Acceptable ... faint praise ?

[dee]

For me , with limited aspirations , my mostly entry level , or outdated digital cameras are acceptable , without being outstanding .
Even my much loved 7mp Leica Digilux 3 provides images which seem OK to me , as does an very basic Sony A290, both create rich colours within their light limitations without the complexity/distractions of many other cameras .
I have a couple of cameras with enhanced low light performance , but I stay within normal lighting where possible .
I sometime wonder if ' acceptable ' is seen as not aspiring enough ?

The I-phone does not fall into this category , as the act of taking a camera out helps me to LOOK/FOCUS - even if I don't find anything to shoot , it has enhanced the experience and helped with an erratic memory .
The camera is active , whereas the I-pnone is passive .

Weird ?

dee

 

[seany65]

I suppose 'Acceptable' must be good enough for you as you err, find it acceptable.

I presume you have enough liking for the stuff you produce to keep producing it.

You'd really only need 'better than acceptable' cameras if you wanted to have a go at doing stuff your present ones couldn't do at all.

 

[Godfrey]

Acceptable generally means "It does the job well enough."
Satisfactory generally means "I'm happy with the job it does."

These nuance differences in connotation are what separate a lot of different things from each other.

 

[johnnyrod]

I know what you mean about the iphone - if you take your camera, you look a bit harder at things, looking for opportunities. That and the mega wide angle phone lens is something with which I struggle to take good pictures.

So acceptable without being outstanding - does this mean you're happy or not? In my smallish portfolio I have a couple of pics that were only possible with a f1.2 lens, but otherwise I could probably have been shooting with anything. I guess the other side of the bounds of acceptable are where you can't take a picture - some of my old cameras are too slow to be able to take a quick snap, or a f2.8 lens in low light is 3 or so stops slower than f1.2 so my 1/30th ends up as 1/4-1/2 second and it's not going to work.

 

[dee]

I like satisfactory Godfrey .
I sometimes get bewildered by so much choice and how digitals become obsolete each year .
I guess that I like the simplicity offered by a Minolta SRT plus 50mm f1.4 which satisfied me way back when .
just an M8 with CV 35mm f2.5 , Pentax with 35 f2.8 or the CCD of a basic Sony A290 with 35 f1.8 is fine with me.
dee

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . I sometimes get bewildered by so much choice and how digitals become obsolete each year . . . .

Dear Dee,

Not all of them. In what way is my Leica M9 (2009) obsolete? Or my Nikon Df (2013)?

Things become obsolete only when they cease to become widely useful. Neither the M9 nor the Df is even obsolescent.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Even my D70 (2004) and my Lumix LX-1 (2005) have roles to play. My Fuji MX-70 (c.1998) and 4800 (2001) do not.

And, for serious shots, current gear wins big.

For how long will this continue to be the case? That is, for how long will the progress be fast enough so that we lust after the latest, and a few brave souls voice the OP's thoughts above.

 

[B-9]

Don't tell my cameras they're old! Shh

They still act brand new 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. . And, for serious shots, current gear wins big. . . .

How?

Cheers,

R.

 

[ptpdprinter]

And, for serious shots, current gear wins big.

Well, I have film cameras and digital cameras, but no serious cameras and non-serious cameras. I always use my most current camera for the format; the others are backups. I don't really get the serious/non-serious distinction. The idea that I would use a ten year old digital camera rather than my newer one because I don't care about the results is foreign to me.

 

[charjohncarter]

Digitally, I have trouble even wanting to upgrade my camera; you know, new manual, new button placement, does the aperture ring work or do you have to use some dial. so for me I thought about a new K-1 FF Pentax, but I can't pull the trigger; bigger camera, more weight, will I use it with these new restrictions. So, I for now just struggle along with the camera I know, and I'm relatively happy.

 

[RichC]

And, for serious shots, current gear wins big.

I'm with Roger: how?

I take my photography seriously - but have no desire for "current gear", just for gear that meets my needs. I've had my Nikon D800E for 5 years, since 2012, and before that I used a Leica M8 for 5 years. The Leica went simply because my needs changed: I began printing large (4 feet plus) and concentrating on still lifes.

I have no intention of upgrading my Nikon. I cannot at present conceive how it can be significantly improved upon. The latest Nikons are better but only in minor ways, such as having better LCDs, or less noise - impossible to notice in prints however large.

Digital cameras have been excellent for several years now, so unless there's a a need for a particular advance, I can't help but feel that some people upgrade simply to have the latest toy, not because they require a new feature: nothing wrong with that, of course, but then it's a case of wanting not needing...

 

[Tim Murphy]

I probably shouldn't reply, but...........

I probably shouldn't reply, but...........

Dear Dee,

Gear of any type only becomes obsolete when you no longer find enjoyment in using it. And that point it just might be a bit of the grass is greener rather than uselessness setting in.

All of the digital cameras I own, even the ones I purchased brand new, are horribly old when measured against current products. But that doesn't mean they are useless by any stretch.

My better digital cameras are decrepit. I have a Canon 1DMK2, an EOS 40D, a Canon 1DMK3, and the pride of the fleet a Nikon D300. Every one of them was purchased used at a fraction of their original cost and I have yet to encounter a situation where the camera was the reason why an attempted photograph failed to materialize?

That doesn't speak well of my skills but I'm OK with that. I enjoying using everything I own, and I chalk the failures up as an opportunity to learn.

There was a time when I had a passion for photography, but it was sports and wildlife back in the film days before autofocus. I was the proud owner of a Canon F-1 with one 135mm f2.8 lens a 2X tele-convertor when I was in college. I used that camera all through college and enjoyed shooting Tri-X at 1600 at a basketball game and running back to the dorm photo club to develop and print the results. And I got more than passible results, all by myself.

To that end I recently purchased a Canon F-1 with a motorwinder and a Canon 50mm f1.4. I've added a Vivitar Komine series 1 70-210 lens and a Vivitar 120-600 lens in hopes of recreating my youth.

My youth wasn't pretty and I don't expect my new venture to be pretty but with the knowledge that even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then, I am sallying forth!

I am a hobbyist photographer, and a bad one at that. But I am a serious and devout fisherman. Lure, bait or fly, I can chuck it and succeed. And I still use gear that I bought with paper route money from 40 years ago, and it works like new, as from then, and from now.

I'm sorry for the rambling but the bottom line is that only you know what gives you joy. But you shouldn't automatically assume that because there is a newer camera available that your current gear can no longer put a smile on your face.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂