Bill Pierce
Well-known
There are some expensive digital cameras out there. A PhaseOne XF IQ4 is going to set you back ballpark $52,000, but at least they toss in a lens. The Hasselblad H6D 400c is going to set you back ballpark $48,000, and then you’re going to have to buy a lens. That makes an equally lensless Leica S3 at a scant $19,000 seem like a real bargain. In all cases, a lens is going to set you back at the least 2 grand, usually more.
But that makes whining about the price of a digital Leica M or Fuji GFX100 seem uncalled for. But I have to confess, while I think the M and GFX are great cameras, I am one of those whiners. In part that is because I’m old enough to remember when film Hasselblads and Leica’s were relatively affordable and, perhaps more important, because the technology was mature and beyond the time of major improvements or changes; the cameras were lifetime investments.
We’re still in the early stages of development in the digital camera world and at a time when significant improvements appear at relatively short intervals. There are real improvements in image quality and an increase in features. But can we take advantage of them? I’ve never owned more cameras. When the Wondercamera 100 is rendered antiquated by the the Wondercamera 200, I buy the 200 knowing full well that in a few more years I’ll have the 300 & 400.
Does this make sense? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you are a working stiff, be it commercial, advertising, wedding or news, you probably should be looking at the video aspects of your digital camera along with editing programs and camera supports and other accessories specific to motion work. Actually, I shouldn’t use the word “probably.” You will be making movies, not feature length entertainment and documentaries, but 30 second and 3 minute clips for the customer’s web or computer use. No question, video features are improving on many of the newer models of digital cameras. But, if you are not “customer dependent” and just love to take pictures, you’ll probably have more fun doing movies with your phone or simplest of camera settings.
Image stabilization gets better. Do you take pictures in very low light levels of things that don’t move? It’s the “don’t move” that’s the key phrase, and it’s not a very popular form of photography. Do you use long lenses without a tripod at shutter speeds far below the 1/the full frame focal length that most folks can hold steady. That’s more popular. I’m told the best image stabilization in those situations is the lens based stabilization.
Of course you need more megapixels. What if somebody should press their nose against one of your mural sized prints or the giant screen in your entertainment complex? On the other hand, it sure is fun to crop into images taken with a sensor with a big megapixel count. The quality can be surprisingly good even though you have reduced the pixel count down as low as the pixel count on that first early digital camera you had.
Anyway, I just realized that I don’t want a new camera. Actually, that’s not exactly true. I love having new play toys; I just don’t need them and in many cases can’t take advantage of them. In truth, most of the technical weaknesses in my images are my fault, not the camera’s fault. I wish there was a camera store that sold me new, improved working skills. I would hope they would be cheaper than new cameras. Your thoughts?
But that makes whining about the price of a digital Leica M or Fuji GFX100 seem uncalled for. But I have to confess, while I think the M and GFX are great cameras, I am one of those whiners. In part that is because I’m old enough to remember when film Hasselblads and Leica’s were relatively affordable and, perhaps more important, because the technology was mature and beyond the time of major improvements or changes; the cameras were lifetime investments.
We’re still in the early stages of development in the digital camera world and at a time when significant improvements appear at relatively short intervals. There are real improvements in image quality and an increase in features. But can we take advantage of them? I’ve never owned more cameras. When the Wondercamera 100 is rendered antiquated by the the Wondercamera 200, I buy the 200 knowing full well that in a few more years I’ll have the 300 & 400.
Does this make sense? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you are a working stiff, be it commercial, advertising, wedding or news, you probably should be looking at the video aspects of your digital camera along with editing programs and camera supports and other accessories specific to motion work. Actually, I shouldn’t use the word “probably.” You will be making movies, not feature length entertainment and documentaries, but 30 second and 3 minute clips for the customer’s web or computer use. No question, video features are improving on many of the newer models of digital cameras. But, if you are not “customer dependent” and just love to take pictures, you’ll probably have more fun doing movies with your phone or simplest of camera settings.
Image stabilization gets better. Do you take pictures in very low light levels of things that don’t move? It’s the “don’t move” that’s the key phrase, and it’s not a very popular form of photography. Do you use long lenses without a tripod at shutter speeds far below the 1/the full frame focal length that most folks can hold steady. That’s more popular. I’m told the best image stabilization in those situations is the lens based stabilization.
Of course you need more megapixels. What if somebody should press their nose against one of your mural sized prints or the giant screen in your entertainment complex? On the other hand, it sure is fun to crop into images taken with a sensor with a big megapixel count. The quality can be surprisingly good even though you have reduced the pixel count down as low as the pixel count on that first early digital camera you had.
Anyway, I just realized that I don’t want a new camera. Actually, that’s not exactly true. I love having new play toys; I just don’t need them and in many cases can’t take advantage of them. In truth, most of the technical weaknesses in my images are my fault, not the camera’s fault. I wish there was a camera store that sold me new, improved working skills. I would hope they would be cheaper than new cameras. Your thoughts?
