segedi
RFicianado
It seems like a lot of us not only love photography, but also photo making equipment. And up until the past few months, I've been one of those eagerly reading all of the new announcements. But, now it appears I've become desensitized to all of the new offerings.
The latest "game changer" is an expensive fixed focal length, full frame behemoth from Sony, the RX1. Steve Huff played with one for 2/3 of an hour and announced it as the best camera ever. He tends to like nearly every camera he reviews, and why shouldn't he? We've been blessed with a plethora of great choices over the last couple of years. But all I could do was sigh. Now, I don't think he's necessarily wrong in that Sony has created a great camera with a full frame sensor and a quality 35mm Zeiss f/2 lens.
The problem lies in the reality that the evolution in photo making equipment is happening so darn fast, it's really hard to get excited anymore. The second reality is that none of this fine gear will make any of our photos that much better. And despite all the advancements in the technology, I don't mind using a manual film camera.
Thoughts?
The latest "game changer" is an expensive fixed focal length, full frame behemoth from Sony, the RX1. Steve Huff played with one for 2/3 of an hour and announced it as the best camera ever. He tends to like nearly every camera he reviews, and why shouldn't he? We've been blessed with a plethora of great choices over the last couple of years. But all I could do was sigh. Now, I don't think he's necessarily wrong in that Sony has created a great camera with a full frame sensor and a quality 35mm Zeiss f/2 lens.
The problem lies in the reality that the evolution in photo making equipment is happening so darn fast, it's really hard to get excited anymore. The second reality is that none of this fine gear will make any of our photos that much better. And despite all the advancements in the technology, I don't mind using a manual film camera.
Thoughts?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Welcome to the club.
I think it's mainly a function of growing up. As you put it, "none of this fine gear will make any of our photos that much better". At that point, you see through the mindless consumerism. I'd recommend reading "How Much Is Enough?" by Robert and Edward Skidelsky. Here's a review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/29/how-much-is-enough-skidelsky-review They liked it; I liked it even more.
Cheers,
R.
I think it's mainly a function of growing up. As you put it, "none of this fine gear will make any of our photos that much better". At that point, you see through the mindless consumerism. I'd recommend reading "How Much Is Enough?" by Robert and Edward Skidelsky. Here's a review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/29/how-much-is-enough-skidelsky-review They liked it; I liked it even more.
Cheers,
R.
kmallick
Well-known
Interesting topic for discussion. I will go get the popcorn. But its not just the cameras. Looks at all the hoopla about the latest and greatest phones, like iphone 5 today. it seems everybody on the net is hyped about some new gizmo and every blogger's agenda is to make you pre-order something.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How do new 'phones improve your life?
Yes, mobile 'phones are handy sometimes. After that...
Cheers,
R.
Yes, mobile 'phones are handy sometimes. After that...
Cheers,
R.
segedi
RFicianado
Roger - thanks for the link and the recommendation. Some of what is said reminds me of Capitalism, A Love Story.
It appears economies are no longer based in reality but in speculation and expectation. Company X only grew 8% last quarter and the expectation was for 8.5% so the stock takes a hit... it's scenarios like that which make no common sense.
Another part of my "growing up" is not having much emotional attachment to things. I can sell any bit of equipment without remorse. And buy things based on practical need. And I find myself much less agitated by all of the nonsense as well.
It appears economies are no longer based in reality but in speculation and expectation. Company X only grew 8% last quarter and the expectation was for 8.5% so the stock takes a hit... it's scenarios like that which make no common sense.
Another part of my "growing up" is not having much emotional attachment to things. I can sell any bit of equipment without remorse. And buy things based on practical need. And I find myself much less agitated by all of the nonsense as well.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm less into the photography and more into digital camera & smartphone marketing.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I use 95% film to 5% digital right now. I own a Nikon D700 and Panasonic Lumix LX3 - both fine cameras and both capable of competing with any top end equivalent of their own type. However, I still prefer film. Partly because of the process of handling and using film, partly because of the analogue output looking better (to me) than a digital / inkjet print but a lot of it is to do with the fact that I'm not constantly feeling as if I should be upgrading the kit.
In the (good) old days, the only thing that changed was the film stock. Other than that, once you had a set of lenses and a body you could rely upon to do what was required of it, it was easy to just get on getting on.
These days, if you read the avalanche of photo magazines containing the word "digital" in their title, you soon start to realise that they are little more than product advertorials / reviews. So, I've given up buying them. All of them. I have the UK version of "Black and White" delivered and I buy the UK "Outdoor Photography" magazine. Occasionally, I'll buy "Amateur Photographer" but I have promised myself that I will only ever buy magazines that acknowledge that film photography is still a valid medium.
My advice to anyone becoming hoodwinked by the bombardment of techno-babble about the latest digital this or that is to walk away while you are still sane. Treat you digitl camera like any other. Accept its limitations and work with them. Only upgrade anything when it is truly obsolete. A friend of mine (a pro wedding photographer) still uses Fuji S3 Pro and S5 Pro digital cameras. Why? He seldom has to print bigger than A3 and very few other cameras can reproduce skin tones like them.
In the (good) old days, the only thing that changed was the film stock. Other than that, once you had a set of lenses and a body you could rely upon to do what was required of it, it was easy to just get on getting on.
These days, if you read the avalanche of photo magazines containing the word "digital" in their title, you soon start to realise that they are little more than product advertorials / reviews. So, I've given up buying them. All of them. I have the UK version of "Black and White" delivered and I buy the UK "Outdoor Photography" magazine. Occasionally, I'll buy "Amateur Photographer" but I have promised myself that I will only ever buy magazines that acknowledge that film photography is still a valid medium.
My advice to anyone becoming hoodwinked by the bombardment of techno-babble about the latest digital this or that is to walk away while you are still sane. Treat you digitl camera like any other. Accept its limitations and work with them. Only upgrade anything when it is truly obsolete. A friend of mine (a pro wedding photographer) still uses Fuji S3 Pro and S5 Pro digital cameras. Why? He seldom has to print bigger than A3 and very few other cameras can reproduce skin tones like them.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Haha Segedi, thoughtful Repose in your writing...
I must Agree... "And despite All the advancements in the technology, I don't mind using a manual film camera"
I must Agree... "And despite All the advancements in the technology, I don't mind using a manual film camera"
Kent
Finally at home...
I agree to the original post.
Too much, too fast.
"PAF" ... I like that!
Too much, too fast.
"PAF" ... I like that!
btgc
Veteran
Today is my first day with Polaroid x530. Don't know if Steve Huff has reviewed it, sure it should. Reading reviews how slow, ugly and otherwise wrong it is, I were prepared for the worse. But this '2004 tech is a nice Foveon camera, producing RAWs easy to chew for my old PC (do your hear me, Merril people?). It allows to make pictures. Because of it's quirks and interface, I'm slowed down and that immediately made to to feel some connection. I do not need high fps and ISO capabilities, or blazing fast write times and huge buffer. I've saved money which I'll use for an autumn trip and use '2004 x530 to take pictures. Thank you, technologies, for a nice toy to play with when I'm in digital mood. When RX1 will cost about same I paid for this, probably I'll try it but I don't think it will make my pictures any better. Sure, it's nice to have Zeiss glass, though. Some glass is better than other, but picture wise...we know it....
Teuthida
Well-known
I agree. Chasing the latest technology is an exercise in futility, and completely unnecessary. My film cameras from the 60s and 70s still give a pride of ownership. Whatever digital cameras I have don't. They're just computers and have the expected lifespan of my current laptop. They certainly don't appeal to that aesthetic sense that a mechanical camera made for a lifetime of enjoyment does.
The current fetish for better and better IQ just seems counterproductive if your intent is the simple enjoyment of photography as a medium of expression.
The current fetish for better and better IQ just seems counterproductive if your intent is the simple enjoyment of photography as a medium of expression.