Contarama
Well-known
New camera or new us?
OMG neither
OMG neither
New Camera or New Us
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 2K
Photog9000
Well-known
I spent time as a working newspaper photographer and, for a decade, used a pair of Nikon D2H bodies that were fine in both AF speed and fps for the newspaper world. I lusted for a short while for the [then] new D3 but, for newspaper print, I just could not be persuaded to buy even for the expanded ISO. I think if I was still working for that small weekly the D2H would still hold its own against the shooters at the nearby dailies and their newer gear. Granted this was in a small market but I had an image from one of my D2H bodies that was used at roughly 6'x12' on a billboard. To look at the billboard from its normal viewing distance, you could tell it was not from a medium or large format camera but it held its own.
John Lawrence
Well-known
peterm1
Veteran
I certainly agree with you and Bill that we are "there" in terms of image quality. The quality I get out of my digital cameras is and has been for some time much better than anything I was able to pull out of my typical film shots which I found to be a bit limiting. Then again this is partly because digital offers me the opportunity to easily post process - something I could not practically do with film where I had to rely mostly on the local mini lab.
And of course it also partly has to do with the sensitivity and megapixel count of modern sensors something which has already come up in this thread.
I recall back in around 1998 - 1999 -2000 when cameras still only had perhaps 2-3 megapixels it was being written in "learned" photo journals that a 35mm film negative had about 25 megapixels worth of information in them so that is what digital cameras had to match. Well we are easily at 25 megapixels with some cameras having near to double this, if that matters though for me it does not really.
But what I do value is the ability to have sensors that will make excellent images with passably good dynamic range (though in the case of DR still not as good as print film) at up to 3200 ISO (and more) which of course allows me to just treat ISO like another variable when shooting - just like aperture and shutter speed. Which means I can let the camera decide how to juggle its parameters. (Though in reality what I mainly do is control aperture because DOF is more important to me than either shutter speed or ISO setting in many cases. Which means I can leave theat smart camera to sort out the latter two as it "wishes").
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
You guys act like this is just a digital thing. Think about film SLRs, which might rate as the biggest feature-chase of all time. At least with digital, the sensing is increasing in capability. But as between film bodies of the same make, it was always the same lens in front, same film behind, and everything else was metering and motor. Later AF. And even then, it was often carefully meted out performance based on a price point (a lot of high and low end cameras even used the same CCD modules).
Consider Nikon: it had the FM2, FM2n, FE2 and FA on the same chassis. Other than the novelty of an all mechanical shutter, remind me of why you really needed to be selling anything but the FA (and consider that platform and all the incremental changes from and to the FM, FE, and FM3A)? And what of the FG and FG-20? The changes between an N60006 and N8008 are almost insignificant, and what possibly takes the cake is the N2000 and N6000, each of which is a retconned manual focus version of an AF camera. How about the number of camera based on CAM200 with wildly varying performance? That manufacturers managed to sell millions of upgrade bodies, when the objectively observable performance upgrades were elsewhere (lenses and film), is nothing short of genius.
Canon was just as bad, though I frankly can't tell one EOS film camera from the next, except differentiating between the pro stuff and the plastic fantastic. Just keep watching Andre Agassi's hair and don't question why we bring out a new polycarbonate wonder every year.
Dante
Consider Nikon: it had the FM2, FM2n, FE2 and FA on the same chassis. Other than the novelty of an all mechanical shutter, remind me of why you really needed to be selling anything but the FA (and consider that platform and all the incremental changes from and to the FM, FE, and FM3A)? And what of the FG and FG-20? The changes between an N60006 and N8008 are almost insignificant, and what possibly takes the cake is the N2000 and N6000, each of which is a retconned manual focus version of an AF camera. How about the number of camera based on CAM200 with wildly varying performance? That manufacturers managed to sell millions of upgrade bodies, when the objectively observable performance upgrades were elsewhere (lenses and film), is nothing short of genius.
Canon was just as bad, though I frankly can't tell one EOS film camera from the next, except differentiating between the pro stuff and the plastic fantastic. Just keep watching Andre Agassi's hair and don't question why we bring out a new polycarbonate wonder every year.
Dante
Out to Lunch
Veteran
Consumer behavior is not driven by what Peter refers to as 'productivity' -productivity is an output/input equation, only. Consumer behavior is mainly driven by advertising. George Carlin understood this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCMhSzeGuA
Mcary
Veteran
For what I shoot my needs are pretty basic so every time I think of upgrading from the M9 to the M262 or M10 I ask what benefits I'll get from the upgrade and since I mostly shoot at base ISO and the resolution gain from 18-24MP isn't that large I figure my money is better spent on something else like travel. Additional as far as lens go I probable couldn't tell if an image was taken with 40 years old 35mm Summicron or brand new 35mm Summilux so I stick with what I have or if I do look to buy another Leica Lens its likely going to be one that' 1-3 generations behind the current model.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Perhaps that's because they were purchased by Amazon a few years back.....😱
Back to the original question.....
Do we need it, perhaps not, do folks want it, yeah (thank you marketers).
Does the company need to stay in business, heck yes.
The other thing to keep in mind is that technology does a trickle down thing. As they build stuff for the professional market, the stuff the build moves down in price to a broader market to help fund the next wave of improvements.
I haven't kicked the tires enough to know if the EVF are fast enough to not blur (I'm a bright-line-aholic myself for wide glass). It's wonderful to see the area just outside the frame that you get with a bright line to confirm you have everything you want.
Rather than just features (e.g. MPs, Sensor, Speed) I'd like to see the next set of features to improve upon is simplicity of control over the basics (e.g. aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focus) as a differentiating feature.
Fuji has some great film-emulations as features but when I look at what Olympus decided to put on the front dial I go yuck. I would have been a wonderful place to put a shutter speed dial. The more features you have the more time it takes to test. Testing costs money, so it costs more and takes longer to release new products. I wonder if you could scan all the shots in one of the photo sharing sites that were taken with a particular camera and see what the prevalence of some of the special in-camera software filters are used. Might prove enlightening.
While I have to admit that I'm a firm believer that most of the effects that we have in cameras today would be better implemented in PC/Tablet/Phone software, Fuji's implementation of film-emulations has me thinking in-camera tweaks do have their place.
B2 (;->
peterm1
Veteran
That is not entirely true (without wishing to get into a debate as to the definition of productivity). I do agree, as you say, that productivity is an "input/output" equation. But economists use the term not just to mean doing things cheaper, faster and more efficiently (i.e reducing inputs) but also to mean other things - like using advertising to convince purchasers that their product is worth paying more for - or paying for again given they way they release updated models regularly. (i.e. In other words they are not in that case reducing the cost side of the equation by increasing returns they get for their product). They euphemisticaly call it "value adding". And of course when they release a product this year then release another slightly "upgraded" version next year this is all part of that equation too.
Sure, consumer behaviour is driven by their own needs. But of course producers try to influence consumers' perceptions of what their needs are by using advertising. It's all a part of the same "game". Establishing optical laboratories and electronic research facilities, production lines and distribution and retail channels costs billions without which we would not have even more rudimentary cameras as there would be no one to produce them except a few skilled technicians and artisans - which would mean that cameras would be more like watches and timepieces were in the middle ages - highly expensive and accessible only by the very rich. So the main part of the job of camera equipment producers is to protect their revenue stream and future revenues so they can continue in the same game next year, and the year after, and the year after. Whatever they sold last year and this year is history (and the money has probably already been spent) - the only thing that matters from a business perspective is what that firm will be able to sell next year.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'm currently using the Sigma SD Quattro H camera. Sigma needs to start coming out with some f2 or f2.8 prime lenses in their ART line. Currently they're all f1.4 (except I think the new 70mm macro), and hence too big and too heavy.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
To Peter's comment above about camera companies needing to continue to innovate in order to stay afloat, I'd love it if they came out with some 'retro' gear that removes all the features not on a Leica M6, and then focus all their attention on better and better sensor design. And on high quality lower-cost compact lenses.
peterm1
Veteran
I pretty much agree.
But the beauty of competition and free markets is that if existing larger manufacturers don't, others very likely will - at least in some niches. I started a thread recently about what seemed to be a flood of lenses most of them low cost coming out of smaller, independent firms in Asia, these lenses mainly being designed for m43 and Sony mounts. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163036
I particularly agree about sensors - these things are getting much better but still have a way to go in my view. Even though they are now crazy sensitive in terms of ISO, there would still seem to be opportunities for better dynamic range given it is still too easy to get blown highlights in even ordinary lighting situations. Anyone recall for example those early Fujifilm sensor arrays that had two paired sensors at each site? One for ordinary brightness and one for extreme brightness as a means of giving better DR to older sensors. I have occasionally wondered if the same kind of thing could be resurrected now we have CMOS sensors which give better dynamic range than older CCD ones. If so would that give even better DR than we have now?
Eric T
Well-known
Agreed but when you need to crop, 42MP sure comes in handy.
Yes, this is true...
I meant the people posting, not the reviews...
Skiff
Well-known
No, if we are honest, we don't need it
No, if we are honest, we don't need it
Well, the answer to your question, whether we need more megapixels, more fps, more features and bells&whistles.....
no, we don't really need it. If we are honest to ourselves.
Facing the reality we see that we have only tiny or marginal benefits, but really huge costs with this permanent upgrading race.
The industry profits from it, but we don't. The difference between costs and advantages for us has become too big.
Therefore I prefer to spend this money on travelling and making photographs.
A current and well written article on that topic, too:
https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/ni...8-nikon-news/sunk-costs-and-mature-marke.html
No, if we are honest, we don't need it
Well, the answer to your question, whether we need more megapixels, more fps, more features and bells&whistles.....
no, we don't really need it. If we are honest to ourselves.
Facing the reality we see that we have only tiny or marginal benefits, but really huge costs with this permanent upgrading race.
The industry profits from it, but we don't. The difference between costs and advantages for us has become too big.
Therefore I prefer to spend this money on travelling and making photographs.
A current and well written article on that topic, too:
https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/ni...8-nikon-news/sunk-costs-and-mature-marke.html
mich rassena
Well-known
I see quite a number of postings from film camera users bemoaning the planned obsolescence and upgrade cycle of digital cameras. I just don't buy into that myself. I have a nearly 10 year old Nikon D80 that still works fine even with tens of thousands of shutter activations. When I'm not using my Pen EPM1 I'm using the D80 because the noise is better controlled, and I have wider angle lenses. I know there are better things on the market now, and when this camera dies, I'll buy something else, most likely whatever used full frame is in the $600-$800 range at the time.
What I don't get is the grouching about obsolescence when the old stuff is still compatible with off-the-shelf software, memory cards, flashes and so forth. No one is compelling upgrades, you can even still buy compact flash cards at far, far cheaper prices than when they were the prevalent format. It's not like anyone is twisting your arms to get the latest gear. New stuff is incrementally better than old stuff. When has that not been the case? I'd much prefer that to a stagnant marketplace where the 2013 model could be sold in 2018 for the same money as when it was new.
Maybe people are just upset that a camera is now like a new car: drive it off the lot and it loses 20% of its value, depreciates to nothing in a few years. But electronics aren't investments, they're tools, and their utility is their value.
What I don't get is the grouching about obsolescence when the old stuff is still compatible with off-the-shelf software, memory cards, flashes and so forth. No one is compelling upgrades, you can even still buy compact flash cards at far, far cheaper prices than when they were the prevalent format. It's not like anyone is twisting your arms to get the latest gear. New stuff is incrementally better than old stuff. When has that not been the case? I'd much prefer that to a stagnant marketplace where the 2013 model could be sold in 2018 for the same money as when it was new.
Maybe people are just upset that a camera is now like a new car: drive it off the lot and it loses 20% of its value, depreciates to nothing in a few years. But electronics aren't investments, they're tools, and their utility is their value.
Sometimes I have to think it is because these people don't use the camera much... but for someone like me that will make 12,000 images in a year, depreciation equals film costs in the past (or even less).
Similar threads
- Sticky
