Is New Better?

[jwcat]

I admit I have been following the announcements, M4/3 and M9 with a measure of interest. The M9 is way out of my range, so is a used RD1 for that matter. This is not a sour grapes question, I would buy an M9 if I hit the Lotto.

I just looked through "The Family of Man" again. I will use that collection to keep individual photographers out of the conversation. Would the idea behind the collection have been presented any clearer or with more insight with 2010 technology, film or digital? I can imagine good arguments on both sides and there is no clear cut answer in my mind.

It is Labor Day here in the states and my DSL company forgot to tell someone that they have to work and it is slow going, so I contemplate my navel.

 

[sepiareverb]

It sure would be different if shot today. Shallower DOF, lots of color, more fill flash. Is this better? For some images absolutely.

 

[Roger Hicks]

New is always better. That's how it displaces the old. Then it gets old, and can be compared with the other things that are old. Sometimes it's better; sometimes it isn't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

They could only ignore the medium so long.

 

[marke]

Roger, I think you just contradicted yourself:

New is always better. That's how it displaces the old. Then it gets old, and can be compared with the other things that are old. Sometimes it's better; sometimes it isn't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear MarkE,

No contradiction, but perhaps an over-compression. Try this:

New is always perceived as better when it's new. That's why is displaces the old.

Then it gets old and the perception may change.

The original post is more elegant but this is (I hope) clearer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pmun]

Dear MarkE,
New is always perceived as better when it's new. That's why is displaces the old.

Yes, this is a common tendency. New as a concept is well recieved because it's exotic/different. But you can also say the same about traditional.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Turtle]

Better is better, the determination being down to you. Technological improvements do not always mean improvement in the eyes of subjective humans seeking - needing - more than a numerical answer to 'what is good/better/best'. we like what we like and sometimes even produce real cyanotypes because we like them. Age can make something chemical/mechanical have almost an organic quality which we humans need to feel happy 🙂 It reminds us of us.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, this is a common tendency. New as a concept is well recieved because it's exotic/different. But you can also say the same about traditional.

www.urbanpaths.net

Except that new must always have the edge, or no-one would ever buy (or do) anything except what is traditional.

Cheers,

R.

 

[parsec1]

New is always better. That's how it displaces the old. Then it gets old, and can be compared with the other things that are old. Sometimes it's better; sometimes it isn't.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

"We had a digital clock on Apollo11 it kept 100% accurate time ,it had to and I dont see anything any better these days".... Buzz Aldrin 2008

Just thought I'd chuck a spanner into the 'works'

Regards
Peter

 

[Sparrow]

eventually everything’s old; then it’s difficult to tell the difference

 

[Rayt]

In 2009 dollars which would cost more to bring to market: a Nikon F2 or a Nikon D700? Certainly in sheer skilled labor costs, this top tier mechanical camera representing the old economy in this day and age would not be cheap. Whereas assembly line products like the D700 would have its costs elsewhere such as monies spent on R&D, and royalties on patents own by others. Some people prefer outputs from the previous industrial revolution while others prefer the digital revolution. This scenario is reflected elsewhere in our daily lives including most notably the death of the auto makers. Leica now has to embrace both to satisfy its fan base.

 

[ZeissFan]

The promise of any camera that you buy -- new or old -- is that it will somehow transform you into a better photographer.

The only truth in this is that a camera that fits how you work will let you put your attention on the scene before you and not on the camera.

 

[pmun]

Except that new must always have the edge, or no-one would ever buy (or do) anything except what is traditional.

Disagree, often it's enough for new to be new, regardless if it's any better. For example, if the M8 came out after the M9 as the digital ML and marketed as a cheaper alternative that still takes lecia lenses - it would create a lot of interest and sales. That's partly because it's more affordable (ie better in this respect) but mainly because it's new. It's the latest leica. In other words being 'new' boosts desirability regardless of quality.

Alternatively, there may be a time when noise is thing of the past and people will talk about that 'M8 noise look'. The traditionalist will swear by their M8s while these new fangled M20s are such a bore.

This phenomenon is very apparent in architecture.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

Disagree, often it's enough for new to be new, regardless if it's any better. For example, if the M8 came out after the M9 as the digital ML and marketed as a cheaper alternative that still takes lecia lenses - it would create a lot of interest and sales. That's partly because it's more affordable (ie better in this respect) but mainly because it's new. It's the latest leica. In other words being 'new' boosts desirability regardless of quality.

Alternatively, there may be a time when noise is thing of the past and people will talk about that 'M8 noise look'. The traditionalist will swear by their M8s while these new fangled M20s are such a bore.

This phenomenon is very apparent in architecture.

www.urbanpaths.net

The magic words are perceived as.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DougFord]

Is ‘new’ better?

Is ‘new’ better?

[FONT=&quot]‘New’ will make you [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20% happier[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15% thinner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12% more handsome[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘New’ takes better pictures[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘New’ can grow hair on a bowling ball[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]‘New’ will make that dream of a teenage mistress a reality[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Heck, it’ll even add 3” to your Johnson[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How could anybody in their right mind not want ‘new’? [/FONT]🙂

 

[jfretless]

The unending need for society to need new things bothers me because manufacturers have to cut costs to feed this cycle. The result is that nothing is built to last. Every component has a life span and it would be foolish for a company to put a LCD in that lasts twice as long as the shutter into the same camera. Replacement over repair is a easier path.

 

[lightshot]

A lot of folks seem to think that newer=better, when really only time will tell if model X was really better than model Y.

I don't think that "new" in a camera is better for everyone. Sometimes it's good to use a new DSLR, but there is a lot to be said for the older cameras that you can still find in perfect working condition. I think it all depends on what you expect or want from a camera.

My new DSLR will be old in a few short years, and those AF lenses for it that everyone lusts after now will be discarded when the "newer" and "better" versions hit the marketplace. I just think about digital watches in this context sometimes. When they first came out they were popular and expensive. Then they lost popularity, and now they are hard to find unless you get them as a sports watch. So were they better than the dial type, or just newer?