Economics and Digital Cameras

[MarylandBill]

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.

I am sorry, I just don't buy this. Sure, modern digital cameras and digital technology has allowed tons of people to flood the world with tons of things that are little more than snapshots. But at the same time, the same skills that will allow a good photographer to produce a work of art with film will allow him to produce a work of art with a ccd or cmos chip.

--
Bill

 

[MarylandBill]

Roger, how did you know that Sturgeon's Law isn't part of the 90% "laws" that are crap? 🙂

I would say because it was uttered by one of the people whose work was definitely not among the 90%. Gives him some credibility in my book.

--
Bill

 

[marcr1230]

with a current residual value of about $600, your per week actual cost is even lower

It's 2 years since I paid £1,000 for my X100: so, £10 a week. I can spend more than that sitting at a café table for an hour or two waiting for the decisive moment to pass by.

 

[MarylandBill]

with a current residual value of about $600, your per week actual cost is even lower

Only if he sells it now. Who knows what it might be worth a couple of weeks from now. Probably about the same, but possibly less or even more.

--
Bill

 

[Aristophanes]

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.

Macro. Super-telephoto. Flash system.

Functionality is relative to the subject being photographed.

 

[DtheG]

with a current residual value of about $600, your per week actual cost is even lower

True, if I were to trade it in. But I tend to keep things until they either wear out or lie neglected in dusty corners. So I tend to ignore the residual value.

I have just decided to have a major clear out. There is no market for my 1987 Canon EOS, so it went to the Oxfam shop. And I made a swift exit before they had a chance to decide they didn't want it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Macro. Super-telephoto. Flash system.

Functionality is relative to the subject being photographed.

Which have been available for many decades. Your point was?

Cheers,

R.

 

[S.H.]

@Roger : I was thinking about the Exakta system in 35mm.
Macro : check
Super tele : check
Flash : check (TTL in the 1950's for macro shots)

Date of birth : 1936

😀

 

[nemo2]

Do you think there will be many more advancements in the next 5 years to render today's digicams "RELATIVELY" obsolete?

The word "relatively" is crucial. It is very likely this will happen - the relative difference will be clearly visible. On the other hand the cameras of recent standard will be sufficient enough. As are the most cameras made 5 years ago - obsolete by recent standards but (more than) sufficient for most work.

One problem may prevent users to buy the old cameras - the built-in parts with limited lifespan effectively limiting the durability of the whole product.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The word "relatively" is crucial. It is very likely this will happen - the relative difference will be clearly visible. On the other hand the cameras of recent standard will be sufficient enough. As are the most cameras made 5 years ago - obsolete by recent standards but (more than) sufficient for most work.

One problem may prevent users to buy the old cameras - the built-in parts with limited lifespan effectively limiting the durability of the whole product.

To pixel peepers, maybe. Otherwise...

I got the M9 more to get my old focal lengths back than for improved image quality over the M8. Yes, the extra quality is visible. But beyond 18 megapixels? Only if you make really big prints. Or at high ISOs. So 'clearly visible' needs to be qualified.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nemo2]

To pixel peepers, maybe. Otherwise...

I got the M9 more to get my old focal lengths back than for improved image quality over the M8. Yes, the extra quality is visible. But beyond 18 megapixels? Only if you make really big prints. Or at high ISOs. So 'clearly visible' needs to be qualified.

Cheers,

R.

It is too early to guess what the differences will be (higher dynamic range, higher speed, better AF...?). Who cares. The main point is the recent cameras will still be good enough to take photos with them with the person holding the camera being the weak link. As are most of the 5 years old cameras today.

 

[ZeissFan]

A consumer level camera loses value like a brick tossed in water.

These models are replaced frequently. Combine that with the digital mindset -- new is better, and the previous model is passé. That accounts for the quick loss.

I paid $700+ for a Pentax K10D body. It looks like it fetches about $230 or so on eBay. That's a bit more than I expected.