# Adios Cameras?



## cgw (Jan 2, 2014)

Variation on a recurrent recent theme:

Goodbye, Cameras : The New Yorker


----------



## limr (Jan 2, 2014)

"But it seems clear that in a couple of years, with an iPhone 6S in our pockets, it will be nearly impossible to justify taking a dedicated camera on trips like the Kumano Kodo pilgrimage."

Sorry but... :roll:

A gearhead who wrote at length about cameras and barely anything about pictures, who very typically believes that everyone else will think and behave as he will.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 2, 2014)

cgw said:


> Variation on a recurrent recent theme:
> 
> Goodbye, Cameras : The New Yorker



Thanks CGW - got my watch reset.  Regular as clockwork really.


----------



## JerryLove (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm not having much luck attaching the 300mm lens to my iPhone. Maybe I need to wait for the 6.

That said: Phones are certainly eating into the low end market. Their quality is often comparable and the convenience (and processing power) generally higher.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2014)

cgw said:


> Variation on a recurrent recent theme:
> 
> Goodbye, Cameras : The New Yorker




Yeah..I skimmed through it. His arc is pretty representative...lust for the Leica M3, buying a Hassy 500C, getting his first d-slr with the HUGE influx of digital converts that jumped into d-slr dom with the Canon Rebel and the Nikon D70, the first sub-$1,000 d-slrs offered for sale by CaNikon...a fairly typical photo arc...

Stories like his always remind me about the "*entirely paper-less office of the future*" that we saw sooooo often in the mid-1990's.

Cough,cough.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 2, 2014)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Variation on a recurrent recent theme:
> ...



Funny thing, at my office we actually have more crap we have to file now that we've gone "paperless" than we ever did before.  Lol.  Honestly I didn't even bother reading the linked article, I'm pretty much done giving the doom and gloomer crowd free hits and it's not like it will be anything new, same warmed over silliness as before.


----------



## limr (Jan 2, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



You really didn't miss anything. He talks about how fantastic it was to shoot the Hasselblad 500C because of the 'thunk' of the shutter release, he lusts over the Leica M3 - a rangefinder of course - and then discusses the 'revelation' of having a mirrorless digital camera as if mirrorless was a modern invention, and he's getting a woodie over "emerging self-metrics" that will supposedly revolutionize how we view photography.

It's all about the gear, the technology, the potential (oh, the all important _potential!_) and the only time he ever really mentions the actual photograph was to say that he shot mostly Fuji Velvia because he liked the saturated colors.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2014)

Yeah, Lenny...I did just skim it (I skimmed the chit out of it!)...but I did see the "*Velvia-worship*" bit, and it was then that I knew what kind of shooter he was...he loved the clown-like color of Velvia...me being a confirmed Kodachrome 64 Professional addict at the time of Velvia, with a penchant for dalliances with sexy boxes and bulk rolls of Ektachrome 64 and later Ektachrome 100 Professional films, I contemptuously recalled the Velvia-furor and my dismissive attitude toward it then...but I digress (often).

I find myself using the iPhone's camera a lot. My expensive, image-stabilized $400 Panasonic super-zoom P&S has conked out, and I go between a big, black Nikon d-slr and the iPhone these days...I no longer own a reliable digital P&S or bridge camera, so by default my carry camera is the iPhone 4, and while I do like it, the one thing the iPhone is weak at is telephoto imagery; the damned thing has a semi-wide lens on it, and my actual preference is TELE...

Yes, if all we want are quick snaps to INSTANTLY upload to social media, YES, the cellphone camera is a good tool for spontaneous, easy, cheap images that can be "sent" electronically wherever one has "bars". And a valid phone service provider. No disputing that. And I have made some NICE images on iPhone, both in native aspect ratio, talls and wides, but also some lovely Instagram "squares"...I have even made a few photos I am VERY proud of, using my iPhone. I did a series of Modern Urban Landscape images (my concept) using the iPhone in 2012. But for the most part, for me the cellphone camera's Achilles heel is....wait for it, wait for it...the SINGLE lens focal length.

Oh well, WTF...I made some homemade French fries for lunch today...I shot this using Instagram in-camera, you know the purist's way to Instagram...   ;-)




If this ^^^ kind of stuff is what a person aspires to, then the smartphone camera is a handy tool.


----------



## terri (Jan 2, 2014)

I love you, Derrel.     This from Lenny: 





> ....he's getting a woodie over "emerging self-metrics"...



Was that subconsciously on your mind when you swirled that glob of ketchup up there?!?    :shock:


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 2, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, Lenny...I did just skim it (I skimmed the chit out of it!)...but I did see the "*Velvia-worship*" bit, and it was then that I knew what kind of shooter he was...he loved the clown-like color of Velvia...me being a confirmed Kodachrome 64 Professional addict at the time of Velvia, with a penchant for dalliances with sexy boxes and bulk rolls of Ektachrome 64 and later Ektachrome 100 Professional films, I contemptuously recalled the Velvia-furor and my dismissive attitude toward it then...but I digress (often).
> 
> I find myself using the iPhone's camera a lot. My expensive, image-stabilized $400 Panasonic super-zoom P&S has conked out, and I go between a big, black Nikon d-slr and the iPhone these days...I no longer own a reliable digital P&S or bridge camera, so by default my carry camera is the iPhone 4, and while I do like it, the one thing the iPhone is weak at is telephoto imagery; the damned thing has a semi-wide lens on it, and my actual preference is TELE...
> 
> ...



Ok, so all you need is an Iphone app that makes a loud "Thunk" sound every time you take a picture and then oversaturates the colors and bam!  Nirvana!


----------



## cgw (Jan 2, 2014)

I read it as a glib bit of fluff that vacationing editors would have otherwise cut or bounced back for revision. Funny it didn't appear in the "Photo Booth" section of the New Yorker where quality images and writing about them usually appear. His views were odd given his Japan location. Friends there who shoot anything with a lens always comment on how traditional visual culture is helping to defend "camera" photography against Instagram aesthetics. Seems to be a huge dose of irony in the quirky Sony QX cameras that reduce an iPhone and its Retina display to a viewfinder.

These days, I tend to view the technological milestones in the photography we all love just as off-ramps to personal satisfaction.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 2, 2014)

The thing to remember is that much of what appears in the New Yorker is the same article over and over. The content of that article is that the author is extremely erudite and interesting. All the apparent content, cameras, the movie we're reviewing, whatever, is just a vehicle to carry the important information: _I am very smart and interesting and I know a ton of stuff_

This bit is not only one of those, but lazy as hell. I'm really surprised by it. The lazy, irrelevant, and wrong-headed citation of Sontag at the end clinches it. Sontag wrote a bunch of essays of that stripe, that were mostly about how smart Sontag was, secondarily about how awesome New York is, but at a sort of subliminal level, tucked into the nooks and crannies, were some pretty insightful remarks about photography as it existed in 1975 or so (and for the 100 years preceding and about the next 30 years). There's some pretty interesting stuff to be said about Now starting from Sontag, but this guy dropped the ball here.

Read this piece instead: The Visual Village


----------



## amolitor (Jan 2, 2014)

He DOES, I gotta say, have an interesting idea at the end there.

There is this idea that a picture plus metadata is more interesting than just a picture. My instinct is that he's wrong, and that this is just fanboy golly-gee I can tag a picture with a bunch of stuff like map co-ordinates, radiation levels, blah blah blah. There might be something there, but I don't _think_ it's as cool as he thinks it is. Definitely worth thinking about, though.

We already know perfectly well that a picture plus a title is quite a different thing from just a picture. A picture plus an artist's statement is yet a different thing. A picture plus a feature article is a fourth thing. A picture plus metadata is definitely another thing, and a new thing at that. The question is really how interesting that thing is, and I don't have the answer.

This is the kind of data-**** that Wired would print, though.


----------



## cgw (Jan 3, 2014)

amolitor said:


> The thing to remember is that much of what appears in the New Yorker is the same article over and over. The content of that article is that the author is extremely erudite and interesting. All the apparent content, cameras, the movie we're reviewing, whatever, is just a vehicle to carry the important information: _I am very smart and interesting and I know a ton of stuff_
> 
> This bit is not only one of those, but lazy as hell. I'm really surprised by it. The lazy, irrelevant, and wrong-headed citation of Sontag at the end clinches it. Sontag wrote a bunch of essays of that stripe, that were mostly about how smart Sontag was, secondarily about how awesome New York is, but at a sort of subliminal level, tucked into the nooks and crannies, were some pretty insightful remarks about photography as it existed in 1975 or so (and for the 100 years preceding and about the next 30 years). There's some pretty interesting stuff to be said about Now starting from Sontag, but this guy dropped the ball here.
> 
> Read this piece instead: The Visual Village



But he writes for the New Yorker and you _don't_. Enjoy the chew toy.


"The thing to remember is that much of what appears in the New Yorker is the same article over and over."

That one pegged the Laff-o-Meter.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 3, 2014)

That "article" was... indulgent.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

limr said:


> "But it seems clear that in a couple of years, with an iPhone 6S in our pockets, it will be nearly impossible to justify taking a dedicated camera on trips like the Kumano Kodo pilgrimage."
> 
> Sorry but... :roll:
> 
> A gearhead who wrote at length about cameras and barely anything about pictures, who very typically believes that everyone else will think and behave as he will.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking too.

Yes, cameras are dead - if, like the author, you don't mind being limited to one focal length, no macro, no flash, no high shutter speeds, no wide apertures.  And most likely no prints either, because who the hell prints anything these days?

edit
You can't upload a print, so they don't matter anymore.  That's basically the finishing thought of the article.


And I'm with Derrel - I do use my phone a LOT, but it's mostly pictures of a pizza I just made or something like that.    Not really what I would consider "camera replacing quality".


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

amolitor said:


> This is the kind of data-**** that Wired would print, though.


I used to read Wired a lot, but their relevance/quality seems to have really tapered off in the last few years...

They still seem to be the first to get defense news though.  That's really the only thing I read it for anymore.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 3, 2014)

My favorite Wired fan-**** bit was an article about container shipping. Toward the end, the piece breathlessly exclaimed that, one day, the data _about_ the container, location and so on, might be _worth more than the contents of the container itself_ which sounds very cool but one second of rational thought tells you that it's utterly idiotic.

Would you pay $100 for the location of a $10 bill? Wired would!

The New Yorker is at least intelligent, erudite, bozos nattering on about basically the same things over and over. AND The New Yorker usually has a pretty in depth piece that's actually interesting, even if it if written in that ghastly New Yorker style. Wired is just bad design and imbeciles.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 3, 2014)

Okay, so I went back and read the guy's entire blog piece. THIS statement earned the author my coveted 2014 Throwaway Bull**** Statement of The Day Award (new for 2014!):

"As I&#8217;ve become a more network-focussed photographer, I&#8217;ve come to love using the smartphone as an editing surface; touch is perfect for photo manipulation. There&#8217;s a tactility that is lost when you edit with a mouse on a desktop computer. Perhaps touch feels natural because it&#8217;s a return to the chemical-filled days of manually poking and massaging liquid and paper to form an image I had seen in my head."

*TBS-TDA Winner!*


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Okay, so I went back and read the guy's entire blog piece. THIS statement earned the author my coveted 2014 Throwaway Bull**** Statement of The Day Award (new for 2014!):
> 
> "As I&#8217;ve become a more network-focussed photographer, I&#8217;ve come to love using the smartphone as an editing surface; touch is perfect for photo manipulation. There&#8217;s a tactility that is lost when you edit with a mouse on a desktop computer. Perhaps touch feels natural because it&#8217;s a return to the chemical-filled days of manually poking and massaging liquid and paper to form an image I had seen in my head."
> 
> *TBS-TDA Winner!*




_*please*_ PLEASE tell me you just made that up....
'cause if he is serious about using a smartphone for real editing...
I just lost ALL respect for him as a photographer. 

are you sure he didnt mean 24" touch screen IPS monitor?

also...WTF does being a "network focused photographer" have to do with the editing medium? 
or is he talking about taking the picture with his phone, editing it on his phone, then posting it from his phone?
maybe if he has a career in  cheap diner lunch photography via instagram...


----------



## Overread (Jan 3, 2014)

Network focused photographer = person who can't stop looking at facebook for more than 20seconds.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 3, 2014)

I liked that too. He's implying that he edited his prints in the developer by poking and massaging them, without quite saying as much. He's lying because he's in love with his terrible analogy, and he's hoping that most of his readers won't know what he's talking about.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 3, 2014)

The network focused thing is a real point. He's struggling to say something about how we use pictures differently now.

Old model: drop film off, pick up prints/slides a while later, admire them, put them in a box/album/whatever, every so often drag them out for another look.
New model: upload pictures instantly to social media or whatever, share them with hopefully appropriate audience

The trouble with this is that he spent so much time talking about himself and his cameras that he didn't get around to thinking about this stuff much. He's literally years behind in his thinking on this stuff. There _has_ been a sea change, and he thinks it's really cool that he's noticed it. The people who actually think about these things noticed it a long time ago (at least on Internet Time) and have thought through a lot of the implications, which Craig Mod has not.

Then he muddles it all up with the metadata thing, which is separate, but he hasn't noticed that yet.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Okay, so I went back and read the guy's entire blog piece. THIS statement earned the author my coveted 2014 Throwaway Bull**** Statement of The Day Award (new for 2014!):



Wow.. see, now I'm just wondering what that statuette must look like.. rotfl



> "As I&#8217;ve become a more network-focussed photographer, I&#8217;ve come to love using the smartphone as an editing surface; touch is perfect for photo manipulation. There&#8217;s a tactility that is lost when you edit with a mouse on a desktop computer. Perhaps touch feels natural because it&#8217;s a return to the chemical-filled days of manually poking and massaging liquid and paper to form an image I had seen in my head."
> 
> *TBS-TDA Winner!*



So do you think the chemicals he's referring to here were ingested, or inhaled?  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 3, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> *please*[/I] PLEASE tell me you just made that up....
> 'cause if he is serious about using a smartphone for real editing...
> I just lost ALL respect for him as a photographer.



You mean you had any to begin with?  Lol.. you are just so much more generous than I am..




> also...WTF does being a "network focused photographer" have to do with the editing medium?
> or is he talking about taking the picture with his phone, editing it on his phone, then posting it from his phone?
> maybe if he has a career in cheap diner lunch photography via instagram...



Hey now.. that actually sounds pretty good.   Do you think they are hiring?  Lol


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2014)

amolitor said:


> Would you pay $100 for the location of a $10 bill? Wired would!


Well, I might pay $100 for the location of a _shipping container_ full of $10 bills, lol.  It would probably still be wasted money though, as I would likely have no way to intercept said shipping container.  

I work in the defense industry (crazy, right?), so I used to check their site fairly often, as they usually reported the goings on with defense contracts before they hit other media.  Even that seems to have changed recently though.  A year or two ago, they were reporting things that Lockheed didn't tell their own employees until months later - if at all.



amolitor said:


> Then he muddles it all up with the metadata thing, which is separate, but he hasn't noticed that yet.


I have to read it again now...  I don't think I caught the metadata thing.  Parts of it were hard to read, lol.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jan 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Variation on a recurrent recent theme:
> ...



I work in an office and get really pissed when they print out memos that they already emailed me.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 3, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so I went back and read the guy's entire blog piece. THIS statement earned the author my coveted 2014 Throwaway Bull**** Statement of The Day Award (new for 2014!):
> ...



No, I did not make that up...it's a real, genuine, verbatim, accurate, in-context quotation from the blog post The New Yorker printed on-line. It was so flipping stupid that I just HAD to invent my very own, brand-new, smart-assy kind of pseudo-award for epic idiocy...the new *TBS-TDA Award*...the Throwaway Bull***t Statement of The Day Award. I mean, Jeebus...the guy is waxing rhapsodic about how awesome it is to edit one's photos on a smart phone's touch screen. I mean, truly, WTF? THAT is supposed to be a good thing?

"Pshaw."


----------



## cgw (Jan 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.


----------



## limr (Jan 4, 2014)

cgw said:


> Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.



So what?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2014)

cgw said:
			
		

> Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.



Yet another throwaway comment from cgw. 

I suppose that they payed him to make a fool out of himself. How much coin do you suppose The New Yawwwwkuh pays for an on-line blog post like that? Care to enlighten us with some figures?


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 4, 2014)

So I read this whole thread, skimmed the article and then did a little research.

Coming back to cgw's comment about the author getting paid, he was a one time contributor to the New Yorker. He's an author/photographer/storyteller who does most of his publishing out of San Francisco. And since he does most of that out of the west coast, that doesn't necessarily extrapolate to east coast. That being said, he isn't likely a paid contributor to the New Yorker. The interesting thing about journalism/contributing is that you have to get a fair shake of response before any big timers will actually pay you.

So I'm with Derrel on this one...show me some numbers that he actually got paid on this one.

I'll also note that I'm not in any way discounting his contribution to journalism. I don't agree with the article, but articles are just that - subjective informatives designed to persuade the lesser knowledgable about a subject or product, in hopes of persuading the reader to either pick a side or buy a product. 

This article is the equivalent to a college English persuasive essay.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 4, 2014)

I don't care if he got paid or not. What do I care if some writer gets paid for cranking out a piece that matches the specs of some publication?

What on earth does getting paid have to do with anything?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 4, 2014)

cgw said:


> Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.


  The fallacy here is that you're disregarding the statements about him. Yes, he does get paid. Does that make his article any less bad? No. Your point is irrelevant.  

I think this is the beginning to a terrible strawman argument but I'm not sure since I just recently figured out why that term means.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 4, 2014)

I loved the statement



> Tracing the evolution from the Nikon 8008 to the Nikon D70 to the GX




d70?  I had that back in 2004 ??
So a comparison of a 2012 iphone 5 to a 2004 d70  ... nice


----------



## JerryLove (Jan 4, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Trick is, he got paid for being "flipping stupid." You didn't. Art without commerce is a hobby.
> ...


 A straw man would, for example, be poster A asserting that the writer of an article was stupid, poster B asserting in response to poster A that he was not stupid, and poster C responding that poster B was wrong to say it wasn't a bad article. 

Since poster B didn't actually claim it was a good article (merely imply that the writer of the article wasn't stupid), poster C is hacking a straw-man 

Whether or not that's an accurate description of the past couple of pages would require that I actually read more of the posts; as I'm responding based on the quoted portion of poster B rather than having actually read his post.


----------



## JerryLove (Jan 4, 2014)

I'm curious: How would people factor in Android IL cameras (Samsung Galaxy NX20). Looking as well at actual phones (Samsung Galaxy Camera 2), I could certainly imagine a convergence to interchangeable-lens, APS-C-sized, phone cameras. 

Stick a SIM and bluetooth on this (Samsung Galaxy NX Android camera gets official prices and specs | Ars Technica) and life would seem to get interesting. I don't imagine professional photographers (or high-end hobbyists) switching; but can easily imagine such things pulling the rug from markets below that (Nikon N1, for example).


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 4, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I loved the statement
> 
> 
> > Tracing the evolution from the Nikon 8008 to the Nikon D70 to the GX
> ...


Yeah, the only "evolution" taking place is the camera getting smaller.  That's the measuring stick he's using to gauge the state of camera technology.  I suppose that to a degree he's right...  But only if, like him, small size is the ultimate goal in "the perfect" camera for you.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2014)

Well, a large part of what made the piece cgw referred us to so _________, and so _______________, and    so_____ (insert favored pejoratives in blanks, as needed) was the muddled thinking, the attempts to reduce the world to a one-size-fits-all solution based on the experiences of one man, of one generation, as well as his lack of clear, intelligent analysis and identification of the underlying issues surrounding personal photography. In other words, the New Yorker's blog piece was yet another in a series of fluff pieces, churned out in an attempt to convince readers that a cell phone camera can, and will, utterly replace traditional "cameras". It was based on some highly flawed half-assed efforts at "reasoning". 

The Leica lust-but-had-to-settle-for a Nikon-on-a-college-student's budget/Nikon backpacking trip across Japan/college kid shooting his first slide film/the cult of the Hassy 500C experience/joining the digital SLR crowd with all the MWAC and GWAC when the Nikon D70 hit the streets at under $1,000/ switch to a small mirrorless/ six-day hiking trip with an iPhone arc. That one man's dabbling in photography has led him to conclude that the iPhone 6s of the future will replace all cameras. That being a "networked photographer" and editing on a cell phone's touch screen is some kind of bliss.

It's alllllll based on the assumption that "sharing on Facebook", and sharing ,"NOW, Godd*mni+!!" is what drives the whole of photography. He got a real woodie on the six-day hike in Japan, which by the way, built cell phone towers even in remote locations, YEARS ago, so that wireless telephony would be possible even in the remote parts of that tiny island nation. Apparently, he got so much wood by insta-spewing his images to friend around the world that he had an epiphany of sorts...based on good cell phone service and the feel-good vibes he got, kind of a Facebook and e-mail feedback buzz, he declared the end of photography as we have known it...

It's kind of sad. The New Yorker used to represent higher standards, but these days, they'll let anybody blog. What the author's piece failed to take into account is what YOU are asking: What happens if more-traditional, interchangeable lens, or even zoom-lens cameras, become "networked"? His entire premise is based upon the unstated assumption that ONLY cellphone cameras offer networking capability, and that by virtue of that, that other camera types will become irrelevant in the near future--or as he implies, when the iPhone 6 is current.

But yeah....the huge elephant, the WHAT IF cameras become connected line of thought...uh...that went out the window with the baby and the bathwater...


----------



## cgw (Jan 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gotcha again, bro. He's in the New Yorker and you're here. Hilarious that you can't/won't grasp the difference.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 4, 2014)

Come on folks...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 4, 2014)

Guys, seriously.  It's just another CGW link to some BS article about how every one will abandon DSLR for cell phones.  Happens about every 3 weeks.  Same silliness, same ridiculous assumptions made by yet another author with zero understanding of market forces and no appreciation for the fact that not everyone wants to be able to upload inferior quality images at the press of a button.  Some of us are actually interested in quality - but you know we keeping going down this road every time CGW post another one of these poorly researched nonsense articles.  So really, not worth wasting the bandwidth.  My recommendation, next time he posts one just ignore it and move on.  If he no longer gets a rise out of folks, he might actually quit at some point.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2014)

cgw said:
			
		

> Gotcha again, bro. He's in the New Yorker and you're here. Hilarious that you can't/won't grasp the difference.



Sorry, but he's on The New Yorker's minor _blog_. Whoa, big whoop...

Am I supposed to be impressed? He's a halfwit with a soapbox. 

I guess in Canada that must seem to carry some kind of weight...but here in the USA, we don't just swallow B.S. so willingly as you Canucks...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> He's a halfwit with a soapbox.



Pretty much a dream job then.. lol


----------



## Overread (Jan 4, 2014)

And I think that's enough now - now everyone not in agreement with the article go take some photos - the rest of you go on facebook and sell your camera.


----------

