Bill Pierce
Well-known
In terms of technical quality, current digital camera bodies offer more than many folks can take advantage of. The improvement in image quality is really going to have to come from us, not new cameras.
DO WE NEED MORE MEGAPIXELS? 24 megapixel sensors are fairly common. It’s the ballpark count for many of Fuji’s APS-c cameras (actually 24.3) and Leica’s recent full frame M’s. A lot of other digital cameras are in that neighborhood. An M10 raw file, without upsizing, can produce a 16.5 x 11 inch image at 360 ppi. Admittedly, that's print overkill. A 300 ppi image is 20 inches wide and a 240 ppi, which many folks feel is fine for large prints, fills an A2+ 25x17 sheet. I’m not quite sure what most folks would want to do with more megapixels. Until you get to larger sensors which allow not only more megapixels, but bigger pixels, I’m not sure you see much of a usable difference. And even with more and BIGGER, the difference is a little more subtle than some folks expect.
DO WE NEED MORE FRAMES PER SECOND? 20 frames per second is easily available to sports shooters and the like. I can remember shooting high school and college football next to two of the top sports shooters of the day. They were using sheet film Graphic and Graflexes which means their frames per second was probably around 1 every 30 seconds. Within a decade a few sports photographers were using expensive, highly specialized Hulchers and modified SLRs (with beam splitters instead of mirrors) that didn’t quite match the frames per second that are easily affordable and available today. Even if you are today’s specialized sports shooter, 20 fps is overkill - especially when you have to edit quickly for news publication.
DO WE NEED BIGGER, MORE PIXEL PACKED EVF’S AND LCD’S? Not in my book - and it doesn’t seem to be in the book of other photographers I talk do. The rangefinder nuts, myself included, would like cheaper auxiliary bright line finders for our accessory shoes because in some respects they are better than the built in bright line finders in Leicas and Fujis. But we are a small and weird minority that can be ignored.
WHAT DO WE NEED? Good lenses. Of course, we already have good lenses - and bad lenses - and lenses in-between. It’s interesting. Over a period of years I have spent time with 2 lens designers - and two lens testers who were good enough to be respected by the designers. Specialized testing equipment let all of them spot and analyze specific optical issues within a design. Obviously, this was of great importance to the designers and the manufacturers of the lenses, and it opened areas of investigation to the testers. But, they all recommended taking pictures, lots of pictures, and printing them. It was a time consuming pain in film days. And It’s a time consuming pain in the day of digital to set aside time each day to take pictures, the same kind of pictures you take when you are not testing a lens and to print them and look at them. Yes, you are also testing the camera, the sensor, the focusing system, all kinds of software and firmware and your personal taste. Boy, does it produce some surprises. The system may limit the “best” lenses so the final product isn’t different from one produced by a less expensive lens. A lens with a great reputation may not live up to it in your world. And every once in awhile, some piece of cheap crap turns out to be interesting. If you take the time to really “test” a lens, there can be a lot of surprises and a lot of useful information, especially if you are one of the folks who tends to work wide open or close to it.
AND? Accurate focus. Different focusing systems (and different cameras and probably different photographers) have different focusing problems and most of these problems are only visible with pictures taken at wide apertures. The real skill is in determining whether you have a problem. Routinely take a few frame at max aperture just to check out you and your system. Good luck; best wishes.
WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED? High shutter speeds or a tripod. One of the things digital has given us in its ability to provide that highly magnified 100% view is the ability to see that often image degradation is nothin more than camera movement. Not lens problems; not focusing problems; just overly optimistic photographer problems.
Good processing (and printing) programs. This is kind of splitting hairs. When the Fuji raw files didn’t respond well to some programs set up primarily to handle Bayer files, everybody realized not all processing programs were the same, and they started looking at different programs with all cameras. For the most part, this doesn’t show up until you are looking a big prints from technically well executed frames. But, if you’ve solved all your sharpness problems and are into splitting hairs, look at your images from different printing programs.
All in all, our camera are pretty good. I wish we could blame them for our problems. It would be less humiliating if we could say we were perfect and the camera was to blame.
Your thoughts?
DO WE NEED MORE MEGAPIXELS? 24 megapixel sensors are fairly common. It’s the ballpark count for many of Fuji’s APS-c cameras (actually 24.3) and Leica’s recent full frame M’s. A lot of other digital cameras are in that neighborhood. An M10 raw file, without upsizing, can produce a 16.5 x 11 inch image at 360 ppi. Admittedly, that's print overkill. A 300 ppi image is 20 inches wide and a 240 ppi, which many folks feel is fine for large prints, fills an A2+ 25x17 sheet. I’m not quite sure what most folks would want to do with more megapixels. Until you get to larger sensors which allow not only more megapixels, but bigger pixels, I’m not sure you see much of a usable difference. And even with more and BIGGER, the difference is a little more subtle than some folks expect.
DO WE NEED MORE FRAMES PER SECOND? 20 frames per second is easily available to sports shooters and the like. I can remember shooting high school and college football next to two of the top sports shooters of the day. They were using sheet film Graphic and Graflexes which means their frames per second was probably around 1 every 30 seconds. Within a decade a few sports photographers were using expensive, highly specialized Hulchers and modified SLRs (with beam splitters instead of mirrors) that didn’t quite match the frames per second that are easily affordable and available today. Even if you are today’s specialized sports shooter, 20 fps is overkill - especially when you have to edit quickly for news publication.
DO WE NEED BIGGER, MORE PIXEL PACKED EVF’S AND LCD’S? Not in my book - and it doesn’t seem to be in the book of other photographers I talk do. The rangefinder nuts, myself included, would like cheaper auxiliary bright line finders for our accessory shoes because in some respects they are better than the built in bright line finders in Leicas and Fujis. But we are a small and weird minority that can be ignored.
WHAT DO WE NEED? Good lenses. Of course, we already have good lenses - and bad lenses - and lenses in-between. It’s interesting. Over a period of years I have spent time with 2 lens designers - and two lens testers who were good enough to be respected by the designers. Specialized testing equipment let all of them spot and analyze specific optical issues within a design. Obviously, this was of great importance to the designers and the manufacturers of the lenses, and it opened areas of investigation to the testers. But, they all recommended taking pictures, lots of pictures, and printing them. It was a time consuming pain in film days. And It’s a time consuming pain in the day of digital to set aside time each day to take pictures, the same kind of pictures you take when you are not testing a lens and to print them and look at them. Yes, you are also testing the camera, the sensor, the focusing system, all kinds of software and firmware and your personal taste. Boy, does it produce some surprises. The system may limit the “best” lenses so the final product isn’t different from one produced by a less expensive lens. A lens with a great reputation may not live up to it in your world. And every once in awhile, some piece of cheap crap turns out to be interesting. If you take the time to really “test” a lens, there can be a lot of surprises and a lot of useful information, especially if you are one of the folks who tends to work wide open or close to it.
AND? Accurate focus. Different focusing systems (and different cameras and probably different photographers) have different focusing problems and most of these problems are only visible with pictures taken at wide apertures. The real skill is in determining whether you have a problem. Routinely take a few frame at max aperture just to check out you and your system. Good luck; best wishes.
WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED? High shutter speeds or a tripod. One of the things digital has given us in its ability to provide that highly magnified 100% view is the ability to see that often image degradation is nothin more than camera movement. Not lens problems; not focusing problems; just overly optimistic photographer problems.
Good processing (and printing) programs. This is kind of splitting hairs. When the Fuji raw files didn’t respond well to some programs set up primarily to handle Bayer files, everybody realized not all processing programs were the same, and they started looking at different programs with all cameras. For the most part, this doesn’t show up until you are looking a big prints from technically well executed frames. But, if you’ve solved all your sharpness problems and are into splitting hairs, look at your images from different printing programs.
All in all, our camera are pretty good. I wish we could blame them for our problems. It would be less humiliating if we could say we were perfect and the camera was to blame.
Your thoughts?
maggieo
More Deadly
We need three things:
1. Practice
2. Practice.
3. Practice.
1. Practice
2. Practice.
3. Practice.
zuiko85
Veteran
When I see the work Michael Kenna does with a Holga.....well then, I know more or better equipment just ain’t going to help my photos.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm checking maggieo pictures periodically, no advance cameras, no expensive lenses. But lots of likes from me. 
I guess, OP speaks on behalf of photogs involved with something I'm not into to look at.
The only pictures I care for to have in the books were taken by manual focus different format and brands film cameras. I consider them as art. Would it be sitting portraits or street photography.
I'm finding rangefinder.ru gallery most advanced online gallery among any other on-line forums I have seen. They are keeping it almost strictly for film and RF, scale, simple AF cameras.
Art is irrelevant to MP and quality of lens and accuracy of AF.
Working photogs... Our daughter takes it with Canon 5D MKII, Canon 24-105 F4 IS L and simple Canon 400 series TTL flash with Gary Fong sphere on it. And she is good enough to choose then and for whom to work.
Or if I go at Walmart and Shoppers... cameras they have are something very outdated. Yet they produce fine pictures. Why? The light.
I ain't need pixels, AF and shutter speeds. I want sun in the pocket. So then sun goes down I have mine and out anywhere I want and as long as I want. Not a flashy thingy.
And high ISO doesn't cut it. All it does is amplifying low light to artificial levels. So, people and places looks like zombies in cheap, sorry, horror movies.
I guess, OP speaks on behalf of photogs involved with something I'm not into to look at.
The only pictures I care for to have in the books were taken by manual focus different format and brands film cameras. I consider them as art. Would it be sitting portraits or street photography.
I'm finding rangefinder.ru gallery most advanced online gallery among any other on-line forums I have seen. They are keeping it almost strictly for film and RF, scale, simple AF cameras.
Art is irrelevant to MP and quality of lens and accuracy of AF.
Working photogs... Our daughter takes it with Canon 5D MKII, Canon 24-105 F4 IS L and simple Canon 400 series TTL flash with Gary Fong sphere on it. And she is good enough to choose then and for whom to work.
Or if I go at Walmart and Shoppers... cameras they have are something very outdated. Yet they produce fine pictures. Why? The light.
I ain't need pixels, AF and shutter speeds. I want sun in the pocket. So then sun goes down I have mine and out anywhere I want and as long as I want. Not a flashy thingy.
And high ISO doesn't cut it. All it does is amplifying low light to artificial levels. So, people and places looks like zombies in cheap, sorry, horror movies.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
If they sold photographic motivation pills then my 1973 Praktica LTL camera would have been the only camera I needed for the rest of my life.
peterm1
Veteran
Bill I have mixed feelings about your post.
On the one hand you are perfectly correct that we have a surfeit of functionality and features that most of us do not need or indeed use. But to some extent that is not the point, with respect. The only way the camera and related industries can survive long term is to keep the production lines rolling and the equipment moving out the door in exchange for $. And the only way they can do this is by creating a "need" for new and improved "stuff" in the minds of the buying public. (OK it is not a "real" need perhaps but who on earth, to use an example from another electronics sector, ever thought they needed an i-phone. Until that is one was first developed and marketed by Apple. And then everyone "needed" one and a new industry was born with its own need for more sales every year which in turn is dependent largely on new features being provided to convince people to "upgrade".).
An example of a technology and marketing strategy to keep production lines rolling in the camera industry was the megapixel war that completely dominated digital cameras for over a decade - everything was about mega pixels - nothing much else was considered from a marketing perspective. Let's assume that for a time that it really was necessary to release cameras with more pixels - and for a while it was at least till diminishing marginal returns kicked in. (Remember those 1 megapixel early digital cameras with a sensor the size of a pin head, crappy image quality and almost no dynamic range?). But here's the thing - each year every camera maker would release a new model with a just a few more megapixels than the previous model. No big game changers here, just incremental improvement year, on year, on year. Some of this may have been due technical constraints but I find it a bit hard to believe that every increase in mega pixels had to be a such small incremental ones and that it was not technically possible to leapfrog directly from small to much larger capacity sensors.
The reality is that commercially, the industry business model relied on small changes as this was how they convinced people to upgrade each year or so and kept the money flowing in using the same strategy for a decade or more instead of in just a couple of years. And of course that cash flow over a decade or more then funded high tech research that produced other technical innovations (like new and better sensor types backed by better software etc) and without those, camera manufacturers would not now be turning out the marvels they now sell - even if some of their features are a bit of over kill. The strategy of new models with new 'improvements" is used as its pretty much the only game in town since it keeps the money rolling in year on year which is what survival depends upon.
All markets become mature at some point and the rapid growth rates of early days drop off. But the hard fact is that photo equipment makers must keep innovating as they have no choice - other than going out of business and going fishing instead. We can see that the camera market is showing signs of becoming mature especially with incursions by other equipment (like the aforesaid i-phones equipped with cameras) but I suspect it still has some way to run yet though in ways I certainly cannot predict.
On the one hand you are perfectly correct that we have a surfeit of functionality and features that most of us do not need or indeed use. But to some extent that is not the point, with respect. The only way the camera and related industries can survive long term is to keep the production lines rolling and the equipment moving out the door in exchange for $. And the only way they can do this is by creating a "need" for new and improved "stuff" in the minds of the buying public. (OK it is not a "real" need perhaps but who on earth, to use an example from another electronics sector, ever thought they needed an i-phone. Until that is one was first developed and marketed by Apple. And then everyone "needed" one and a new industry was born with its own need for more sales every year which in turn is dependent largely on new features being provided to convince people to "upgrade".).
An example of a technology and marketing strategy to keep production lines rolling in the camera industry was the megapixel war that completely dominated digital cameras for over a decade - everything was about mega pixels - nothing much else was considered from a marketing perspective. Let's assume that for a time that it really was necessary to release cameras with more pixels - and for a while it was at least till diminishing marginal returns kicked in. (Remember those 1 megapixel early digital cameras with a sensor the size of a pin head, crappy image quality and almost no dynamic range?). But here's the thing - each year every camera maker would release a new model with a just a few more megapixels than the previous model. No big game changers here, just incremental improvement year, on year, on year. Some of this may have been due technical constraints but I find it a bit hard to believe that every increase in mega pixels had to be a such small incremental ones and that it was not technically possible to leapfrog directly from small to much larger capacity sensors.
The reality is that commercially, the industry business model relied on small changes as this was how they convinced people to upgrade each year or so and kept the money flowing in using the same strategy for a decade or more instead of in just a couple of years. And of course that cash flow over a decade or more then funded high tech research that produced other technical innovations (like new and better sensor types backed by better software etc) and without those, camera manufacturers would not now be turning out the marvels they now sell - even if some of their features are a bit of over kill. The strategy of new models with new 'improvements" is used as its pretty much the only game in town since it keeps the money rolling in year on year which is what survival depends upon.
All markets become mature at some point and the rapid growth rates of early days drop off. But the hard fact is that photo equipment makers must keep innovating as they have no choice - other than going out of business and going fishing instead. We can see that the camera market is showing signs of becoming mature especially with incursions by other equipment (like the aforesaid i-phones equipped with cameras) but I suspect it still has some way to run yet though in ways I certainly cannot predict.
farlymac
PF McFarland
The problem with digital is there is always some improvement that you can only get by switching to another camera. I started with a small sensor travel-zoom camera, and it was good, but it had these nagging faults such as purple fringing, and highlight blowouts.
I switched to the next larger sensor, and was really happy, but the camera started showing age quite quickly in the AF department. And I got tired of taking photos where I couldn't see what was on the screen because all that was visible was a reflection of me.
So I went for a used DSLR, and got a killer deal where the attached lens was about half retail, and the camera was basically free. Much improved images because it was an APS-C sensor. Liked it so much I got a second body for back-up. But it died the second time I used it, exposing a fatal flaw with that particular model.
I decided to replace the still working one, keeping the same image sensor size, but not quite doubling the megapixels (going from 10 to 16). Again, a used camera, with a nice boost in image quality was enough to satisfy me, and reduce most of the workflow to just cropping, and straightening horizons. It will be a while before I replace the current camera, especially since I keep buying film cameras too. Just doesn't make sense to keep jumping every time a new body comes out with more megapixels. But if I was a working photographer, that might be a different story, having to keep up with the technology.
PF
I switched to the next larger sensor, and was really happy, but the camera started showing age quite quickly in the AF department. And I got tired of taking photos where I couldn't see what was on the screen because all that was visible was a reflection of me.
So I went for a used DSLR, and got a killer deal where the attached lens was about half retail, and the camera was basically free. Much improved images because it was an APS-C sensor. Liked it so much I got a second body for back-up. But it died the second time I used it, exposing a fatal flaw with that particular model.
I decided to replace the still working one, keeping the same image sensor size, but not quite doubling the megapixels (going from 10 to 16). Again, a used camera, with a nice boost in image quality was enough to satisfy me, and reduce most of the workflow to just cropping, and straightening horizons. It will be a while before I replace the current camera, especially since I keep buying film cameras too. Just doesn't make sense to keep jumping every time a new body comes out with more megapixels. But if I was a working photographer, that might be a different story, having to keep up with the technology.
PF
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Peter - Well said and important. And, sadly, something I had never considered (or even thought about).
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Dear Bill,
I was looking at some prints off of the Epson 7890 - 240 dpi shot with the Nikon D1. Just fine. D3. Just fine. X100/s/t/f fine, fine, fine.
But YES!!!! Si!!! Si!!!! I want a brightline finder for my little X100 in 35mm. And if a magician could make it so it is switching from 28 and 35 and 50...Oh yes. That I would like very much. But bright. Please. I have Leica 28 and Voigtlander 50 but the foot is broken and I keep gluing it together and, bah, changing them is just not good. That is when I break the foot. More glue.
But that is all I want.
Ciao,
Mme. O
I was looking at some prints off of the Epson 7890 - 240 dpi shot with the Nikon D1. Just fine. D3. Just fine. X100/s/t/f fine, fine, fine.
But YES!!!! Si!!! Si!!!! I want a brightline finder for my little X100 in 35mm. And if a magician could make it so it is switching from 28 and 35 and 50...Oh yes. That I would like very much. But bright. Please. I have Leica 28 and Voigtlander 50 but the foot is broken and I keep gluing it together and, bah, changing them is just not good. That is when I break the foot. More glue.
But that is all I want.
Ciao,
Mme. O
peterm1
Veteran
Thanks Bill. To be honest it is something most will not have considered so don't feel bad. As for me, I have to admit to being an economics geek so I have an excuse for thinking about this stuff.
Having said all of that though, I am one who is not too addicted to the "new" every year or whatever. I am happy with camera models from 3-5 years ago or older. My main camera is still a Nikon D700 (about a decade old, I think) and I tend to shoot mainly with older and vintage lenses. In fact I prefer them as it is more challenging to get technically good images but when you do they are more interesting than those churned out by modern super corrected lenses. But I never the less understand why the makers of "gear" have to innovate - survival. Pure and simple.
Writ large this process is really what drives economic growth in the wider economy. Economic growth depends on productivity (i.e. charging more for "better" products or reducing costs - or both) and productivity in turn depends on innovation. Innovation itself is driven by competition. And competition depends on having markets that are willing to buy products. And over time, the market's willingness to buy depends on the ability to have new and better products. Which kinda closes the circle into a never ending loop {for better or worse}.
So - that's about all I have learned in a career spanning 40 years in economics related areas. :^) But its not a bad thing to understand because most people do not. Certainly most governments do not. Which is one reason why we have so many bad governmental decisions. But that's another story.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Because of having to wear spectacles I don't think I'll ever have too big, too bright, or too high resolution an EVF. There's still plenty of scope for improvement.
More generally, with pretty much every generation of camera we claim that the technology has advanced as far as we need; and every improvement after that shows us that we can always find good use for the extra capabilities. I don't see now as being any different.
More generally, with pretty much every generation of camera we claim that the technology has advanced as far as we need; and every improvement after that shows us that we can always find good use for the extra capabilities. I don't see now as being any different.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Peter and Bill, you both state good points very well.
What will be available for us all 10+ years from now? My digital equipment (although some of the best) will not last forever. Will I need to buy a used M14 or something in 2028? Will Leica still be making M mount cameras if only the Sultan of Brunei can afford them?
I don't think reverting to film is, for me, a practical answer. I gave it up for good reason in 2013—all the hassle, expense, and processing time meant not enough time left for shooting. I admit, though, that even in 2038 I probably will be able to find used film cameras that have been lightly used and are still in good working order.
If RFF type people were a big enough market, maybe someone would do something, but we aren't, are we?
Tom Díaz
What will be available for us all 10+ years from now? My digital equipment (although some of the best) will not last forever. Will I need to buy a used M14 or something in 2028? Will Leica still be making M mount cameras if only the Sultan of Brunei can afford them?
I don't think reverting to film is, for me, a practical answer. I gave it up for good reason in 2013—all the hassle, expense, and processing time meant not enough time left for shooting. I admit, though, that even in 2038 I probably will be able to find used film cameras that have been lightly used and are still in good working order.
If RFF type people were a big enough market, maybe someone would do something, but we aren't, are we?
Tom Díaz
willie_901
Veteran
New Camera and, or New Us
New Camera and, or New Us
In many cases a new camera will not make any difference.
Over the years I have read numerous posts respoding to people asking if they should buy new gear or for help to decide between alternatives. It is common for someone to respond, "don't buy new gear; spend the money on travel or printing". This is useful advice.
At the same time, if someone decided it was time to pursue very different photographic goals – a portrait photographer who wanted to explore action photography, or a street photographer who wanted to switch to studio work – then a new camera could be appropriate because there is a new us. Another example could be someone who is stalled in photographer's block. A new camera could be the cataylist to get them back in the game. But so could something much less expensive. When I bought Light Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting it got me out of a rut and opened up a whole new approach to photography.
Otherwise we face the what is "good enough" rabbit hole. At this moment many of the current cameras on the market deliver excellent technical image quality. How much more do most photographers need?
In 1981 Bill Gates said, "640K ought to be enough for anybody" when referring to consumer computing memory. It seems silly to say today's cameras are "good enough". But I'm done buying new cameras until there is a significant breakthrough in some area of technology that's important to me. Lenses are different, but not by much.
New Camera and, or New Us
In many cases a new camera will not make any difference.
Over the years I have read numerous posts respoding to people asking if they should buy new gear or for help to decide between alternatives. It is common for someone to respond, "don't buy new gear; spend the money on travel or printing". This is useful advice.
At the same time, if someone decided it was time to pursue very different photographic goals – a portrait photographer who wanted to explore action photography, or a street photographer who wanted to switch to studio work – then a new camera could be appropriate because there is a new us. Another example could be someone who is stalled in photographer's block. A new camera could be the cataylist to get them back in the game. But so could something much less expensive. When I bought Light Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting it got me out of a rut and opened up a whole new approach to photography.
Otherwise we face the what is "good enough" rabbit hole. At this moment many of the current cameras on the market deliver excellent technical image quality. How much more do most photographers need?
In 1981 Bill Gates said, "640K ought to be enough for anybody" when referring to consumer computing memory. It seems silly to say today's cameras are "good enough". But I'm done buying new cameras until there is a significant breakthrough in some area of technology that's important to me. Lenses are different, but not by much.
cz23
-
Let's face it; part of the charm of photography is the hardware. Guys like stuff, and as stuff goes, cameras are pretty cool. No excuses needed for enjoying the Next Big Thing.
John
John
Yes, I agree. However, I think most people these days just want to have the camera with the best specs even if they don`t need them. You see this on a site like dpreview.com. People who swear every new camera killed all of the cameras before it. They sell everything chasing the latest thing... and tell you continuously why they need a 42mp sensor with clean ISO 51200 coupled with an F1 lens and how your equipment is inferior and would never be sufficient for their purposes. Sure, some need it...but most of those people do not hang out on equipment forums.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
24MP is fine for most, but not all, photographers, and most, but not all, situations. I'm glad 42MP+ is available for those times when it is needed. Camera manufacturers should not stop innovating. Good enough is not enough.
Dogman
Veteran
There's always gonna be improvements in technology. I can't see the need for future improvements but that's because I'm short sighted and not very technical minded. The future will see stuff available that's beyond my imagination.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Actually folks, you are both right and DSLR sales are in a nosedive as a result. Look at year-over-year DSLR sales for the past decade. Yeah, we all know that phones play a role there too. But it seems to me like the mechanical camera world functioned reasonably well when the expectation was that you would use your film camera until its shutter broke, or until you dropped it on a marble floor and introduced mechanical failure that way. We all have Leicas that were built to those standards, and Nikons and Canons, probably. I tried to pawn off on a friend a wonderful Nikon F3HP that I bought used when living for the summer in Bristol TN in the 90's etched on its baseplate with the name of a former owner, "Malachai Pigford." Nothing doing. My friend took a digital Canon Rebel XT instead off the shelf for his daughter.
The camera industry was like the car industry (drive it 'till the wheels come off) and became like the fashion industry (throw out your clothes for this year's model). Perhaps it was inevitable, but DSLR makers made their products into disposable commodities. No one forced them to do it, but we certainly all cheered when they did. And they have driven us all down that technological cul-de-sac as we egged them on. So: as with many things, we have met the enemy and it is us.
I agree with Bill's main point, that we are "there" in terms of image quality (in fact I have been "there" since the Nikon D3 came out). I took some headshots this weekend with a Pentax K-1. I threw out 90% of the data for each photograph turning it into a jpg that could be posted to Smugmug so the client could download the image that suited her. That's 90% overkill on the IQ. Crazy go-nuts!
Tim Murphy
Well-known
I'm hardly qualified to comment, but.............
I'm hardly qualified to comment, but.............
Dear Bill,
Most news and sports photography has been all digital since before I took up digital.
I seem to recall impressive pictures taken with 8 and 10 Mpeg cameras. At the time no one seemed to say, "Jeez, that could be way better with a couple extra Mpegs?"
I'm good with the old outdated stuff I have. It suffices for me and the people with whom I share my pictures. Others may feel differently, and I hope they do because if I want to upgrade I can buy their tired old junk for pennies on the dollar.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
I'm hardly qualified to comment, but.............
Dear Bill,
Most news and sports photography has been all digital since before I took up digital.
I seem to recall impressive pictures taken with 8 and 10 Mpeg cameras. At the time no one seemed to say, "Jeez, that could be way better with a couple extra Mpegs?"
I'm good with the old outdated stuff I have. It suffices for me and the people with whom I share my pictures. Others may feel differently, and I hope they do because if I want to upgrade I can buy their tired old junk for pennies on the dollar.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Archlich
Well-known
For every new camera release we have a "I don't need it what about you" thread, and occasionally a "no I don't need any new camera" one. Yet the "good enough" pixel count gradually rose from 6mp to 12, then 16, and now 24mp. Technology surely has its way.