We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, April 30. 2012
Better cameras keep getting cheaper
A photo nut pal loves this new one he's been using: Canon PowerShot G12.
Fits in a pocket, but not in a shirt pocket.
He is like a pro with Photoshop. As readers can tell from my snapshots, I have never used that program. I have neither the time nor the interest. What I snap is what I get. Were I an artist, I would paint pictures.
These things have all of these buttons and menus. Who wants to bother with that? OK, call me a luddite.
Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 19:33 | Comments (12) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Better cameras keep getting cheaper
Correct. In addition, cheap cameras keep getting better. The picture quality from cell phones can be rather good. Some photos taken from cell phones can be very good.
+1 Gringo. P&S cameras like this one are going the way of the dial telephone. Ten years from today smart phones will be the P&S cameras of choice and the G12 will be only a museum piece. Apart from camera phones, the future belongs to mirrorless, interchangeable lens Micro 4/3rds (M43=MFT) for the enthusiasts and Full Frame cameras for the professionals and advanced amateurs. The rest of the current lineup of camera models are dinosaurs, even if some of the camera companies don't know it yet.
No I am the Luddite thank U very much. My desired camera will allow me to do a low resolution picture for posting and use common batteries. All the extra carp is just fish meal...
I prefer the Olympus XZ-1, myself. That said, it will probably be my last point and shoot, unless something amazing comes along. My smartphone suffices for sharing snapshots and for anything more serious, I have the Olympus E-P3 and hopefully soon, the OMD E-M5.
Both the E-P3 and E-M5 are more than adequate for professional portrait work. Weddings and sports, not so much, but the Olympus has clearly stated that the E-M5 is not their professional m4/3 effort.
I can't wait to see what they have up their sleeve.
Hi John Bowen. I was thinking about getting the OMD E-M5, too. The specs sound terrific. However, in the last two days I've decided not to, having come to the conclusion that the E-M5 is really just a Panasonic G3 with an Olympus badge being sold at twice the price. I'll stick with my brand new Nikon D800 instead.
Digital cameras are often cited in design classes as examples of unusable technology.
Most people don't understand the icons on the camera or in the display, the menus are impossible for most to navigate, and there are way too many options for most people to wade through and understand.
OK, your a Luddite.
I have a chisel in my toolbox, I bought it at ACE and other than using it to mortise a door hinge and clean up some rough spots on lawn chairs it goes unused.
When my father passed away I ended up with his chisels. In a beautiful maple box with many drawers, Swedish chisels, German chisels, narrow ones, wide and straight, angled and with curved blades. I have only a faint idea what some of those tools can be used for. He carved, his best work was created with a old book on lighthouses, if you wanted a sign for your house you picked a lighthouse picture and he would carve it for you with your house number underneath.
I never touch them, if I need one, I use the ACE chisel from my toolbox.
The camera is my box of chisels. In comparison I'm not as skilled with it as my father was with his craft but I'm working on it.
Cell phone image makers (not a camera), when the front cover of Elle or National Geographic is shot with a cell phone then maybe we'll talk.
And BD, thanks for the mention this morning. Check my gallery page sometime.
In the film days of photography, my favorite was a little Rollei 35 mm. One estimated the distance for focusing and used a scale or the hyperfocal aperture. The meter was crude and I usually just used the "sunny 16" rule.
With a fine Zeiss lens, leaf shutter, and flat film plane, it was a tool with which I could make excellent photographs.
Hence, I agree completely that most digital cameras are hopelessly overcomplicated. Give me a big sensor, fast lenses, big controls for aperture and shutter speed, and little more and I'll buy.
There are a couple of features I'd want - Autofocus needs an easy over-ride and the whiteness compensation can be useful.
So the Canon G12 is pretty close to being a camera I'd buy but not quite.
Give me a digital Leica M3 or M6 and I'd be happy.
Of course, what I REALLY want is movements!
I fall behind the tech curve fairly fast. I'm still shooting a Nikon D2Hs and I only have one film body hanging around. It would be nice to have something more portable to have with me all of the time. Soon I suppose....
As for Photoshop...wow, I've worked with PS for a long time and it brings a lot of power to digital imaging. I've worked professionally with the software and I still like to keep up. Just posted four rainy-day self-portraits on my blog, heavily edited, as examples of how fun this software can be.
Art? Photoshop is a image editing/paint program and digital is just another medium, but you can do art with it. On the easier side, you can take mediocre photos and get something pretty respectable with the push of a button. It's the equivalent of using a spell checker before you post on the blog...it's a matter of visual literacy I guess...it just looks better.
You buy Photoshop and I'll buy a point and shoot.
My first camera was my best camera. A Minolta 'something' in '66'. Aperture/Speed, no meter, B&W preferred mode, over there. Great pictures.
Later, to my regret, I hocked it for a good weekend in D.C.
Photoshop is an abomination. As, to me, the moment is the medium. Miss that, miss everything. No matter later hindsight.
Then again, WTF do I know about photography.
An abomination?! Horse hockey. Images matter and Photoshop is the industry standard for image editing. It's a convenient and powerful digital darkroom. Not every edit is sinister or foolish, from cleaning up acne in a senior portrait to cleaning up digital noise or opening up shadows so you can, you know, see a the moment. Not every photographic opportunity is well lit or convenient. A darkroom, digital or otherwise, is a much a part of the photographic process as releasing the shutter.
Well, I'm a Luddite, okay. It's like you get what you get versus getting what you want. No second chances. Thus the description of my favorite camera.
An absurd viewpoint I know, nowadays, given technology.
And, as absurd analogy, I'll take a Mathew Brady over a Andy Warhol any day. Or something like that.
Besides, in later years I was rather proud of the large zit on my forehead in my high school photo. Good for a laugh.