On Cheaping Out versus Aiming High

Thanks for the link, Barrett. I always enjoy reading his website. In this case, while I'm not sure he's 100% correct, I think he's got a pretty solid point. It bears thinking about, anyway.
 
While photographic manufacturers may get a chuckle out of the "economizers," I bet they get a good laugh (all the way to the bank) out of lawyers who buy D2x's just to shoot photos of small fuzzy animals, likely at the local zoo. ;)
 
The chimp analogy sucks. Chimps are not "25%" of a human. By the way, chimps have opposable thumbs. All primates have opposable thumbs. Lemurs have opposable thumbs. Who taught this guy biology? Chimps can also learn nonverbal language such as sign language or Yerkish (which uses a picture/icon board to construct words and sentences). It only costs 25% to house, feed, and entertain a chimp as compared to a human if you're a sadist or an abuser.

Other than that, meh. There's a difference between having the best you could possibly have and having what you actually need.
 
Last edited:
MelanieC said:
The chimp analogy sucks. Chimps are not "25%" of a human. By the way, chimps have opposable thumbs. All primates have opposable thumbs. Lemurs have opposable thumbs. Who taught this guy biology?
Click to expand...

Nobody. He gets by on sounding pompous and authoritative (and making pretty darned good pictures.)

Nobody taught him anything about cars, either:

"Well, I really like this Ferrari GT308.

"But the Corvette is half the price and goes 90% as fast as the Ferrari.

"But the Toyota MR2 is half the price of the Corvette and has most of the speed I need for my daily driving.

"But thinking about it more, this rusty old Triumph is still a two-seater with a stick shift, and it costs so much less."
Click to expand...

-- The Ferrari GT308 was something of a cheapo, and the early ones were rustbuckets.

-- The Corvette Z06 is cheaper and a LOT faster.

-- The Toyota MR2 is long out of production and faster than the Corvette on some kinds of roads.

-- If properly restored, the rusty old Triumph will bring more money than any of the others at auction.


The point: His message here seems to be, "It pays to buy the best," but the question he's begging is, "Best AT WHAT?"

And as always, the less-highly-specified camera you can afford to buy will give you better pictures than the more-highly-specified camera sitting on the dealer's shelf because you couldn't swing the price.

I suspect Dante knows that... he's just feeling condescending today.
 
Stella's essay probably wouldn't stand up to a serious vetting
by anyone well trained in critical thinking (which I am not!)

It's easy to see though that while he attacks 'conventional wisdom'
that same wisdom really applies properly to the vast majority of
situations we encounter. What's really important is being alert
to the occasion when 'divergent thinking' is more appropriate.

Stella seems to suggest a new rigid dogma that's just a different
conventional wisdom. Hey, he's a better photog than me but
I don't need better gear to improve my pics, I need more work.
I believe this is true of most of us.

I don't mind his essay except for the bit about chimps & MG's.
I've been likened to the former and I've owned two of the
latter and I'm not ashamed of either.
 
"You can always rationalize your way down to something cheaper by redefining the task as something less."

there's the key sentence. plus the bit about losing money on upgrades.
 
You can always rationalize your way down to something cheaper by redefining the task as something less.
Click to expand...

You can often take very good photos indeed with something cheaper.

It's just getting light here and I'm taking a 'Happy Fun' single use camera out. My photos will be better than another person's with an expensive camera in an expensive bag in the den.
 
While I think it's great to provoke and have people think about their buying habits, I also think it's completely nuts to solely focus on what manufacturers propose as 'best'..

Sure a Ferrari is fast, but it isn't what I call useful.. It just plain stinks at doing the groceries. Same with a D2X vs. D80, or whatever model down the line.. it sure is fast, but it stinks when it weighs you down if you merely want to have fun on a sunday afternoon stroll..

Same goes for lenses. I always thought I needed a fast zoom for my camera. That is, until one of my colleagues showed a 2.8/24-70. Man, that thing weighs a ton. It's heavier than my 6x6.. I instantly knew that I'd never carry such a beast outside the house! It'd be money thrown away..

My conclusion is that the only way you loose money on the upgrade is if you fall into the trap of thinking you need to 'upgrade'..
 
MelanieC said:
The chimp analogy sucks. Chimps are not "25%" of a human. By the way, chimps have opposable thumbs. All primates have opposable thumbs. Lemurs have opposable thumbs. Who taught this guy biology? Chimps can also learn nonverbal language such as sign language or Yerkish (which uses a picture/icon board to construct words and sentences). It only costs 25% to house, feed, and entertain a chimp as compared to a human if you're a sadist or an abuser.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Mel...you had your laser ready when I couldn't quite find my flashlight on this, critically speaking.

Other than that, meh. There's a difference between having the best you could possibly have and having what you actually need.
Click to expand...
True. And sometimes, that which is commonly regarded "best" isn't ideal for one's general wants/needs (e.g. RFs vs. SLRs).
 
Gradually working your way up is often way more expensive in the long run. If you succumb to the "It's 80% of the features at 25% of the cost" thinking/marketing, you do (if it's a serious pursuit) end up spending more and probably are more frustrated along the way. To me, that's the point, irrespective of the logic and analogies which, I agree, are less that "critical thinking".
 
I really love this sort of logic. Did you know that it is easy to "prove" that 1 =2? :confused:

See the attachment. :D (sorry couldn't get the formatting in post :bang: )

Kim
 

Attachments

  • Let a.pdf
    8.5 KB · Views: 0
The opposite argument is "Just because you drive a ferrari it doesn't make you Michael Schumacher" so I really don't get the logic of his essay.
 
Nice

Nice

Kim Coxon said:
I really love this sort of logic. Did you know that it is easy to "prove" that 1 =2? :confused:

See the attachment. :D (sorry couldn't get the formatting in post :bang: )

Kim
Click to expand...

But if a=b, then you can't divide both sides by (a-b).
 
I thought it was only in corporate finance that 2+2=D...

Bob
 
Yea...he lost me at "opposable thumbs."

I'm trying to follow the logic. Is he saying that because I don't own a D2x, I'm a lemur? I wanted to at least be a chimp. I've seen them at the zoo. Those guys have all the fun.
Ironically, the same sort of fun had in that article.
 
That's why I so love such arguments. ;)

A chip (edit: mistype, try chimp)might have 99% of human DNA but would you let one drive your car, whether it is a Ferarri, Corvette or Triumph? :D

Kim

beethamd said:
But if a=b, then you can't divide both sides by (a-b).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom