go all out building a mirrorless using their best tech. Unfortunately they are ceding the ground to Sony/Fuji/Olympus...
The digital viewfinder shows you exactly what the sensor is seeing, so you have a better idea of what the final image will look like.
They focus better during video.
I think there are also some technical details on how the auto focus points work better mirrorless and the depth of field in the viewfinder is more accurate. I think DSLRs hold the apature wide open when you look through the view finder, then stop it down when you take the photo -- this keeps the view finder bright but effects the depth of field. Not 100% sure on this though.
But a SLR or DSLR with a bright 100% view finder is a thing of beauty. So big and crisp and clear.
Not really. If your photographic needs are satisfied with DSLR equipment, why worry about it? Don't change for the sake of change.
The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the smaller weight and size, but if you do extended photo sessions you'll soon find the weight difference doesn't really matter and the smaller size of a mirrorless is actually a disadvantage.
There's a very real reason professional DSLR bodies are massive with defined grips, it's because your hand can start to cramp or it can otherwise be uncomfortable to stay in position for a long time waiting on a shot if you have a small body or poor grip angles. When doing wildlife photography and insect photography this becomes incredibly obvious because both require patience since you can't control your subject.
At this point I either go out the door with my DSLR kit or I stick to my phone. A phone camera is very good these days and can even shoot in RAW with manual adjustments for everything but aperture. When I need to specifically do distance or macro photos, nothing beats a full sized DSLR on ergonomics.
I love the Sony tech, but unless they end up building an optional grip systems for their bodies I doubt I will ever attempt mirrorless again.
It may depend on the kind of photography you're doing too. For street photography and hiking I'd never go back to DSLR. They are simply bulky and (for street) do not look nearly as friendly.
However, for things like sports, events, and weddings, where you are carrying the pro f/2.8 zooms (which are about the same size and weight whether it is on Sony or Canikon) on multiple bodies, I find that the well-defined grips and balanced handling of the Canikon pro bodies (and the OVF rather than the EVF) are less fatiguing personally.
I eventually sold off my nikon gear.
The XT-2: Dedicated aperture dial, ISO dial, shutter speed dial. Compact, looks more friendly to onlookers (can be important if you shoot street photography). I like the ergonomics of them a lot (esp compared to the Fuji E-series, which is not so good).
If you enjoy shooting film, it has a very similar feel.
But... phone cameras' problem is you can't take a picture with just one hand (or it's really hard, or you'll drop the phone, or you'll miss the shot). I think that is the main reason while more pro photographers don't use phones (and not resolution, or zoom, or dials, etc.)
I'm not a pro but a serious enthusiast, and having to use both hands and no viewfinder to take a picture is a deal breaker for me.
I wonder if there's an opportunity to either make a lighter camera based on phone tech, but that can be operated with one hand, or to make a (serious, non gadget) accessory that let you take pictures with one hand, using your phone.
The models that come out of Canon or Nikon are really depressing, nothing is ever new. Fujis are much more interesting, but still quite ordinary. A lighter and flatter X100T would have been fantastic, but instead, the X100F is bigger and heavier. Go figure.
The first thing that struck me is how much more "technical" it all is nowadays -- many, many options are available, and it's going to be a learning curve. I accept this because I want some things you can only get with "real" lenses and bigger sensors, but as a software guy it makes me think there's still a lot of room for us to improve the user experience of digital cameras.
Ideally I'd want the various iPhone photo apps (VSCO et al) to live inside my Lumix. As far as I know, nobody is even remotely close to offering that, and I wonder why not.
[0]: http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumi...
I think at some point it becomes artistic so there are lots of things to consider when taking a photo.
You can't just let the software do the work because how would you describe what kind of photo you want? Mine is extremely user-friendly though and there is a button that makes it Point and Shoot.
Besides, if you want simplicity, you can just buy a Point&Shoot camera and it will have a nice sensor. Something like Nikon Coolpix.
With a DSLR, you are effectively buying a manual transmission instead of automatic.
At the end of the day I want the power to modify the light of any scene the way I see fit without having to hire a big crew and carry around dozens of boxes of gear. The shot will pretty much take itself once the right light is in place.
Super affordable speedlights with already built-in receivers were a great step in the right direction, we need more of that.
I don't have any micro 4/3 camera. The last time I tried a Sony I thought it was a toy :D
though personally i just gave up on zoom and shoot everything with mobile which is always with me instead of carrying heavy camera just to use rarely zoom and low light photos
Good photographers capture emotion and use good composition. That's why it's important for them to have a camera that gets out of the way.
So I very much agree with the conclusion. Pick a camera that YOU like.
I would have preferred camera examples that cost less than $1,000. At $4,000+ for Leica that's much more than an average photography enthusiast would spend on camera "just for fun".
Shooting with a prime (fixed focal length) lens will give you significantly better image quality at a lighter weight than using a zoom lens. I don't think you need much more than 16MP. That resolution is good enough for publishing in a top tier national magazine[1], and it'll be good enough for your computer screen.
[1] To head off the naysayers on this: I had a picture of mine published in Travel and Leisure magazine in September 2014 that I shot with my X100S. http://www.aaronbrethorstphotography.com/2015/10/31/on-appro...
Of course, if you're printing sub-8MP images on a full page, then you can count on all those pixels being important, so any pixel-level defects that are usually hidden by their tiny size will become visible (hot pixels, noise, that kind of thing)
Hmmm... I'd love to see Canon or Nikon re-create their classic rangefinders. We don't have another option beside Leica :p
the web today is video first.
the best selling cameras sold best because of video quality lately.
not mentioning video, focus control, and low ligth clearly shows this is article is amateur hour. even if the author is a pro photographer.
> the web today is video first.
[citation needed]
Most of what I see (twitter, facebook, instagram, etc) is still photos, followed by GIF-style short video loops (at low resolution).
Video is growing but there are a lot of occasions where people are consuming content and can't watch video (you don't want to blast audio in the queue at the supermarket)
great list of dying companies largely ignored by the next generation.
Why not just see what dpreview and others recommend, who review gear for a living?
You could buy a camera that's generally accepted by reviewers as one of the best cameras, but it still may not be right for you.
As with most things technical, I find that camera people fall into a bunch of different biased groups, and that tends to shade their recommendations.
or perhaps i am rembering the hype that surfaced around ken rockwell a number of years ago and projecting from that