Should we open up the forum to cameras of all types and sizes?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdh

Legend
Jan 2, 2011
And John is right about the usefulness of camera-specific threads.
.
But only to a point. This is getting a bit off track for the thread, but lets be honest, viewing somebody else's picture from a new camera at 1024*768 tells you nothing about that camera or what it's "capable of"

And these days, the differences between files is only ever going to be visible to the person editing the originals. Cameras and lenses are almost without exception good enough sharp enough noiseless enough etc these days. They're all amazingly capable.

So while they might appear to be useful, I'd strongly question just how practically useful they really are.

As a place to be amongst one's own gang of course, or to celebrate a new acquisition or whatever, is a different matter.

But as I say, going a bit offtopic really.

I need to go to the chemist and get my meds anyway soon ...
 

grebeman

Old Codgers Group
In respect of the forking of this thread to discuss the image part of the forum, for me photography is all about the resulting image. I have very minimal interest in gear threads. Since I joined my local camera club 12 months ago my appreciation of the photographic image has altered tremendously, as have my technical abilities to produce a good print or digitally projected image. With various competitions, both themed and unthemed, the resultant voting by members for internally judged competions and the subsequent commenting by a club judge or external judge for externally judged competions, my thought processes, critical judgement of my own work and technique have been radically improved.

That would not have occured had I just continued to post images to this site, there is an almost total lack of feedback on images. Comments such as "superb" and "wow" are bandied about liberally for what are in the main competent images, but what adjective do you then use for that very rare image that warrants such praise if you've already used such superlatives.

I appreciate that critical judgement of others photographs is not easy. We have a club chairman who is a trained judge and is able to offer constructive criticism form which one can benefit. It's noticeable that on evenings when he is judging elsewhere his stand in can be rather blunt in his comments and sadly no one gains from that situation.

What is interesting is that I still don't know what equipment various members are using to take their images, and camera gear hardly ever gets mentioned. Image processing techniques, printers and paper types certainly do feature in the discussions, cameras hardly ever.

The upshot is I'm not really offering a solution to the viewing/posting of images on the site, however I feel it's a situation that needs further discussion.

Barrie
 

john m flores

All-Pro
Aug 13, 2012
As things are now, we have endless "Pentikolysonic XXX with YYY " threads which are filled with photographs indistinguishable from the photographs in the "Panakonolykon YYY with XXX" threads.
How do you like the Pentikolysonic? I was looking at them. :p


But only to a point. This is getting a bit off track for the thread, but lets be honest, viewing somebody else's picture from a new camera at 1024*768 tells you nothing about that camera or what it's "capable of"

And these days, the differences between files is only ever going to be visible to the person editing the originals. Cameras and lenses are almost without exception good enough sharp enough noiseless enough etc these days. They're all amazingly capable.

So while they might appear to be useful, I'd strongly question just how practically useful they really are.

As a place to be amongst one's own gang of course, or to celebrate a new acquisition or whatever, is a different matter.

But as I say, going a bit offtopic really.

I need to go to the chemist and get my meds anyway soon ...
You're right - they are much less important than they were years ago, but there are still areas where they can be helpful - AF tracking, low light, etc…

And maybe it's me, but I've seen ultra high res images from MF or Gigapans that still have this certain I don't know what even when scaled down.
 

olli

Super Moderator Emeritus
Sep 28, 2010
Sofia, Bulgaria
olli
I would prefer to stick with the emphasis on compact cameras, but I think that it is no longer possible to define what a compact camera is any more. In the past (serious) compact meant cameras like the Panasonic LX range or Canon G range and M43. It was a reasonably well defined category both in terms of sensor size and physical size. Today, there is no longer any real distinction to be made, just a wide spectrum. The only real way to categorise cameras these days would seem to be the presence or otherwise of a mirror, which has less and less to do with physical size and nothing at all to do with sensor size. So these days SC operates on the basis of 'I can't define it but I know it when I see it.'

Instead of redefining this site would it not be possible to add another site to the empire specifically for DSLR's or larger cameras (by which I mean anything the camera operator doesn't think quite fits the definition of compact). Keep it brand free and have the express aim of creating the same kind of ethos that exists here. I'm sure it would work because many of those on this site seem to still have larger cameras and systems and would form a natural core constituency to get things going and to shape the ethos.
 
I would prefer to stick with the emphasis on compact cameras, but I think that it is no longer possible to define what a compact camera is any more. In the past (serious) compact meant cameras like the Panasonic LX range or Canon G range and M43. It was a reasonably well defined category both in terms of sensor size and physical size. Today, there is no longer any real distinction to be made, just a wide spectrum. The only real way to categorise cameras these days would seem to be the presence or otherwise of a mirror, which has less and less to do with physical size and nothing at all to do with sensor size. So these days SC operates on the basis of 'I can't define it but I know it when I see it.'

Instead of redefining this site would it not be possible to add another site to the empire specifically for DSLR's or larger cameras (by which I mean anything the camera operator doesn't think quite fits the definition of compact). Keep it brand free and have the express aim of creating the same kind of ethos that exists here. I'm sure it would work because many of those on this site seem to still have larger cameras and systems and would form a natural core constituency to get things going and to shape the ethos.
Agree, what a compact system is has become more difficult to nail down.

I am a member of the NEX/Alpha Forum because that is what I own. I love hearing and seeing what people are doing with this system, the images we are generating and getting info about future developments without getting bogged down with other formats.

I come here to SeriousCompacts to share images and hear about the other compact systems and what they are up to. I feel there is a common bond as we have systems that are considered less than professional, yet the images some of our members create are on par with any larger format camera.

Now I have no issue with a subform discussing all camera systems and the camera world in general, but what makes these forums special is the focused nature of the subjects. If I want to see people's images taken with their Full Sized Nikon/Canon/Sony, I have plenty of other sources. If we become more generalized, we will loose what is special about these forums.
 

BillN

Hall of Famer
Aug 25, 2010
S W France
Bill
No, would you like one?
Well they are compact and they are getting more serious and more important in the medium ....... it would be more logical to include these than my D700 and it's long lens ....... image taking with a camera phone is probably growing faster that any other method ........ and also from the commercial as well as the photographic standpoint they are becoming more important

Amongst the artistic v photographer arguement many would say that the image can be achieved by any apparatus and it is only the image that counts

for my technical photography without certain equipment I could not get the image or some would say "record shot" that I want and that's what photography mainly means to me, so I am not too bothered either way as I am not an artist, I'm just, maybe, a technician
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
There are a number of other speciality forums that have subforums for other camera types, but the focus of the forums remain with their original intentions.

The Leica User Forum has a huge array of subforums for their different cameras, but only a small subforum for digital cameras in general. Rangefinder Forums have loads of sections and subsections, with one devoted to 'SLR's - the un-RF'. Other subsections include Fuji X, Sony, Ricoh, P&S cameras both digital and film, and medium format photography.

Serious Compacts started as a way to discuss and promote high-spec compact cameras, and given its name and membership, is likely to remain that way. Although many of us own quite expensive gear, the entry point for a 'compact' camera forum is relatively low because of the cost of more serious compacts today.

I'm for the forum slowly creating more subforums as needs and interests grow, but not a huge emergence for Canon/Nikon/full frame/aps-c/medium format whatever. The range of gear available makes for a very diverse forum already, and I don't want SC to become some DPReview type generalist site. We're more of a family here.
 

grebeman

Old Codgers Group
My inclination is to say keep the site as it is, with an emphasis on the compact (mirrorless?) type cameras. When I joined Serious Compacts there were relatively few members (high double figure?) and I've seen the nature of the site change as the membership has grown. I'd be concerned about how the site would further change if many DSLR members joined. Having said that perhaps there wouldn't be many "pure" DSLR photographers who joined since they seem happy bickering away on established sites, it might just allow current members who also inhabit the dark side to discuss amongst themselves their DSLR kit, and post images for all and sundry to view.

As has already been stated by some the subtle differences in image quality from various cameras tend to become reduced when posted as downsized jpegs for the web, the ability of lenses for full frame DSLR's to shoot with a shallower depth of field would however still be evident.

So, stay as we are but open up discussion forums for full frame DSLR's if you must, the photographers who would access them could well also be ones who also embrace the "compact" philosophy.

Barrie
 

porchard

Veteran
Feb 3, 2013
Devon, UK
My inclination is to say keep the site as it is, with an emphasis on the compact (mirrorless?) type cameras. When I joined Serious Compacts there were relatively few members (high double figure?) and I've seen the nature of the site change as the membership has grown. I'd be concerned about how the site would further change if many DSLR members joined. Having said that perhaps there wouldn't be many "pure" DSLR photographers who joined since they seem happy bickering away on established sites, it might just allow current members who also inhabit the dark side to discuss amongst themselves their DSLR kit, and post images for all and sundry to view.

As has already been stated by some the subtle differences in image quality from various cameras tend to become reduced when posted as downsized jpegs for the web, the ability of lenses for full frame DSLR's to shoot with a shallower depth of field would however still be evident.

So, stay as we are but open up discussion forums for full frame DSLR's if you must, the photographers who would access them could well also be ones who also embrace the "compact" philosophy.

Barrie
^^^ Well said.:thumbsup:
 

BBW

Legend
Jul 7, 2010
betwixt and between
BB
Coming in late to the discussion here, I shall type my stream of consciousness. There are many good and differing points made. I thought we used to say a camera was a serious compact if it was "smaller than a breadbox" (for those of us who know/remember what a breadbox is/was) or "if you think it is small enough - it is"...or words to that effect?

What drew me in initially, Amin, as I know you recall was your initial ad on The Online Photographer...the rest is history that I'll always remember...

How about "Photography As If the Image Matters" (a bow to E. F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As if People Mattered")? For me, personally, I can't carry a heavy camera...so I have been drawn to the small...but ultimately it's about the resulting image/photograph/picture and how it translates to myself and, hopefully at least sometimes if I am honest, to others. Size doesn't matter, yet there's something special about staying small...which brings me back to "If you think it's small enough - it's small enough"...

Honestly, it's the people here who I've gotten to know that make it the place I like to visit - and their pictures, of course - including BillN's DSLR photos from almost day one that he always used to slip in.:biggrin:

Not sure that this was helpful, but after reading through and thinking...it's what I've come up with. I will add that Paul, you are not a sociopath!:wink:
 

RT Panther

All-Pro
Dec 25, 2012
I'm not even convinced by the need to add a DSLR forum. There are forums a-plenty elsewhere for those who wish to discuss our cameras' larger cousins. There are also already plenty of images posted here which have been taken with DSLRs, so I'm not sure what adding such a forum really achieves. I suppose I can just ignore it and take part in all the other discussions as before. It just seems a bit unnecessary to me.
Which brings us back to "what exactly is a 'Serious Compact'..."?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom