I'm so tired of the TechCrunch blog spam on this site. They've literally stolen another site's news story and HN mods never replace their links with the original source of the article.
Why is this site always given a pass for content theft?
TechCrunch gives YCombinator a lot of publicity, for example pieces about its demo days. Of course there's a business relationship of sorts at play here.
I'm not surprised; in SLRs at least, Canon was never the dominant film camera company with the biggest customer base. Their SLR business did not catch up to and pass Nikon until the digital era.
Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens helped them in verticals that use huge telephotos (sports, mostly). But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. These were all big deals in the era when every frame was precious and mistakes were hidden until it's too late (after the film was developed).
In digital cameras their AF system is now on par, and auto exposure is just less important in general because of the ease of reviewing and post-processing for exposure. They started moving past Nikon about 15 years ago by creating sensors that were cheaper, larger, and had lower noise. Since then they have filled in gaps in their lens lines, and used their expertise in video, to maintain their lead.
>But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control.
I'm sorry, but you are completely off base here. Nikon always had the lead in flash exposure, yes. But in AF and lenses especially? Canon was the first to completely break compatibility with their older (FD mount) lenses which allowed them to have lightning fast autofocus (Ultrasonic line), which took Nikon more than a decade to catch up to. Same with exposure zones and metering accuracy combined with extremely fast drives - this basically meant that Canon took over sports photography in the mid 90s.
What lead are you talking about? Canon's sensors were a running joke in the past 5 years comparing to Nikon (that used modified Sony sensors), manufactured in 3 generation-older process than their competition. Seeing e.g. D750 vs 5D MkIII in low-light was an eye opener. The only selling point of Canon remained their unique "pleasant" color mapping (and photographers getting stuck with older Canon-only lenses/strobes etc.).
As someone who shot and developed a lot of film (I was a photo editor at a daily college paper..) I won’t miss it. Though printing black and white pictures was kinda fun, they often had dust and getting the exporsure and contrast right was tedious.
I don’t miss film.
Though there were a lot less pictures taken and shared before everyone had a camera on their phone. A different time in a lot of ways.
I still shoot black and white medium format, and spend about 10 hours a week in a darkroom.
It’s hard to compare spending 2 hours on a print vs 2 hours on a shot in Lightroom - they’re very different processes. That being said, the reason why I enjoy it so much is because I’m working with a physical process that - once fully understood - is reliable, coherent, and predictable (to your comment about it being hard getting the exposure and contrast right - split filter processing changed my life. It removes a lot of the guesswork and basically turns it into a binary search). Working with software is anything but - I can’t count the number of times where something didn’t work quite the way it used to because of a software update, or I had to restart Lightroom to get it to behave, or some fairly direct manipulation I wanted to do was hidden under unnecessary layers of UI.
Not to mention that the final output of the darkroom process is a print - whereas the final output of software is a file. Since I care about making large prints, if I worked in software, I’d still have to deal with a printer and all the mess that comes with that to get an object.
The one thing that digital excels at is obviously back ups/instant duplication/being able to navigate through history/etc.
But they really are 2 utterly different approaches to making photographs, and I wish there were an embodied system (à la Dynamicland) that brought to the digital photography process the wonderful things from the darkroom process.
At one point I was probably spending 10s of hours a week doing B&W darkroom work so I have a certain nostalgia for it. I also spent lots of time playing with developer chemistry, etc.
But, no, I don't really miss it. It was an enjoyable hobby but it was also a pain to the degree that it was a process you had to go through in order to arrive at the final photograph.
And color slides were just always a finicky and fairly expensive way to take and show photos.
I think film is awesome, provided you have the right process and you actually enjoy that process (or you are fine spending $20/roll to have a lab develop and scan for you). Certainly has been going through a hipster revival of sorts lately.
"The model in question is the EOS-1V, which, incidentally, the company actually stopped making a full eight years ago. Since it has simply been selling out the rest of its stock, which, it seems, has finally depleted."
That says a lot about how few they have been selling.
I don’t know that you can read between those lines, manufacturing one unit might cost nearly the same as manufacturing a million units, so might as well stock up despite waning sales based on where you think the obsolescence tail wraps up. For a momentous event like their last film camera sale, today may well have been their target date from 8 years back.
I have a cousin that works in Arrow Electronics’ obsolescence division, where they buy out final production lots in aging technologies (basically keep production lines going a few more months or years) with the intent to supply users of obsolete but operational systems with a fresh supply of parts and service. Lots of government and military equipment.
lucrative business and there is an art to projecting future demand of obsolete tech. Not saying that this was Canon’s intent as well, but it was eye opening hearing him talk about his business.
I think that's pretty standard for a lot of camera equipment. They'll do a run of one lens, and then a run of another, rather than 10 of this and 10 of that.
This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed.
Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image appear. Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable.
Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured, absolutely!
The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0].
Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's metal. They must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of the ring in manual mode is terrible.
That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in the middle, they'll miss it.
Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and the tangible process of putting the needle on the record.
I share some of your feelings. But I see both sides, I want to play a bit of devil's advocate here. I tried to hang on to my darkroom equipment for over a decade, and despite the joy of darkroom work, I just never used it. Too expensive, too time-consuming, everything film related being phased out and hard to get. Not to mention digital being so much easier, better, more reliable, etc.
> For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed.
I feel like that too, but I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what was lost. Are we just being nostalgic? Is obsessing over the tactile part of the experience missing what's important about creating imagery or music? Are we ignoring the fact that the new generation has their own tactile experience that is different but not worse than ours was? We associate these tactile experiences with our joy of discovery and creation, but perhaps they're incidental and not very important to actually being creative.
> Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable.
I never got over the feeling that I was giving myself cancer or something else breathing and touching the chemicals. The vinegary smell of fixer isn't something I miss personally.
> something has been lost.
FWIW, doing my own image processing by writing my own code has taken the place of doing my own darkroom work, and white it's obviously less tactile, it still gives me a similar feeling of touching the images.
You need a Fujifilm X100F, with the matching leather case for extra style points. Camera feels great, has a real optical viewfinder, and lots of physical controls.
Eh. Film is still around, and I still shoot film occasionally, but I can't imagine buying a new film camera, not when there are so many perfectly good used ones out there - including my own collection (I favor an Olympus OM-1 myself). So Canon isn't making cameras anymore? No great loss. They made millions, and millions are still lying around.
I don't expect film to die entirely; it has simply lost its economy of scale. I'm seeing lots of photographers who have cut their teeth on digital dabbling with it. There is, as you clearly expound, a romance to the darkroom. It won't go away... modern art supply stores are ample evidence of the preservation of older techniques.
Lens-wise, there will always be a market for lenses that inspire. The emergence of short-flange-distance mirrorless cameras has driven huge interest in older glass. If you haven't tried it yet, try adapting your favorite lenses to a modern image sensor. Electromagnetic waves care not how old the optics are.
I'm sad, too, to see the EOS-1 series end. The design of the EOS-1 RS inspired me, as a teenager, to build my first optical system, something for which I'll be forever grateful.
I wouldn't trade my modern camera for the finest 35-mm film camera, though. The rate at which I can learn with a digital camera is so much greater. Yesterday evening, I probably shot a hundred frames (each while watching for the camera/tripod vibration to settle at 10x-magnified live view), sorted them, processed the best, and printed one, all in a few hours. The only costs were 0.1% of the camera's shutter life, hard-disk space, electricity, and two pieces of paper.
Note that "professionals" still use film, particularly in the high end art market with large format and 'view' cameras in particular. One might think that's "niche" but there are a lot of them out there.
As an established amateur I can see how film might work better for you, but digital is way more pleasant for a beginner.
I only recently got into the hobby, and digital is a godsend because I get to experiment on the cheap — I don't feel like I'm wasting film if I take the same photo ten times from different angles, with different apertures, at different focal distances... I also get to go to my computer, take all the photos out, see what worked and what didn't, and get a lot more usable feedback much sooner.
The only reason it made sense to transition to digital is the workflow. Its more efficient to shoot weddings on digital so you can turn out a product faster.
My brother is a photographer and works in a camera store in his spare time - or the other way around, depending on when you ask him.
He's spent a fortune over the years on film and cameras and switched to full digital a while ago. Recently he traded all his glass & bodies for new Sony gear, which he reckons outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable margin. So if you're letting go of film and are in the market for digital don't count out Sony.
This is not very surprising news - very recently I was wondering who still sells film cameras. Digital has surpassed film in almost every way.
It is however quite scary to see technology completely go away which was so common not long ago, sometimes even completely lost as technology. You can’t buy proper Polaroid film any more, many other important film materials are completely gone as well.
As far as 35mm systems it's pretty much just Leica and Nikon at the moment, though I would imagine that Nikon is close to discontinuing their F6 flagship soon. Thankfully many 35mm cameras from the 70s and 80s are engineering masterpieces that will likely keep functioning well into the second half of this century. I just hope that companies will continue making film stocks for them.
I'm seriously curious how they were able to sell that last inventory. Folks buying them for nostalgic reasons? Was there a real market left for top of the line film SLRs that wasn't served by the used camera market? You can get really good used ones for not very much money.
As a film shooter for 20+ years, I decided to break out my old Nikon FA and shoot a roll of film today to mark the occasion. (I still keep some in the fridge, Velvia 50 Daylight.) I wonder if the last place that would still develop slide film around here last time I needed film developed still does it. If they still take film, they probably ship it some place to get it developed rather than do it in-house like they used to.
I was talking to a friend who recently got into 35mm film cameras. He develops the color film himself, but then immediately scans it in and uses digital tools to work on the images. I left a bit confused; what is he gaining by using film as the medium?
When I was 16 (1997) a photographer friend of my parents gave me his old Canon AE-1 (I think released in 1980 or 81) it’s shutter wasn’t working and I took it into the local Canon center where they fixed the shutter, replaced light seal on film door, and even gave me a lens cap for something like NZD$50.
Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold...
Also sort of amazing is that Canon even had a physical presence that as a consumer I could visit a physical offices and drop of a product in person to be fixed!
> Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold...
The award for most durable SLR has to go to the Pentax Spotmatic. The first ones were released in 1964, and they are seemingly indestructible.
Even the exposure meter is a future-proof design; it was designed for mercury (1.35V) batteries but the circuit was designed in a way that modern LR44 (1.5V) cells "just work"!
Nikon lenses from the same era generally need a CLA because the grease used on their focusing helicoids gums up over the years and makes focusing feel dry, bumpy, and just plain nasty. I have come across some Super Takumar (Pentax) examples that are moldy enough that they would probably grow mushrooms if you left them outside soon the shady side of a tree, but the focusing feel is always smooth and perfect.
The only lens I have that feels better is a Voigtlander and it cost $500 vs $10 for an ugly but usable Super Takumar lens.
I don't understand why Google / MS / Amazon etc don't buy either of Nikon or Canon? It'd give them credibility and they'd immediately improve the DSLRs. Imagine a decent Nikon with the Google Photos processing? Decent wifi? Regular updates?
What credibility are Nikon or Canon missing? Both companies have a level of brand recognition unrivaled in the Photography world...? Only in recent years has Sony and maybe Fujifilm developed more respect due to some of their advancements where Nikon and Canon have lacked.
Their DSLR's are market leaders still. Again, only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. Based on current rumors, both Canon and Nikon are supposedly working on their first serious Mirrorless cameras to compete with the likes of Sony's A7 series...
EDIT:
Personally, I would avoid any camera that had Google integration built in. Part of the reason I still carry around a DSLR today is because I like knowing that the photos on my camera, and then stored on a local HDD at my house. I don't think I'm alone in this thought either. Computational Photography is cool and all, but I don't need to provide all my photos into a server farm to be analyzed.
The challenges of integrating with the very conservative and traditional Japanese corporate culture of a Nikon would be enormous. Google had enough trouble with Motorola.
Canon has all the same challenges and also about $47 Billion USD in equity. They're a huge multinational.
[+] [-] ccnafr|7 years ago|reply
I'm so tired of the TechCrunch blog spam on this site. They've literally stolen another site's news story and HN mods never replace their links with the original source of the article.
Why is this site always given a pass for content theft?
[+] [-] ArlenBales|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ginger2016|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sir_Cmpwn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|7 years ago|reply
Canon's decision to put the AF motor in the lens helped them in verticals that use huge telephotos (sports, mostly). But their film cameras lagged Nikon in the sophistication of their AF, their automated exposure control, and especially their flash exposure control. These were all big deals in the era when every frame was precious and mistakes were hidden until it's too late (after the film was developed).
In digital cameras their AF system is now on par, and auto exposure is just less important in general because of the ease of reviewing and post-processing for exposure. They started moving past Nikon about 15 years ago by creating sensors that were cheaper, larger, and had lower noise. Since then they have filled in gaps in their lens lines, and used their expertise in video, to maintain their lead.
[+] [-] anthonybsd|7 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, but you are completely off base here. Nikon always had the lead in flash exposure, yes. But in AF and lenses especially? Canon was the first to completely break compatibility with their older (FD mount) lenses which allowed them to have lightning fast autofocus (Ultrasonic line), which took Nikon more than a decade to catch up to. Same with exposure zones and metering accuracy combined with extremely fast drives - this basically meant that Canon took over sports photography in the mid 90s.
[+] [-] bitL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acomjean|7 years ago|reply
I don’t miss film.
Though there were a lot less pictures taken and shared before everyone had a camera on their phone. A different time in a lot of ways.
[+] [-] GuiA|7 years ago|reply
It’s hard to compare spending 2 hours on a print vs 2 hours on a shot in Lightroom - they’re very different processes. That being said, the reason why I enjoy it so much is because I’m working with a physical process that - once fully understood - is reliable, coherent, and predictable (to your comment about it being hard getting the exposure and contrast right - split filter processing changed my life. It removes a lot of the guesswork and basically turns it into a binary search). Working with software is anything but - I can’t count the number of times where something didn’t work quite the way it used to because of a software update, or I had to restart Lightroom to get it to behave, or some fairly direct manipulation I wanted to do was hidden under unnecessary layers of UI.
Not to mention that the final output of the darkroom process is a print - whereas the final output of software is a file. Since I care about making large prints, if I worked in software, I’d still have to deal with a printer and all the mess that comes with that to get an object.
The one thing that digital excels at is obviously back ups/instant duplication/being able to navigate through history/etc.
But they really are 2 utterly different approaches to making photographs, and I wish there were an embodied system (à la Dynamicland) that brought to the digital photography process the wonderful things from the darkroom process.
[+] [-] ghaff|7 years ago|reply
But, no, I don't really miss it. It was an enjoyable hobby but it was also a pain to the degree that it was a process you had to go through in order to arrive at the final photograph.
And color slides were just always a finicky and fairly expensive way to take and show photos.
[+] [-] yesimahuman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccalhoun|7 years ago|reply
That says a lot about how few they have been selling.
[+] [-] ethagknight|7 years ago|reply
I have a cousin that works in Arrow Electronics’ obsolescence division, where they buy out final production lots in aging technologies (basically keep production lines going a few more months or years) with the intent to supply users of obsolete but operational systems with a fresh supply of parts and service. Lots of government and military equipment. lucrative business and there is an art to projecting future demand of obsolete tech. Not saying that this was Canon’s intent as well, but it was eye opening hearing him talk about his business.
[+] [-] ekianjo|7 years ago|reply
Well, Canon has done zero marketing for this model and focused solely on digital cameras, so I would even wager nobody knew it was still being sold!
[+] [-] wiredfool|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alex_duf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mauvehaus|7 years ago|reply
Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image appear. Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable.
Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured, absolutely!
The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0].
Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's metal. They must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of the ring in manual mode is terrible.
That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in the middle, they'll miss it.
Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and the tangible process of putting the needle on the record.
[0] Super Takumar and SMC Takumars here: http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipent... The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are essentially identical from the outside.
[+] [-] dahart|7 years ago|reply
> For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed.
I feel like that too, but I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what was lost. Are we just being nostalgic? Is obsessing over the tactile part of the experience missing what's important about creating imagery or music? Are we ignoring the fact that the new generation has their own tactile experience that is different but not worse than ours was? We associate these tactile experiences with our joy of discovery and creation, but perhaps they're incidental and not very important to actually being creative.
> Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable.
I never got over the feeling that I was giving myself cancer or something else breathing and touching the chemicals. The vinegary smell of fixer isn't something I miss personally.
> something has been lost.
FWIW, doing my own image processing by writing my own code has taken the place of doing my own darkroom work, and white it's obviously less tactile, it still gives me a similar feeling of touching the images.
[+] [-] khazhoux|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ISL|7 years ago|reply
Lens-wise, there will always be a market for lenses that inspire. The emergence of short-flange-distance mirrorless cameras has driven huge interest in older glass. If you haven't tried it yet, try adapting your favorite lenses to a modern image sensor. Electromagnetic waves care not how old the optics are.
I'm sad, too, to see the EOS-1 series end. The design of the EOS-1 RS inspired me, as a teenager, to build my first optical system, something for which I'll be forever grateful.
I wouldn't trade my modern camera for the finest 35-mm film camera, though. The rate at which I can learn with a digital camera is so much greater. Yesterday evening, I probably shot a hundred frames (each while watching for the camera/tripod vibration to settle at 10x-magnified live view), sorted them, processed the best, and printed one, all in a few hours. The only costs were 0.1% of the camera's shutter life, hard-disk space, electricity, and two pieces of paper.
[+] [-] sureaboutthis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdpi|7 years ago|reply
I only recently got into the hobby, and digital is a godsend because I get to experiment on the cheap — I don't feel like I'm wasting film if I take the same photo ten times from different angles, with different apertures, at different focal distances... I also get to go to my computer, take all the photos out, see what worked and what didn't, and get a lot more usable feedback much sooner.
[+] [-] hamitron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|7 years ago|reply
He's spent a fortune over the years on film and cameras and switched to full digital a while ago. Recently he traded all his glass & bodies for new Sony gear, which he reckons outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable margin. So if you're letting go of film and are in the market for digital don't count out Sony.
[+] [-] _ph_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fetus8|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carbolite103|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|7 years ago|reply
Yes you can:
https://eu.polaroidoriginals.com/
[+] [-] mvexel|7 years ago|reply
As a film shooter for 20+ years, I decided to break out my old Nikon FA and shoot a roll of film today to mark the occasion. (I still keep some in the fridge, Velvia 50 Daylight.) I wonder if the last place that would still develop slide film around here last time I needed film developed still does it. If they still take film, they probably ship it some place to get it developed rather than do it in-house like they used to.
[+] [-] chuckkir|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathewsanders|7 years ago|reply
Amazing that companies used to build such sturdy products that they could be cheaply fixed 15+ years after they were sold...
Also sort of amazing is that Canon even had a physical presence that as a consumer I could visit a physical offices and drop of a product in person to be fixed!
[+] [-] rangibaby|7 years ago|reply
The award for most durable SLR has to go to the Pentax Spotmatic. The first ones were released in 1964, and they are seemingly indestructible.
Even the exposure meter is a future-proof design; it was designed for mercury (1.35V) batteries but the circuit was designed in a way that modern LR44 (1.5V) cells "just work"!
Nikon lenses from the same era generally need a CLA because the grease used on their focusing helicoids gums up over the years and makes focusing feel dry, bumpy, and just plain nasty. I have come across some Super Takumar (Pentax) examples that are moldy enough that they would probably grow mushrooms if you left them outside soon the shady side of a tree, but the focusing feel is always smooth and perfect.
The only lens I have that feels better is a Voigtlander and it cost $500 vs $10 for an ugly but usable Super Takumar lens.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] topbagsvk|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sofaofthedamned|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fetus8|7 years ago|reply
Their DSLR's are market leaders still. Again, only in recent years have Mirrorless cameras have started to catch up with the DSLRs Nikon and Canon have been releasing. Based on current rumors, both Canon and Nikon are supposedly working on their first serious Mirrorless cameras to compete with the likes of Sony's A7 series...
EDIT: Personally, I would avoid any camera that had Google integration built in. Part of the reason I still carry around a DSLR today is because I like knowing that the photos on my camera, and then stored on a local HDD at my house. I don't think I'm alone in this thought either. Computational Photography is cool and all, but I don't need to provide all my photos into a server farm to be analyzed.
[+] [-] msbarnett|7 years ago|reply
Canon has all the same challenges and also about $47 Billion USD in equity. They're a huge multinational.
[+] [-] jonknee|7 years ago|reply
Google already got into the pro photo market by buying Nik and decided it was not worth the effort.
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/30/google-abandons-nik-collect...