Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Climbing Photography:
New Canon Compact Cameras.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Climbing Photography

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 6:48 AM
Post #1 of 37 (3923 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

New Canon Compact Cameras.
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Canon Released information on two new compact cameras today. They are the G11 and S90. They both have good sensors and decent glass for compact cameras. However, they both have 640x480 video. That eliminates both of them for me. However, the S90 does look like it would shoot some nice close-ups.

G11
http://www.dpreview.com/...09081908canong11.asp



S90
http://www.dpreview.com/...09081907canons90.asp



If only Canon had put 720p video on the S90 that would have been my next pocketable camera. Now I will just wait for the Panasonic DMC-GF1 4/3s camera.


pfwein


Aug 19, 2009, 7:24 AM
Post #2 of 37 (3905 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What is up with no HD video on those? When I was in the market I was attracted to the G10, but no HD, no dice. I don't know if there is technical reason that Canon doesn't include HD or it's just their marketing/product segmentation.


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 8:05 AM
Post #3 of 37 (3895 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [pfwein] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

pfwein wrote:
What is up with no HD video on those? When I was in the market I was attracted to the G10, but no HD, no dice. I don't know if there is technical reason that Canon doesn't include HD or it's just their marketing/product segmentation.

Yea there are a lot of people that are angry about them excluding HD video. They could have put it in there but they chose not to. They will add it in the next gen model though. They have a history of leaving some features out so that they having something to include in the next model.


qtm


Aug 19, 2009, 9:01 AM
Post #4 of 37 (3868 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Cool.

I really like the flip out screen. Allows you to turn the LCD in so it's protected- I broke the LCD on one camera when it was in my pocket and I pressed up against the rock at a belay.

It allows you to hold the camera out over an edge to take pictures of the climber below (for those of us who aren't professionals and haven't anchored ourselves in the ideal shooting position) and not guess about the frame. Also good for taking pictures when you're in a crowd and have to hold the camera up above you.

Convenient when you're taking a timer photo and have the camera near a wall or on a shelf where you can't easily get behind it to frame the shot.


granite_grrl


Aug 19, 2009, 10:23 AM
Post #5 of 37 (3849 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14766

Re: [qtm] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

qtm wrote:
Cool.

I really like the flip out screen. Allows you to turn the LCD in so it's protected- I broke the LCD on one camera when it was in my pocket and I pressed up against the rock at a belay.

It allows you to hold the camera out over an edge to take pictures of the climber below (for those of us who aren't professionals and haven't anchored ourselves in the ideal shooting position) and not guess about the frame. Also good for taking pictures when you're in a crowd and have to hold the camera up above you.

Convenient when you're taking a timer photo and have the camera near a wall or on a shelf where you can't easily get behind it to frame the shot.
The flip screen is useful, but I have had problems with my old Canon A95. The camera is great and I'd still have no problem using it today but the flip screen went on it about a year ago. It was a total bummer, but it had a good run.


dlintz


Aug 19, 2009, 10:40 AM
Post #6 of 37 (3843 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Check out the Olympus E-P1 too. It's a sweet little camera with HD video.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/...uct.asp?product=1461

d.


chanceboarder


Aug 19, 2009, 10:44 AM
Post #7 of 37 (3838 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348

Re: [dlintz] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 11:09 AM
Post #8 of 37 (3824 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [chanceboarder] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chanceboarder wrote:
I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

The real question is ďDo you ever take videoĒ? If you do take video then you would want the camera to do both, well.


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 11:10 AM
Post #9 of 37 (3819 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [dlintz] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dlintz wrote:
Check out the Olympus E-P1 too. It's a sweet little camera with HD video.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/...uct.asp?product=1461

d.

The EP-1 just moved to the top of my list(That I can afford) for at least the next 11 days. It is a great little camera.


dlintz


Aug 19, 2009, 11:46 AM
Post #10 of 37 (3806 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1980

Re: [chanceboarder] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chanceboarder wrote:
I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

I agree, different tools for different....

Sounds like it's important to the OP, that's why I mentioned it. The E-P1 is on my wish list for when I don't want to lug around the DSLR, not sure I'd ever use the video feature.

d.


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 12:22 PM
Post #11 of 37 (3794 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [dlintz] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just a question, but why do you guys have no interest in video? Is it because you donít want to mess with editing it, you donít know how to share it, or you donít think it will look as good as your photographs?


chanceboarder


Aug 19, 2009, 12:44 PM
Post #12 of 37 (3789 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm personally just not a fan of video. I think of it as someones home movies that you'll look at once and then it just stays stored someplace never to be seen again. I get bored watching a movie of a bunch of my friends or something. Photographs are a little more traditional to me and meant to be displayed and looked at. Besides I have completely different interests when it comes to what I use a camera for. I shoot mainly landscape and scenic stuff so no one wants to watch a video of that, but I also shoot things like weddings and events and stuff occasionally and would never even consider using my DSLR to shoot video of the wedding in addition to the still photographs I was taking. I would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.

I've got nothing against a camera having video on it, it's not a selling point or even consideration for me one way or another when buying a camera. I honestly think its more of a gimmick kinda thing to help manufacturers sell more cameras and appeal more to those people who would otherwise by a video camera for home movies instead of a still camera.

When it comes to my little point and shoot camera that I carry around at parties and fun things, sure it's nice to have little features like video for those moments when I want to capture my friend dancing naked around a campfire so I can embarrass them later with it but when it comes to like my work horse camera, I don't need or really even want things like video. I just want it to take a damn good photograph, period.

Jason


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 1:10 PM
Post #13 of 37 (3782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [chanceboarder] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I guess I just donít get the Statement, ďI would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.Ē What makes you think the camcorder is better at video than the camera?

The truth is that the larger sensors in digital cameras makes them shoot much better low light video. Sure the 3 CCD sensors in camcorders are great for color representation. However, the single chip digital still cameras have great color representation on their own.

Here is an example of the kind of video I hope to shoot when I get my next camera. My current camera already does a nice job of showing detail but it canít do the depth of field that this video has. This video is shot with a DSLR by the way. It looks pretty freaking cool to me.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...Controller_1172.html

Here is a sample of what my current camera(The Panasonic DMC-ZS3) can do.

http://www.youtube.com/...4EZe9XPCQ&fmt=22




chanceboarder wrote:
I'm personally just not a fan of video. I think of it as someones home movies that you'll look at once and then it just stays stored someplace never to be seen again. I get bored watching a movie of a bunch of my friends or something. Photographs are a little more traditional to me and meant to be displayed and looked at. Besides I have completely different interests when it comes to what I use a camera for. I shoot mainly landscape and scenic stuff so no one wants to watch a video of that, but I also shoot things like weddings and events and stuff occasionally and would never even consider using my DSLR to shoot video of the wedding in addition to the still photographs I was taking. I would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.

I've got nothing against a camera having video on it, it's not a selling point or even consideration for me one way or another when buying a camera. I honestly think its more of a gimmick kinda thing to help manufacturers sell more cameras and appeal more to those people who would otherwise by a video camera for home movies instead of a still camera.

When it comes to my little point and shoot camera that I carry around at parties and fun things, sure it's nice to have little features like video for those moments when I want to capture my friend dancing naked around a campfire so I can embarrass them later with it but when it comes to like my work horse camera, I don't need or really even want things like video. I just want it to take a damn good photograph, period.

Jason


(This post was edited by JasonsDrivingForce on Aug 19, 2009, 1:11 PM)


wes_allen


Aug 19, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #14 of 37 (3743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [chanceboarder] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Video can tell a story in a way still can never do. And I will give you the differnt part, except that they are two tools that do the same thing - tell a story. I posted some links in another thread on the 5d - check some of the landscape work. And weddings? A great place for story telling. Yes, not the same as stills, but being able to use the high end glass and high ISO that go along with a dslr is something that prosumer camcorders can't touch. I shoot a little bit of dancing the other day at 1/30, 2.8, ISO 6400 with a 15mm fisheye. No way for most video cams to touch that, untill you get into the big bucks. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing. Seriously, I never, ever wanted to do video, until I started playing with the 5dII, and started seeing some fusion stuff, along with pure video that was coming out of it.

But, anyway, I was going to buy a G10, but the G11 looks much better at first look, so glad we waited!


chanceboarder wrote:
I'm personally just not a fan of video. I think of it as someones home movies that you'll look at once and then it just stays stored someplace never to be seen again. I get bored watching a movie of a bunch of my friends or something. Photographs are a little more traditional to me and meant to be displayed and looked at. Besides I have completely different interests when it comes to what I use a camera for. I shoot mainly landscape and scenic stuff so no one wants to watch a video of that, but I also shoot things like weddings and events and stuff occasionally and would never even consider using my DSLR to shoot video of the wedding in addition to the still photographs I was taking. I would get a dedicated video camera for that if I needed video.

I've got nothing against a camera having video on it, it's not a selling point or even consideration for me one way or another when buying a camera. I honestly think its more of a gimmick kinda thing to help manufacturers sell more cameras and appeal more to those people who would otherwise by a video camera for home movies instead of a still camera.

When it comes to my little point and shoot camera that I carry around at parties and fun things, sure it's nice to have little features like video for those moments when I want to capture my friend dancing naked around a campfire so I can embarrass them later with it but when it comes to like my work horse camera, I don't need or really even want things like video. I just want it to take a damn good photograph, period.

Jason


maldaly


Aug 19, 2009, 4:38 PM
Post #15 of 37 (3733 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1207

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm still waiting for a DP&S camera that goes off when I push the button. A least half of my bad shots are from shutter lag. Or maybe it's that my brain is too slow... whatever.

Mal

PS: Love my Canon SD 880 IS but I have time to say "Goddammit" between when I push the button and when the shutter clicks.


(This post was edited by maldaly on Aug 20, 2009, 1:55 PM)


JasonsDrivingForce


Aug 19, 2009, 6:30 PM
Post #16 of 37 (3716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wes,

Did you see the S90 specs? That one almost appears to be the better choice to me. What are your thoughts about the S90 vs. the G11?

You are lucky that you have the 5DMKII for video and stills and you could get the G11/S90 for an everyday camera. Jealous I am.

wes_allen wrote:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do. And I will give you the differnt part, except that they are two tools that do the same thing - tell a story. I posted some links in another thread on the 5d - check some of the landscape work. And weddings? A great place for story telling. Yes, not the same as stills, but being able to use the high end glass and high ISO that go along with a dslr is something that prosumer camcorders can't touch. I shoot a little bit of dancing the other day at 1/30, 2.8, ISO 6400 with a 15mm fisheye. No way for most video cams to touch that, untill you get into the big bucks. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing. Seriously, I never, ever wanted to do video, until I started playing with the 5dII, and started seeing some fusion stuff, along with pure video that was coming out of it.

But, anyway, I was going to buy a G10, but the G11 looks much better at first look, so glad we waited!


wes_allen


Aug 19, 2009, 6:37 PM
Post #17 of 37 (3713 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [JasonsDrivingForce] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

S90 = no viewfinder and no hotshoe, where the g11 has both. The hotshoe is something I might use, esp. since it has a much higher synch speed then a dslr. Viewfinder is deal breaker though, I just feels really weird to me to use the lcd, which I have been doing for video. My wife really liked the style of the g10 as well, so that is a big factor.

It is cool, and I love the 5dII, though I spend most of my shooting time with the markIII. I am kinda hoping the "7d" rumors of a lower MP, Full Frame camera with the same 1080P as the 5dII are true - that would make a perfect backup to the 5dII, and give us two video capable cameras so I would feel better about starting to charge for some video work.

Oh, and yes, we really want/need a smaller camera to take along - not easy to bring a dslr everywhere!


(This post was edited by wes_allen on Aug 19, 2009, 6:39 PM)


pico23


Aug 20, 2009, 12:51 PM
Post #18 of 37 (3661 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [chanceboarder] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chanceboarder wrote:
I must be the only photographer in the world who doesn't care, need, or want video of any kind on a still camera. I just want my cameras to one thing and do it good, and that's take photographs.

Jason

You and me both.

I don't really care about video, I'm reviewing a K7 right now and it's killing me that I HAVE to review and talk about the video feature.

That said, if it comes without reduction of still quality and features, I think it would and could be useful for even someone like myself (and you) who doesn't really care about it.

What has been missed (and I have not read every post) is the fact that Canon has joined the Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, club of not forcing MPs down our throats. I keep seeing on twitter "is the megapixel race done" with reference to the G11, and the reality is Nikon ended it with the D3, and Panason with the LX3, and to a lesser extent Pentax when it didn't increase pixel desnity of the K7 from the K20D (not the same sensor, totally redesigned, just same pixel count). And we can't leave out Fuji which while they claim to have 2X the pixels in the sensors actually don't, and are still producing lower MP cameras with higher DR.

Canon is a bit late to the party in that a few people on here know that I was complaining that the G10 was useless above base ISO, and that while it did match the 50D in resolution at base ISO and optimal lens setting it fell apart fast.

The bottom line is I think we were all waiting to see when Canon would join the party, and hopefully give credibility to the industry shifting focus (yes Wes, while I don't love Canon I do give them credit for their market share, and influence in the industry).

So what am I saying, well I always have felt the G series was pretty much the best compact camera dollar for dollar.Yeah I like the ricohs build, and the LX3 wide lens, but the G series has always been king till the G10 where it dropped a few pegs, NOW i might actually upgrade my G3 which I still (rarely) occassionally use when I want SLR features (hot shoe, manual control, IR port, etc) without SLR bulk.

Kudos to Canon and screw video (although if you are going to put it in a camera, make it HD for gods sake).


gmggg


Aug 20, 2009, 1:26 PM
Post #19 of 37 (3645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

wes_allen wrote:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do.

Wrong, That is up to the person taking the picture.

Conversely the same is true for video, most of the videos taken today do not tell a story so much as they regurgitate a moment in time that is somewhere in between not-quite-important-enough-to-remember and too-uninteresting-to-be-worth-the-bytes. This is not telling a story, but playing with a toy. Unfortunately it is also true of most still photos...


kennoyce


Aug 20, 2009, 2:04 PM
Post #20 of 37 (3633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1309

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do. And I will give you the differnt part, except that they are two tools that do the same thing - tell a story. I posted some links in another thread on the 5d - check some of the landscape work. And weddings? A great place for story telling. Yes, not the same as stills, but being able to use the high end glass and high ISO that go along with a dslr is something that prosumer camcorders can't touch. I shoot a little bit of dancing the other day at 1/30, 2.8, ISO 6400 with a 15mm fisheye. No way for most video cams to touch that, untill you get into the big bucks. New stuff = new opportunities, but only if you are open minded enough to think beyond what you *are* doing to what you *could* be doing. Seriously, I never, ever wanted to do video, until I started playing with the 5dII, and started seeing some fusion stuff, along with pure video that was coming out of it.

I have to agree with you here. While I don't think I would ever buy a camera for its video (I never shoot video, but then again I only have a p&s with low res video), I think it could be fun to play around with a bit. I also think that the versitility that you can get with the glass from a dslr as apposed to what you can do with a dedicated video camera is amazing. Nikon just upgraded their d300 to a d300s which has a 720p video mode. Since it is the same price as the d300, which I was planing on getting for my next camera, I think when the time comes I will go for the d300s so that I have the option of playing around with video if I ever get the urge.


wes_allen


Aug 20, 2009, 4:29 PM
Post #21 of 37 (3617 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [gmggg] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

gmggg wrote:
wes_allen wrote:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do.

Wrong, That is up to the person taking the picture.

Conversely the same is true for video, most of the videos taken today do not tell a story so much as they regurgitate a moment in time that is somewhere in between not-quite-important-enough-to-remember and too-uninteresting-to-be-worth-the-bytes. This is not telling a story, but playing with a toy. Unfortunately it is also true of most still photos...


Myxomatosis


Aug 20, 2009, 5:33 PM
Post #22 of 37 (3607 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1063

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I kind of argee with the guys to some level.

But I do have a bit of interest in recording video and after I sold my S3IS and brought my SLR, I was a little annoyed I no longer had a video feature Frown

But instead of forking out $800 I just grabbed a A480 for $250nz. Alright quality and easy to upload onto my mac... no need really for a full on video camera for what I want to do.


pico23


Aug 20, 2009, 11:53 PM
Post #23 of 37 (3591 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

actually still is really a more lasting medium in our memories, true when we think of our past we do often think in video mode (memories), but images are static and it allows us to look into them and see them in an imimtate way video can't match.

True video does tell a story, but it also leaves nothing to the imagination. Still images allow the viewer to determine the story.

Another way of putting it, still images are like reading a book, video is...well it's like watching a video. If you are still having problems thinking about what I am trying to explain, everyone I assume has read at least one book before they saw a movie based on the book. Think about your shock when the characters and persona's were nothing like what you envisioned in your minds eye. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STILL AND MOTION IMAGERY!

I have nothing against video, I enjoy watching well put together video, and I even play around with video, but in terms of evoking emotions it falls far short of still imagery in my opinion.




wes_allen wrote:
I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

gmggg wrote:
wes_allen wrote:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do.

Wrong, That is up to the person taking the picture.

Conversely the same is true for video, most of the videos taken today do not tell a story ...Unfortunately it is also true of most still photos...


wes_allen


Aug 21, 2009, 4:38 AM
Post #24 of 37 (3571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [pico23] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I really don't think so, that is the difference between a book and a movie. Photos are still very visual - just a frame from a video, really. And, I think a lot of people get hung up on video as being long (movie, tv show, etc), but really a lot of really cool stuff is under 5 minutes. But, I do agree that still can leave a bit more to your imagination then video, and do it easier.

That said, we are living in an increasing multi media world - there is a video ad in a magazine out this month and with the web, being able to provide stills and video is an exciting new thing. And yes, there is a lot of really bad video out there (mine included!), but there is 100x more really bad photos out there as well. But, there are fewer really talented video people then photographers, to me at least. So, that is the reason "video sucks" to a lot of people. Not the medium, just the product.


pico23 wrote:


Another way of putting it, still images are like reading a book, video is...well it's like watching a video. If you are still having problems thinking about what I am trying to explain, everyone I assume has read at least one book before they saw a movie based on the book. Think about your shock when the characters and persona's were nothing like what you envisioned in your minds eye. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STILL AND MOTION IMAGERY!


gmggg


Aug 21, 2009, 4:55 AM
Post #25 of 37 (3567 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099

Re: [wes_allen] New Canon Compact Cameras. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

wes_allen wrote:
I see. So pretty much, almost all stills and video are worthless because they don't meet your standards for story telling? Sucky video is sucky video, just like sucky stills are sucky stills. In the hands of someone that knows what they are doing, video can tell a story in a way the stills can't. You can't slag on video just because some people don't use it well. All are nothing but tools, but it is funny with the still people and their fear of video...

gmggg wrote:
wes_allen wrote:
Video can tell a story in a way still can never do.

Wrong, That is up to the person taking the picture.

Conversely the same is true for video, most of the videos taken today do not tell a story so much as they regurgitate a moment in time that is somewhere in between not-quite-important-enough-to-remember and too-uninteresting-to-be-worth-the-bytes. This is not telling a story, but playing with a toy. Unfortunately it is also true of most still photos...

I was slagging on video because most people don't use it well. I have no issues with video as a medium (that would be quite a silly stance). Video and stills are both tools and can both be used poorly. Video, however, is exponentially easier to screw up.

The book/movie analogy is quite nice and should be more than illustrative of my tool argument as well.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Climbing Photography

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$57.31 (10% off)
$24.26 (10% off)
$10.76 (10% off)
$80.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook