Opticallimits

Full Version: Back from vacation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Now I know how it is to dive alongside a tiger shark ... ;-)


[Image: IMG_20190615_114550.jpg]
Pictures?...
Sorry, but I prefer to dive without a camera - it just takes away the joy in this case.
Slightly isolated... Awesome!
Where was it?
This is Lady Elliot Island at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef.
Unlike many other islands, it is not targeting luxury tourists.
Quite an awesome place - famous for Manta rays. We've seen 11 of them plus heaps of other stuff.

http://www.ladyelliot.com.au/
"heavy of other stuff"? Not familiar with that expression.
Should have been "heaps". Sorry.

miro

(06-17-2019, 10:12 AM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Now I know how it is to dive alongside a tiger shark ... ;-)


[Image: IMG_20190615_114550.jpg]

Nice to see evolution in photography. Drone pictures becomes common. Technically excellent mobile phone pictures are mainstream.  Chunky lens/cameras becoming vintage.
Very true.
Until recently, my wife was using a Panasonic GM5 + Olympus 17mm f1.8 lens to take photos of the kids (she wanted something as small as possible) and landscapes, candids. Compact and good IQ while still providing a bit of background blur for portraits.
Now, she's got one of the latest iphones which features the portrait mode and automatic HDR for landscapes.
Given she only watches photos on her phone or tablet, the IQ she gets is more than good enough.
In fact, she gets better results since her photos are never blurry anymore (almost infinite DOF with a phone sensor) while having more shallow DOF for portraits thanks to computer generated blur.
For landscapes and harsh lighting conditions (e.g. portraits in harsh lighting) she also gets better results, thanks to the subtle HDR mode.
It's really bluffing on a small screen.
For a little while now, she hasn't touch the GM5 anymore.

I think 95% of the population is going to do (already doing)the same.
And so what? In lack of solid statistical numbers (I know, "solid" and "statistical" don't belong in the same sentence...) all of us only can assume.

How about that: of this 95% another 95% would never have bought a real camera anyway. A lot of smartphone users takes pictures since it has become so damn simple to get rather good results. Close to none of them ever would have got a "complicated" camera for themselves.

Sure, smartphones have an impact on camera sales.
Also sure that a lot of entry level DSLRs came with a kit lens and serve the purpose of "something better than a point&shoot" camera.
But also sure: old people with cameras pass away and young people with an interest in taking pictures need cameras. And lenses. Maybe not more kit-lenses, but some lenses are short in supply. And then there's not only generation smartphone but also generation "in my next video I tell you how..." filling up YouTube's and Vimeo's harddrives.

We photographers tend to forget that some stories are better told by moving pictures. And I think for some manufacturers, sticking to stupid marekting concepts and delivering cheap tech for expensive prices ("Nikon?" why Nikon? aaaah, that's why...) it's sort of time to wake up and for others it might be better to manufacture other stuff. "Choices are good", I often read and I have to say lots of choice between 50 mm lenses don't make my day. It's no bad thing that some names disappear from the market.

And I also don't care about people singing the the final ode to system cameras. So far I still can buy more stuff than I ever could afford, not to mention use.
Pages: 1 2