Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/22/sony-tells-dslr-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

 

The advert is pretty crass. Notice that all the "victims" of this jerk
are using Canon and Nikon cameras?

It reminds me of the pitch by Olympus for the PEN EP-1 four-thirds
camera. The ads had Kevin Spacey talking about DSLR's and all the gear
and that "I don't want to be that guy." Much more subtle than what Sony
is doing with this NEX advert.

Maybe Sony _really_ want to get away from DSLRs.

That said, during the photowalk in Montreal I did chat with a
photographer (not in the photowalk) who asked why his Sekonic meter
wasn't giving him the same reading as his camera. I sorted him out
(maybe - he wanted the camera and meter to agree exactly - wasn't going
to happen except by chance) but found that whoever taught him about
exposure compensation did it from the point of view of using aperture or
speed priority rather than from manual settings.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you're teaching exposure the baseline
should be manual, not semi-auto modes.

 

I think they are right of course.

But a miracle has happened in the amateur realm. For a while now,
professionals have been in competition with Uncle Harry with his big DSLR at
weddings. He is always there, and shooting all of your poses and making his
own wedding album and taking people's time and attention away from you.

Well, miracle of miracles, nowadays they are all shooting everything with
their phones! No more competition on image quality at least. And the people
will pay a lot less attention to the amateur with the phone than the
interloper with the Nikon. Hallelulia!

Gary Eickmeier

 

Of course. Would Sony make fun of its own customers?

Well, the future is mirrorless anyway, i.e. the swinging mirror is a
dying design. That's why Nikon and Canon have introduced their own
mirrorless line. My brother plans to sell his Nikon D90 and keep only
the Canon G1X mirrorless.

 

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement. When that happens I might buy it as well-even though the
Sony RX100 is pretty damn good.

 

Hell, when I was first shooting an SLR my "meter" was the little sheet
of paper tha came with the film.

 

Pretty funny. I recently got an iPhone 5, and, well, the camera sucks
unless conditions are optimal. And yes, fringing can be an issue to a
great degree.

I'll stick with a real camera.

 

He already bought one a few months ago.

 

It is a good camera for a first edition. Hope he is enjoying it. I am
looking forward to an improved second version. Canon really has this
market all to themselves considering Nikon did not make the P7700 with
the APS-C sensor and Sony is using the 1" sensor.

 

That's wishful thinking. A pro wedding shooter is just as likely to
find that one or more of the wedding guests have 'better' DSLRs than
he/she does.

On one hand, many working photographers don't generate enough income
from photography to buy the latest equipment, instead having to make
do with items that are anything up to 3 years old. On the other hand,
amateurs with disposable incomes higher than a working photographer
could dream of can easily buy the latest DSLR and lenses.

What saves the pro shooter is that very few amateurs have the faintest
idea how to shoot good images, something that is confirmed here on a
regular, monthly basis by the entries to the Shoot-In.

 

Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.

 

Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition.

 

Mine was the "Ÿ16 Rule"...

 

That is a valid statement; leastwise, I most certainly do indeed agree,
as far as that goes. However, artistic abilities may be enhanced through
the application of the technical aspects provided in the equipment being
used to produce photographic artistic imaging.

I tend to think most if not many photographers have little to no
picturesque artistic talent outside the photographic realm of using
tried-and-true methods to produce a graphic image.

The "arbitrary rules of composition" have not been often discussed or
published without first gaining better than average validity in their
application. They may not be considered as axioms but they most
certainly qualify to be considered as necessary assumptions.

Light ..... is one of the most important features in a composition. Type
of lighting and/or light intensity may affect a composition in a
pleasing manner or in a manner of rejection. One might even say, without
light there is no art for art must have light to be appreciated.
Technically, we attempt to learn as much about light as we do about the
technical aspects of the equipment we use to produce a photographic
image. Angularity is another technical aspect that enters into the
subject of photographic imaging. In the field of photography, a better
than working technical knowledge of light, equipment, and angularity
will often enhance the application of the "arbitrary rules of
composition." The application of all is what leads to artistic
embellishments. Outside of studio set-ups, when in the field, the
subject matter of interest is already being supplied. The rest is up to
the all-round working knowledge of the photographer as well as the
environmental conditions which may be facing the photographer.


Nick

 

f/16 x 1/125 - sunny
f/11 x 1/125 - part cloudy
f/8 x 1/125 - cloudy

etc.. ...

As a kid that's all I needed....

 

On 11/24/2012 7:34 PM, nick c wrote:

The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
photography as a craft, not an art.

 

I think you are oversimplifying things. I'm not seeking the
combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
various menu settings enable me to do.

You have described a person without either visual imagination or
creativity. It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
technical background.

 

When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3.
That was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter
first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
readings = good for faces.

Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an
f stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here
Dummy.

Mort Linder

 

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!

Fred

 

Sony and Panasonic just had their debt downgraded to junk status. I
don't see them as mind-readers of the public.