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?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was just thinking which cameras I would like to keep.... Those which were new at the moment I, my family got it in possession.
From early sixties up to recent purchase yesterday, I counted six. Where are tree more less regular users of them in our family.
Two digital, one from 2005 another from 2009 are just not as cool as one from yesterday.
Today's digital cameras are on pair with mobile phones, AF to touch, face recognition, in camera HDR. Cameras from yesterday are lagging behind. Sure, with time and effort it is possible to squeeze and post process decent image from them, but today's cameras are doing it nicer with no need of pro label on the image taker.
From early sixties up to recent purchase yesterday, I counted six. Where are tree more less regular users of them in our family.
Two digital, one from 2005 another from 2009 are just not as cool as one from yesterday.
Today's digital cameras are on pair with mobile phones, AF to touch, face recognition, in camera HDR. Cameras from yesterday are lagging behind. Sure, with time and effort it is possible to squeeze and post process decent image from them, but today's cameras are doing it nicer with no need of pro label on the image taker.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
The last new still in production camera I bought was a Canon AE-1 back in the 70's. I don't think the quality of my work has been equipment limited at all, but by my own personal skills. If there ever comes a piece of equipment that I though would make my photography better, I would buy it in a heartbeat. But it hasn't happened yet.
peterm1
Veteran
One thing that sometimes impinges itself on my consciousness is the market maturity curve. All markets tend to follow this curve to some degree. The big difference today is the speed with which markets move from one phase into another. As the market becomes mature (i.e. (a) technology is mature, competent and stable, and (b) most people have the relevant widget / camera or whatever) it becomes tougher.
This is where product innovation is particularly important (it is actually important at all stages of course) to keep people buying. If people stop buying, the production lines stop rolling, money stops rolling in, technology development ceases and the business model fails.
I once heard someone say that in the pharmacological drugs market his job as CEO was simple in concept - he just had to keep people buying the drugs made by his company so the company could continue to pay for the Research and Development which invented new drugs to sell to the market next year and the year after and in decades to come. The moment people stopped buying, (or began buying cheaper substitutes) the whole model fell in a hole, particularly as R&D is so damnably expensive and risky.
The camera market is a bit the same. with the exception that new products tend to come to market much more quickly - no years long trials to make sure they are efficacious and safe.
As for me I am one who is generally happy enough with camera technology that is 3-5 years old (or older). I generally do not demand the latest and greatest, though I do love having a new toy to play with. But that's OK. There are plenty of people like me thankfully and of course our role is to buy the "cast offs" of those who do demand the latest camera gear. And in this humble way we support the overall market too as without us, fewer new products would be sold to those who otherwise would buy them. So don't feel too bad about never buying the newest, latest and greatest products. I don't as we are all doing our bit in our own way.
I probably should not have posted the last para above as it could drive up eBay prices if the idea catches on even more.
EDIT: I am by nature a capitalist but mainly only because it relies upon individual freedom and choice not mandated by some autocratic and annoying busy body. But I have to admit there is an aspect to capitalism that reminds me of the following "ditty". Listen at your own peril and do not click if you are prudish about humor. But definitely click if you are broad minded. I have known this ditty for most of my life - its an old English / Australian favorite or used to be - before the world had not become so insane that it lost its sense of the ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zILOW5_OwWI
This is where product innovation is particularly important (it is actually important at all stages of course) to keep people buying. If people stop buying, the production lines stop rolling, money stops rolling in, technology development ceases and the business model fails.
I once heard someone say that in the pharmacological drugs market his job as CEO was simple in concept - he just had to keep people buying the drugs made by his company so the company could continue to pay for the Research and Development which invented new drugs to sell to the market next year and the year after and in decades to come. The moment people stopped buying, (or began buying cheaper substitutes) the whole model fell in a hole, particularly as R&D is so damnably expensive and risky.
The camera market is a bit the same. with the exception that new products tend to come to market much more quickly - no years long trials to make sure they are efficacious and safe.
As for me I am one who is generally happy enough with camera technology that is 3-5 years old (or older). I generally do not demand the latest and greatest, though I do love having a new toy to play with. But that's OK. There are plenty of people like me thankfully and of course our role is to buy the "cast offs" of those who do demand the latest camera gear. And in this humble way we support the overall market too as without us, fewer new products would be sold to those who otherwise would buy them. So don't feel too bad about never buying the newest, latest and greatest products. I don't as we are all doing our bit in our own way.
I probably should not have posted the last para above as it could drive up eBay prices if the idea catches on even more.
EDIT: I am by nature a capitalist but mainly only because it relies upon individual freedom and choice not mandated by some autocratic and annoying busy body. But I have to admit there is an aspect to capitalism that reminds me of the following "ditty". Listen at your own peril and do not click if you are prudish about humor. But definitely click if you are broad minded. I have known this ditty for most of my life - its an old English / Australian favorite or used to be - before the world had not become so insane that it lost its sense of the ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zILOW5_OwWI
Beemermark
Veteran
I think digital cameras have already reached maturity. New cameras come out almost daily (like cell phones) with new features. But the new features are only incremental and I think it's debatable that the features are something that people are going to dump their old model to buy a new one. The new Leica M10-r is such a case. Are people going to take a huge loss on their M10 to buy the new M10-r? 40 mp vs 24mp? Are their any RF lenses that can actually take advantage of 40mp? And what are people going to do with the files from a 40mp camera, rent billboards to post the pictures on?
peterm1
Veteran
Indeed. We may even be in the decline stage given that sales of dedicated cameras seem to be headed in that direction.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
If I bought one of the new 40+ megapixel bodies, I'd have to buy a new computer with massive hard drives to process and store the resulting files. Since any new computer would come with Windows 10, I'd have to up my broadband connection just to handle the 3GB downloads of the OS that M'soft pushes out twice a year, whether you want them or not.
I don't shoot video, and I can make great A3-size prints from 24MP files, even from 12MP files if pushed. I've been shooting with primes the last 45 years, so I've figured out that if I want to crop, I should just move closer. So I think I'll pass on the new stuff for a while.
I don't shoot video, and I can make great A3-size prints from 24MP files, even from 12MP files if pushed. I've been shooting with primes the last 45 years, so I've figured out that if I want to crop, I should just move closer. So I think I'll pass on the new stuff for a while.
Beemermark
Veteran
I have an A3 print made from a Nikon D200 hanging on the wall. Viewed from a reasonable distance (~2 feet) is looks very good. The D200 was what? An 8MP 1/2 frame sensor. Bigger and better sensor handles more than resolution. So replacing the D200 with a D700 was a big jump. But the jump from the D700 to the D750 not so much.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
What I've found very enjoyable is when the image I envisioned actually appears the way I wanted - the form, the light, or the right moment. I'm getting better at this after 50+ years.
Still, I like equipment. Love equipment. But my interests are the cameras I knew in my teens and 20's: the 1960's and 1970's. Then add 10 years to each end and you'll know 95% of what I have and use. For the last few years I've been concentrating on all-manual cameras.
Digital has no future for me. The Fuji X-Pro1 charmed me with its dials and clever viewfinder, then I felt I just had to have a D700. To my surprise, a Pentax K10D I got as a $10 gift is more appealing than both. None of the features of new digital cameras appeal to me - I'm happier with a Nikon FM, Canon FTb, Leica M6, or an Olympus Pen FT half-frame.
I spent 45+ years as an engineer - I don't want to sit in front of a screen looking at photos. Going through an album, a shoebox, or looking at photos on the walls in my house is more enjoyable.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Just one thought...
I recently bought a Nikon Z6, my first full frame digital. 'Only' 24mp was a big selling point, rather than a downside. The other body I looked at was the A7III, also 24mp.
Resolution has got to the point now (actually, some time ago) where it has gone way beyond what I want and need, and has actually become a problem - avoiding the highest res options is actively influencing my buying decisions. A raw file from a Z7 is what, 85mb? None of my existing hardware can deal with that...
RichC
Well-known
Several of my friends are full-time photographers (well, until the virus...) - artists selling work through galleries, wedding photographers, an event photographer, an architectural photographer.
All of them use old equipment, and none are thinking about upgrading as what they have does the job: lenses and cameras are, in the main, 5-10 years old. Digital camera technology is mature from the viewpoint of usability and image quality, so new cameras bring incremental, not revolutionary, changes now.
I don't make my living from photography but do take it very seriously, and my work has been exhibited in several countries. In fact, Brighton's contemporary art gallery Fabrica is currently showing an 8.5 ft (4 m) print: see below. This is damn sharp, and was made with my current camera, a Sony A7R II.
Like my professional photographer friends, I'm perfectly happy with my camera. Despite the Sony mark II being 5 years old, I have no plans to replace it, despite it having been replaced by newer models, first the mark III, then the IV. Are the newer models better? Yes. I especially like the sharper viewfinder, higher pixel count, better ergonomics and more effective weather sealing. Will these improvements make a significant difference to image quality or camera usability? No.
I like technology and new stuff, so if I had money to burn I'd happily buy the current Sony A7R IV today. But I don't need it - the features on my Sony A7R II do not limit me in any way. In fact, from a photographic viewpoint, I cannot see a reason to ever replace it.
My previous camera was a Nikon D800E, which I used for 6 years. It was replaced because of the game-changing Sony A7R mirrorless camera, with its full-frame sensor, better-than-optical electronic viewfinder, image stabilisation and ability to use practically any lens ever made. I've now had the Sony for 2 years, but can't envisage any technological revolution like I've just described that would excite me so much and convince me want to replace it. I expect to keep using the Sony until it wears out!
All of them use old equipment, and none are thinking about upgrading as what they have does the job: lenses and cameras are, in the main, 5-10 years old. Digital camera technology is mature from the viewpoint of usability and image quality, so new cameras bring incremental, not revolutionary, changes now.
I don't make my living from photography but do take it very seriously, and my work has been exhibited in several countries. In fact, Brighton's contemporary art gallery Fabrica is currently showing an 8.5 ft (4 m) print: see below. This is damn sharp, and was made with my current camera, a Sony A7R II.
Like my professional photographer friends, I'm perfectly happy with my camera. Despite the Sony mark II being 5 years old, I have no plans to replace it, despite it having been replaced by newer models, first the mark III, then the IV. Are the newer models better? Yes. I especially like the sharper viewfinder, higher pixel count, better ergonomics and more effective weather sealing. Will these improvements make a significant difference to image quality or camera usability? No.
I like technology and new stuff, so if I had money to burn I'd happily buy the current Sony A7R IV today. But I don't need it - the features on my Sony A7R II do not limit me in any way. In fact, from a photographic viewpoint, I cannot see a reason to ever replace it.
My previous camera was a Nikon D800E, which I used for 6 years. It was replaced because of the game-changing Sony A7R mirrorless camera, with its full-frame sensor, better-than-optical electronic viewfinder, image stabilisation and ability to use practically any lens ever made. I've now had the Sony for 2 years, but can't envisage any technological revolution like I've just described that would excite me so much and convince me want to replace it. I expect to keep using the Sony until it wears out!
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
I’ve been thinking about the Fujifilm GFX 50R camera and Fujinon GF 63mm f2.8 lens lately.
It would be a significantly high priced purchase for me if I bought this rig.
I’d probably have to sell some of my stuff to help finance this.
Buying this GFX set easily fits in the category of I don’t need it, I just want it.
It’s a bad idea. Life is short. Too much time on my hands? Think of the pictures I could make with this beast! Just think. Just do it! Discuss this idea with my wife. Now I’m back to “it’s a bad idea”.
Time will tell.
All the best,
Mike
It would be a significantly high priced purchase for me if I bought this rig.
I’d probably have to sell some of my stuff to help finance this.
Buying this GFX set easily fits in the category of I don’t need it, I just want it.
It’s a bad idea. Life is short. Too much time on my hands? Think of the pictures I could make with this beast! Just think. Just do it! Discuss this idea with my wife. Now I’m back to “it’s a bad idea”.
Time will tell.
All the best,
Mike
Yeah, I still buy cameras even though I have ones that work well. Life is too short to be practical always. If it isn't killing your budget for other necessities, there is no harm in my opinion. I just got a Fujifilm X-Pro3 and X100V on the same day. I will keep the X-Pro2 I bought 4+ years ago too as well as 2 other sub $1000 Fujis. Do I NEED 5 Fujis? No, but I like them and will use them all. I enjoy photography and a few $1000 isn't going to kill me. Those 5 Fujis added together were still were cheaper than one new Leica M.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
That is an excellent reason to buy more Fuji cameras!
Dogman
Veteran
So I've been thinking about what and when I bought my last brand new camera. Can't remember when but it was likely the Ricoh GRII when it was first released. I've bought several cameras since then but none of them were new at the time. I don't need a lot a lot of new technology to take the type of pictures I take. I have two Nikons that are 36mp but I don't use them very often. Instead I like the 24mp D610 and the 12mp D700--all bought used and still rocking along. I have forgone buying the Fuji XP3 in favor of the older XP2 (bought used). Fact is, I still use my XP1s. I bought those new some time ago.
Lenses are different. Although I buy used lenses, especially those that are discontinued that were unique in some ways, I also buy new lenses. Newer lens designs are improvements in most areas, however, the downside is they're bigger and heavier than I want to carry around.
Lenses are different. Although I buy used lenses, especially those that are discontinued that were unique in some ways, I also buy new lenses. Newer lens designs are improvements in most areas, however, the downside is they're bigger and heavier than I want to carry around.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yeah, maybe, but if you bought one new Leica M, why would you really need four more cameras? :angel:
G
Yes, I’d still want my Fujis. They are actually better for me personally. I also indicated I don’t need 5 Fujis... I simply want them. The M is a nice camera. I’ve used them in the past, but I prefer Fuji now. The M is actually the worst option for me now. The Q or Q2 is more my style. I think your question assumes I really want an M and I don’t have one because I can’t afford it, so I settled for 5 lesser cameras. The only reason I mentioned the M was because I used to buy Leica.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't need any new cameras.
That said, I have a new Hasselblad 907x, a two year old Leica CL, a three year old Light L16, and a few other recently purchased film cameras on top of the mound of other cameras in my closet.
Every camera sees differently, lets me see differently. I like to try new cameras out to see what they let me see, and sometimes I find an advantage in that. I don't see it as a problem, nor do I have any anxiety about it. Sometimes I sell things because the closet has gotten too cluttered.
I don't feel this is true. To my view, we're well past the adolescence and teen years of digital camera development. I'm finding that the feature rise is more bloat than usefulness, driven by marketing trying to push up desirability by having more fancy sounding things per dollar, and the resolution gains are getting smaller and smaller.
Significant new gains in image quality (however you define that nebulosity) are getting sparser and sparser.
G
That said, I have a new Hasselblad 907x, a two year old Leica CL, a three year old Light L16, and a few other recently purchased film cameras on top of the mound of other cameras in my closet.
Every camera sees differently, lets me see differently. I like to try new cameras out to see what they let me see, and sometimes I find an advantage in that. I don't see it as a problem, nor do I have any anxiety about it. Sometimes I sell things because the closet has gotten too cluttered.
I don't feel this is true. To my view, we're well past the adolescence and teen years of digital camera development. I'm finding that the feature rise is more bloat than usefulness, driven by marketing trying to push up desirability by having more fancy sounding things per dollar, and the resolution gains are getting smaller and smaller.
Significant new gains in image quality (however you define that nebulosity) are getting sparser and sparser.
G
Dogman
Veteran
"...Significant new gains in image quality (however you define that nebulosity) are getting sparser and sparser."
Very true. A recent lens review I read asked the question, "How much tack sharpness do you want in a lens?" Indicating that there are improvements but they aren't readily seen the pictures we take. Lenses and sensors and various other components continue to improve in lab results but the photographs don't really look any better without pixel peeping at high magnification and measuring the range of maximum black to maximum white. If we see any improvement in image quality at all it's usually only incrementally small.
Very true. A recent lens review I read asked the question, "How much tack sharpness do you want in a lens?" Indicating that there are improvements but they aren't readily seen the pictures we take. Lenses and sensors and various other components continue to improve in lab results but the photographs don't really look any better without pixel peeping at high magnification and measuring the range of maximum black to maximum white. If we see any improvement in image quality at all it's usually only incrementally small.