Improving gear -> bigger expectations

[Archiver]

Improvements in technology lead to increased expectations and dissatisfaction with earlier tech.

My first digital camera was the Canon S45 in 2002. What a revelation in terms of being able to capture a decent image and not wait for film development. But the limitations, which I only barely understood back then, meant that fast shutter speeds in low light were almost impossible, and the video quality was awful. Reasonable for the time, but awful in hindsight.

As time went by, I bought more and more cameras, each an improvement on the last. In about 2011, I thought I could shoot forever on a Ricoh GXR with the 28 and 50 modules, but now it frustrates me with the tiny buffer and slow shot to shot time. I once thought I could get a 5D Mark II and 35L and never need to buy another camera, but this was very much mistaken, as it is now a loud, large thing that I only use when situations allow and require. And even then, I'm less and less fond of the colours compared with Panasonic and Leica.

In 2013, I went to Hong Kong with the Olympus E-M5 and thought the video I captured was fantastic. In hindsight, it is choppy, has blown highlights and moire, and overall looks substandard compared with my current workhorses the Panasonic G9 and S5. Lately, I've been shooting with my old Canon 30D, and am often frustrated with the low dynamic range of the raw files and clunky functions compared with the awesomeness of the Panasonic S5 and even the m43 GX85. Every time I upgrade, the new becomes the norm and my expectations change yet again.

In another ten years, will I look back on the G9 and S5 with the same misgivings? Or has camera tech reached a 'good enough' stage now? Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[Retro-Grouch]

The real question is whether you are making good images, not just images that are technically good. That answer depends on why you photograph, and whether technical excellence is, for you, crucial to making a good image. Chasing image quality is very different from achieving a vision.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Improvements in technology lead to increased expectations and dissatisfaction with earlier tech.

My first digital camera was the Canon S45 in 2002. What a revelation in terms of being able to capture a decent image and not wait for film development. But the limitations, which I only barely understood back then, meant that fast shutter speeds in low light were almost impossible, and the video quality was awful. Reasonable for the time, but awful in hindsight.

As time went by, I bought more and more cameras, each an improvement on the last. In about 2011, I thought I could shoot forever on a Ricoh GXR with the 28 and 50 modules, but now it frustrates me with the tiny buffer and slow shot to shot time. I once thought I could get a 5D Mark II and 35L and never need to buy another camera, but this was very much mistaken, as it is now a loud, large thing that I only use when situations allow and require. And even then, I'm less and less fond of the colours compared with Panasonic and Leica.

In 2013, I went to Hong Kong with the Olympus E-M5 and thought the video I captured was fantastic. In hindsight, it is choppy, has blown highlights and moire, and overall looks substandard compared with my current workhorses the Panasonic G9 and S5. Lately, I've been shooting with my old Canon 30D, and am often frustrated with the low dynamic range of the raw files and clunky functions compared with the awesomeness of the Panasonic S5 and even the m43 GX85. Every time I upgrade, the new becomes the norm and my expectations change yet again.

In another ten years, will I look back on the G9 and S5 with the same misgivings? Or has camera tech reached a 'good enough' stage now? Has anyone else noticed this?

Dear Archiver,

For me at least, camera tech reached its pinnacle with the Canon EOS 40D and 1D3.

But sadly, that hasn't stopped me from buying! 😉

Retro-Grouch asked the real question to which I can only add, if there is a way to extract money from previously contented customers manufacturers and marketers will find that way.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[Freakscene]

I could never have shot this without the M10M, even if the f1 Noctilux does some weird things on reflection-to-the-rear-element prone digital cameras. Yes, opportunities open, and older gear looks less good. I still am amazed by my APX25 negatives from the 1990s. A different thing, I guess.

 

[Archiver]

The real question is whether you are making good images, not just images that are technically good. That answer depends on why you photograph, and whether technical excellence is, for you, crucial to making a good image. Chasing image quality is very different from achieving a vision.

I fully agree about making good images vs technically good images. For me, it's about achieving a certain look under particular conditions, which is often a dark and moody but tonally rich look in low light with shutter speeds fast enough to freeze action. The M9 + Distagon 35 has become my signature look for personal and documentary photography, and the S5 is my go-to for client work and critical personal work. A certain level of technical quality is essential for me.

If I was chasing blur, character and a certain aesthetic, I'd probably be happy with an Olympus mju or XA2, a Pentax ME/MX with 50 year old lenses, or even stick with my old Canon 30D. There's an excellent (NSFW) Russian photographer on flickr, Marat Safin, who is perfectly happy with his combination of Nikon D700 and 35/1.4 G, but he shoots nude models in a narrow range of lighting conditions.

Funnily, the M9 + Distagon 35 can hit focus in extremely low light, where the Canon 30D and 5D Mark II can't. Shooting sports action at f1.8 and ISO 6400 is much more difficult with older gens of Canon DSLR's but much easier with post 2015 mirrorless. Footage from the Olympus E-M5 would only serve as C cam incidental footage whereas the Panasonic S5 (and G9 under the right conditions) produces footage which I can use in a broadcast and theatrical quality doc.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I fully agree about making good images vs technically good images. For me, it's about achieving a certain look under particular conditions, which is often a dark and moody but tonally rich look in low light with shutter speeds fast enough to freeze action. The M9 + Distagon 35 has become my signature look for personal and documentary photography, and the S5 is my go-to for client work and critical personal work. A certain level of technical quality is essential for me.

If I was chasing blur, character and a certain aesthetic, I'd probably be happy with an Olympus mju or XA2, a Pentax ME/MX with 50 year old lenses, or even stick with my old Canon 30D. There's an excellent (NSFW) Russian photographer on flickr, Marat Safin, who is perfectly happy with his combination of Nikon D700 and 35/1.4 G, but he shoots nude models in a narrow range of lighting conditions.

Funnily, the M9 + Distagon 35 can hit focus in extremely low light, where the Canon 30D and 5D Mark II can't. Shooting sports action at f1.8 and ISO 6400 is much more difficult with older gens of Canon DSLR's but much easier with post 2015 mirrorless. Footage from the Olympus E-M5 would only serve as C cam incidental footage whereas the Panasonic S5 (and G9 under the right conditions) produces footage which I can use in a broadcast and theatrical quality doc.

From what you've written here, it's clear you're using cameras (in part) for professional work. In that context, you probably have no choice but to pursue the "latest and greatest", if only to remain competitive in the marketplace. Personal work is another can of worms, where, possibly, you find what works and stick with it (like the M9/Distagon combo).
It's all very relative. In the past three years, I've pretty much abandoned 35mm to shoot 6x6 or 6x9. My work is documentary in nature, and my wish is to describe my subjects as accurately and fully as possible (4x5 would be ideal, but is physically unworkable). Medium format gives me that, but most digital shooters who use cutting edge equipment would find my 50-year-old cameras, and film in general, to be pitifully inadequate. But then, I don't have to satisfy a client, only myself!

 

[dbell]

There's no winning 🙂. Even if you're completely satisfied with the current generation of digital equipment, it requires cards and batteries that may not be available in the future, and it can already be hard to get discontinued cameras repaired. I don't know that we're going to see people using "vintage" digital cameras in 50 years, as they use vintage film equipment today. Contemplating this depresses me, as I'd be pretty content to use the equipment I have now for the foreseeable future.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

There's no winning 🙂. Even if you're completely satisfied with the current generation of digital equipment, it requires cards and batteries that may not be available in the future, and it can already be hard to get discontinued cameras repaired. I don't know that we're going to see people using "vintage" digital cameras in 50 years, as they use vintage film equipment today. Contemplating this depresses me, as I'd be pretty content to use the equipment I have now for the foreseeable future.

Well, I guess the marketers are just going to have to double down on you!

 

[dbell]

Well, I guess the marketers are just going to have to double down on you!

I'm not their target demographic 😛.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I'm not their target demographic 😛.

Ah, saying that is like waving the red cape in front of a bull! It only encourages them to attack. In the marketing world, the target demographic is all eight billion of us; the challenge is to get us all convinced that we need their widget. Having accomplished that, and sold at least one to each of us, they can then make it obsolete. Repeat as necessary.

 

[raydm6]

Except for my Canon S90, my digital shooting has been predominantly with iPhones 4, 6, and 11. I see a large difference in quality between the 4 and 11 - especially video.

I am happy with the 11’s output and limitations but will probably upgrade soon to a 15.

I still shoot on occasion with the CCD sensor S90 and it can hold its own if the light is right.

 

[Pál_K]

One area which doesn't appear in camera specs is usability and convenience.

Although I have neither a Canon 5D Mk III nor a Pentax K-1, from what I read on dpreview I think I would buy either of these if I could find either at a good price. There are cameras today which exceed the older 5D or K-1 in terms of performance, but I think I could make better photos with these because they'd be more enjoyable to use. So my expectations are that I could make better photos and have fewer missed opportunities were I to use these.

I really like the menu layout and color-coding on the 5D Mk III. It also has a feature where you can do an in-camera side-by-side image comparison at whatever magnification.

I like the controls on the K-1 very very much. I like the weather sealing and the illuminated buttons.

That said, there's no substitute for actual use. My X-Pro1 looks great on paper and in the reviews, but only upon handling it did I discover the cluster of buttons on the back are an ergonomic problem.

To my complete surprise, the absolutely ancient Pentax K10D is effortless to comprehend and use and often I will grab it first while going for a walk.

 

[Pál_K]

... (4x5 would be ideal, but is physically unworkable). ...

What about a Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic? They're relatively portable.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

What about a Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic? They're relatively portable.View attachment 4825958

I've considered it; they are portable, and not much bigger than my 6x9 Horseman, but the big difference is that there's no 4x5 roll film 😉. That makes for an insurmountable obstacle to any spontaneous shooting, for me. I've got to add that qualification, since there's always someone here who will want to argue what is, in the final analysis, personal preference! I simply find the use of sheet film to be a major pain in the butt (apologies to all large format shooters!).

 

[Dogman]

That said, there's no substitute for actual use. My X-Pro1 looks great on paper and in the reviews, but only upon handling it did I discover the cluster of buttons on the back are an ergonomic problem.

Agreed. It was an ergonomic nightmare at first. I recall multiple incidents of confusion when I first bought one. But familiarity and a thumb rest worked wonders in my case. I still have mine and I still love how B&W pictures look out of them.

 

[agentlossing]

One area which doesn't appear in camera specs is usability and convenience.

Although I have neither a Canon 5D Mk III nor a Pentax K-1, from what I read on dpreview I think I would buy either of these if I could find either at a good price. There are cameras today which exceed the older 5D or K-1 in terms of performance, but I think I could make better photos with these because they'd be more enjoyable to use. So my expectations are that I could make better photos and have fewer missed opportunities were I to use these.

I really like the menu layout and color-coding on the 5D Mk III. It also has a feature where you can do an in-camera side-by-side image comparison at whatever magnification.

I like the controls on the K-1 very very much. I like the weather sealing and the illuminated buttons.

That said, there's no substitute for actual use. My X-Pro1 looks great on paper and in the reviews, but only upon handling it did I discover the cluster of buttons on the back are an ergonomic problem.

To my complete surprise, the absolutely ancient Pentax K10D is effortless to comprehend and use and often I will grab it first while going for a walk.

I can vouch for the K-1. While it's a hefty camera, it's incredibly solid heft which feels great in the hand, in no small part due to the wonderful grip. The controls are laid out in a really enjoyable way. I sometimes go for a few weeks without really using the K-1 due to the size/weight issue -- if I'm just on the go during work commuting and haven't had a chance to do any real shooting, I'll just take the Ricoh GRIIIx. But then I get the hankering to pick up and use the K-1 again. It's got that addictive and satisfying intangible something about it. I even like how the multi-function dial controls somewhat lesser-used functions which are still ones that I use, such as the wifi function. Having the third dial switch wifi on and off is somehow just fun. It's a substantial, tactile solution with a satisfying click... to do a function that is only tapping a glass screen 99% of the time in our lives these days. I don't know why I enjoy that... but I do.

 

[Archiver]

I can vouch for the K-1. While it's a hefty camera, it's incredibly solid heft which feels great in the hand, in no small part due to the wonderful grip. The controls are laid out in a really enjoyable way. I sometimes go for a few weeks without really using the K-1 due to the size/weight issue -- if I'm just on the go during work commuting and haven't had a chance to do any real shooting, I'll just take the Ricoh GRIIIx. But then I get the hankering to pick up and use the K-1 again. It's got that addictive and satisfying intangible something about it. I even like how the multi-function dial controls somewhat lesser-used functions which are still ones that I use, such as the wifi function. Having the third dial switch wifi on and off is somehow just fun. It's a substantial, tactile solution with a satisfying click... to do a function that is only tapping a glass screen 99% of the time in our lives these days. I don't know why I enjoy that... but I do.

An offtopic aside: if you enjoy the feeling of mechanical switches and buttons, you might be interested in the plethora of machined metal fidget toys that now exist. You can rub together two or three machined pieces of metal held together with small neodymium magnets in a strangely satisfying way. There are haptic coins, clickers, spinners and the like. Expensive limited models are made by companies like Lautie, and there is a huge range of handmade and factory made ones on Etsy.

As for cameras, I've reached a point of satisfaction with the M9 and Distagon 35 combination, which gives a distinctly pleasant haptic experience as well as visual results. There aren't many other cameras that offer the tactile and haptic experience of shooting with a Leica M body and high quality lens. And it's also the baseline for which I judge the image quality of other stills cameras. Video quality continues to improve, so my expectations go up with those, too.

Back in 2013, I watched Upstream Color and marveled that it had been shot with the Panasonic GH2 with hacked firmware. Now I look back and think how much better it would have looked with the benefit of a Panasonic GH5, GH6 or S5 with log profile and vastly better codecs.

 

[Archiver]

Except for my Canon S90, my digital shooting has been predominantly with iPhones 4, 6, and 11. I see a large difference in quality between the 4 and 11 - especially video.

I am happy with the 11’s output and limitations but will probably upgrade soon to a 15.

I still shoot on occasion with the CCD sensor S90 and it can hold its own if the light is right.

By the time I got a Canon S90 in 2009, I had already gone through a series of Canon compacts, the legendary Fuji F30, and the revolutionary Sigma DP1. I used the S90 for a few months but stopped in favour of the Ricoh GRD III, which became my everyday camera for years until its demise. Lately, I've picked up the S90 again and found that as you say, in good light it holds its own. The problem is that in not so good light, it doesn't. Not to mention, video quality is pretty dreadful, so I'm much more likely to use the Panasonic LX10. What I do like about the S90 is how small and fun it is.

 

[Shab]

Agreed. It was an ergonomic nightmare at first. I recall multiple incidents of confusion when I first bought one. But familiarity and a thumb rest worked wonders in my case. I still have mine and I still love how B&W pictures look out of them.

I'm agree with you, but now, I love using my X-Pro1 with manual lenses. The past week I went to Paris with my daughter and I took the X-Pro1 + Zuiko OM 21mm 3.5 combo.

The viewfinder isn't good (I much prefer the X-T3 viewfinder)... but I love using it.

 

[Dogman]

The viewfinder isn't good (I much prefer the X-T3 viewfinder)... but I love using it.

I was attracted to the X-Pro1 because it has an optical viewfinder. I never use the EVF.