Do we need it?

[Bill Pierce]

There have been a lot of new digital cameras introduced recently, the Sony A9, the Nikon D850, the Fuji GFX, the Canon 6D , the Leica M10 and, I’m sure, a few I’m not aware of. For the most part, the most heralded improvements are based on improved sensors. It was easier when film was king. You just bought a roll of the new film and put it in your old camera. Super XX was superseded by Tri-X . HP5, by HP5+. And then P3200 and Tech Pan opened new worlds.

A new digital camera is a little more expensive than a roll of a new film; so, we should ask ourselves if we really need it. Face it; when your brand announces a new camera, It’s pretty exciting - more pixels, more frames per second, more tonal range. But my current camera has enough pixels to make a 16x20 print that you can press your nose against. And I’ve seen larger, poster sized reproductions that looked good when viewers didn’t attack them with their noses. I don’t shoot football anymore, and my most active subjects, my dog and people on the street, don’t need 20 fps. I shot a landscape the other day with detail in all but the darkest shadow and still had some tonal headroom. That’s not to say there aren’t scenes with a greater range than my cameras can capture. But a fair number of them look strange and unnatural in print when I just exploit the maximum my camera can currently do.

I love my toys, but they are more expensive than a roll of film. But the real reason I hold off a bit on new gear is that it doesn’t make my pictures any better.

Your thoughts?

 

[ktmrider]

Agreed. And I prefer film and a darkroom. Digital technology is amazing and does stuff we could only dream of 50 years ago but I like my 1959 M2 and TriX. It gives me a fresh sensor for every photo and much cheaper than a Leica Monochrome.

May carry a Fuji X70 on an upcoming 192 mile walk across England because it is so much smaller and lighter than my Leica film camera.

 

[f16sunshine]

No..We don't need it.
There is plenty of performance in many different areas from many cameras.
There is Speed of focus and write to card/Network for Sports and journalist.
Oodles of Resolution and DR for Commercial and Art.
A camera for every purpose and many that cover all the bases.
We certainly don't need any more but the companies need us.
It's a fact of capitalism right? If we want the supply we need to give some demand.

I've become a second hand adopter.
Have not bought a new camera since the Xpro1 in 2012.
Last year I bought a $500 XT1. This year a $500 Sony A7.
Still use the GF670 and Olymups mju2 more than any Digital cameras.
I'll buy another digital camera when the fixed lens f2-ish/40-50mm model finally arrives (if it ever does).

 

[fireblade]

Some-one mentioned Capitalism. That explains just about everything in this life. It's all about the feel good sensation/emotion of having the newest and best.
We all fall or have fallen for it.
Sigma, Olympus and Nikon have tried to suck me in during the past year, but i have not sinned 😀
Personally, not long ago i went down the minimalist road. Life is simpler and better.

 

[Ronald M]

Digital is fun, but I kept my M6 that takes ixmoo cassettes. My son got the other one. Both were from very early production.

During the last year I obtained 4 nikon F2`s in nice condition. The silver and black plain prisms so I could rid myself of the brick on top.

Sekonic studio deluxe does not need a battery

Score one for no battery for photography. Score another because I can make a print in my darkroom. No battery there. Even the metronome is mechanical.

Now we talk about the digitals, Leica M8 & M9. Small and easy carry. Too expensive at the volume I need.

Same for Nikons FX and DX.

What is nice is I do some high volume work in JPEG, DNG for personal, walk it over to the local finisher and he makes color prints ready in an hour with acceptable quality. Score digital.

Color darkroom is a pain plain & simple and gets worse every year. I am proficient and my prints are among the best, but materials yuck.

So all color is digital and I farm out prints.

Call me a hybrid photographer.

 

[Axel]

Since I bought my first digital camera there is no thought about whether it makes my pictures better.

There are some technical advantages like higher sensitivity for light or image stablilizer the film gear doesn´t have.
So I have upgraded my digital gear from time to time.

I agree that the second hand market offers all you need and may want.
Capitalism has to be - who would buy this new gear we can get shortly after for half of the price instead
than this "early adopters"? 😀

If you know what you want to photograph it's easy to get your gear.
The other way is expensive and never ending. And its an other hobby than
photographing - I´m sure 😉

 

[ellisson]

I love my toys, but they are more expensive than a roll of film. But the real reason I hold off a bit on new gear is that it doesn’t make my pictures any better.

Same reason I hold off, Bill. I'd rather spend my money printing my images with good quality materials - some up to 16 x 20 inches - for presentation. The costs for these add up, but the result of sharing the work is very satisfying. And for posting on the web, I see no reason to spend money on the latest and greatest gear that does not contribute to my image making.

 

[Keith]

I stopped needing anything better after my D700 in reality but did move on to a 240 for reasons not really connected to capability or IQ.

I do muse sometimes on where film may be now if digital hadn't come along and spoiled the party. I suspect we would have emulsions offering minimal grain and excellent detail at 6400 or higher!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't need it. But where are people who wants to buy new camera. Not 6D MKII instead of 6D, but new camera. New in the box and with warranty camera, recently manufactured. Just like new phone, new car. New toy.
You can't keep manufacture same old camera as new these days. Electronics are updated by manufacturers. It is different, very different from how film cameras where made. Or patephones.

Lenses are not as often updated as cameras, BTW.

 

[waileong]

We don't. And that's why digital camera sales are declining.

 

[zuiko85]

...........Personally, not long ago i went down the minimalist road. Life is simpler and better.

Large format pinhole?

Least ways that is what I think of when I hear the word "minimalist".

 

[RichC]

It depends on what you mean by "need". I can make do with most cameras, even if they're far different from what I use. Such as a Box Brownie instead of my Mamiya 645 or Nikon D800E. As could most folk.

I'm buying the Nikon D850 simply because it's a better tool - it will suit my kind of photography better, and be easier to use. I make large prints (a metre and more wide), so the 45 MP are welcome; and the two main weak weaknesses of the D800/E are fixed, the horrible screen that pixelates in live view and the shutter that feels like an earthquake!

Will my D850 images look different? No. Will taking and printing them be less frustrating? Yes.

I deliberately didn't buy the Nikon 810 - the interim model: it was too similar to my D800E.

 

[kbb]

I love my toys, but they are more expensive than a roll of film. But the real reason I hold off a bit on new gear is that it doesn’t make my pictures any better.

Your thoughts?

Ahhh...but the new toys are way cheaper than a thousand rolls of film + processing.
Example: A new Nikon D5 costs the same as 342 rolls of reversal film, based on the cost of film and processing when I last bought it, about ten years ago.
And having the capability to shoot as much as desired does make the pictures better.

 

[Richard G]

Going out with my M2 in a minute. It is virtually the current model, the MA. Meanwhile for digital I am stuck with old technology, the M9-P and first Monochrom. Eight years and five years out of date, I think I can live with them for at least ten more years if they hold up. No new cameras for me any time soon.

 

[Ccoppola82]

I went digital first, then played with legacy lenses on my canon 6d, and from there made the jump to film. At this point I shoot about 80% film to 20% digital and have built a fairly decent darkroom. It gives me far more enjoyment as well as tests my technical abilities, so that directs my decision to shoot it more. Oddly, I've gotten far more response to my film shots than digital from viewers despite its "lower technology". IMHO, the magic is in the moment first, placing the shapes in the right place is second, and the lenses doing what the photographer wants third. I won't buy a new digital until mine breaks or film is god forbid out of production.

 

[Richard G]

Considering upgrading my M2 to an M7. More old technology. This evening the light was changing all the time and the M2 finder, good though mine is, still loses a little brightness and I couldn't tell if the light had dimmed slightly behind cloud or whether it was just the finder. Never noticed this problem with the M2 before. Probably won't ever actually get an M7 but it's something I think about from time to time.

 

[Axel]

Considering upgrading my M2 to an M7. More old technology. This evening the light was changing all the time and the M2 finder, good though mine is, still loses a little brightness and I couldn't tell if the light had dimmed slightly behind cloud or whether it was just the finder. Never noticed this problem with the M2 before. Probably won't ever actually get an M7 but it's something I think about from time to time.

In my photography the manual exposure is still number one.
Nearly all my cameras are able to do infinitely variable exposure but often the mistake that they do it unwanted 😉
Before juggling with metering methods, programs (every camera works different...) auto isos and
other intelligent automatics I rather trust my experience whenever its possible.

The other way is the complete automatic camera like the "do all pocket digitals" and smartphones.
But this is really not the field of photographing with an M 😉

You can piick a nice lightmeter app and your M2 "has" all metering methods with equivalent ISObase you can imagine.
M7 never can do so...

 

[Spanik]

Ahhh...but the new toys are way cheaper than a thousand rolls of film + processing.
Example: A new Nikon D5 costs the same as 342 rolls of reversal film, based on the cost of film and processing when I last bought it, about ten years ago.
And having the capability to shoot as much as desired does make the pictures better.

Ok, I agree on the price of individual exposures when comparing film and digital but not on your last point. However, if you already had the D5, do you need the D850? That would cost a lot but the photos it takes cost you just as much as those of the still capable D5 takes.

I lust after a Fuji GFX. Would I be able to afford it? Probably. Does it makes sense? No way.

So yes, I replaced my 300D by a second hand 5DII but there was a very real upgrade. Would I upgrade to a 5DIV? Not if that 5DII continues to work as it is more capable than I am.

Now I do understand that just having new toys once in a while is nice. Even a caveman would have liked a new club from time to time. So I do from time to time buy an old camera just for being able to use such a camera. Like a TLR, or a 6x9. It also doesn't make sense. But it does change my photography as such a camera forces you to work differently (ok, I'm still lousy). And yes, I do have more cameras than I can use.

 

[Axel]

Ahhh...
And having the capability to shoot as much as desired does make the pictures better.

No way. Who looks at this thousands of dead pictures?
Life´s too short and to interesting for such a boring sitting bull job 😉

 

[Dogman]

If you think you need it, you need it. Even if you don't.

That's what advertising is all about, perception. Changing unfulfilled desire to necessity.

I bought my first digital camera about 10 years ago after shooting film for 30+ years. It was a Canon 8mp DSLR. For the first year I owned it, I hated it. Didn't trust it. Didn't like anything about it. Mostly just shot B&W with my Leicas and used the Canon for color. Then one day I shot a photo with that camera that I really liked. It had rich colors, excellent depth and beautiful lighting. At that point, I begin to slowly come around to using digital seriously.

I have a print of that photo on the wall and I've given copies to several friends. I print it to 12x18 inches on 13x19 rag paper. It's a little larger than the 11x14 paper I used to print my darkroom 35mm negatives. The prints I've made of that photo are approximately 1/2 of the full 8mp frame. Wouldn't stand up to a nose-against-the-print examination but it looks great at a normal viewing distance, hanging on a wall in the den.

That particular camera and lens are long gone, traded in for increasingly improved cameras with higher pixel counts and more modern processors and lenses with better resolution and function. None of my current cameras are in production anymore, replaced by "improved" versions with higher pixel counts and faster processors. It's the normal progression of technology these days. But, for now, I'm holding steady with what I have because I look at that 10 year old picture on the wall and know I don't really need the newest and best to take good photos.