Adios Cameras?

[Derrel]

Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.

Yet another throwaway comment from cgw.

I suppose that they payed him to make a fool out of himself. How much coin do you suppose The New Yawwwwkuh pays for an on-line blog post like that? Care to enlighten us with some figures?

 

[lennon33x]

So I read this whole thread, skimmed the article and then did a little research.

Coming back to cgw's comment about the author getting paid, he was a one time contributor to the New Yorker. He's an author/photographer/storyteller who does most of his publishing out of San Francisco. And since he does most of that out of the west coast, that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to east coast. That being said, he isn't likely a paid contributor to the New Yorker. The interesting thing about journalism/contributing is that you have to get a fair shake of response before any big timers will actually pay you.

So I'm with Derrel on this one...show me some numbers that he actually got paid on this one.

I'll also note that I'm not in any way discounting his contribution to journalism. I don't agree with the article, but articles are just that - subjective informatives designed to persuade the lesser knowledgable about a subject or product, in hopes of persuading the reader to either pick a side or buy a product.

This article is the equivalent to a college English persuasive essay.

 

[amolitor]

I don't care if he got paid or not. What do I care if some writer gets paid for cranking out a piece that matches the specs of some publication?

What on earth does getting paid have to do with anything?

 

[rexbobcat]

Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.

The fallacy here is that you're disregarding the statements about him. Yes, he does get paid. Does that make his article any less bad? No. Your point is irrelevant.

I think this is the beginning to a terrible strawman argument but I'm not sure since I just recently figured out why that term means.

 

[astroNikon]

I loved the statement

Tracing the evolution from the Nikon 8008 to the Nikon D70 to the GX

d70? I had that back in 2004 ??
So a comparison of a 2012 iphone 5 to a 2004 d70 ... nice

 

[JerryLove]

Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.

The fallacy here is that you're disregarding the statements about him. Yes, he does get paid. Does that make his article any less bad? No. Your point is irrelevant.

I think this is the beginning to a terrible strawman argument but I'm not sure since I just recently figured out why that term means.

A straw man would, for example, be poster A asserting that the writer of an article was stupid, poster B asserting in response to poster A that he was not stupid, and poster C responding that poster B was wrong to say it wasn't a bad article.

Since poster B didn't actually claim it was a good article (merely imply that the writer of the article wasn't stupid), poster C is hacking a straw-man

Whether or not that's an accurate description of the past couple of pages would require that I actually read more of the posts; as I'm responding based on the quoted portion of poster B rather than having actually read his post.

 

[JerryLove]

I'm curious: How would people factor in Android IL cameras (Samsung Galaxy NX20). Looking as well at actual phones (Samsung Galaxy Camera 2), I could certainly imagine a convergence to interchangeable-lens, APS-C-sized, phone cameras.

Stick a SIM and bluetooth on this (Samsung Galaxy NX Android camera gets official prices and specs | Ars Technica) and life would seem to get interesting. I don't imagine professional photographers (or high-end hobbyists) switching; but can easily imagine such things pulling the rug from markets below that (Nikon N1, for example).

 

[Josh66]

I loved the statement

Tracing the evolution from the Nikon 8008 to the Nikon D70 to the GX

d70? I had that back in 2004 ??
So a comparison of a 2012 iphone 5 to a 2004 d70 ... nice

Yeah, the only "evolution" taking place is the camera getting smaller. That's the measuring stick he's using to gauge the state of camera technology. I suppose that to a degree he's right... But only if, like him, small size is the ultimate goal in "the perfect" camera for you.

 

[Derrel]

Well, a large part of what made the piece cgw referred us to so _________, and so _______________, and so_____ (insert favored pejoratives in blanks, as needed) was the muddled thinking, the attempts to reduce the world to a one-size-fits-all solution based on the experiences of one man, of one generation, as well as his lack of clear, intelligent analysis and identification of the underlying issues surrounding personal photography. In other words, the New Yorker's blog piece was yet another in a series of fluff pieces, churned out in an attempt to convince readers that a cell phone camera can, and will, utterly replace traditional "cameras". It was based on some highly flawed half-assed efforts at "reasoning".

The Leica lust-but-had-to-settle-for a Nikon-on-a-college-student's budget/Nikon backpacking trip across Japan/college kid shooting his first slide film/the cult of the Hassy 500C experience/joining the digital SLR crowd with all the MWAC and GWAC when the Nikon D70 hit the streets at under $1,000/ switch to a small mirrorless/ six-day hiking trip with an iPhone arc. That one man's dabbling in photography has led him to conclude that the iPhone 6s of the future will replace all cameras. That being a "networked photographer" and editing on a cell phone's touch screen is some kind of bliss.

It's alllllll based on the assumption that "sharing on Facebook", and sharing ,"NOW, Godd*mni+!!" is what drives the whole of photography. He got a real woodie on the six-day hike in Japan, which by the way, built cell phone towers even in remote locations, YEARS ago, so that wireless telephony would be possible even in the remote parts of that tiny island nation. Apparently, he got so much wood by insta-spewing his images to friend around the world that he had an epiphany of sorts...based on good cell phone service and the feel-good vibes he got, kind of a Facebook and e-mail feedback buzz, he declared the end of photography as we have known it...

It's kind of sad. The New Yorker used to represent higher standards, but these days, they'll let anybody blog. What the author's piece failed to take into account is what YOU are asking: What happens if more-traditional, interchangeable lens, or even zoom-lens cameras, become "networked"? His entire premise is based upon the unstated assumption that ONLY cellphone cameras offer networking capability, and that by virtue of that, that other camera types will become irrelevant in the near future--or as he implies, when the iPhone 6 is current.

But yeah....the huge elephant, the WHAT IF cameras become connected line of thought...uh...that went out the window with the baby and the bathwater...

 

[cgw]

Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.

Yet another throwaway comment from cgw.

I suppose that they payed him to make a fool out of himself. How much coin do you suppose The New Yawwwwkuh pays for an on-line blog post like that? Care to enlighten us with some figures?

Gotcha again, bro. He's in the New Yorker and you're here. Hilarious that you can't/won't grasp the difference.

 

[manaheim]

Come on folks...

 

[robbins.photo]

Guys, seriously. It's just another CGW link to some BS article about how every one will abandon DSLR for cell phones. Happens about every 3 weeks. Same silliness, same ridiculous assumptions made by yet another author with zero understanding of market forces and no appreciation for the fact that not everyone wants to be able to upload inferior quality images at the press of a button. Some of us are actually interested in quality - but you know we keeping going down this road every time CGW post another one of these poorly researched nonsense articles. So really, not worth wasting the bandwidth. My recommendation, next time he posts one just ignore it and move on. If he no longer gets a rise out of folks, he might actually quit at some point.

 

[Derrel]

Gotcha again, bro. He's in the New Yorker and you're here. Hilarious that you can't/won't grasp the difference.

Sorry, but he's on The New Yorker's minor blog. Whoa, big whoop...

Am I supposed to be impressed? He's a halfwit with a soapbox.

I guess in Canada that must seem to carry some kind of weight...but here in the USA, we don't just swallow B.S. so willingly as you Canucks...

 

[robbins.photo]

He's a halfwit with a soapbox.

Pretty much a dream job then.. lol

 

[Overread]

And I think that's enough now - now everyone not in agreement with the article go take some photos - the rest of you go on facebook and sell your camera.