President’s Address

Predictions

The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta’ Wear Shades, Timbuk 3 1986

Earlier this year I was lucky enough to purchase the EOS 1Ds Mark III, the 21 megapixel, full frame sensor, Canon flagship camera. I have had the camera for three months now and during that time I have explored to the boundaries of the camera: by shooting short exposures (1/8000 sec) and long exposures (51 minutes is the longest so far); using “live view” (the LCD screen as the view finder); shooting at 5 frames per second (fps),

and using wide angle lenses (16mm). As I have been using the camera, I’ve been pondering, is this the end of the line for these large SLR cameras? Are the slow dinosaurs about to die and the nimble, smaller mammals about to take over?

The 1Ds Mark III is a marvel of technology and design, but not perfect. When matched with Canon’s L series of lenses it produces amazing images. I easily get 1,200 shots from a single battery charge and this is in winter when batteries do not last as long. Yes, the camera is large and heavy. This is due to the large battery, bottom hand grip to shoot vertical and very large prism box for the 100% optical view finder. From the front it is hard to distinguish this camera from the Canon EOS 1V film camera with the power drive.

Mr Dylan was correct, “the times they are a-changin’.” Most camera manufacturers (except Nikon and Canon) are producing cameras that have moved away from the SLR film model. Some of these cameras have interchangeable lenses while others do not. For the average hobby photographer (i.e. most of the people in PWCC) changing lenses on their SLR is almost a thing of the past as a single lens can easily cover super wide angle (18mm) to telephoto (200mm). This is the range the non-interchangeable lens cameras cover and with one or two diopters this range can be extended. These cameras also offer other functions I would like to see on the standard digital SLR. A fully articulated live view LCD screen so I can shoot at any angle and still compose the image. The screen to be reversible to protect the face from being scratched when not in use. Electronic View Finders (EVF) to remove the large prism box and replace it with a small LCD screen inside the view finder. Yes, this will use more battery power so I might now only get 800 images per battery charge, more than enough for a day’s shooting. These features make the digital SLR look and act more like a camcorder. Funny as it sounds, we are already there.

In the good old days, photojournalists used rangefinder cameras, then film SLRs, digital SLRs and now video cameras. The photographers at The Dallas Morning News are now using Sony Z1U video cameras, not digital SLRs. The video camera is an off the shelf prosumer High Definition camera that can produce a 2 MP image. With software enhancement it can become a 16MP image. All news media now use video. Visit any newspaper website at it will have video prominent on the site. Any still image needed can be pulled from the video capture. If you look at any of the paparazzi frenzies around the latest troubled starlet you will see most have still and video cameras. This video feeds our gargantuan appetite for celebrity “news” on the web, TV, podcasts and magazines. In a few years the paparazzi will only be using video cameras.

The line between still and video cameras is blurring not only in look but in output. Simply, video is a series of still images shown at least 24 frames per second that the brain registers as motion. The threshold speed for film/digital SLR cameras is about 10 fps. The Casio Exlim Pro EX-F1 is a 6 MP prosumer digital camera that can shoot 60 fps in “still” mode and 1,200 fps in video mode. When shooting at the high speeds each image is less than 6 MP and it would only be able to produce a small

print. As an image on a computer monitor it can easily fill the screen. A higher fps camera does not mean a weak photographer will get better images, it just means a weak photographer will get more bad images.

Output on the non-traditional SLR camera also differs in the ratio of the image. While Herr Barnack believed the 3:2 ratio was ideal, he would be in the minority today. With the average home filled with HDTVs showing HD DVDs and HD cable programs at a ratio of 16:9, people expect their cameras to show the same. Many of the newer cameras either shoot in, or have the ability to shoot in, HD format, which is a 16:9 ratio. Why shoot in a 3:2 ratio when the output is never in that ratio. The only standard print size from a 35mm negative in a 3:2 ratio is the 4” x 6” with all the print sizes being more square.

Only a very small number of photos taken are displayed. Most images are displayed in an electronic format via the internet and email. An increasing number are also shown on LCD frames or HDTV screens as slide shows. Interestingly, some artists are including these screens in their printed work for exhibitions. One artist at SOHO Photo Gallery did this a few months ago. With the increased number of images on screens, there are a

decreasing number of images shot vertical. When a vertical image is shown on a screen it seems small due to the wasted space on the sides. People below a certain age only expect to see horizontal images as that is what they have seen all their life on TV and computer screens. The vertical image, à la book style, is foreign to the younger generations. For those of you reading this on a computer screen a landscape layout is preferred, while those reading a hardcopy, the standard portrait layout is preferred.

What does all this mean to photographers? It means the future is uncertain and things will change. The learning curve will remain steep (was it ever flat or gentle?) and the cameras we use now will be different from the ones we will use tomorrow. The only thing that will remain the same is the “eye” of the photographer. This can not be replaced or replicated by technology. A good eye will see the image, compose it and allow it to be captured at the decisive moment regardless of the equipment used.

Tim