The Great Digital Swindle...

[Pioneer]

I would hope this is not on God's top ten list of things to get involved in. 🙂

Then of course I could always be wrong about that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would hope this is not on God's top ten list of things to get involved in.

Well, He wouldn't have a bucket list, would He? Also raises some interesting questions about the linearity of infinity.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dmc]

Well, since I shoot film, not digital, the only new camera I've had my eye on is the Nikon F6. I do need to replace my well worn FM2n, so I've decided to pickup that excellent condition Nikon F with standard, non-meter, finder that I have been eyeing. Saved about 2 grand in the process. Let you know how it works out🙂

 

[aeturnum]

I think if we're going to talk about new cameras, we should talk about how new cameras relate to an individual.

First, new cameras are new toys. Anyone who enjoys the physical experience of handling a camera (which isn't everyone - not even all great photographers I'm sure) is going to be interested in new cameras. We all have physical aspects of the picture taking experience we enjoy, and it's not surprising we're all interested in a new 'take' on that experience (even if it's not that new). To enjoy this aspect of new camera releases, you don't need to care about the technology or the improvements of the new model, just enjoy handling cameras. There's no need to be a curmudgeon about other peoples excitement, just like there's no need for people to be excited.

Second, new cameras are (generally) advances over old cameras. They are often objectively better at one or more aspect of taking photos. These advances are generally very incremental (and always have been - for both film and digital). How impressive these improvements are is a subject of much debate. It's very hard to say exactly impressive any new camera is unless you have a deep background in state of the art sensor design (or shutter design, or AF design, modern cameras are so damn complex). Even if you have such a background your opinion will tend to be loss as part of the larger discussion. People get very emotional about the brand they are most attached to (either because they own those cameras, or because they like the 'direction' that brand is headed). These discussions should be taken with good humor, like discussions over which sports team is best.

Finally, new cameras are potential additions to our camera collections. No matter how big (or small) the changes are in a new camera, they may be huge changes for an individual. There was much grousing about the Canon 5D Mk3 being less of an upgrade than expected, but the person I know who upgraded from their Canon XSi sure thought it was a big deal. Also, as many of us are rangefinder devotees, we should remember that what matters about a camera to us is not what matters about a camera to everyone. A new camera can change nothing about the ,'state of the art,' and still be a huge improvement for an individual. If someone says a new camera will be what they need, who are we to say they're wrong? I think everyone here who owns multiple camera bodies has experienced the bust of creativity that can come with a new focal length, or body, or format (if you don't - why do you keep buying those bodies? 😛). Sometimes a new camera is the right camera for you.

There are also people who make wild and unsubstantiated claims about new cameras, but it's not hard to spot them. Personally, I think the Nikon DF looks nice and I have no interest in it. However, I am looking forward to trying an A7 'in person' as a potential digital sensor for my RF lenses.

 

[thegman]

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'd say there is no question that you're right. Not all of us of course, but a great number of people will be salivating at the thought of the next shiny cardboard box that arrives via courier.

I think many of us do though, right this second I hope DHL will turn up with my Graflex XLS. Obviously that's not a new psuedo-innovation, but it is me looking forward getting some stuff. Sure, I'll have my reasons about why this is better for me than my existing Horseman, but in reality, I wanted it, end of story.

For the moment, I have no interest in 'new' items. Give me a HP 200LX over a new iPhone or other smartphone any day. I'd much rather spend $600 on an old Sun server than a tablet. I'd much rather spend A7 money on a baby Linhof.

But if we did all renounce consumerism and stop buying things we didn't need, there would be quite a global drop in employment. There are solutions to this of course, but would anyone really want to be a part of that? Sometimes it's easier to find fleeting happiness every time a new [something] comes out, than really rethink what it is we need/want.

 

[thegman]

I'm not being swindled. I watch the innovation that happens in this market with interest in the new creative possibilities the technology offers, and I appreciate the ability of the engineers and economies of scale to put the technology into smaller and smaller packages.

I'm not suggesting that you, personally are being swindled. However, do you think that those people being swindled realise they are?

 

[thegman]

The whole essence of a swindle is the person does not know -- otherwise they would not be swindled.

I however do not feel swindled by carrying an A7 chip based computer in my back pocket, which has made navigation on long bike rides possible, at a level I would never have dreamed of -- and do not long after an HP 200LX which would be utterly useless for my cycling needs.

Many imagine others are being swindled, when in fact "we" are not.

It was a rhetorical question.

Certainly, I do have an Android phone which is able to stop stop me from becoming lost (I have only lived where I am a few months). It's able to do many things that that a HP 200LX is not, I'm merely saying I'd rather have the HP.

But then, people have been able to navigate themselves across the world without computers, or smartphones, so I assume you and I could manage it too given the motivation.

Clearly not all modern technology is a scam, but I think the way that people are made to believe they need it is quite remarkable.

 

[Corto]

I've been humbled enough this year to realize that just because I like doing something a certain way, And have been doing it for a while, Its not better than most new things.

I've also met a lot of old fools in my life, Enough to make me realize age does not always equal wisdom.

 

[icebear]

The pictures are always better on the wireless! 😉

A couple of birds sitting between two poles appearantly suspended in the air
... one says to the other : " This new wireless technology freaks me out !" 😛

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Our equipment simply does not prevent us from doing ANYTHING at this point, but our endless chasing of the next big thing does.

Great, great statement.

 

[Margu]

i think the gear obsession is a by-product of hanging around in photography forums... most people become drug addicts because their friends entice them into it.

 

[KM-25]

Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

Nope, because some of us are far too busy shooting to keep track of all the new goods. The last new digital camera I bought was my X100S, it is also the last digital camera I will ever have to buy as that and a D800 are all I need in that vein, shooting mostly black and white film now and looking to the future....

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

That is because their map is private. Sometimes even to themselves.

This got me thinking about my own case, with maps. Britain is a small country with a lot of roads. I have a very effective car navigation system, and just bought a new, very large scale road atlas.

My point is that new technology often meets new needs well, but previous needs less well.

A navigation computer is fine for getting to a destination when you know where you wish to go. So far, a printed atlas is better for exploring an area once you're in that area.

For similar reasons, I like using my Tamron Adaptall lenses on my dSLRs. 🙂

 

[pdh]

But if we did all renounce consumerism and stop buying things we didn't need, there would be quite a global drop in employment. There are solutions to this of course, but would anyone really want to be a part of that?

Depends on what one's motivations are for the long term, but I'd have go, yes

 

[thegman]

I recently rode hundreds of miles in Canada without Google Maps, and let me tell you it made the trip a lot more tedious, especially in the rain. It is amazing how few people one asks actually know where they are. 😀

Sounds like a great trip, my legs would probably fall off if I tried that.

 

[thegman]

Depends on what one's motivations are for the long term, but I'd have go, yes

It would be interesting if we could click 'Undo' if we didn't like it, but I suppose those of us living a comfortable life in the first world might be better off with the devil we know.

 

[pdh]

feel more comfortable or feel more secure perhaps, but not necessarily be better off. although it of course rather depends on what one feels "better off" means ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Employment" is a bit of a red herring. Keynes reckoned in 1930 that we'd be working 15 hours a week by 2030. Instead, we have some people working very long hours; some not working at all; and a ridiculous concentration on acquiring material goods, whether we can afford them or not. How Much is Enough? by Skidelsky pere and fils is a truly superb book: see http://www.theomnivore.co.uk/Book/C...y_and_the_Case_for_the_Good_Life/Default.aspx

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

"Employment" is a bit of a red herring. Keynes reckoned in 1930 that we'd be working 15 hours a week. Instead, we have some people working very long hours; some not working at all; and a ridiculous concentration on acquiring material goods, whether we can afford them or not. How Much is Enough? by Skidelsky pere and fils is a truly superb book: see http://www.theomnivore.co.uk/Book/C...y_and_the_Case_for_the_Good_Life/Default.aspx

Cheers,

R.

... exploitation of labour, concentration of capital, boom and bust and all that ... you really would have thought someone would have predicted it

 

[zuiko85]

There is a simple solution.

Retired and limited income.

I'm looking at a DSLR from 2005 because I can finally afford it at well less than $100. Since I'll have nothing to compare it to it will be a wiz bang wonder to me.