Gripes.

[NancyP]

" A DSLR is so much heavier than a mirrorless camera. "

Depends - yep, a lot heavier than a point-and-shoot with integral lens. Not so much, if A7ii?A7Rii plus adapter plus your favorite old lenses from the SLR.

"Big and Bulky DSLRs" (we're talking "consumer" models, not the 1DX/ D4 high end pro models)
Last time I looked, my hands fit pretty well on the mid-sized DSLR (6D). The Rebels were too dinky for ideal ergonomics.

Dynamic resolution is a consideration for some landscape photography situations. The old-style way of dealing with the problem is a graduated ND filter set.

 

[Tinky]

Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.

+1

If you hadn't used the phrase 'photography professional' I would have almost certainly sworn I knew who you were talking about.

 

[benperrin]

Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.

+1

If you hadn't used the phrase 'photography professional' I would have almost certainly sworn I knew who you were talking about.

+2

 

[AvTvM]

AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.

I expect glass lenses to be replaced by a combination of something along those 2 approaches (or similar):
a. multiple camera modules with very small, simple and cheap lenses [smartphone modules, most likely using plastics rather than glass or even liquid lenses) + Cpu + software - again see this prototype/project: http://www.light.co/camera (I have no stake in it and not even pre-ordered one .. yet).
b. replacing glass lenses with curved surface elements with flat, liquid-crystal lenses, operated by electric fields -> e.g. http://lensvector.com/en/technology/how/

Combining something like these two approaches might/should/will ? eventually ! ... yield extremely powerful, extremely small, dirt cheap" cameras that capture extremely high technical image quality and can do all sorts of things that are impossible to do with current cameras, and most definitely not with big, clunky mirrored cameras.

 

[Tinky]

I dunno whether all those are truly disruptive. The replacement of one kind of camera (rangefinder) with another (reflex) for instance. That the newer technology is better (by some measure) doesn't make it disruptive. That's just progress.

I don't think SLRs necessarily replaced rangefinders. I was still selling Leicas, contax's, hexars and voigtlanders in the early noughties. I think our shop sold at least one RD-1...

A colleague who was a bit of an afficianado (i would ask "When are you going digital?" "I'll probaby want to go TTL first") once demonstrated in great detail the joys of using a rangefinder, the spare viewfinder space around the brightframe helping you anticipate 'the moment' - he likened slrs to being like looking through a periscope, the lack of noise, the lack of vibration, the lack of silly hidden functions (if anybody has ever tried to use an f4...) you would concentrate on the image, and also the joy of using something nicely constructed from quality materials.

He didn't convince me about Leica's but I still hanker after a g2...

Anyway, I'm being pedantic, SLRs didn't disrupt or replace rangefinders. Even SLRs were very very expensive, my grandparents had a folding six and a box brownie respectively.

 

[AvTvM]

I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.

Of course you can discuss how big and sudden the change needs to be to be called "disruptive".

First recording of music certainly was more disruptive than moving from vinyl records to CDs and from CDs to USB-sticks and from there to streaming audio. But each of these steps was rather disruptive to multiple indurties and changed customer experience quite significantly.

Of course SLRs killed rangefinders, just as CDs killed vinyl, even if some retro people prefer to hang on to the previous tech stuff. And the german photo industry was kileld because they were so enamored with their rangefinders and heavy metal knobs, levers and dials-studded camera bricks rather than quickly adopting the new technology and figth the japanese makers.

And boy, what a disruptive change the advent of Autofocus was! I've expoerienced it first hand. Got myself a Minolta 8000 as soon as I could afford one. Manual camweras were dead in the water almost overnight (transition took only 3 years or so 1986 to 1989 and then it was all over. Nikon de-throned, Canon on top. Cameras taking care of the mundane and boring technical aspects of photography. Draw focus. Set exposure. Not real fun. Better left to the machine. Catch the moment, create and compose your image, control the light! That's what's fun in photography. Not cranking rewind levers, twisting focus rings or setting shutterspeed on carved-metal nicely engraved but totally mono-functional shutter speed dials or trying to guessestimate DOF using distance scales on 50 year old lenses without proper coating.

Similar with EVF vs. OVF. SLR OVF was a major improvement over rangefinders since it gave us the veiw through the lens, "as the film would" see it. And EVF adds full visual information how the sensor will capture the image. No a small achievement. Along with all the other benefits of cameras without flapping or fixed mirror in the lightpath! It is disruptive. Canon and Nikon may be killed by Sony, if they don't release really good mirrorless cams rather than just trying to milk their customers with incremental re-iterations of their DSLRS.

But again, your mileage may vary.

 

[Tinky]

Slrs sold in much greater numbers because they had a lower entry price point generally and had economies of scale, and were for many, more agreeable in use.

That doesn't mean they replaced rangefinfers, as they are still produced to this day...

Is it impossible for you to accept that not everybody likes using DSLRs? There are technical, aesthetic and user experience reasons why somebody may prefer to use a rangefinder, I personally prefer the SLR form and operation, but I can't say they are wrong, no more than I can say medium format or large format users are wrong (I did have a medium format camera, an SLR type Bronica ETRSi, I had a WLF, and using the horizontally inverted mirrorwas a hoot sometimes, but again, an experience quite removed from an SLR, better or worse? No, different strengths? Yes.

No need to be so digital, in the discursive sense.

 

[Tinky]

And actually, I loved my days with a minolta sr-t super.bright viewfinder, microprism and split image screen, simplicity and control. I shoot a lot of video so manual focus, manual iris, fixed or manual shutter etc are old friends who's company I'm comfortable in.

You must have missed my bit earlier when I recounted the benefits, as my colleague saw it, of rangefinders...
The fact you could see a subject before it entered the brightframe can in some situations be very beneficial.

It's a preference (and dare I add, not mine) rather than a fact. I'm not saying you are wrong about the impact and popularity of DSLRs, and i prefer the user experience too, just suggesting that you can't always paint with such a broad brush.

 

[Northstar]

I wish new lenses didn't cost so much!

 

[AvTvM]

It's a preference (and dare I add, not mine) rather than a fact. I'm not saying you are wrong about the impact and popularity of DSLRs, and i prefer the user experience too, just suggesting that you can't always paint with such a broad brush.

SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact. That some Leicas and a few other even more exotic rangefinder cameras are still produced today and bought by extremely few camera purchasers does not change this a bit. As a matter of fact, if the latest rumors regarding a possible Leica Type 601 FF mirrorless cam are true, the days of rangefinder cameras might come to an end even at Leica. In their case the M line of rangefinder cams have survived disruptive technology #1 [SLRs] only to be "killed" by disruptive technology #2 [electronic viewfinders] some years later. There is no escape from disruptive technologies. Until the next one comes along. ;D

btw: no broad brush. Laser-sharp focusing. Some things in life ARE digital.

 

[Tinky]

It's your use of the word relevant... maybe not relevant to you...

They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.

I prefer DSLRs myself, but rangefinders are different. You can keep on saying 'fact' is if that actually means anything, I will just keep saying 'opinion' because the facts go against you.

 

[sanj]

Gear snobs.

The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".

Sometimes this happens because the features the poster wants is not in the 750 or 760.

Stills guys who have switched their camera into video mode, and who have therefore become DoP's.

Hahaha. Yes.

People who have never shot any professional video ever telling video shooters how great AF is. They just don't and will never understand.. video is contiguous. af systems, as yet, are not (and i've been telling folk 'as yet' for the last 25 years)

Yes.

People who confuse somebody stating an anecdotal opinion with emperical absolute fact. Context: Somebody might say, off the cuff, throwaway like "I think canon are losing the plot with the M10, it doesn't even have a hotshoe! haha"

And somebody is bound to reply "And where is your evidence for this? Do you have an assesment of the Canon boards mental health? CSC sales in South Taiwan are up this quarter against Olympus, so really you don't know what you are talking about".

People who don't understand that their opinion alone does not make something, or something not art. Regardless of the artist, they will say as fact that somebodies work isn't art because they don't get it. Philistines basically. Not on the basis of specific taste, but general artlessness.

Is this directed to me? Talking about that guy we had a tiny argument about? Still holding on?

A7 zealots. Yeah, we get it. (or rather, "we don't")

 

[AvTvM]

They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.
I prefer DSLRs myself, but rangefinders are different. You can keep on saying 'fact' is if that actually means anything, I will just keep saying 'opinion' because the facts go against you.

have fun splitting hairs! SLRs killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace. SLRs superseded rangefinder cameras in the history of photography gear. SLRs were disruptive technology ... even though it took decades, until the design concept got some traction in the market ... but then, boom bang! Rangefinders relegated to one luxury item manufacturer.

Just as mirrorless cameras with EVF are superseding DSLRS with OVFs right now. If you don't believe the facts, then go ask Zeiss Icon, [and more recently Cosina/Voigtlander] why they are not producing rangefinders any longer.

Luckily the disruptive technology of mirrorless/EVF cameras finally brings together ALL relative advantages of rangefinders and SLRs without any of their relative disadvantages: small size camera possible (like RF), lower production cost possible (than RF or SLR), no parallax problems to solve (RF), through the lens viewing and metering (like SLR), both full AF-compatibility (unlike RF) and all sorts of visual aids to support manual focusing PLUS - this is new, first time ever - visual control of exactly how the image will be captured ... before it is captured. Only item missing compared to RF: larger angle of view in viewfinder than that of lens mounted. But that feature apparently was not valued highly by most photographers. It could presumably be added if desired by some type of hybrid OVF + EVF viewfinder.

 

[Sporgon]

Just as mirrorless cameras with EVF are superseding DSLRS with OVFs right now. If you don't believe the facts...

Can you provide the facts for this statement. Let's have the statistics to prove EVFs are superseding OVF right now.

My understanding is that in terms of sales volume this just isn't the case.

And to keep sanj's thread on topic: this is my gripe: people who have a particular desire / hobbyhorse and then repeat it over and over again as fact. Who are they trying to convince ? Themselves ?

And Tinky, yea, I agree with you. A7 zealots.

 

[scyrene]

I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.

So you are using it differently to how I understand it. That's fair enough. For instance:

"SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact."

The replacement of one subclass of product with another is not, imho, disruptive. I don't drive, but I'd maybe use the example of manual versus automatic gears - people still drive cars, even if they work a little differently.

This thread is great in that respect - I like to understand people. Your position and motivations are totally understandable, and I respect that, even though I differ in one or two respects. It's easy to gripe until you realise people are talking from a different position

 

[Tinky]

They didn't kill them because they are different. They may have massively outsold DSLRs, but historically they were always a niche product. They were relatively much more expensive as well, people of ordinary means would not have a rangefinder.
I prefer DSLRs myself, but rangefinders are different. You can keep on saying 'fact' is if that actually means anything, I will just keep saying 'opinion' because the facts go against you.

have fun splitting hairs! SLRs killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace. SLRs superseded rangefinder cameras in the history of photography gear. SLRs were disruptive technology ... even though it took decades, until the design concept got some traction in the market ... but then, boom bang! Rangefinders relegated to one luxury item manufacturer.

Just as mirrorless cameras with EVF are superseding DSLRS with OVFs right now. If you don't believe the facts, then go ask Zeiss Icon, [and more recently Cosina/Voigtlander] why they are not producing rangefinders any longer.

Luckily the disruptive technology of mirrorless/EVF cameras finally brings together ALL relative advantages of rangefinders and SLRs without any of their relative disadvantages: small size camera possible (like RF), lower production cost possible (than RF or SLR), no parallax problems to solve (RF), through the lens viewing and metering (like SLR), both full AF-compatibility (unlike RF) and all sorts of visual aids to support manual focusing PLUS - this is new, first time ever - visual control of exactly how the image will be captured ... before it is captured. Only item missing compared to RF: larger angle of view in viewfinder than that of lens mounted. But that feature apparently was not valued highly by most photographers. It could presumably be added if desired by some type of hybrid OVF + EVF viewfinder.

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.

They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.

SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

They also both said that comparing two different types of camera as if they were competing for the same customer was silly. And that you should stop it. Gospel truth. Fact.

 

[Tinky]

Gear snobs.

The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".

Sometimes this happens because the features the poster wants is not in the 750 or 760.

Stills guys who have switched their camera into video mode, and who have therefore become DoP's.

Hahaha. Yes.

People who have never shot any professional video ever telling video shooters how great AF is. They just don't and will never understand.. video is contiguous. af systems, as yet, are not (and i've been telling folk 'as yet' for the last 25 years)

Yes.

People who confuse somebody stating an anecdotal opinion with emperical absolute fact. Context: Somebody might say, off the cuff, throwaway like "I think canon are losing the plot with the M10, it doesn't even have a hotshoe! haha"

And somebody is bound to reply "And where is your evidence for this? Do you have an assesment of the Canon boards mental health? CSC sales in South Taiwan are up this quarter against Olympus, so really you don't know what you are talking about".

People who don't understand that their opinion alone does not make something, or something not art. Regardless of the artist, they will say as fact that somebodies work isn't art because they don't get it. Philistines basically. Not on the basis of specific taste, but general artlessness.

Is this directed to me? Talking about that guy we had a tiny argument about? Still holding on?

A7 zealots. Yeah, we get it. (or rather, "we don't")

It was aimed at anybody who doesn't get that art can exist outwith their own taste, purview, experience or knowledge, and people who confuse it with craft, skill or aptitude.

If that shoe fits then I guess I was.

 

[Stu_bert]

People that insist that only the latest cameras can produce great images. I think it is more purchase rationalisation than anything else and in general newer cameras are very good but there are many out there with great new cameras taking sub-par images (myself included). People seem to actually argue that when a new camera comes out the old ceases to function.

+1.

The inference whether it is a new Canon or a new Sonikon, is that everything I now have equipment which cannot take good photos. Whereas as you say, most of my worthless shots were as a result of the operator, not the equipment. I still have shots taken on a 10D which I think are good photographs. Does it require more effort to get the best out of the sensor? Sure does. Would I go back to it? Nope. Ask 99% of the public whether it was taken yesterday or last century and most of them would go, no idea.

 

[jarrodeu]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.

They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.

SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

They also both said that comparing two different types of camera as if they were competing for the same customer was silly. And that you should stop it. Gospel truth. Fact.

This is great! Thanks for putting the effort in to crush his opinion with facts.

Jarrod

 

[Stu_bert]

I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.

So you are using it differently to how I understand it. That's fair enough. For instance:

"SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact."

The replacement of one subclass of product with another is not, imho, disruptive. I don't drive, but I'd maybe use the example of manual versus automatic gears - people still drive cars, even if they work a little differently.

This thread is great in that respect - I like to understand people. Your position and motivations are totally understandable, and I respect that, even though I differ in one or two respects. It's easy to gripe until you realise people are talking from a different position

Wikipedia probably has a reasonable definition

"A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology"

Would that not mean that quite a few of the technologies highlighted are indeed disruptive?

As you gave a great example, I've always been interested why the UK and I think, but cannot be sure, Europe, still has a preference for manual over automatic? Further I fine it amusing when there is a perception that it suits older (ie cant drive as well), types. However, in North America, isnt it fair to say automatic is indeed disruptive and only a small portion of the market has manual ? Again, not a native, so only based on rental vehicles...