Bill Clark
Veteran
The most important component of a photograph is the person making it.
Do we need it?
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 3K
Axel
singleshooter
I am wondering why many of us here are using the oldest filmcameras but others are updating their
digital gear regulary as soon as there is a new model available.
That doesn´t correlate to the amount of good and interesting pictures. I mean that there
are some members who buy gear and others are taking good pictures.
Sometimes they are the same but mostly not 😛
digital gear regulary as soon as there is a new model available.
That doesn´t correlate to the amount of good and interesting pictures. I mean that there
are some members who buy gear and others are taking good pictures.
Sometimes they are the same but mostly not 😛
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I enjoy the excitement when the new cameras come out, especially versions of the ones I currently shoot with. My Nikon D4 is getting a little long in the tooth, when compared to the D5 I got to shoot with for a week, but I couldn't possibly justify the expense. And the D850 is lightyears ahead of my D700, which is still chugging along, though it appears I didn't protect it well enough when I was shooting lacrosse in the rain last spring. And I'm sure the new 6D Mark II has a superior sensor to my 6D, but my 6D is making me money, and it's just plain simpler without the tilt screen and other "improvements" so it's staying put.
Again, love the excitement of the new cameras, just not planning on spending any of my money on them.
Best,
-Tim
Again, love the excitement of the new cameras, just not planning on spending any of my money on them.
Best,
-Tim
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's an interesting piece on the subject by someone whose opinions I respect.
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2017/08/i-read-with-great-interest-12th-thought.html
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2017/08/i-read-with-great-interest-12th-thought.html
Dogman
Veteran
I read about 1/3 of the Tuck article until I realized I don't really care about new camera hype. Maybe that was his point.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
16mp is more than Enough for me ...
And who knows
I am learning to be more disciplined and creative with my iPhone
And who knows
I am learning to be more disciplined and creative with my iPhone
ferider
Veteran
Nobody ever talks about it, but more than half of the technical improvement of the internet, cellular net (now going to G5), video formats, flash cards and video enabled DSLR and mirror-less cameras is driven by the porn industry.
I don't think the needs of still photographers matter much 🙂
Roland.
I don't think the needs of still photographers matter much 🙂
Roland.
Pioneer
Veteran
How am I to know whether you, or anyone else, really needs their next new camera. I have no idea how you use it and whether you are either wearing it out or being limited by its feature set.
However, I am continually astounded by what my granddaughter is able to do with her iPhone.
She has it with her almost continually. She uses the camera several times a day. She prints on my big Canon regularly (at least once a week.)
And it shows. Over time her photographs have been getting visibly better and better. And I am not talking about the resolution.
She uses film but she prefers her iPhone, and I can't say she is wrong. She is doing exactly what teachers and photographers have been recommending since before Saint Ansel came along. She is shooting and printing all the time.
Will she need a new iPhone? Certainly, because she has about worn out her 5c.
Will I need a new digital in a couple years? Don't make me laugh. The shutter is barely getting broken in on my Leica Typ 262 and I certainly am not exceeding its capabilities.
Maybe I should take a cue from my granddaughter and learn to better use the camera in MY phone.
However, I am continually astounded by what my granddaughter is able to do with her iPhone.
She has it with her almost continually. She uses the camera several times a day. She prints on my big Canon regularly (at least once a week.)
And it shows. Over time her photographs have been getting visibly better and better. And I am not talking about the resolution.
She uses film but she prefers her iPhone, and I can't say she is wrong. She is doing exactly what teachers and photographers have been recommending since before Saint Ansel came along. She is shooting and printing all the time.
Will she need a new iPhone? Certainly, because she has about worn out her 5c.
Will I need a new digital in a couple years? Don't make me laugh. The shutter is barely getting broken in on my Leica Typ 262 and I certainly am not exceeding its capabilities.
Maybe I should take a cue from my granddaughter and learn to better use the camera in MY phone.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Whether you need a new camera depends on what you have now. Stepping up from 5MP to 42MP might be just the thing to take your photography to the next level, not to say some great images haven't been taken with 5MP.
PKR
Veteran
I think the MP chase is silly. But clients, now being very camera savvy, sometimes request a specific camera or file size for their photos. I spoke with a local guy who told me that IBM requested a PhaseOne 65MP back be used on their job. If the new 100MP had been out then, they would have likely requested that one. This stuff is rentable locally and fees are billed to the client so, no big deal, as long as you're familiar with P1 and have a tether station with C1 running.
He said, he had absolutely no idea what they had planned for the files. The job was for a computer trade publication and web use, as I recall. Maybe they want to make giant prints for a trade show?
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx
x
He said, he had absolutely no idea what they had planned for the files. The job was for a computer trade publication and web use, as I recall. Maybe they want to make giant prints for a trade show?
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx
x
G Dogg
Established
I have been blessed to have and use virtually any camera I have "wanted". But there is indeed a point when we loose sight of the craft. I am now enjoying using my trust Leica Digilux 3, (a whopping 7.5 MP), and honestly, it is fun, and meets the requirements for what I am doing. And posting things on line, well it is enough. With care, I m get a 13x19 from an iPhone that when people look at them 1, don't ask what it was taken with , and 2, seem to enjoy the content for what it is.
peterm1
Veteran
I tend to buy slightly older camera gear because the value proposition is usually not quite there (for me) when considering the latest and greatest (and most expensive) gear. I still try to ask myself the question "Do I need it?" even when buying last year's gear (or more often, even older gear). And of course the answer is usually "No, I don't NEED it!". But when I ask myself "Do I still WANT it at that price?" the answer for older gear is more likely to be "Yes". I am seldom disappointed when I buy older stuff. And once I have it I tend to hang onto it for longer. I am still happily using a Nikon D700 because it performs so well.
I don't do that much landscape work where a high megapixel count camera makes a difference to detail captured, so it is not really high pixel count that convinces me to buy something new these days. But I do get tempted by cameras that are billed as having good high ISO and high dynamic range performance - for me perhaps one of the greatest failings of digital cameras has been the way they tend to blow highlights in an ugly manner which is quite un-film like. Any technology that improves this is a big temptation for me. Such cameras do not have to be ultra expensive either. The above D700 for example still performs well enough for me to have kept it and I can get quite a lot of highlight detail out of it by shooting RAW and being careful with my exposure. And as another example, perhaps the best small camera I have in this regard is a Sony NEX F3. This is a consumer grade Sony NEX which I paid $250 for and is limited to 16 megapixels - not much by today's standards. But in low light it easily out shoots my Sony NEX 7 and matches my D700 in noise performance (I shoot both at 1600 ISO or 3200 ISO at a stretch in low light). I admit both of these cameras are outclassed now by newer models but I don't feel an overwhelming urge to buy something more expensive yet.
I don't do that much landscape work where a high megapixel count camera makes a difference to detail captured, so it is not really high pixel count that convinces me to buy something new these days. But I do get tempted by cameras that are billed as having good high ISO and high dynamic range performance - for me perhaps one of the greatest failings of digital cameras has been the way they tend to blow highlights in an ugly manner which is quite un-film like. Any technology that improves this is a big temptation for me. Such cameras do not have to be ultra expensive either. The above D700 for example still performs well enough for me to have kept it and I can get quite a lot of highlight detail out of it by shooting RAW and being careful with my exposure. And as another example, perhaps the best small camera I have in this regard is a Sony NEX F3. This is a consumer grade Sony NEX which I paid $250 for and is limited to 16 megapixels - not much by today's standards. But in low light it easily out shoots my Sony NEX 7 and matches my D700 in noise performance (I shoot both at 1600 ISO or 3200 ISO at a stretch in low light). I admit both of these cameras are outclassed now by newer models but I don't feel an overwhelming urge to buy something more expensive yet.
jsrockit
Moderator
I've come to find that I like APSC (for the added depth of field with longer lenses, but still being able to do a good job wide open), 24mp, and Fuji ergonomics. Very happy... and I don't think I'll feel inadequate with my choices for many years. These new cameras are amazing...but just not my style.
PKR
Veteran
The camera cos have to come up with something to sell new cameras (lenses). I honestly thought that the limit would come around 20MP (DSLR/non MF), and then engineers would concentrate on better photo site tech. Higher DR, better low light performance (lower noise amplifiers), that kind of thing. But the marketing people rule. The first question I get asked when someone sees me with a camera..is, how many MPs?
I don't think this stuff matters much to many of us. As long as I can rent the latest greatest when needed, I'm cool. It's the same with golf clubs and tennis rackets.. and athletics shoes.. marketing. Use what works best for you, and ignore the marketing noise.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Okay, I agree I'm old, and a bit set in my ways, and firmly believe in K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid), and when I see a new camera like the D850 has a NINETY PAGE brochure, which includes this image of it's viewfinder & auto-focus points, I freak out.
What a freakin' distraction. I still use only the center focus point on my 6D, and don't feel I'm missing anything.
Best,
-Tim
What a freakin' distraction. I still use only the center focus point on my 6D, and don't feel I'm missing anything.
Best,
-Tim
Contarama
Well-known
I use a Df and a Mt Fuji F2...what are these other dslrs you speak of? AF lenses? Really??? LOL 😀
farlymac
PF McFarland
Oh, to be able to afford a new model every time Nikon does an update. But then I'd just have more cameras sitting around not being used.
If I was a pro in need of replacing some aging bodies, the D850 specs are looking very nice.
But what I notice is that in order to use the D850 to it's fullest, you may also need to update your lenses. So that adds more cost into the system right off the bat.
Big honking 45MP sensor files are going to need more storage space, not to mention a better CPU and memory configuration to speed post processing along. So possibly a new computer will be called for.
I waited a long time from when I bought my first digital camera (Panasonic TZ-3) before getting its replacement (Nikon P7700). After dealing with that camera's faults for a couple of years I started looking to upgrade to a DSLR. It still took me quite a while before I got a Nikon D80 really cheap. I liked it so much I got another body just in case the first one would fail. Well, the second one failed first, and it pointed out a common problem with the D80 innards, so much that I immediately started looking for its replacement.
I settled for a D300s, since most everyone I know who has one feels it is a much better built camera, and I could still use the batteries from the D80, though I needed to get a different battery pack. It is a far better camera than the D80 by all means. My post processing times have gone down quite a bit, usually just consisting of cropping with no corrections, or minor shadow detail fixing.
But now I'm looking at having to replace my ageing computer and software because of the larger files, upgrade my Internet line, and get new printers. All collateral costs because of the D300s.
So where does it end? I wanted to get at least one or two of the new DX lenses from Nikon, but found out they won't work on the D300s or D80. I'd need to get a D7500 to use them. And Nikon is designing their new cameras with the mindset of obsoleting the older lenses, so you have to buy new glass.
It's why I still hang on to my film gear.
PF
If I was a pro in need of replacing some aging bodies, the D850 specs are looking very nice.
But what I notice is that in order to use the D850 to it's fullest, you may also need to update your lenses. So that adds more cost into the system right off the bat.
Big honking 45MP sensor files are going to need more storage space, not to mention a better CPU and memory configuration to speed post processing along. So possibly a new computer will be called for.
I waited a long time from when I bought my first digital camera (Panasonic TZ-3) before getting its replacement (Nikon P7700). After dealing with that camera's faults for a couple of years I started looking to upgrade to a DSLR. It still took me quite a while before I got a Nikon D80 really cheap. I liked it so much I got another body just in case the first one would fail. Well, the second one failed first, and it pointed out a common problem with the D80 innards, so much that I immediately started looking for its replacement.
I settled for a D300s, since most everyone I know who has one feels it is a much better built camera, and I could still use the batteries from the D80, though I needed to get a different battery pack. It is a far better camera than the D80 by all means. My post processing times have gone down quite a bit, usually just consisting of cropping with no corrections, or minor shadow detail fixing.
But now I'm looking at having to replace my ageing computer and software because of the larger files, upgrade my Internet line, and get new printers. All collateral costs because of the D300s.
So where does it end? I wanted to get at least one or two of the new DX lenses from Nikon, but found out they won't work on the D300s or D80. I'd need to get a D7500 to use them. And Nikon is designing their new cameras with the mindset of obsoleting the older lenses, so you have to buy new glass.
It's why I still hang on to my film gear.
PF
PKR
Veteran
Which lenses ? And, why won't they work on older DX bodies?
Scrambler
Well-known
342 rolls of 36 exposures = 12312 photos. or if taking 10 images per day that is 23 years. Of course, if taking 100 per day its a little more than 2 years. In reality I'd buy a new digital camera well before 23 years - only a film camera would be used for that length of time.
Commercial imaging makes digital worth the money. Amateur is cheaper with film. It's the ongoing visible cost (the hand in the pocket) that changes the feeling.
Like owning a new car (costs lots of money but none of it visible until you sell) versus owning an old car with recurrent expenses with repair, but probably about the same total cost overall.
I would guess that I have about $3000 sunk into a wide range of film photography equipment. With that I can use a 21mm prime out to a 300mm zoom, lenses from 120 years old to 5 years old, image sizes from 35mm to 4x5, every major camera layout (RF, SLR, view, P&S, guess focus...)
If I need to I can eat alive the quality of any digital. It's the speed I can't eat alive - and for image quality that doesn't matter. For professional imaging in this modern era it is certainly an issue though.
And as for quality - the image size for a roadside billboard is 1.5MP. That's all. So if 1.5MP can print at 6mx3m (apx 20ft x 10ft) its hard to see what 10 times as many pixels is really delivering in most real-world settings.
Commercial imaging makes digital worth the money. Amateur is cheaper with film. It's the ongoing visible cost (the hand in the pocket) that changes the feeling.
Like owning a new car (costs lots of money but none of it visible until you sell) versus owning an old car with recurrent expenses with repair, but probably about the same total cost overall.
I would guess that I have about $3000 sunk into a wide range of film photography equipment. With that I can use a 21mm prime out to a 300mm zoom, lenses from 120 years old to 5 years old, image sizes from 35mm to 4x5, every major camera layout (RF, SLR, view, P&S, guess focus...)
If I need to I can eat alive the quality of any digital. It's the speed I can't eat alive - and for image quality that doesn't matter. For professional imaging in this modern era it is certainly an issue though.
And as for quality - the image size for a roadside billboard is 1.5MP. That's all. So if 1.5MP can print at 6mx3m (apx 20ft x 10ft) its hard to see what 10 times as many pixels is really delivering in most real-world settings.
kshapero
South Florida Man
What's a 240?😕
Similar threads
