Roger Hicks
Veteran
Isn't Sturgeon's Law involved? That 90% of anything is crap? With a thousand times as many photographs on line, there will be a thousand times as much crap. And a thousand times as much good stuff..
Cheers,
R.
Economics and Digital Cameras
- Thread starter ibcrewin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 8K
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
That's right and it's sad that normally people only mention the increase of crap.
jsrockit
Moderator
Good point Roger. Everyone is entitled to like and hate what they want when it comes to photography, but many just seem jaded when it comes to changing times. I believe when that happens, you need to step away for awhile. 🙂
anjoca76
Well-known
I went to a concert a few years ago at The Gorge, in Washington state, with a digital pint-and-shoot. I set it to auto with some sort of pre-set and fired away most of the day without looking through the viewfinder or even the LCD screen. I just randomly pointed it and fired away at will. Anything I snapped that turned out well--and there were a lot of those--was pure chance. I don't see any sort of skill in that. Yes, that can kinda-sorta be done with my M2, but not really. I would've had very few shots in focus, or exposed properly. I am obviously using an extreme example, but for me, personally, I can't look at those photos from that concert with any pride. There was no skill on my end; it was all the work of the camera.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
(1.) Your way of computing how much a camera costs to you are not really correct because a digital camera depreciate but your pictures might have given you money and for sure gave you pleasure which has also some value (I hope so!). Also if you are comparing film and digital you should really take into account how much working costs to you, i.e. a digital camera is going to be more expensive than film in the short run if you take into account that you need at least a computer and some memory but it is cheaper if you shot a lot and it is a lot cheaper if you consider that the working flow with digital is more similar to using Polaroid than to film.
(2.) Your camera sits at the bottom of the digital camera market, I am not sure that all models depreciate so quickly, super high level digital backs which costs in the region of the 50,000 US$ are going to depreciate even quicker but I could sell my Fuji S5 Pro, a peculiar camera particularly dear to wedding photographers, for about the same amount of money I payed for it.
(3.) There will always be something new in the future whether this is going to help your photography or not is up to your judgment. If you work at low iso and shot static subjects at moderately open aperture and you need your pictures for the web or to be printed up to some 18" wide format or so you won't see all that difference passing form something like an Olympus E-1 (10 years old) to the latest toy money can buy. If you do sport and shot a 600mm lens at 6,400iso at a baseball game then the latest IS, sensor, whatever is much more useful and you might want to upgrade.
(4.) From my point of view a compromise is the best thing, even basic entry level cameras today have better specifications than 10 years old cameras, but next year's cameras won't have much more than today (probably!), so changing gear every 4 or 5 years is what I do.
GLF
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Roger, how did you know that Sturgeon's Law isn't part of the 90% "laws" that are crap? 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A wonderful argument, on a par with "Why is there only ONE Monopolies Commission?"
Cheers,
R.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Exdsc
Well-known
I think photography has moved on to become simply a means of gathering visual data - today all photographs in digital format are simply data.
Photographs are no longer good or crap, they're simply visual data that people generate by simply engaging in using digital devices, the same with texting and other means of interaction with digital technology.
Google drives around in a car and photographs everything, while we walk around and photograph certain things. Google makes money using that visual data/photographs, we spend money to make that data.
Now, if only we lean how to data mine our own archive of visual data/photographs and make money from it...
Mcary
Veteran
Sorry but I can't help but laugh at anyone that is actually gullible enough to think the X100 or any camera will/change everything.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
It cost me more than $10.50 just to develop a 24 print roll back in the day. And I'll probably shoot many more before I get another one.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Sturgeon originally claimed that 90% of science fiction was crud, IIRC. It does seem to apply in many more cases though.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Consumer DSLR bodies are amongst the fastest cameras to lose dollar value because they are superceded so quickly. Kit and consumer grade lenses similarly. Pro-grade DSLR bodies have longer development cycles and slower depreciation, same as high-end lenses.
So: buy a consumer DSLR to use it either a lot or for a long time. Just because it isn't worth much to sell doesn't mean it is a bad camera, or not worth using.
(My only remaining DSLR is an Olympus E-1, the original pro-grade FourThirds body. It was $2000+ in 2003, new. I bought it in 2008 for something around $350, and could likely get $175-250 for it now. It's still working beautifully and has a huge amount of life left in it. No need to sell it ... It, the 11-22/2.8-3.5 lens, the 35mm Macro lens, and an adapted Nikkor 50/1.2 and Nikkor-H 85/1.8 are a complete kit. The ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 is worth twice what the E-1 body is worth ...)
G
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not exactly. Someone said to him that 90% of science fiction was crap. Sturgeon then defended the field in which he had gained eminence by saying something like, "Sir, 90% of ANYTHING is crap."
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is certainly the most novel argument I have ever seen for the long-running assertion that photography "isn't art"; a view that most people agree is nonsense. Are you saying that there are no good photographs? That they can never be art? That all photographs are absolutely indistinguishable, one from another, good from bad? This is hardly defensible.
Cheers,
R.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Your memory is better than mine, but a quick google search will show that Sturgeon origionally used the word "crud", but I think using "crap" makes the point better.
Exdsc
Well-known
Can data be art?
Data on a basic level is information, photographs are information, but while in the past this visual information was presented in a way that required artistic skill and thus those images became art rather than being simple visual data, today that artistic process has been made redundant.
How to elevate digital images from being simple visual data to works of art? That is the challenge of still photography today. Everyone is working on it and thus far things don't seem that promising.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is the same argument as was applied to silver halide for many decades. Only those few who still swallow the old view that 'photography isn't art' will have the slightest sympathy with your argument -- and even then, why should they distinguish between silver and digital?
Cheers,
R.
Archiver
Veteran
Five years ago it was 2008. The only large sensor compact camera was the Sigma DP1, which was as slow as molasses and only worked well in bright light. Micro Four Thirds was just coming into the market and mid-range DSLR's like the Canon 40D and Nikon D90 were what all the enthusiasts were buying. Compact cameras like the Canon G9 were decent but still had relatively slow AF and cruddy high ISO performance.
Now we have micro four thirds cameras and lenses in abundance, the video industry was turned upside down by the 5D Mark II and subsequent full HD DSLR's, a number of aps-c ILC's and now a growing number of aps-c compacts. We even have a full frame (almost) compact camera, and the latter in only the last two years. Heck, Leica created the first full frame rangefinder in 2009 and in 2013 we have another one.
There's also a revolution taking place in the video camera industry. After the 5D Mark II, Canon realized there was a big market in the video industry and created the Cinema camera line, but the first camera, the C300, only does 1080p, whereas more and more cameras in that price range offer 4k and raw recording. The newly announced Blackmagic 4K cinema camera offers 4K raw recording for only $4000, whereas the Canon C300 is $15,000 and only does 1080p!
Even larger scale equipment is coming down in price. Only a year ago, you would pay tens of thousands for a Red Scarlet X, the entry level cinema camera from Red. Upper level Reds like the Epic have shot major features films like Pirates of the Carribean and Dredd. Recently, the price of the C300 was literally cut in half.
The push for better and better technology will not stop. As much as we are photographers, we also consume gear. The manufacturers create more and we want more, creating a cycle of evolution that is actually getting faster, not slower.
How does this relate to you? Whatever you buy now will always take the photos it has always taken, barring debilitating malfunction. Whatever comes five years from now will be half the price and offer twice the functionality. I would not call the cameras of five years ago obsolete, but frankly, there are much better alternatives available now, even from the last few years.
My Canon 30D still pumps out beautiful photos, but my Olympus EM-5 is much smaller, faster, and just plain cooler. It still lacks the creaminess of Canon but offers so much more functionality and speed.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
But what IS 'twice the functionality'?
For a camera, functionality = taking good quality pictures.
How do you double that?
Not all of us judge cameras by size, speed and 'coolness' (whatever that is). Some of us prefer just to take good quality pictures.
Cheers,
R.
Similar threads
