Film, Fuji X, and why I don't care.

[milandro]

There is no doubt in my mind that nobody, in the camera industry, saw the mobile revolution as a real threat to the use and diffusion of cameras until it was too late. I am afraid this is a lost battle and sooner or later they will take over the market leaving cameras being an oddity.

 

Some young hipsters are buying vinyl records and use cameras, their numbers are very limited and once our generation will be gone the market will be left with a very small number of people using things other than handheld multitasking media devices .

[darknj]

I keep thinking that instead of thinking it as a battle, why not integrate it ? At least part of the technology.

There have been bits and pieces coming around, like the touch screen or the like the Samsung NX500 which has a contextual menu very akin to those on a smart phone. The placement of UI is also very well done and a lot more intuitive than many of the camera constructors at the moment.

 

Now, do I believe that smartphones will win the battle against real cameras ? No, at one point customer would want something of higher quality, that can only push us, as professional photographers, to do even better to show our customer base why our prices are high for a "simple" wedding and their smartphones going to fail the job or have that unique day in their life ruined because cousin Tim has a nice pro camera.

 

Still, I get a great laugh when I see some ppl trying to take a picture with their 10" tablet. Ever since I learned photography the smartphones have been nothing but a ultimate fall back solution if I really don't have anything else with me, which doesn't happen often.

I am not saying that you can't get good, or even great picture with smartphones, I have seen a guy's amazing gallery and he only had a smartphone.

 

On my trip to Hong Kong, I saw quite a number of young trendy hipster doing Lomo, it's quite different from what I do, but I am still happy to see that there are youngster doing photography and enjoying it. 

[Naddan28]

I take a slightly different view to some people with smart phones. I think they'll kill the point and shoot category of cameras very quickly but serious interchangeable lens cameras will continue to exist, just because a smart phone will never be able to "do" certain types of photography. Things like shallow dof and telephoto would stay out of the the reach of a compact smartphone.

 

I also wonder whether smartphones might become "gateways" to mirrorless cameras with their EVFs, as long as such cameras can continue to offer discernible advantages in IQ, lenses etc.

[milandro]

we shall see, it is pointless to think about tomorrow with yesterday’s minds 

[Aswald]

Well, one thing's for sure...the internet traffic is winning.

[darknj]

Well, one thing's for sure...the internet traffic is winning.

 

If you think we have it bad at the moment, wait until around 2020, the data consumption is estimated to be multiplied by 10.

 

My household of 3, not counting the 3/4G network, we each use at the very least 2GB of data (up and down) per day outside of week-end, that numbers can reach up to 10 GB per persons on days off and week-ends.

[Sella174]

I would like to put a different angle on this thread. I don't really think it is the film-thing that sets the old guys apart from the rest, but rather that if you started photography pre-1980'ish, you most learned photography using prime lenses. And I think that is what makes people enjoy the FUJIFILM system so much, because it is stll predominantly grounded on primes.

[aceflibble]

I started with film some 20-ish years ago and still use film. 35mm, medium format and large format.

If Fuji cameras actually acted, felt or gave results like my film cameras, I wouldn't own any Fuji cameras. Fuji cameras only seem like film cameras to people who remember film but haven't actually used it any time recently. The difference in look between the Fuji film simulations and their actual film counterparts—when the film is processed correctly, at least—is gigantic. The difference in operation is huge. Mirrorless is the very opposite of shooting film.

 

Whenever somebody says any modern camera—be it a Fuji or something run through a VSCO filter or whatever—looks like film or reminds them of film, I can't help but frown. These days, "it looks just like film!" means "it looks like film which was poorly exposed, then poorly processed, then poorly scanned": clipping to grey rather than actual black and white; huge, blobby noise; nothing actually in focus; smeary tints. When somebody says a camera feels like an old film camera, all they mean is it has more than one top dial and no touch screen.

If people want a camera which feels like an old film camera and they want a look like film, buy a Canon A-1. You can pick them up in good condition with renewed seals for <£100 with a lens and they have shutter, aperture and P exposure modes, so you don't have to worry about developing a feel for exposure. The AE-1 was the first consumer camera with auto exposure and that's even cheaper, you can get that for under £50 with a lens. Film may cost £5 a roll and another £6-7 to have developed, but the price difference between that and buying something like an X-Pro1 will count for a hundred rolls or more. Want the full film experience? 6x6 and 6x7 medium format film cameras from Pentax and Mamiya can be had for <£500. 6x4.5 are even cheaper. Congratulations, you've just gone bigger than 35mm "full frame" and you've spent less than an X-E2 and one lens costs.

I shoot film of all types, I always have done and will continue to do so as long as my work demands it, and I think anybody who buys a Fuji for any percieved film-like qualities is A) delusional/misguided and  completely misplacing their money.

For the record, I started buying Fuji because I wanted a walkabout camera with a better screen than your typical cheap point-and-shoot, and the X100S fit that. I'm in the process or moving all of my gear over to Fuji (can't do it 100% yet until they get over 20mp and make a 70mm f/2) because I like the tilt screens on the X-T1 and X-T10. That's it. If they were actually anything like my film cameras, I never would have touched this brand.

[ShutterNot]

Interesting take on the internet. I myself try to use it as little as possible. Unfortunately I am at the mercy of the government and money institutions. They don't seem to give a hoot about security of personal data. We are in the dark ages still when it comes to that.

 

Social media sites - good grief - is everybody out there an exhibitionist ? What do I care if your scratching your so and so at the moment .....

 

Freedom of the internet ? Hogwash. That's a battle cry by corporations to make money of you without protecting your personal information.

 

Oh wait ... wrong site ... this is a camera forum ....

[Aswald]

Interesting take on the internet. I myself try to use it as little as possible. Unfortunately I am at the mercy of the government and money institutions. They don't seem to give a hoot about security of personal data. We are in the dark ages still when it comes to that.

 

Social media sites - good grief - is everybody out there an exhibitionist ? What do I care if your scratching your so and so at the moment .....

 

Freedom of the internet ? Hogwash. That's a battle cry by corporations to make money of you without protecting your personal information.

 

Oh wait ... wrong site ... this is a camera forum ....

 

If you think we have it bad at the moment, wait until around 2020, the data consumption is estimated to be multiplied by 10.

 

My household of 3, not counting the 3/4G network, we each use at the very least 2GB of data (up and down) per day outside of week-end, that numbers can reach up to 10 GB per persons on days off and week-ends.

 

 

Yes, I agree with both of you. It's going to be a problem. It's a death race between miniaturization of the silicone chip and the ever growing storage farms sprawling around the globe. Apart from space required, think electricity. Of course, solar power is being used but that itself requires space too. I'm just glad that hard drive corporations and also the IT industry realize this and are desperately trying to make their drives/devices use lesser and lesser energy.

 

I just spent a few weekends clearing out all my email inbox and encouraged my friends and family to do the same too. There's a lot of rubbish floating around the internet, stored somewhere in the world....for this same reason, I never post any unnecessary pictures on social media. Selfies? Please don't.

[ShutterNot]

Selfies --- the new art decco ?

 

Makes a person want to cry ...

[darknj]

Selfies are hardly a new subject in photography or painting.

Capturing oneself has always been around ever since mankind started to draw on walls, the form evolved with each new evolution of technology to end with the current spam of it.

[abjurina]

Rembrandt took quite a bit of selfies. ;-)

[Aswald]

True.....I guess we never change.

[ShutterNot]

Case in mind - Van Gogh ?

 

Creating something artistic is one thing, but the way selfies are being created is .... well lets just say cheap and tacky ?

[abjurina]

Not sure I agree. What makes a painted self-portrait less cheap and tacky? We all can deduce that the art masters did self portraiture as a way to learn their craft, but there's no proof that their motives were any less vain than today's selfie generation. It just so happens to be easier and more socially mainstream, which most creatives tend to shun.

[Iko]

 

I just spent a few weekends clearing out all my email inbox and encouraged my friends and family to do the same too. There's a lot of rubbish floating around the internet, stored somewhere in the world....for this same reason, I never post any unnecessary pictures on social media. Selfies? Please don't.

 

really?

 

Do you know how many terabyte of data are uploaded on the web every day? Some MB of data from an e-mail box is like trying to make the ocean less salty with a glass of water.

And by the way, not all the information stored in internet are on a working server, many are on CDs (yes billions of CDs) and magnetic tapes that don't need power to store data.

[Aswald]

really?

 

Do you know how many terabyte of data are uploaded on the web every day? Some MB of data from an e-mail box is like trying to make the ocean less salty with a glass of water.

And by the way, not all the information stored in internet are on a working server, many are on CDs (yes billions of CDs) and magnetic tapes that don't need power to store data.

 

Yes. I'm doing my part.

 

I had 13,000 emails in my inbox. I don't need them anymore. So, I cleared them out. I managed to clear about 7gB of data. According to statistics, there are about 3billion internet users in the world. Lets say 30% of them clears out 5gB data from their inboxes, that makes a whopping 4.5 billion gB. I'm not sure how good your math is but that translate to some serious numbers of Hard drive/CD/Magnetic tapes. How does 4.5 million 1Tb drives sound to you?

 

CDs aren't a green product and can't store much. Magnetic tapes don't last forever too. Both need lot's space to store not to mention the resource to manufacture them. Space is more valuable than electricity/power.

 

Ask yourself this. How large a digital footprint do you want to leave in this virtual world. Why?

[darknj]

[...] How does 4.5 million 1Tb drives sound to you?[...]

 

 

Sadly not to much, as impressive as that number seems, currently we are using a rough estimage of 4.2 Exabytes (1EX = 1 000 000 TB).... Per month... for just mobile devices...

Non mobiles are estimated at 72.4 EB currently.

 

So yeah... as much as I would like to lower down my volume, even if we all do it, it's going to be just a speckle in the fast ocean.

[Aswald]

Sadly not to much, as impressive as that number seems, currently we are using a rough estimage of 4.2 Exabytes (1EX = 1 000 000 TB).... Per month... for just mobile devices...

Non mobiles are estimated at 72.4 EB currently.

 

So yeah... as much as I would like to lower down my volume, even if we all do it, it's going to be just a speckle in the fast ocean.

 

Ok. Now it's starting to get depressing....... .......and I understand that data is spread exponentially.

 

I guess, we have to start somewhere.....

[ShutterNot]

With respect to e-mail footprint. Most folks access their e-mail online - directly on the server. That leaves as big a footprint as data you leave out on server. However, if you use a client e-mail software package like Thunderbird, you can reduce that footprint out there to just a few files.

 

Thunderbird downloads the files to your PC storage which YOU control and can limit access to. Every time you open Thunderbird it downloads recent e-mails, and if you wish like me, have Thunderbird  delete the e-mail on the internet server just downloaded.

 

Cleaning up files on your own computer is another matter, but at least the footprint out there is just enough to be able to communicate.

[darknj]

Ok. Now it's starting to get depressing....... .......and I understand that data is spread exponentially.

 

I guess, we have to start somewhere.....

 

I was lucky enough to visit one of Google's secret data centers in a small town in Europe and it is really impressive, there is enough space for 2 persons to walk but that aside, the whole place was pack with 2m tall cages filled to the brim with servers and hard drives, lots of hard drives, I don't think I could see that many of them in a life time.

 

From what I could get of the local IT guy, it was one of the small replicator center for large nodes.

[Aswald]

With respect to e-mail footprint. Most folks access their e-mail online - directly on the server. That leaves as big a footprint as data you leave out on server. However, if you use a client e-mail software package like Thunderbird, you can reduce that footprint out there to just a few files.

 

Thunderbird downloads the files to your PC storage which YOU control and can limit access to. Every time you open Thunderbird it downloads recent e-mails, and if you wish like me, have Thunderbird  delete the e-mail on the internet server just downloaded.

 

Cleaning up files on your own computer is another matter, but at least the footprint out there is just enough to be able to communicate.

 

Ok. That's a relief. I am trying to trace and wipe any server based storage I have had in the past and limit myself to a few manageable ones. 

[Aswald]

I was lucky enough to visit one of Google's secret data centers in a small town in Europe and it is really impressive, there is enough space for 2 persons to walk but that aside, the whole place was pack with 2m tall cages filled to the brim with servers and hard drives, lots of hard drives, I don't think I could see that many of them in a life time.

 

From what I could get of the local IT guy, it was one of the small replicator center for large nodes.

 

You must be one of the lucky few to have had a chance to walk through one of these facility. My brother who is head of manufacturing for one hard drive company gets to visit these farms on and off in the U.S. Google is one of his corporate clients. From what he described, it's unimaginable....well, at least to me. Together with the trips, he indulges some of the problems they face, i.e. power, space management, security, etc.....

[darknj]

You must be one of the lucky few to have had a chance to walk through one of these facility. My brother who is head of manufacturing for one hard drive company gets to visit these farms on and off in the U.S. Google is one of his corporate clients. From what he described, it's unimaginable....well, at least to me. Together with the trips, he indulges some of the problems they face, i.e. power, space management, security, etc.....

I was blessed with the opportunity once yes, had to sign a whole bunch of NDA documents that holds back whatever I have seen there for 5 good years.

 

The IT guy told me the issue he had the most trouble with, is keeping the whole place cold enough but not too cold to bump the power needs too high.