DSLR Popularity

Discussion in 'Photography Board' started by rdunative, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    I missed this comment.

    So you're saying that checking the LCD screen is a sign someone doesn't know what they're doing? I must be really clueless then because I'm always checking my histogram and the framing since my crop camera viewfinder does not have 100% coverage. I've even been known to use the zoom tool and check my focus when it really matters. Does this also apply to the studio? Because when I use my DSLR in there I'm checking every time I make an adjustment to the strobes.

    One thing that's been said by my professors repeatedly in my photography classes is that you should take advantage of every tool available to you to make the best image possible. Why on Earth would I not check the LCD screen? It's not a sign of someone who doesn't know what their doing, it's a sign of someone who wants to make sure they got it right. Nothing wrong with double checking yourself.
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. Shutterbug

    Shutterbug Some Say........

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    5,786
    I am also one that checks the lcd, especially when I am shooting racing photos where I am creating blurred backgrounds but want the car to be sharp still. I dont want to wait till I got home to see if I got what I was hoping for.
     
  4. WDWFigment

    WDWFigment Owner of Disney Tourist Blog

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,226
    Total n00bs. ;)
     
  5. Pea-n-Me

    Pea-n-Me DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    22,698
    I've never heard the term "bird dogging" to refer to checking the LCD screen after a shot. I know it as "chimping". ;) And yes, I check it, too, to make sure I'm in the ballpark I want to be in, in terms of exposure and general composition - i.e. no feet or heads cut off, no crooked landscapes, etc. (my pet peeves). I don't get into minute detail while chimping, which is why I also don't generally delete photos that aren't blatantly bad. Memory cards are such now that I can throw in another easily enough and hit the delete button later on as I'm going through them on my computer, where I can see more detail and decide then if it's worth saving or not. Sometimes, even if a picture isn't great, there might be something about it worth saving. I've had some pleasant surprises that way.

    DSLRs have been increasing in popularity for years. I learned as a newb not to be too intimidated by anyone else or worry about what they're using or what they're doing. One night I was taking night photos near home, my camera set up on a tripod, and I was fiddling around with various settings to see what worked best, etc. A lady came by and asked to see my shots, told me she was a professional photographer, etc. "Great", I thought, "I can ask her some questions!" But when I asked her about settings and such, she quickly balked and said, "Oh, I don't know about that, I only shoot on Auto". :confused: Um, ok. Not that there's anything wrong with shooting on Auto necessarily, it's just that I was surprised to hear this from someone who claimed to be a "professional", and it made me realize how individual this is for everyone, regardless of what type of camera they use or how long they've been shooting, etc.

    So, my philosophy is - don't tell me what kind of camera you use, or how great your skills are - SHOW ME YOUR SHOTS! :laughing:
     
  6. wbeem

    wbeem DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,396
    Being a "professional" is more about your business and marketing skills than your craft. I'm sure we've all found some amateur photographers and musicians who can smoke some of the pros we've seen.
     
  7. JoeDif

    JoeDif DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,383
    I always check my LCD after each shot. If anything it helps me to slow down and think about what I'm trying to accomplish with each shot.
     
  8. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    Amen. I know some people who shoot only for the love of it that have a tremendous amount of skill and talent. Being a professional only means that you've made money, it doesn't mean you are any good or that you know what you're doing.
     
  9. Tink1987

    Tink1987 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    <3 this :)
     
  10. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,318
    Yes, I don't think we are saying anything all too different.

    Though maybe I'm wrong, I think a lot of the price differential between "levels" is artificial. Sellers know that there are always buyers who will want the "most expensive" model, so they offer a more expensive model. There are also professionals who make a living with it, who can be forced to shell out extra bucks for just slight differences, as even a slight difference can be meaningful at that level. Often, the more expensive model isn't even more expensive to produce than the cheaper model. iPhones as an example -- I'm pretty sure the production price difference between the 16gb iPhone and 64gb iPhone is only about $30. Yet Apple charges a $200 premium. I live in an affluent area, and I know many people who will never buy anything less than the most expensive option, because they assume it must be the best.

    I can't talk very knowledgeably about Nikon and Canon. I was a Minolta shooter, which led me to the Sony line.
    So I'm pretty sure I paid about $1,000 for the A100 back in 2006. I just paid $400 for a A55. The A55 is superior to the much more expensive A100 in just about every way-- ISO of 1600 vs 12,800. CCD sensor vs CMOS. Contract detection vs. phase detection. 16mp vs 10 mp. Much higher noise and IQ ratings. The only thing "inferior" about the A55 is that it is indeed more plasticky than the A100, but even this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it results in a lighter camera.

    In the Sony line, the flagship crop dSLR is the A77. The differences between the $1,000+ A77, and my $400 A55?
    -- Weather sealing. Which is nice. But can also often be partially achieved with a plastic bag.
    -- 12fps vs 10fps -- I doubt it costs them any more to enable 12 vs 10 fps. They probably intentionally hamper the software on the cheaper model.
    --24mp vs 16mp -- Not really going to change the results, unless you are cropping.
    --ISO of 16,000 vs 12,800 -- Less than 1 f-stop.
    -- And according to 3rd party tests, very very slight improvements in noise, IQ, etc. Very small differences. If I was a professional or swimming in money, I might buy the flagship model, but I don't see the differences as being worth the price otherwise.

    So first off-- the economy model is still overall superior to the "top of the line" from just a few years ago. But secondly, in the hands of the same shooter, and with the same lenses, the flagship model isn't going to vastly out perform the economy model.
    So in terms of pure branding, they camera makers continue to demand a premium price for the flagship models. But the economy models aren't significantly lesser models. They are often just slightly scaled down models, with a minimum of real differences, allowing the seller to target different price points at the same time.

    I know other brands less well, but from my limited experience.... Looking at the Nikon D5100 vs the D7000.... Most of the differences are quite tiny, so is the D7000 twice as good as the D5100, as suggested by being twice the price? Or is it just incrementally better? Just enough, to create a rationale for differential pricing.
     
  11. ShadeRF

    ShadeRF Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2012
    Messages:
    475
    While I've definitely started seeing more DSLR's over the years I also see way more people using their cell phones and even IPADS!!!! The IPAD people drive me nuts.
     
  12. Bstanley

    Bstanley DisNoid

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,229
    Roger that.

    Over the weekend we attended a church play - an obviously proud parent IN THE FRONT ROW was recording the event with a tablet of some sort...unbelievably distracting to have a 10 inch, brightly lit screen in full view of everyone behind.

    And that - rant mode engaged - seems to be the real issue. People aren't really thinking about the impact on others of what they are doing. Just because I have a camera that can take pictures during 'a dark ride' doesn't mean that I have to let everyone 'enjoy' the preview/control screen on the back of my DSLR...I make sure to turn it around (or turn it off before I had a twistable screen) so I minimize it's 'impact' on the ride. Double ditto for using a flash when you shouldn't, Double ditto for videoing with the screen showing, etc - rant mode dis-engaged.

    As to the folks that don't seem to be aware that 'AUTO' mode will pop the flash - well hopefully they can be politely educated. I know I've spoken with folks - when it's a teachable moment, because in many cases they aren't getting usable pictures and they don't know why (fireworks/etc) and are glad to learn. I don't try to tell people on Pirates to knock it off (but I think it! :rotfl2:).
     
  13. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    It's funny... I was watching TV last night and a commercial came on for a tablet. They were showing how you can take video then put the tablet against another one to instantly transfer the video.

    Whether it's something we would do or not, people using tablets for photos and videos is only going to become more common.
     
  14. LittleMissMagic

    LittleMissMagic Victoria on Vacation

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,403
    It's because tablets are becoming more popular. I'm on the student technology board at my university, and we're working on implementing eText (text books made specifically for tablets - not just PDF versions). Pretty soon, everyone is going to have a tablet. Five to three years ago, maybe a handful of your friends had a smartphone, and a handful of that had the touchscreen. Now everyone has a smartphone, and most a touchscreen.

    The jump on the touchscreen technology isn't purely marketing, "This looks cool, I have to have one." Cell phone companies actually forced many people (such as my mom - no technology guru) to get smartphones because they've limited their regular phones to maybe three models and are working on phasing out the plan. Pretty soon, people are going to be pushed to purchase tablets with the phasing out of printed text books and reading materials.
     
  15. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    At my university pretty much everyone already has a laptop or tablet and uses ebooks in class. It's a change from when I started there 3 years ago and many profs had rules against laptops. The university's eculture policies have radically changed these last few semesters.

    I also think part of the attraction people are finding to using their tablet as a camera, and a smartphone as well, is the ease of sharing. Cell phones have had cameras for a decade at least but it hasn't been until the age of Facebook and twitter that we've see people using the technology so prolifically. We live in a time of "look what I'm doing this second" and using phones and tablets to take pictures to immediately share is an extension of that.
     
  16. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,318
    I think you hit the nail on the head with the "ease of sharing." Instead of just using photos for Christmas cards and albums, especially among young people, photos are to be instantly shared. Traditional cameras have been very slow to integrate Wifi, etc. So the cell phone camera has the inherent advantage of quick, easy and instantaneous sharing. That's also why Instagram has been so popular. Instant photo effects and sharing.

    Of course, the second reason that cell phone cameras have come to greater use, is simply the improvement in the quality of the cameras. While they don't rival a $500 stand-alone-camera (whether dSLR, mirrorless or top quality compact), they now match the IQ of cheap compacts. So why bother snapping the shot with a $100 compact, when I can get similar quality with my phone, with the ability to instantly edit and share.
    Saw someone note in another thread, their observation (not sure how true it is, just 1 person's observation) that young people aren't using compacts -- those serious about photography use dSLRs, and the rest just use their smart phones.
     
  17. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,318
    I suspect traditional printed textbooks will be dead in 3-5 years. Traditional printed newspapers, magazines and books..... Dead within 5-7 years.
    Just as with the internet in general, universities will adopt it first, with the general public a couple years behind.
    For both publishers and for consumers, there just aren't enough advantages of the traditional printed medium. Sure, some people will prefer it -- but electronic publishing is cheaper for the publisher and the consumer. So in the end, economics will win out.

    My brother worked for a major publisher some years ago. About 10 years ago, they were making a big push for eBooks, and the push went no where. But you didn't have the prevalence of tablets and small laptops at that time. You also didn't have the same level of electronic encryption, so publishers were wary of digital copies.
    Internet shopping didn't catch on at first, when AOL was pushing it as early as the 1980s.
    But things are changing rapidly. The traditional printed paper, will go the way of typewriters..records.... cassettes... VHS tapes.

    The printing press was 1 of the most important inventions in the history of mankind. Kind of sad to be witnessing the sunset of its use.
     
  18. hakepb

    hakepb DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,638
    I'm not certain about textbooks. Unlike newspapers, That's an obscene industry with huuuuuge prodit margins.
    Seriously, why would anyone need a new version of a Latin textbook? Latin has not been part of any culture's spoken vernacular since the 6th or 7th century.
     
  19. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    Printed newspapers are already on life support. The parent company of my husband's work is a large media company. They've recently dumped all their newspapers. There is no future in print.

    That makes me wonder what the future is for printed photographs. I was taking a silver class this semester and when we had our final critique that was a topic brought up. What happens with photography? Are we going to stop printing altogether? Those of us who print silver or other non-digital processes are already considered oddities. How long before we all just have a large display screen on the wall? I know some of us are already to that point. And what does all of this mean to the intrinsic value of photographs since now rather than a few hand crafted prints you have millions of digital copies of an image?

    That gets way, way off topic I know, but it also comes back to the DSLR question and the current proliferation of them in society. One reason people use DSLR's is for the image quality. But when you stick to digital only viewing you don't need the resolution and can get away with much lower image quality. Consider an HDTV is around 2MP. What does this mean for the cameras? We're seeing a surge in the use of DSLR's but as we continue to shift from one type of viewing to another will that change? Maybe the increase in hand held devices being used as cameras is a sign of that change starting. Who knows.

    No doubt it's an interesting time for photography.
     
  20. photo_chick

    photo_chick Knows a little about a lot of things, a lot about

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,960
    They come out with new versions of textbooks every few years and you have to purchase the correct version for a class. And the digital versions are cheaper up front than the print versions. You can also rent digital textbooks now which can be cheaper than buying a used print version. It costs the student less up front and the publishers make more in the end because it kills the secondary market and cuts their production costs significantly.
     
  21. havoc315

    havoc315 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,318
    As photochick pointed out, conversion to digital will allow even bigger profit margins on text books.
    Let's just look at a hypothetical of a textbook cost:
    Let's say it sells to a student for $50. Of that cost, $10 is the intellectual property -- the royalty to the author. $15 is the cost of actually printing, transporting, and binding the big hard cover book. $10 is the mark-up by the retailer--- the bookstore that needs to pay its rent, its cashiers, etc. And that leaves $15 is profit for the publisher.

    Now, take the same book and sell is digitally --- Still need $10 for the intellectual property. Cost of "printing" the digital version of the book? Miniscule... Down from $15 per copy, to $0.25 per copy (if that). The mark-up for the retailer? The retailer is now the publisher itself, or a digital bookstore-- much lower overhead than the traditional bookstore. So instead of a $10 retailer markup... Maybe a $2 retailer markup. (Also more competition, if the official campus digital bookstore tries to charge a big markup, some website will compete by charing a much smaller markup). Now, let's let the publisher INCREASE their profit to $20 per copy.
    Add it up -- You get a price to the student of $37.25 --- Cost for the buyer came down by $12.75, and the publisher's profit went up by $5. Win/win for the consumer and for the publisher. Who lost out? The traditional bookstore (Borders already went bankrupt), and the printing press.

    The added benefits for the book seller -- It's cheaper and easier to update editions. Can update history books every 6 months easily and cheaply, instead of every 3-4 years.
    And also, the bookseller can eliminate the competing market for second-hand books. (I bought most of my college textbooks "used.")

    And finally, we know that younger people are the fastest adopters of new technology. So while a 60 year-old might be sentimental about holding on to a print edition, the 18yo college freshman won't have any qualms over choosing a digital edition.

    My oldest son is in second grade now. I'd be SHOCKED if he uses any print edition text books by the time he reaches high school.
     

Share This Page