AI = lower lens prices? Or complete collapse of lens market?

[Andrew Reid]

Some of my thoughts here:

https://www.eoshd.com/news/ai-will-mean-lens-prices-have-to-be-completely-reassessed-by-camera-companies/

[Eric Calabros]

With this logic, which I'm not arguing against, AI would kill the smartphone market first. Why should I upgrade my $1000 phone when I can update my camera app for $1.9 per month? 

[MrSMW]

Well I own precisely zero fast lenses as in primes such as 1.4 or 1.8’s and moved exclusively to zooms recently.

I prefer primes, but the reality for my work, is I tried juggling them for far too long but the simple reality was a typical zoom covers at least 3 prime focal lengths with simple rotations. 

OK, other than a few exotics such as Canon’s RF 28-70 f2 monster, faster than f2.8 zooms do not exist and I am over using any lens above 1kg and most of my zooms are ball park 500g or under.

AI could certainly adjust DOF to be even shallower, but you know what? I am also over ultra shallow DOF and f2.8 is just fine thanks!

 

[Benjamin Hilton]

26 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Well I own precisely zero fast lenses as in primes such as 1.4 or 1.8’s and moved exclusively to zooms recently.

I prefer primes, but the reality for my work, is I tried juggling them for far too long but the simple reality was a typical zoom covers at least 3 prime focal lengths with simple rotations. 

OK, other than a few exotics such as Canon’s RF 28-70 f2 monster, faster than f2.8 zooms do not exist and I am over using any lens above 1kg and most of my zooms are ball park 500g or under.

AI could certainly adjust DOF to be even shallower, but you know what? I am also over ultra shallow DOF and f2.8 is just fine thanks!

 

And honestly f2.8 is about the shallowest depth of field you could want for most standard work

[akasian]

I completely agree that AI and computational photography is coming for the middle of the bell curve.  I do think there's still a place for companies like Fuji that can capture the nostalgia and "photography as an experience" market.  Fuji seems to be one of the few companies that have truly embraced the mirrorless concept you speak of, smaller bodies, smaller lenses, especially the little Fujicrons.  Also Fuji is going after the very high end with their medium format stuff.  They're leaving the middle of the bell curve, full-frame for others to sort out, if they can.  I like their strategy so far.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

With this logic, which I'm not arguing against, AI would kill the smartphone market first. Why should I upgrade my $1000 phone when I can update my camera app for $1.9 per month? 

For that app you still need a smartphone though don’t you?

[Andrew Reid]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

And honestly f2.8 is about the shallowest depth of field you could want for most standard work

F2 is where the magic rendering starts for me, but no matter what look you are going for be it shallow or deep DOF, AI will be able to apply it all. To anything with a small sensor. Much harder to get rid of a shallow depth of field baked in by the optic, than to take a deep depth of field and make it shallower with AI!

[Beritar]

I agree, even it will maybe harder to make this AI shallow depth of field for videos.

But the lenses I like the most are not the ones with the deeper bokeh. I love the Leica 35mm F2 APO Summicron SL or the PL 25-50mm f1.7. Not because of their deep bokeh but because of their rendering, the way how the light convert on the point of focus, the highlights/shadows transitions and contrast. I think it will be harder to mimic the look of some lenses than adding some blur to mimic deep bokeh.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

F2 is where the magic rendering starts for me

That was what I loved about the Sigma Contemporary primes. I think there is a bit of magic shooting them wide open, especially the 65mm f2.

Maybe I should AI my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 by one stop...

I reckon though that it would easily achieve the shallower DOF, but the 'magic' part you can't quite define will be missing?

A bit like film vs digital. I'd rather shoot with digital for all kinds of reasons, costs being the chief one, but film still has a certain look that digital cannot replicate.

With digital and AI, it's almost too clinical and perfect and that's what it's good at, but being 'perfect' is not necessarily art/appealing...which is why I guess some folks like using $5 lenses on $5k cameras.

[Ty Harper]

I literally just made a post on an R5C Facebook group about the crazy drops in used EF-L prices - then I came over here and seen this post, lol.

Haven't read Andrew's article yet but I will copy and paste what I posted in that group maybe 15 minutes ago:

"Maaaan, in this month alone I saw EF 50mm f1.2Ls (in great condition) going for $500 USD (never thought I'd see the day!).
Plus, I sold my EF 70-200mm f2.8L MKI a while back for $800 - and last week I bought the MKII version for the same price!
Point is, it's only going to get better for anyone doubling down on used EF-L lenses - and that includes stuff like the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART."

[KC Kelly]

"Maybe RED sold up and got out at the right time, after all?"  Well, Jim Jannard also sold his house in Malibu, California for $210 million USD!  Makes me wonder!

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I literally just made a post on an R5C Facebook group about the crazy drops in used EF-L prices 

All the more reasons why anybody starting out in photography today should skip over the current gen mirrorless, and just get a solid DSLR such as a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 for a few hundred dollars plus a few bargain priced DSLR lenses. 

Of course in five years time, perhaps even that purchase won't make sense? And smartphones + AI will have overtaken even DSLRs. 

[ac6000cw]

4 hours ago, KC Kelly said:

"Maybe RED sold up and got out at the right time, after all?"

I think they did. As a semi-disruptive startup company, RED didn't manage to dominate their market so instead they've sold out while there's still some value in the company.

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

8 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

 

All the more reasons why anybody starting out in photography today should skip over the current gen mirrorless, and just get a solid DSLR such as a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 for a few hundred dollars plus a few bargain priced DSLR lenses.

For photo, 100%

The Nikon D850 is arguably the finest wedding photographers camera, ever made.

Mirrorless is of course, just ‘sexier’ to the kids…

[Andrew Reid]

9 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

For photo, 100%

The Nikon D850 is arguably the finest wedding photographers camera, ever made.

Mirrorless is of course, just ‘sexier’ to the kids…

Why would you not get a second hand Nikon Z7 for same price?

Far wider range of lenses for cheap.

[IronFilm]

59 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Far wider range of lenses for cheap.

Is that true? I'd rather use an AF-D lens on a Nikon D750 / D850 than on a Z6 / Z7

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Why would you not get a second hand Nikon Z7 for same price?

Far wider range of lenses for cheap.

Because the D850 is a tank and just does the business 🦾

Surely used DSLR lenses are much cheaper?

I don’t really know and personally I would not go back to DSLR now.

 

[John Matthews]

Look no further than the music industry. Songs can now be made up on the fly in the style of X musician/group and according to some, they sound good enough. The same is done for stock photography and video. The real question is: will the masses pay for such material in the long term; or, will it be viewed as "it should be free because they stole it anyway"?

If the past few years is an indicator, many people are looking for more authentic means to interpret reality: film cameras, adapted lenses, point and shoot digital cameras of old, camcorders from the early 2000s, etc. Also, people are still looking for ways of remembering family events. Sure, a photo can do the job, but I cannot imagine it'll ever really compare to the "authentic" photo or video (even if it's digital), never mind the experience of shooting a photo on a phone versus a real camera.

My bet is: if there's not enough buyers for mirrorless and some companies close up shop, the prices for current digital and old stuff will skyrocket, not the opposite. Why? People don't want to interpret reality through AI; they want something more authentic. Stock up while you can!

 

[Ty Harper]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

For photo, 100%

The Nikon D850 is arguably the finest wedding photographers camera, ever made.

Mirrorless is of course, just ‘sexier’ to the kids…

 

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

All the more reasons why anybody starting out in photography today should skip over the current gen mirrorless, and just get a solid DSLR such as a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 for a few hundred dollars plus a few bargain priced DSLR lenses. 

Of course in five years time, perhaps even that purchase won't make sense? And smartphones + AI will have overtaken even DSLRs. 

I would have to disagree there. In no scenario would it be prudent to invest in DSLRs. Not when a beginner can get an R7 for prices roughly $1K USD or even lower. Pickup a cheap adapter (or the 0.71x for another $300 used) and now they're pretty much set for the forseeable future. 

 

 

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I would have to disagree there. In no scenario would it be prudent to invest in DSLRs. Not when a beginner can get an R7 for prices roughly $1K USD or even lower.

For filming? Sure!

For photography? (which is what this discussion point is about)

Nah, I'll take the cheaper Nikon D750 (or for a bit D850)