"The consumer camera is dead" very interesting Youtube video

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Someday I hope there is a critical review of phone camera ergonomic. I simply cannot use the camera.

 

Ergonomics have been ignored in order to boost specification for quite some time - shooting video on an M camera for example  . Perhaps this is where we will see advances in the future  ?

[pgk]

Wilson, aren't you thinking of getting a Steampunk Camera to wow the kids?  I am.

Something like this.

 

I wonder if Leica should produce a 'Steampunk Limited Edition" M camera - or whether we should hold a competition for the best Steampunk modified Leica M camera and lens - could get some interesting feedback .

[honcho]

 

I hate selfie sticks. I lost count of the number of times I was hit on the head in Taiwan in 2014 by hordes of Chinese tourists all waving the damn things round with zero spacial awareness. When a large phone on the end of a stick, actually cut my face, when being used in a crowded train, I lost my temper and snapped the stick in half.

 

Sounds like a perfect Basil Fawlty moment.  Unless all the smart phones on selfie sticks were  pointed at their owners, I hope someone captured this and uploaded the footage somewhere.  Wouldn't happen to have a link or two would you?

[wlaidlaw]

I wonder if Leica should produce a 'Steampunk Limited Edition" M camera - or whether we should hold a competition for the best Steampunk modified Leica M camera and lens - could get some interesting feedback .

 

This is about as close as I can get to a steam punk camera. It is WW1 vintage Jules Richard Verascope, triple lens reflex stereo camera. You can tell it is WW1 as the pre and post WW1 versions use Zeiss lenses, whereas mine uses Richard copies or maybe Richard branded versions of a Tessar. Interestingly, this pre dated Leica in the use of 35mm film used horizontally, although not continuous. It also uses a high speed shutter dial and a low speed shutter dial, maybe where Oskar Barnack got the idea.

 

It uses 10 strips of 35mm film in individual aluminium film strip holders in a very ingenious magazine. You pull the magazine sideways then push it back to reload. It pulls an unexposed strip in its aluminium holder, from the back of the magazine and as you close the magazine, pushes the unexposed strip in front of the exposed strip. Like an automatic pistol, when you have used all 10 strips, the magazine locks. 

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[willeica]

I saw the You Tube video last week. The main point being made is that the smartphone is by far the quickest route to where photos are now 'consumed' on social media or other sharing platforms. That is why the smartphone has become the consumer camera of today and the future, unless something else comes along. I cannot see the possibility of the smartphone picture sharing features being built into actual 'consumer cameras' anytime soon. The battle has been won and lost already.

 

The main concern for nerdy people like ourselves who are interested in things like IQ, holding cameras up to our eye, interchangeable lenses and post processing etc is that 'real cameras' will become increasingly marginalised and expensive. As Wilson illustrates, we can still, of course, use our vintage models so long as the film and processing facilities are available.

 

William

[wilfredo]

The younger generation has learned photography using smart phones and snap chat?  Really?  I would not call that learning photography.   On the other-hand, the camera industry is certainly taking a big hit as a result of all these instant gratification all in one electronic pocket gadgets.  We now have an endless parade of images over the internet, but sadly, these are 3 second images. What I mean by that is that they are gone after 3 seconds of viewing, and who knows when they will ever be viewed again?  For those of us who take photography seriously, it is a sad state of affairs; consumerism is killing the art of photography. 

 

I'm not enthralled by the brave new world that has emerged around taking photographs, and for me, photography will continue to be about producing images with a soul, and this is a two step process.  First you make the exposure, what Ansel Adams would call the equivalent of a musical composition, then you make your print (after thoughtful Post Processing) what Anselm Adams would call your musical performance.  This you don't learn with snap chat and smart phones; this requires commitment, patience, and a willingness to invest the necessary time.  I hope and pray that at least in the remainder of my lifetime, my photography will never be driven by the endless voracious appetite of consumerism, and the latest fad moving us ever so quickly towards oblivion.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A smart phone is a thing that can be used to take photographs. So used the Kodak instamatic to be that was in vogue when my son was young. So was the Agfa Klack when I was a boy. 

 

They all can be used to take photographs that satisfy the most discerning of photographers, even if a bit restricted on the technical side.

 

It's not the box you use. It's how you use it. If you can't take real photographs with a smart phone, you can't do so with a "real" camera, either.

[pico]

I saw the You Tube video last week. The main point being made is that the smartphone is by far the quickest route to where photos are now 'consumed

 

Popular image sites are like sugar which rots minds instead of teeth.

[Jeff S]

A smart phone is a thing that can be used to take photographs. So used the Kodak instamatic to be that was in vogue when my son was young. So was the Agfa Klack when I was a boy. 

 

They all can be used to take photographs that satisfy the most discerning of photographers, even if a bit restricted on the technical side.

 

It's not the box you use. It's how you use it. If you can't take real photographs with a smart phone, you can't do so with a "real" camera, either.

 

Indeed, the most important tools in photography are between the ears.....a 'good eye' and good judgment.  This applies to both taking pictures and making prints....and skills in the former don't necessarily translate to the latter.

 

Fortunately these are good times for other practical tools to assist those who still care about printing....great papers again from a variety of sources.  And digital/software tools help those with a vision to better (and more conveniently/quickly) achieve their print goals.  Unfortunately, though, there are only a couple of manufacturers left who still make quality print machines; I'm glad to see that Epson and Canon are still releasing new models.  Luminous Landscape (LuLa) has been doing a series on printing, some of which seem to show some encouraging signs of interest from younger folks (even traditional darkroom printing).

 

Jeff

[EoinC]

A smart phone is a thing that can be used to take photographs. So used the Kodak instamatic to be that was in vogue when my son was young. So was the Agfa Klack when I was a boy. 

 

They all can be used to take photographs that satisfy the most discerning of photographers, even if a bit restricted on the technical side.

 

It's not the box you use. It's how you use it. If you can't take real photographs with a smart phone, you can't do so with a "real" camera, either.

I agree. It was a Box Brownie that got me started, and it's been downhill since then. Looking at some of the images produced by people using smartphones, they are of a higher artistic standard than I am achieving, despite being inundated with wonderful glass, sensors, and emulsions. Just as with paper and pencil, volume from the masses may mask what is being created by the few.

To me, one of the best things about the proliferation of the last few years is that it is bringing image-making to many who would previously not have had access. I very seldom use the camera in my smartphone, unless it is to record a document, but it impresses me with what it is capable of. Although much is merely following trends (not that different to the star filters of the 1970's?), some manage to create beautiful images.

[Chuck Albertson]

No wonder my M6 won't work. I thought it was resting.

[willeica]

All of us here are are enthusiast photographers who enjoy using Leica cameras. However, the photography that people do with smartphones is also real photography as was the photography that was done in the past using Box Brownies. Whether we like or approve of social media, hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of people are using smartphones to distribute photographic images to their friends, families and the public at large. 

 

We may feel somewhat superior because we use Leicas, Lightroom etc, but that does not invalidate the photography done by millions (possibly billions) of others using other devices. The market has voted on this issue and the result is decisive.

 

William

[earleygallery]

The younger generation has learned photography using smart phones and snap chat? Really? I would not call that learning photography. On the other-hand, the camera industry is certainly taking a big hit as a result of all these instant gratification all in one electronic pocket gadgets. We now have an endless parade of images over the internet, but sadly, these are 3 second images. What I mean by that is that they are gone after 3 seconds of viewing, and who knows when they will ever be viewed again? For those of us who take photography seriously, it is a sad state of affairs; consumerism is killing the art of photography.

 

I'm not enthralled by the brave new world that has emerged around taking photographs, and for me, photography will continue to be about producing images with a soul, and this is a two step process. First you make the exposure, what Ansel Adams would call the equivalent of a musical composition, then you make your print (after thoughtful Post Processing) what Anselm Adams would call your musical performance. This you don't learn with snap chat and smart phones; this requires commitment, patience, and a willingness to invest the necessary time. I hope and pray that at least in the remainder of my lifetime, my photography will never be driven by the endless voracious appetite of consumerism, and the latest fad moving us ever so quickly towards oblivion.

Wilfredo,

 

Don't you see, your viewpoint echoes the typical manufacturers of 'traditional' consumer photo products highlighted in the video.

 

You need to accept that things have changed. Leica even acknowledge this now with their move into camera phone partnerships!

 

I don't like this dismissive attitude towards new technology (which is in fact rather old technology now!).

 

I've seen truly superb photography from users of smartphones & as I always say, it's the image that matters most.

[mikemgb]

I haven't watched the video but I think I have a pretty good idea of what it is about. As many people her have said, the phone is the new Kodak, you push the button and it does the rest, but I see some amazing photographs taken with phones every day, many taken by people with an excellent eye who post process to get the best out of their image.

 

There are young people out there though who do still use real cameras, and then there are the anomalies like me, I just ordered an iPhone 7 Plus for its excellent camera. But when my daughter asked what I wanted for Christmas I pointed her to a waterproof Panasonic Lumix, after I lost the usual "I don't need anything" argument.

 

I'm sure I will use both cameras a lot, in addition to those I already own.

[Herr Barnack]

I dislike any camera that I cannot hold to my eye and have to hold at arms length like any phone camera. I originally got a C112 for my wife to replace her V-Lux 20, as it was having the usual Panaleica problem of the lens not extending properly. However I actually managed to cure that by vacuuming out the dust from the lens area and putting a smear of teflon lubricant on it. My wife actually preferred the V-Lux due its smaller size and longer zoom, so I kept the C112. I found that the tiny EVF was close to unusable with spectacles which I wore at the time, so used it very little. Now that I have had laser eye surgery, when I had my cataracts removed and only wear spectacles for reading, I have found that I can use the EVF if I need to, so it has become my pocket camera of choice, even though its EVF is far from wonderful. It will fit in a shirt pocket, whereas my alternative of an Olympus EP-5, with the VF-4 mounted on it, will not. 

 

I hate selfie sticks. I lost count of the number of times I was hit on the head in Taiwan in 2014 by hordes of Chinese tourists all waving the damn things round with zero spacial awareness. When a large phone on the end of a stick, actually cut my face, when being used in a crowded train, I lost my temper and snapped the stick in half. I got a round of applause from the locals, who are becoming increasingly irritated by the millions (around 9 million+ last year) of what they perceive to be ill mannered, pushy, loud and inconsiderate mainland tourists. 

 

Wilson

 

I wholeheartedly agree - if a camera does not have an eyepiece that I can bring up to my eye for framing and focusing, I want nothing to do with it.  Unless it is a view camera, a 6x6 Hasselblad or Rolleiflex, that is.

 

Your reaction to having your face cut by some "feces" for brains person with a selfie stick is well within reason.  I only hope you also chucked the phone out the nearest open train window.  That would have been the perfect end to the situation. 

[jaapv]

 We now have an endless parade of images over the internet, but sadly, these are 3 second images. What I mean by that is that they are gone after 3 seconds of viewing, and who knows when they will ever be viewed again?  For those of us who take photography seriously, it is a sad state of affairs;

What has changed? In the past images would end up in a shoebox, never to be looked at again.

[honcho]

The younger generation has learned photography using smart phones and snap chat?  Really?  I would not call that learning photography.   On the other-hand, the camera industry is certainly taking a big hit as a result of all these instant gratification all in one electronic pocket gadgets.  We now have an endless parade of images over the internet, but sadly, these are 3 second images. What I mean by that is that they are gone after 3 seconds of viewing, and who knows when they will ever be viewed again?  For those of us who take photography seriously, it is a sad state of affairs; consumerism is killing the art of photography. 

 

I'm not enthralled by the brave new world that has emerged around taking photographs, and for me, photography will continue to be about producing images with a soul, and this is a two step process.  First you

make the exposure, what Ansel Adams would call the equivalent of a musical composition, then you make your print (after thoughtful Post Processing) what Anselm Adams would call your musical performance.  This you don't learn with snap chat and smart phones; this requires commitment, patience, and a willingness to invest the necessary time.  I hope and pray that at least in the remainder of my lifetime, my photography will never be driven by the endless voracious appetite of consumerism, and the latest fad moving us ever so quickly towards oblivion.

Difficult to know where to start with that lot. I absolutely disagree with all of it. Suffice to say if Ansel Adams were still trundling around making images, he'd probably have a smart phone in his hand as well as his camera on a tripod. You can spend all day trying to create an image in the way he did (your analogy, by the way, not mine) but the result will have less soul' than a fleeting moment of your grandchild captured on a phone camera.

 

This idea that a 'proper' camera confers some sort of artistic superiority on it's owner over a smart phone user is just plain daft. The 'art' of photography is no more at risk from the proliferation of tourists and youngsters with their smart phones on selfie sticks than it ever was from the proliferation of proper camera-owning 'photographers' with their expensive Leica cameras.

 

One of the most thought-provoking (and artistic) photography exhibitions I saw at Shoot LNDN in 2015 was the Instagram section comprising 1meter square prints made from smart phone images. It was a breath of fresh air and clear evidence that smart phones are a major force in the evolution of photographic art.

[pgk]

I would say that just like Box Brownies, Smatphones deliver an opportunity to produce images in a different way, some good some bad (and some quite extraordinary). But what they do not do is install a technical appreciation of image creation. Whether you think that this is important or not depends on whether you accept the virtues and pitfalls of automation in image creation. What it really comes down to me is pre-visualisation. It is possible to pre-visualise with automated systems but getting them to deliver a pre-visualised image requires an entirely different way of thinking to doing so with a conventionally controllable camera.

 

In effect Smartphones are extraordinarily good Box Brownies which will deliver 'usable' images in a huge range of circumstances like never before and as they are ubiquitous, they will replace the vast majority of consumer cameras. The vast majority of images produced by either are superficial, ephemeral 'snaps, here today, gone tomorrow (unless you search for them of course) but a few are 'worthy' images. I hate to say it but I suspect that this is true of all photographic images. Even photographers who aspire to something 'greater' will find that the vast majority of their images, whilst they may last a little longer, will eventually succumb to the judgement of time. As I keep saying, photography is about enjoying taking photographs and viewing the results - good photos are those which fulfil their purpose for being taken. Occasionally one will stand out and make everything worthwhile and whether it is taken on a costly Leica or Smartphone is immaterial I'm afraid. Enjoy the journey.

[honcho]

But what they do not do is install a technical appreciation of image creation. Whether you think that this is important or not depends on whether you accept the virtues and pitfalls of automation in image creation. What it really comes down to me is pre-visualisation. It is possible to pre-visualise with automated systems but getting them to deliver a pre-visualised image requires an entirely different way of thinking to doing so with a conventionally controllable camera.

 

I totally disagree with the first sentence for the reasons I've already outlined in my previous post.  In my opinion, you are wrong to suggest that 'automation' negates technical appreciation in image creation.  Of course it requires 'an entirely different way of thinking' to using a more conventional camera, but what exactly is your point?  You are contradicting yourself.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[almoore]

I lost count of the number of times I was hit on the head in Taiwan in 2014 by hordes of Chinese tourists all waving the damn things round with zero spacial awareness

 

If your head is repeatedly making contact with selfie sticks it might not be the Chinese tourists who have zero spatial awareness.