Bill Pierce
Well-known
A lot of us used to own a lot of similar, if not identical, camera bodies. There were the shooting bodies, the standby bodies in case of theft or breakage on the road and, since this was the day of mechanical film cameras, a bunch of bodies in the shop getting cleaned, lubricated and adjusted. I used an assortment of Leicas from M3’s through M7’s. That’s a range of bodies introduced from 1954 to 2002, a spread of almost 50 years. But, even over that stretch of time, the design and the basics of all the models were very similar. Indeed, when two M6’s were stolen during a walk up to the Olympics, I replaced them with two used M3’s. Folks who used other brand of 35mm film cameras were in similar situations.
The Fuji X-Pro, a digital camera whose design is such that is being embraced by a lot of folks who were Leica enthusiasts, was introduced in March of 2012. Since then Fuji has introduced three more cameras suitable for advanced amateurs and professionals. If Leica had introduced a new model every 5 or 6 months during the time they introduced M film cameras, we would have approximately 110 different models.
Truth is, unless you really adored TTL metering, there wasn’t a great deal of difference in the Leicas introduced over half a century. There are significant differences and improvements in the Fuji cameras introduced over a period of less than two years.
What does this mean? Should we throw away our digital cameras and get new ones every year or so or whenever a camera breaks or needs service? That could be expensive. Does it mean we should just buy cheap cameras? Does it mean that a Leica, built to last forever in a time of changing technology is silly? Does it mean we are dwelling too much on gear and we are silly? What does it mean?
The Fuji X-Pro, a digital camera whose design is such that is being embraced by a lot of folks who were Leica enthusiasts, was introduced in March of 2012. Since then Fuji has introduced three more cameras suitable for advanced amateurs and professionals. If Leica had introduced a new model every 5 or 6 months during the time they introduced M film cameras, we would have approximately 110 different models.
Truth is, unless you really adored TTL metering, there wasn’t a great deal of difference in the Leicas introduced over half a century. There are significant differences and improvements in the Fuji cameras introduced over a period of less than two years.
What does this mean? Should we throw away our digital cameras and get new ones every year or so or whenever a camera breaks or needs service? That could be expensive. Does it mean we should just buy cheap cameras? Does it mean that a Leica, built to last forever in a time of changing technology is silly? Does it mean we are dwelling too much on gear and we are silly? What does it mean?
back alley
IMAGES
"Should we throw away our digital cameras and get new ones every year or so or whenever a camera breaks or needs service? That could be expensive. Does it mean we should just buy cheap cameras? Does it mean that a Leica, built to last forever in a time of changing technology is silly? Does it mean we are dwelling too much on gear and we are silly? What does it mean?"
i think the answer could easily be yes to all of these questions!
i have recently come to the decision that i do not need to keep exchanging the newest model for my last years model…i prefer to have 2 camera bodies that take the same lenses and in fact prefer 2 identical bodies…makes life easier and calms my nervous nelly thoughts of losing a body to theft, damage or whatever.
i had a few rd1 bodies for quite a few years…loved them but eventually rid myself of them because i just can't focus as fast as an auto focus camera can and frankly my 63 year old eyes are failing. i'm a diabetic and some days i can barely focus well enough to read the computer screen let alone focus a small screen inside a camera.
we are so gear centric (now and before…it's not a new thing) that 'new' has insinuated itself dangerously close to our hearts and minds!
i think the answer could easily be yes to all of these questions!
i have recently come to the decision that i do not need to keep exchanging the newest model for my last years model…i prefer to have 2 camera bodies that take the same lenses and in fact prefer 2 identical bodies…makes life easier and calms my nervous nelly thoughts of losing a body to theft, damage or whatever.
i had a few rd1 bodies for quite a few years…loved them but eventually rid myself of them because i just can't focus as fast as an auto focus camera can and frankly my 63 year old eyes are failing. i'm a diabetic and some days i can barely focus well enough to read the computer screen let alone focus a small screen inside a camera.
we are so gear centric (now and before…it's not a new thing) that 'new' has insinuated itself dangerously close to our hearts and minds!
arseniii
Well-known
Answering your questions:
1. It means Fuji is an innovative company
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No means no, yes means yes
1. It means Fuji is an innovative company
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No means no, yes means yes
michaelwj
----------------
All it means is that there is choice should you want it.
I think it is silly to get a new camera all the time, I try to get 10 years from a camera, although I usually only get about 7. I don't think a Leica is built to last forever, M8's are now dying through an irreplaceable screen failure (7 years old now). I'd be happy with 7 years from an M, especially if when it irreparably broke I got a discount on a replacement.
Its a different world now, but you don't have to participate, keep shooting your M3's if you want. But there is plenty of choice if you want it.
OTOH, I think a lot of camera companies are throwing sh*t to the wall, hoping something sticks.
Michael
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
IMHO, it means just the opposite. There is alot to be said for continuity, reliability, staying power and craftsmanship.
Possibly.
Or maybe it just means that we are all to ready to buy into the marketing shinola that marketing types create to maks us unhappy with the prefectly good camera that we have.
peterm1
Veteran
Manufacturers have a strong economic imperative to come up with new and more interesting ways of making us buy their product. It does not matter much to them that last years model was a winner for their company - all that matters is whether this years model will sell or not and if it does sell will it pull in enough money to pay for R and D. Thye must do this or go broke.
In this context it is perhaps instructive to take note of the words of a CE of a large international drug company a few years ago. He said that his job was simple - all he had to do was to make sure the company sold enough drugs and that enough money came in each year to pay for their huge R and D budget. Its pretty much the same with top end camera companies today.
Of course we do not have to play that game. But I suspect we will be in the minority - and it has to be that way or the whole hurdy gurdy of innovation and sales and more innovation and more sale and so on (even if that innovation is mainly in marketing 'spin") will just stop spinning.
I for one tend always to buy "last years model" not this year's latest and greatest. I know that like a new car the moment I take a brand new latest and greatest camera out of the showroom it will depreciate by 20% or more. Usually I am happy enough with that strategy of buying last years model and I will also hang onto my "last years" camera for longer than many others do. So in fact its not literally last years camera -its the one form about 2-3 years ago. (I still use an M8 and a D700).
I figure there is a place in the "food chain" for those of us who behave this way but as I said above many will not (and in a way thank goodness for that otherwise we would all still be using 2 megapixel point and shoots as camera makers would have not have had the incentive to innovate).
So at the end of the day most of us just have to "lay back and think of England" while the camera companies metaphorically do to us what the lady in the above quote is having done to her.
In this context it is perhaps instructive to take note of the words of a CE of a large international drug company a few years ago. He said that his job was simple - all he had to do was to make sure the company sold enough drugs and that enough money came in each year to pay for their huge R and D budget. Its pretty much the same with top end camera companies today.
Of course we do not have to play that game. But I suspect we will be in the minority - and it has to be that way or the whole hurdy gurdy of innovation and sales and more innovation and more sale and so on (even if that innovation is mainly in marketing 'spin") will just stop spinning.
I for one tend always to buy "last years model" not this year's latest and greatest. I know that like a new car the moment I take a brand new latest and greatest camera out of the showroom it will depreciate by 20% or more. Usually I am happy enough with that strategy of buying last years model and I will also hang onto my "last years" camera for longer than many others do. So in fact its not literally last years camera -its the one form about 2-3 years ago. (I still use an M8 and a D700).
I figure there is a place in the "food chain" for those of us who behave this way but as I said above many will not (and in a way thank goodness for that otherwise we would all still be using 2 megapixel point and shoots as camera makers would have not have had the incentive to innovate).
So at the end of the day most of us just have to "lay back and think of England" while the camera companies metaphorically do to us what the lady in the above quote is having done to her.
YYV_146
Well-known
Sensors age just like men. Use it too much and they will eventually break. Some may last longer than others, but it is just as much a factor of luck as it is a factor of personal care. This would mandate an upgrade cycle of 10-15 years, which is about the longest I've seen any digital chip last under continued use.
But of course, that is quite different from the annual upgrading so many people seem to be doing...I believe that despite the rather long history of digital bodies, their output quality has only caught up with the best of 135 format film in the recent 2-3 years. If anyone really just wanted to replicate the dynamic range and resolving power of 135 film, they could have stopped upgrading in 2010 or 2011. People would naturally still want to be able to print bigger and shoot in lower light, regardless of whether they actually print or shoot low light work at all. It's not about what you shoot, it's about what you believe you could be shooting
I will say that my new Sony A7 is quite a step above my 2011 NEX-7 and miles ahead of the 450D I used to own in 2008, and will no doubt make much of my work both easier and of higher quality.
But of course, that is quite different from the annual upgrading so many people seem to be doing...I believe that despite the rather long history of digital bodies, their output quality has only caught up with the best of 135 format film in the recent 2-3 years. If anyone really just wanted to replicate the dynamic range and resolving power of 135 film, they could have stopped upgrading in 2010 or 2011. People would naturally still want to be able to print bigger and shoot in lower light, regardless of whether they actually print or shoot low light work at all. It's not about what you shoot, it's about what you believe you could be shooting
I will say that my new Sony A7 is quite a step above my 2011 NEX-7 and miles ahead of the 450D I used to own in 2008, and will no doubt make much of my work both easier and of higher quality.
VinceC
Veteran
The camera companies are up against the wall because the great mass of consumers is quickly and irreversibly moving to smart-phone photography ... the camera companies have to innovate and innovate and innovate, and still a lot of them will go out of business, or else get out of building retail cameras. My $150 smart phone takes decent family portraits with its 5MP camera, and it's now my carry around.
A young person in my office recently asked how journalists were able to function before the Internet. It considered this for awhile, then realized that the daily newspaper used to "be" the Internet for most people. ...
The classic RF and SLR design, perfected in the mid-50s to early '60s, remains intuitive for a working professional, but its a mystery to young people who just want to push a button to get an image they can text to friends.
A young person in my office recently asked how journalists were able to function before the Internet. It considered this for awhile, then realized that the daily newspaper used to "be" the Internet for most people. ...
The classic RF and SLR design, perfected in the mid-50s to early '60s, remains intuitive for a working professional, but its a mystery to young people who just want to push a button to get an image they can text to friends.
Pablito
coco frío
Yes.......
marcr1230
Well-known
Yes we are silly
But there is a significant difference between digital and film.
with digital, we are still in the early/mid days, like when cars started out, and people didn't know which of the 2,3,4 wheeled vehicles suited their needs.
with digital, each year brings advancements that do make a difference for your work - even though your photographic vision is the same. for example a film camera today uses much better film than one 60 years ago - same camera. but in digital, you need a new sensor (re a new body) to do the same
Film is great, I love it.
Digital is great , love it too.
RFF is great - And yes we gear hogs tend to be silly
But there is a significant difference between digital and film.
with digital, we are still in the early/mid days, like when cars started out, and people didn't know which of the 2,3,4 wheeled vehicles suited their needs.
with digital, each year brings advancements that do make a difference for your work - even though your photographic vision is the same. for example a film camera today uses much better film than one 60 years ago - same camera. but in digital, you need a new sensor (re a new body) to do the same
Film is great, I love it.
Digital is great , love it too.
RFF is great - And yes we gear hogs tend to be silly
Monochrom
Well-known
For 35mm film cameras wasn´t a big deal technology and the promises it involves, they were all Full FRame more or less exquisite or expensive or "better"
Maker today must deal with high competition with tons of promises that in fact catches people and their money...
The m3 would do all the way until makers really sell great FF cameras with great DR and simple desing without that crowd of buttons and face detection softwares...so keep that m3 lubed until they stop selling promises...and start selling real technology...
Maker today must deal with high competition with tons of promises that in fact catches people and their money...
The m3 would do all the way until makers really sell great FF cameras with great DR and simple desing without that crowd of buttons and face detection softwares...so keep that m3 lubed until they stop selling promises...and start selling real technology...
tempest68
Established
In order to get a new sensor on a digital camera, you have to buy a new camera (except for Ricoh GXR or medium format interchangeable backs).
With film, you get a new "sensor" with every shot, and different "sensor" characteristics each time you load a new roll (assuming you are switching film stock with each roll like shooting a roll of tri-x followed by a roll of portra followed by Velvia etc). Given the flexibility to change sensor characteristics while keeping the same camera body and lenses, it seems we are silly to buy into the more rigid sensor lock-in of digital!
With film, you get a new "sensor" with every shot, and different "sensor" characteristics each time you load a new roll (assuming you are switching film stock with each roll like shooting a roll of tri-x followed by a roll of portra followed by Velvia etc). Given the flexibility to change sensor characteristics while keeping the same camera body and lenses, it seems we are silly to buy into the more rigid sensor lock-in of digital!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Unless, of course, the consistency of having one recording medium that ALWAYS behaves the same poses a constraint that enhances your creativity. Personally, I go for consistency in the recording medium far more often than I go for maximum diversity. That's one of the true joys of working with digital capture vs film.
(The opposite joy ... enjoying the inconsistency and defects of film based capture ... is also fabulous. Which is why I'm shooting more and more Polaroid with Impossible Project film lately. I can have it both ways! ;-))
However, I do believe the rabid rush to upgrade with every succeeding model camera is foolish. The manufacturers must keep innovating and selling new product to survive ... that's their business .. but I'm a photographer, not an equipment dealer or manufacturer. I'm still making photographs with my 10 year old Olympus E-1 and loving the results, with my four year old Leica M9 too (I've had it two of those years). I just bought the latest Olympus (E-M1) and I'm finding it has the legs to carry me quite a ways into the future—exiting the new camera purchase train for another couple of years, I hope.
There's really no reason to buy every upgrade to any recent model camera other than to exercise your right to being a cameraholic. Some people love the addiction, but I'm happier when I don't spend the farm on buying cameras all the time. It sometimes doesn't seem that way, but it's the truth.
G
Eric T
Well-known
The way I see it is that buying a new digital camera is like buying into a new type of film. The sensors get so much better over time, that I pull the trigger once in a while and buy.
The new cameras are costly but always keep in mind the savings we have now with no need to purchase or process film.
Yes, I have old digital cameras that are collecting dust on the shelf but I am always happy when I get the latest "film".
The new cameras are costly but always keep in mind the savings we have now with no need to purchase or process film.
Yes, I have old digital cameras that are collecting dust on the shelf but I am always happy when I get the latest "film".
Mcary
Well-known
All I can say is I'm sure glad the person here on RFF that sold me his M8 earlier this year didn't throw it away or put it up on a shelf to collect dust because it had become dated or obsolete
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I believe that too many people think newer and better technology is going to make them better photographers. That probably comes from insecurity and marketing from the camera companies.
However, I love trying out new technology and getting all of the new camera and lenses and comparing them. When people find out that I've owned almost 40 digital cameras in less than a decade they think I'm nuts. (I've lost count of the lenses I've gone through over the years)
In truth, that would be nuts for a regular person, but luckily I write camera guides and reviews so the cameras are tax write-offs and I sell most of them pretty quickly. In any case, as someone else pointed out digital technology is still in the process of maturation so updating your camera in two years will generally show quite a bit of improvement whereas the same isn't true of film cameras.
I don't think we're silly. We just live in different times.
However, I love trying out new technology and getting all of the new camera and lenses and comparing them. When people find out that I've owned almost 40 digital cameras in less than a decade they think I'm nuts. (I've lost count of the lenses I've gone through over the years)
In truth, that would be nuts for a regular person, but luckily I write camera guides and reviews so the cameras are tax write-offs and I sell most of them pretty quickly. In any case, as someone else pointed out digital technology is still in the process of maturation so updating your camera in two years will generally show quite a bit of improvement whereas the same isn't true of film cameras.
I don't think we're silly. We just live in different times.
mdarnton
Well-known
This is the main reason I'm still using film. I bought a Nikon D300 about five years ago for work stuff, and I'm still using it for that, but for nothing else. If we start doing videos of classes at work, I will buy a D7100, but not until I need it. In the meantime, the D300 having dropped me in Nikon land, I've discovered Nikon FGs. I have six of them, none cost me more than $45 and I'm delighted with them because they're fancier than my M4s, having meters and A auto. Two are at home, with different films, two at work with different films, and one with Tri-X in it goes back and forth in my bag. One's in reserve in the vault.
Why do I need a digital at all? First off, I never shoot color except for work. Second, when digital can match the dynamic range of film, dynamic range being a visual pet topic of mine, I'll think about it. At the moment, I don't see any advantage.
Why do I need a digital at all? First off, I never shoot color except for work. Second, when digital can match the dynamic range of film, dynamic range being a visual pet topic of mine, I'll think about it. At the moment, I don't see any advantage.
Mcary
Well-known
I think most of us have been around the digital marry go round enough times to know that something newer and "better" is always just around the bend. So when we buy a new digital camera we know its only going to be the latest and greatest for a few brief moments. So we either accept that or we sell it and buy the current flavor of the month
Chris101
summicronia
That's not what they taught me.
tempest68
Established
Just to expand on my thinking regarding film, when you find a film stock you like and always use that film stock then you will have consistency. However if you are still finding you way with film like me, there are plenty of different films to try. All the while having consistency with the camera and lens.
With digital it now become important to wait until whomever your favorite online reviewers are to provide sample images and comments on the camera characteristics and handling. If you buy a digital camera and then find out you do not like how the sensor behaves or the ergonomics of the body or the performance of the lens, you have to hope you can return or sell it without losing too much money before taking the next gamble. This means having more skin in the game vs deciding you can just change film stock if you don't like what you are using or want to just change things up for awhile.