Your most used, robust and advanced digital camera

Ko.Fe. said:
Oh dear,
Last thing I would do is to switch from Canon made in Japan DSLRs to elsewhere DSLRs.
It got to be the mirrorless, but not Nikon colors. :)
Click to expand...

My Sony A7M III is made in Thailand. The 24 - 240 Sony zoom is made in China. They work flawlessly.

You might want to reconsider your remarks to the moderator. You are currently in a bad place. You do not want to be known for those comments.
 
Most used and longest owned (OK ot's the only one I own) Sony Z5 camera phone.Which is now neark 6 years old.
 
I don't want to discount the discussion, but most of what we have to participate with is anecdote and small sample size. My own anecdote: I have working cameras from the "golden age" of mechanical/optical manufacturing that are 40, 50, even 80+ years old (look at you, cute little Leica IIIa). All of today's cameras -- all of them --- rely on specialized batteries and data storage cards that likely won't be available in 20 years. Think about what you were using 20 years ago for data storage -- floppy disks. It is hard to find a 3.5 inch floppy drive now, and try finding a battery for the original Sony Mavic. All I am saying is that a discussion of robustness has to consider that the camera market has explicitly changed to become one producing disposable goods. When that happens, the engineers and designers working on these things aren't contemplating a 50 year product lifespan. Heck, I doubt they even plan for 10 (even if my D3 has made it that far in amateur use).

And folks: I could be 100% wrong on the above. It is fun to talk about. I won't get bruised if you all disagree. But you won't get an uncivil word from me on the subject. They are just cameras.
 
I totally agree with Ben Marks. In the I USE TI USE 5" FLOPPIES. What change of getting a drive now. Data in ASCI firnat which had to added to tape in 1992, tried tobget a reader in 96-97 to read the data, What a pain that was.
 
pyeh said:
Between Ko.Fe. and jsrockit it wasn't Ko.Fe. who started the mud slinging.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
As I mentioned initially, I was digging. For months now. Looking at thousands pictures from hundreds of photogs.
My comment was based on this research. 50R is great, if not unsurpassed for stills and within low ISO, it has nothing to do with anyone skills. If you challenge 50R to use AF for tracking or high ISO, its IQ goes down to mobile phones cameras. I know GFX user and this is how he is using it. To get paid $$$$ and even $$$$$ for large prints. And what I get in return for my observation?

Leica SL I like most, but it has no service not only in Canada, but nothing is done it USA, either. All is sent to Germany and wait is around 15 weeks for USA.
I was thinking to sell all of the gear and to keep only M-E 220 and SL with one AF zoom lens.
But with absence of service, I'm not a gambler. I would have to move to Germany to be able to have confidence in LCAG :) .

It looks like the only practical choice I have left for weather sealed, bad weather rated, compact camera with lenses I'm finding practical is OM-D. In last couple of days I have reached Olympus community on broader forum and asked why images from same gear are all over the map. Just like I noticed it here. But I was getting adequate responses and real advises, answers. Not insulting comments like "you are not good photographer" which went here.

It is not me who has to be adequate here.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
That said I expect my Konica Genba Kantoku jobsite 35mm film camera to outlast it...



Chris
Click to expand...

I had one given for free to me. Or did I won it in the contest... Can't remember by now.
It was with 28mm prime, WIDE version. I gave it real use test on the streets in GTA and Montreal and it was not good IQ camera.
Partially, due to protective glass, I think.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
For months now. Looking at thousands pictures from hundreds of photogs.
My comment was based on this research. 50R is great, if not unsurpassed for stills and within low ISO, it has nothing to do with anyone skills.
Click to expand...

High ISO does not go down to the level of a mobile phone. My comment is based on actual experience, not looking at pictures online.

High ISO performance is very closely related to Dynamic Range performance. If a camera has high dynamic range, it will very likely also have very good high ISO performance.

The Fuji GFX-50R at ISO 6400 has almost the exact same dynamic range are a Leica M9/ME has at base ISO. Likewise, the read noise of a GFX 50R at ISO6400 is about the same as a M9/ME at ISO 200. And it does that with 2.83x more resolution.

Shawn
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I don't want to discount the discussion, but most of what we have to participate with is anecdote and small sample size. My own anecdote: I have working cameras from the "golden age" of mechanical/optical manufacturing that are 40, 50, even 80+ years old (look at you, cute little Leica IIIa). All of today's cameras -- all of them --- rely on specialized batteries and data storage cards that likely won't be available in 20 years. Think about what you were using 20 years ago for data storage -- floppy disks. It is hard to find a 3.5 inch floppy drive now, and try finding a battery for the original Sony Mavic. All I am saying is that a discussion of robustness has to consider that the camera market has explicitly changed to become one producing disposable goods. When that happens, the engineers and designers working on these things aren't contemplating a 50 year product lifespan. Heck, I doubt they even plan for 10 (even if my D3 has made it that far in amateur use).

And folks: I could be 100% wrong on the above. It is fun to talk about. I won't get bruised if you all disagree. But you won't get an uncivil word from me on the subject. They are just cameras.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I started using digital in 1996 or '97. Since then the AA batteries have got cheaper and so have the alternative CR-V3's. Smart media cards are still available and the cameras from then work OK - fingers crossed. I prefer the 4 megapixel update and the 5 mega one also takes Compact flash cards... No problem getting them either.

FWIW, I think that megapixel madness meant a lot of those single digit cameras were quickly abandoned in the same way that (say) the XA's were abandoned once digital appeared. I have bought "as new" elderly digital cameras in the original box for a few coins with - in one or two cases "as new" leather ERC's. As for the media cards the ones that I paid 90 or so pounds sterling for years ago are now dirt cheap second-hand and still cheap new. BTW, I am happy to print up to A4, mostly because I ran out of wall space with the A3+ prints...

Regards, David
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I don't want to discount the discussion, but most of what we have to participate with is anecdote and small sample size. My own anecdote: I have working cameras from the "golden age" of mechanical/optical manufacturing that are 40, 50, even 80+ years old (look at you, cute little Leica IIIa). All of today's cameras -- all of them --- rely on specialized batteries and data storage cards that likely won't be available in 20 years. Think about what you were using 20 years ago for data storage -- floppy disks. It is hard to find a 3.5 inch floppy drive now, and try finding a battery for the original Sony Mavic. All I am saying is that a discussion of robustness has to consider that the camera market has explicitly changed to become one producing disposable goods. When that happens, the engineers and designers working on these things aren't contemplating a 50 year product lifespan. Heck, I doubt they even plan for 10 (even if my D3 has made it that far in amateur use).

And folks: I could be 100% wrong on the above. It is fun to talk about. I won't get bruised if you all disagree. But you won't get an uncivil word from me on the subject. They are just cameras.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree.

However I will say that my 2003 Olympus E-1 continues to work perfectly (and both batteries and storage cards are still available easily), and most of the digital cameras I've purchased, used, then sold on to the next user over the past twenty years continue to be completely functional with available storage cards and batteries. More importantly, plug in an appropriate cable and connect them to my computer, via ports that weren't even available when they were new, and the data on their storage cards is immediately accessible/downloadable/whatever.

My own view is that digital camera things like batteries, storage cards/formats, etc, have sorted themselves out over the past 20 years to work pretty well now. There weren't many consumer-priced digital cameras prior to that worth the cost, so the history is short and has been fast moving, but I suspect we've hit something of a plateau that will last for a good time.

G
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Update.
...
GRX 50R is amazing on low ISO and static objects. Once something is moving or low light, it is on pair with mobile phones cameras.

...
Click to expand...

These data compare sensor technical performance of the GFX 50R with cameras known for their low-light (high ISO) image quality. These results are computed from statistical analysis of unrendered, raw-file data. This eliminates potential differences due to demosaicking algorithms and post-production rendering parameters.





Assuming you intended to type "GFX 50R", you must have made an error evaluating the GFX 50R in low light.

As far as moving objects go, the GFX 50R continuous, auto-focus mode performance is poor.
 
Going to the OP’s original title, and since I only own one ILC digital at a time, (3 since 2006) then my most used, robust, and ‘advanced’ digital is my current EM10, first version.
As a cheap, consumer grade camera it will last long enough and if/when it dies then I’ll look at what is currently available in the used mft market to replace it.
Boring yes, but…well there it is.
 
Godfrey said:
I don't entirely disagree.

However I will say that my 2003 Olympus E-1 continues to work perfectly (and both batteries and storage cards are still available easily), and most of the digital cameras I've purchased, used, then sold on to the next user over the past twenty years continue to be completely functional with available storage cards and batteries. More importantly, plug in an appropriate cable and connect them to my computer, via ports that weren't even available when they were new, and the data on their storage cards is immediately accessible/downloadable/whatever.

My own view is that digital camera things like batteries, storage cards/formats, etc, have sorted themselves out over the past 20 years to work pretty well now. There weren't many consumer-priced digital cameras prior to that worth the cost, so the history is short and has been fast moving, but I suspect we've hit something of a plateau that will last for a good time.

G
Click to expand...

My main worry about all those fancy batteries - apart from the cost - is that we rely on the makers to supply them and when they stop we are cast adrift, so to speak. I know there are dozens of makers out there supplying what appear to be alternatives but I can remember that clip of the laptop that started to smoke and so am very wary of unknown makes of battery.

Worse still, I know that the problem is overheating and lithium batteries have thermocouples in them, usually, to prevent overheating. But I've also noticed that some of the makers' chargers have three or four connections and the other ones sometimes have only two. And that makes me wonder if, sometimes, cuts are made to the batteries innards.

And comparing the capacity of the makers' batteries with two or four AA's I often think we are being short changed.

Lastly, I'll add that Olympus made a little pack (LBH-! from memory) that heald three disposable (and easily bought in supermarkets) batteries to replace the usual battery. If I ever see one I'll buy it...

Regards, David
 
Valid concerns, David, but likely not really warranted by the track record of lithium camera batteries. They're simply not under the same kinds of stresses that the larger, more powerful variants of the type used in portable computers or other larger, higher consumption devices are.

Having had AA powered Pentax DSLRs (and once had that Olympus AA adapter for my E-1 as well), I can easily see the differences in weight, longevity, and capacity. The lithiums win on all performance comparisons! NiMH AAs are far more primitive, require constant maintenance, and have far less capacity. Their only advantage is that you can buy them in large quantities more in expensively, and you often have to...!

G
 
P1020398.JPG Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 with "Leica" Vario Elmar Aspherical lens with 10X optical Zoom. Bought at Costco mostly for business use but I am always impressed with its images...the detail is awesome. Bought a spare on Ebay for less than $20 and carry it around all the time. P1010244.JPG
 
One of my workhorses - Sony SLT A33 >100k pictures and worn outfit.

Click image for larger version Name: a33kl.jpg Views: 0 Size: 94.6 KB ID: 4769437
Bought it used for a small amount of bucks some years ago. All functions still okay.
Works with adapted M42, PK and native Sony/Minolta AF lenses. 18-55II SAM here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom