civilized ku # 799 ~ bah! humbug!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 12:01PM 
Signs of the season ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenCall me a curmudgeon or a hidebound traditionalist, but am I the only on who gets annoyed with Canon's current tv commercials?
Sure, tv commercials (and advertising in general) are not the best source for fact-based information. In fact, next to the Republican Party and their Fox News echo chamber (or is it the other way around - it so hard to tell), tv commercials / advertising is probably one the worst places for good factual information. In many cases, distortion, exaggeration, and downright deception are standard tools of that trade.
However, that said, Canon's attempt, for their own marketing purposes, to redefine photography is rather incredulous. Their line - moving photography beyond the still - is simply ridiculous ....
Photography is the still picture. Videography / cinematography is "beyond" the still, aka: moving pictures. Each discipline is distinctly different, both in the images they produce, how those images are viewed and understood, and how they are made (most definitely, the mindset / skillset employed). Canon's claim that "The boundaries between motion and still photography no longer exist" is pure unadulterated marketing-driven BS.
Yes, we could quibble over various word/phrase-parsing interpretations of Canon's sloganeering, but, medium-warping considerations aside, what really really pisses me off is the fact that I don't want video capabilities in my still camera. I have absolutely no interest in having, much less paying for, camera capabilities that are beyond the still. If I have the desire to make motion pictures, I'll buy a motion picture camera, aka: video camera.
That said, I understand the idea behind putting video capabilities into "amateur" cameras for the casual picture maker. And I also understand why many photojournalists - who, in new-speak, are now "content creators" - might like to have an all-in-one tool. However, it's hard for me to imagine that there are not enough still picture makers (to make it profitable) out there who would like to have their Canon / Nikon / Pentax / Olympus / et al camera be a "pure-and-simple" still picture making camera.
Am I nuts? a hidebound traditionalist? or, just a curmudgeon (aka: old fart)?
Reader Comments (8)
Yes
Two points:
1. Just coz the feature is there, it doesn't mean you have to use it; so long as it's turned off by default and is effectively invisible.
2. The technology now allows still and video capabilties to co-exist. Most digital cameras are now produced to provide both features so the cost of a combined still + video capability is reducing.
But I know what you mean ... I like the idea of a separate device that is my stills camera. Having said device in my hands helps put my brain into photography mode.
For the non-photographer but happy-snapper, the convenience of a mobile (cell) phone with a built-in camera would be just dandy, and more than meets their basic photography requirements.
From one old curmudgeon to another, I think you're being just a tad too cynical. I purchased the 5D MK II a while back because of its "still" capabilities. The video capability is something I've played with (just to see how it works), but I honestly don't care if it's there or not. I suppose if I was walking down the street and aliens landed, I might turn on the video and record it. But I have no desire to make cute movies of my grandsons birthdays.
I do agree that today's cameras have way too many bells and whistles. I saw a book in Barnes and Noble the other day on the 5D MK II that was hundreds of pages long. Who reads those things? In any case, somebody at Canon obviously believes that more features means more sales. Heck, I figure that sooner or later some genius engineer will figure out a way to do HDR merging in-camera. Then all the HDR afficiandos out there will go out and buy that camera (I won't be one of them!).
The point is you gotta pay for the fracking feature even if you don't use it. It's like SUVs, the margin's higher on what is essentially a truck based on the marketing induced perception of higher value.
The characters in the Canon commercial could just as easily capture their precious memories on a cell phone and never know the difference.
One point to consider is that adding video functions to a still camera requires no additional hardware other than a button that has a red spot on it (or some other control). What makes video possible is software, which comes at no cost once the programming is completed. Good software is not cheap or quick to build, but once it is done there is no added cost to the camera manufacturer. Looking at this way, why not add video... your are most of the way there with a still camera, and added features always help sales.
It is kind of like the built-in flash that is included in on many cameras. I have 3 cameras I have bought over the last few years that have a flash and I cannot remember ever using them, but I am glad they are there... may come in handy some day. And a flash does add hardware cost (and software) to a camera.
This would all be true if they where making the camera just for you.
I have a D90 and never use the feature, I have a seperate Sony handycam for that.
As yet another curmudgeon, I'm glad to be able to offer the opposite viewpoint: the only reason I've entered the digital realm is in order to get one of these newfangled video enabled dSLR's, a form factor that I find mostly execrable. But it permits me to gain the ability - w/ relative ease - to change lenses, which is beyond the vast majority of video cams. This Canon thingy, purchased for its motion capture capabilities, has yet to produce a still that is worthy of being printed on paper and hung on the wall. But I've had quite a bit of enjoyment rediscovering my love for film making.
Videos of the grand kids? Who needs em, as Paul says. On the other hand, the video of my 87 year old mother talking about her grandmother's sister in Pasadena in the '30's might be something of interest to someone in the family some day. But probably not.
Use of a motion capture device requires a somewhat different sensibility than still capture - and a lot of post production capability and endurance. Mostly it is used for the tiresome task of "telling stories" that have been told too many times previously. But there are other modes than strictly documentary or fictional. There is little doubt that the medium does like humans as subjects, so to us landscapists this presents a serious challenge. But as these devices proliferate, perhaps the hegemony of "story tellers" will give way and make room for more nuanced collections of moving images of the world.