No New

[Bill Pierce]

I don’t need any more new cameras. I don’t need more megapixels. I don’t need more frames per second. I don’t want any more new cameras that are relatively quickly superseded by an even newer camera with features that don’t really don’t make my pictures significantly better even in a technical sense.

From the earliest M3 to the M6, my mechanical film rangefinders lasted from the day I bought them until photojournalism and then most of professional photography turned digital. As the SLR world improved, cameras got replaced, but at a rate that was much, much slower than the rate at which I have replaced DSLR’s and mirrorless digitals.

I want to learn how to use my current cameras well and take advantage of their features. I want to use them without thinking about them. Those are much more daunting and time consuming tasks with today’s digital cameras. (One of the big advantages of film cameras is that they don’t have menus.) I would appreciate better build quality and operating simplicity, but that doesn’t make much sense to a camera maker who is selling impressive tech specs and more “improved” features. Sadly, tech specs and features aren’t necessarily an indication of how well built or well designed a camera is.

The camera store I shop in is very good. How do I tell them I don’t want to buy any new cameras for a while? Maybe I’ll buy lenses.

Your thoughts?

 

[ptpdprinter]

What is your point? No one is forcing you to buy new cameras. Just use the ones you have.

 

[Bill Pierce]

What is your point? No one is forcing you to buy new cameras. Just use the ones you have.

A wise observation. One that I, too, came to. Read what I said. We agree.

 

[Godfrey]

When you stop being focused on what to buy and start being focused on what to do, life becomes a lot more interesting. 🙂

G

 

[Larry H-L]

Agreed. I haven't purchased a brand new camera in a couple of years, as the updates usually don't make much difference to me for my style of shooting.

I initially set up the camera as I want; back button focus, MF / AF on a custom button, RAW plus small jpeg, and then use it much like any old film camera. Set the ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Rarely do I mess with menus.

Cameras today are so good that I don't feel the need for more. Yet. But I imagine that sooner or later some new must-have feature will come along.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm glad to be not the only one.

I remember how couple Christmastimes ago I went to photograph lights sculptures installation and our children. I had Canon 5D and old Canon 50L EOS lens. It was very simple camera to operate. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO in M mode for light conditions like it was. One test shot to adjust and ready to take pictures.
One person approached me with newer Canon DSLR and asked for help. But I failed even set it to manual, it was dark and camera was overloaded with useless menus. I think, it was in guided mode....

I'm enjoying M-E for amazing simplicity and feel no interest in update. I'm getting better videos with old IPhone comparing to DSLR rig. Same goes to my next to ten years old consumer Canon DSLR. I know it all and could operate it without looking at the screen. It took one year to read and understand the manual for this camera.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I'm with you on this one, Bill. I too miss the simplicity of my film cameras. But the siren call of the conveniences brought about by digital (changing ISO with a button, beautiful color at high ISO, viewfinder histogram, etc.), not to mention the ease of producing excellent color prints without spending hours in the darkroom, make these modern machines so d**n attractive.

I've recently 'converted' my old X-Pro1 to a simpler device. The rear LCD screen had started to yellow quite a bit and so I wasn't using it for anything but fussing with the menu. So I've covered the screen with Aki Asahi leatherette. Now I leave the camera set in fully manual mode, OVF-only mode, manual focus lens mounted, zone focusing on the street. When I need more accurate focusing I just flip the little switch on the front to EVF. Now it feels like a meterless Leica body and I can enjoy the fun of trusting my brain for exposure and focusing. 🙂

 

[Bill Pierce]

I'm with you on this one, Bill. I too miss the simplicity of my film cameras. But the siren call of the conveniences brought about by digital (changing ISO with a button, beautiful color at high ISO, viewfinder histogram, etc.), not to mention the ease of producing excellent color prints without spending hours in the darkroom, make these modern machines so d**n attractive.

I'm with you on this one, Jamie.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I remember in the printing industry the Composition shops told me they weren't worried about the rise of low-priced computer "set-up" programs and output on the then-new Xerox color copiers, because the resolution was so poor that no one would accept the results compared to their big color offset printing plant. And the cost per print on the copiers was so high compared to the cost of a multi-thousand page run on their big machines.
The last time I went into one of those shops all they had was color copiers.
What's my point? I'm 66 y.o. I forgot.

 

[13Promet]

When you stop being focused on what to buy and start being focused on what to do, life becomes a lot more interesting. 🙂

And in the process you will also come to know who you are 🙂

 

[PKR]

Camera phones now own the former camera consumer market. Camera makers must concentrate on amateur and pro cameras to survive. People are discovering they don't need 100+mp camera sensors for most things. They also realize their current camera may work well enough if they can continue to buy batteries and memory for the model. A guarantee that the manufacturer will repair a camera 5-7 years from the purchase date may be demanded at some point.

Marketing people own the camera business. In the film days, a new pro camera was introduced every 8-10 years. With digital, it's every 18-24 months. The marketing people are in their glory days. Bigger sensor = new lenses to resolve the sensor = new lens sales. It's why CPAs lobby for a complex tax code in the US. "We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs" -Mel Brooks.

Maybe the smaller customer base will be listened to regarding what they want in a camera?

Fotocare Bill? Good folks!

 

[Bill Pierce]

Fotocare Bill? Good folks!

Of course.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I picked up a couple of full frame camera bodies that will soon be out of production, one film, one digital. Prior to that, my main camera was bought in 2012, with it's back up bought in 2009. Both digital, and I still get lost in their menus.

As I'm getting a bit long in the tooth, I'm hoping I'm done buying camera bodies. Pretty much covered for all the photo projects I'm contemplating, and find the newer, higher pixel cameras just jam up my post processing with all those darn mega-pixels. So I'm not the customer Nikon, Canon or Leica is looking for, though I do wish them all well.

Best,
-Tim

PS: Just out of curiosity, not to hijack the thread, but what would you want to see in a new camera that would make you consider getting back in the market to purchase? I can't think of anything my current cameras don't do that I'd want to see in a new camera body.

 

[kxl]

I do not NEED a new camera, but I do WANT one.

 

[Chris101]

All my cameras are old - well, except for the iPhone. I'd like a new camera, but I can't afford nor justify one, cause all those old cameras still work.

 

[PKR]

I should add to my anti camera marketing people rant:

When I first began learning about digital sensor technology, I found that it wasn't pixels that mattered but, pixel sites / aka photo site. With Bayer that's G,G,R,B; 4 pixels per site. The writer of the paper I was reading, a scientist - photo enthusiast, explained that when reading about pixel count, divide by 4. As with most modern technology, a dead pixel will turn off its home site. Also, pixels that don't receive a photon during exposure (mostly because of vertical alignment) poll neighboring photo sites for a on/off state through firmware. This doesn't happen with silver halide.

The writer explained that when the sensors got good enough to be sold to the public in cameras, the marketing people didn't like the "photo site" concept and used a discrete pixel count, because it was a "bigger number" and would be more impressive in AD copy.

 

[bayernfan]

i look at old cameras in the way that many people look at new cameras. that is, the older, the better. (up to a point).

 

[Archlich]

Cameras don't make my photography better. My photography can't be helped by any cameras to be "better".

That in mind, I feel free to explore and acquire new gears. Like a painter trying out new brushes and pigments. Does the improved quality of sable used by brush makers makes a painting better? Would the availability of new synthesized pigments (generally more cost-friendly and light-fast) guarantee us superior accomplishments to the old masters, whose Rose Madder had long faded to a dull yellowish green?

No. They just make the flow easier.

Cameras are tools, not some magical elixir that's fused with creativity...there's nothing wrong with them being improved.

Cameras are also commodities. That, is a different story.

 

[al1966]

I do like to play with different cameras, but for what I need most decent cameras made in the last 5+ years are good enough. A brand new body is off the table, though a Hasselblad X1? was pre ordered last year but cancelled, I have no use for it now. It is good if you can be patient and find things that are miss listed or in charity shops to try and pass on if they don't work out. Picked up over the last few months a reasonable Samsung set up for south of £100, 3 bodies 3 lenses one body is a spare. The 16mm pancake is quite a nice little lens and worth having the dead mount for what was paid. I do have GAS, as said playing with different bodies can be fun, but am not willing to pay for expensive bodies after getting a used A7 and 55mm nothing has really made one think it will do anything for my use. The only thing on the radar is a half decent 135mm equivalent but again, usage makes me not want to spend a load on it.

 

[PKR]

PS: Just out of curiosity, not to hijack the thread, but what would you want to see in a new camera that would make you consider getting back in the market to purchase? I can't think of anything my current cameras don't do that I'd want to see in a new camera body.

Tim; I've thought about this. Maybe others will add to my list?

A well constructed modular camera. Similar in build theory to the Red Camera, popular in the Cine world.

Modular updating of sensor, CPU package, battery management, that kind of thing. Upgrade your camera as needed. With a modular design, when chipsets become unavailable or obsolete, you just opt for a current unit. In the case of Red, the lens mount is available in C, Canon and Nikon. I wouldn't expect to see a big maker do that but, if modular, others may offer units that mate with the "Mother Body"?

As for profit, Red Camera seems to be very profitable. They just came out with a series of lenses and have been expanding their model system.

Expand on a known menu system. New cameras of a pro line, by a single manufacturer, should stick with a known menu system.

Be able to disable any menu items never used.. like "toy camera mode". Be able to disable any buttons on the body that aren't used. If I don't use Cine, I don't want to bump the button. I want it off, all the time.

I'm still thinking..

http://www.red.com/builder