The Great Digital Swindle...

[JChrome]

I'm just not sure how Robert Frank, HCB, Chim, Robert Capa, Eugene Smith, Walker Evans, Dorthea Lange, Diane Arbus, Garry Winogrand, Joesph Koudelka and Eduard Boubat got along without 36 megapixels.

Thanks for the rhetorical question. Of course they got along dandy without 36 mp. They also got along just fine without auto-exposure, autofocus, and a host of other techno gizmos available to film cameras. It would have been interesting if they would have had 36mp available to them, memory cards and no need for a darkroom. Which would they choose? I'm sure some would choose the digital workflow just as some other artists these days choose it!

When shooting for pleasure, I only shoot medium format film and have been for years. When shooting professionally, there's only one choice for me and that's digital. Thank god I didn't have to develop rolls and rolls of film for all the food photography I used to do...

 

[gilpen123]

I know they bought the new Barnacks during their time.

 

[kuzano]

Your topic reminds me (excellent by the way) of two things I often think....

The beautiful girl on the t-shirt, ala Victoria's Secret and a dog chasing a car.

First, I saw a great t-shirt one time with a beautiful bikini model on the front. On the back was the inscription... "Oh yes... She's beautiful. But someone, somewhere, has had it with her Bull****!"

Epitomy of todays camera's.

Then the dog chasing the car. I am guilted by others and the industry to want the latest and greatest. Been that way for decades on photo gear. Remember when new camera's came along every few YEARS, and the lust lasted only until you got your next paycheck, or looked in your savings account. As the dog chases the car, I don't know what I would do with a $3000 contmeporary 24 and 36 Mp camera. Grab it in my teeth... shake my head.... drop it and pick up my old tired stick and wander off to play familiar games.

Best DSLR I ever shot was the Olympus E-1 with 5 Mp and that great, tack sharp 14-54 kit lens. The color rendering from that Kodak sensor was unmatched for years. Perhaps even today. So glad I still have one. The other was the Fujifilm S3/S5 Pro with the Super CCD. Still a remarkable camera for color rendering and wide dynamic range today at 6/12 Mp.

 

[Sparrow]

I know they bought the new Barnacks during their time.

.... Capa gave his away 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

...As the dog chases the car, I don't know what I would do with a $3000 contmeporary 24 and 36 Mp camera. Grab it in my teeth... shake my head.... drop it and pick up my old tired stick and wander off to play familiar games.. . . .

Remember the Southern comedian, Brother Dave [Gardner]? From memory:

"You got to have faith, dearly beloved. Faith is what makes dogs chase cars, and old men chase young girls. Ain't neither of 'em could do a damn' thing if they caught 'em, but the THINK they can. That's where faith comes in to it."

Quite unlike middle-aged men and cameras, then.

Cheer,

R.

 

[rbelyell]

5 or so years ago the 5d was kind of pro state of the art. produced great images. i loved mine. along came, among others, the fuji x100 and far from having a 'negligiable' effect on my personal photos, it blew away the 5d at iso's higher than 800. for me that was an objective fact that i personally saw time after time. and that is far from the only example. there are ergonomic improvements that also have a profound impact on the relationship between photographer and tool.

sure, there are too many canon and nikon iterations, but it seems to me folks dont get jackedup about those, because their impact is in fact 'negligiable'. so i,m left, from personal experience, to disagree with the premise. the fuji x system, the sony mirrorless forays, the M240, all of these did/will have a substantial impact on both the images we create and the experience of creating them.

i guess what eludes me is how this subject is repititvely discussed on a forum devoted to discussing camera equipment? i'd get it on a forum where only images are posted and disussed specifically without regard or reference to equipment. but thats not the dog we at this forum bought, is it?

i mean we have countless multipage threads comparing every real or imagined apect of an 'acme' version iii aspherical as opposed to the version ii as-conical, both of whose results of course cannot be touched the pre 1972 'freds' hysterical line because everyone knows those 'freds' lenses were made in burma for freds by kramer from seinfeld. so why are we discussing why we are discussing equipment? that seems to be exactly what we do here.

 

[Murchu]

It occurred to me this morning, whilst reading through the Nikon Df thread, that people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago with cameras which you can barely give away these days. Nevertheless, many of us seem to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs as each new multi-thousand pound/dollar/euro camera body is released, even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best. Why is that? Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

I agree, although would temper your observations with the assertion most forums and places you see this euphoria around the new, are populated more by camera fondlers rather than image makers.

I personally do not get this narrow focus on incremental improvement that is sought by many through newer and better. If I want to improve as a photographer, I am more likely to to do by learning to use a lesser piece of equipment better, than seeking out the improvement that new equipment offers. Equipment is not the bottle neck for me, my own skills as a photographer are. All cameras produce good enough technical results for me, although in some cases equipment may make it easier for me to get a shot.

I guess however this is all nothing new, people have always chased magic bullets, be it a camera or lens in photography, a golf club in golf, a pill or some magic diet for weight loss, or a million other things.

 

[jsrockit]

It's because it's very rare for anyone to make a digital camera that feels as nice as a film counterpart. And when someone does accomplish this, it usually costs a lot of $$$. Each time a new digital is rumored, people think it'll be THE ONE. However, each time it's actaully announced, it never is THE ONE.

 

[uhoh7]

It occurred to me this morning, whilst reading through the Nikon Df thread, that people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago with cameras which you can barely give away these days. Nevertheless, many of us seem to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs as each new multi-thousand pound/dollar/euro camera body is released, even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best. Why is that? Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

DF seems very much a marketing thing to me. "Classic Nikon"

A7 a new and powerful tool marketed in the main by those who've wished for exactly such potential.

 

[rbelyell]

again, it may not be for you; its certainly not for me, but we really cant see why a nikon glass guy wouldnt be juiced by the DF? it is FF, has a full analogue control set and seems ergonimically to ignite nikon film camera muscle-memory. thats not 'marketing', its for real stuff that changes the user experience from any other cam nikon has. it aint my thing, but i sure could see where itd be somebodys thing, and a whole mess of somebodys at that. just cause its new dont make it bad. i think parochialism is more at issue in many of these threads.

 

[icebear]

It's because it's very rare for anyone to make a digital camera that feels as nice as a film counterpart. And when someone does accomplish this, it usually costs a lot of $$$. Each time a new digital is rumored, people think it'll be THE ONE. However, each time it's actaully announced, it never is THE ONE.

I guess you are right about the $$$ for the nice feeling counterpart of the film camera.
For me, I am not bothered with the M240 or a potential MM version of this 24mp sensor.
The M9 and MM are plenty good enough and they do not in any way limit my photography.
There is nothing that I want to achieve, that I can't with these two.

If you feel the urge to buy something new and marketing has you salivating and credit card itching for the latest and greatest, the "new and improved" 😀, than there is in most cases nothing to hold you back but yourself asking the only relevant question:

"Does this new camera help me to improve my photography or is it just a new toy, giving a little new push of motivation to get out there and take pictures?"

Some people will never be satisfied with what they have.
They will always crave what the neighbor has.
I think it's genetic 😉.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess you are right about the $$$ for the nice feeling counterpart of the film camera.
For me, I am not bothered with the M240 or a potential MM version of this 24mp sensor.
The M9 and MM are plenty good enough and they do not in any way limit my photography.
There is nothing that I want to achieve, that I can't with these two. . . .

Dear Klaus,

The only reason why I, as an M9 owner, would seriously consider an M typ 240 is the possibility of using my long and macro Nikon lenses on it -- which is a genuine advantage, i.e. not having to buy/carry a new Nikon digi-body. If I were buying a new Leica, I don't know if I'd go for an ME or a Typ 240. It would not be an MM because for B&W I still prefer what I persist in regarding as real cameras. The A7E and Nikons are other ways to use long or macro lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[uhoh7]

i think parochialism is more at issue in many of these threads.

+1

at least half the hype is the furor, the outrage, at the new.

 

[HHPhoto]

It occurred to me this morning, whilst reading through the Nikon Df thread, that people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago with cameras which you can barely give away these days. Nevertheless, many of us seem to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs as each new multi-thousand pound/dollar/euro camera body is released, even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best. Why is that? Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

Yes, much too often we are slaves of the marketing people.
That is one reason (one of many others) why I left the digital rat race and have returned to film.

Look at the the most famous photographs, the photographic icons which we remember and which touch us emotionally:
They are shot on.....film.

Look at the mainstream today: People spent thousands of bucks in a 2-3 years cycle for the latest hyper-dyper megapixel cam......and then......
they are only viewing these 20+ MP pictures on the crappy computer monitors with the ridicolous low resolution of only 1-2 MP and the bad halftones.
99% of todays digital photographers spent lot's of money on equipment they don't need at all.
Crazy behaviour.

Cheers, Jan

 

[charjohncarter]

I bought a big screen TV recently, the salesperson said to get this one that is on sale. It was on sale because Samsung has a 6 month model cycle, so the 6 month old one goes on sale. My wife said no get the newest.

 

[goamules]

...asking the only relevant question:
"Does this new camera help me to improve my photography or is it just a new toy, giving a little new push of motivation to get out there and take pictures?"

Some people will never be satisfied with what they have.
They will always crave what the neighbor has.
I think it's genetic 😉.

This could have been said by an old guy in 1959, still shooting his pre-war Kodak Autographic 3A folder. "Why are all these whipper-snappers clammering for that dad-gum Leica M3? You don't need a larger viewfinder to take good pictures. And that new CanonFlex and Nikon SLR-thingy....it costs as much as my first car!"

Well, if each person bought one appliance, car, camera in their life, the world would be a pretty boring place. Like in the dark ages, where nothing advanced for centuries. You bought a wooden bucket, just like your grandfather did 200 years before, and used it until you died.

 

[uhoh7]

Robert Capa used the Contax 2 & 3s, no?

Cameras at tip of the 135 spear, technologically, when he used them.

And not cheap either.

Then the Nikon S came out and he fell for the hype.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This could have been said by an old guy in 1959, still shooting his pre-war Kodak Autographic 3A folder. "Why are all these whipper-snappers clammering for that dad-gum Leica M3? You don't need a larger viewfinder to take good pictures. And that new CanonFlex and Nikon SLR-thingy....it costs as much as my first car!"

Well, if each person bought one appliance, car, camera in their life, the world would be a pretty boring place. Like in the dark ages, where nothing advanced for centuries. You bought a wooden bucket, just like your grandfather did 200 years before....

Dear Garrett,

There is an enormous difference between buying new when you see a clear advantage, regardless of what that advantage may be, or because your old one car, camera or whatever is worn out, and buying new because [of] marketing hype.

Cheers,

R.

 

[hac]

Vinton Trent once said..“amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light, I just make pictures" ...

 

[uhoh7]

Dear Garrett,
There is an enormous difference between buying new when you see a clear advantage, regardless of what that advantage may be, or because your old one car, camera or whatever is worn out, and buying new because [of] marketing hype.

I could not agree more.