There are no bad digital cameras, says the New York Times

K

KoNickon

Nick Merritt
Local time
7:09 PM
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
4,688
www.nytimes.com

All Cameras Are Good Cameras

The truth is, the cameras we already own have more features than we’ll ever use and produce better image quality than most of us are ever likely to need.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

What do they know, right? But it is true that digital cameras' image quality is of a very high standard overall. I've been using the first version of the OM-D EM10 (cited in the review) for pushing ten years and continue to be very pleased.
 
They've obviously never used the truly god-awful Kodak monstrosity I owned at the end of the 90s/start of the 2000s. Shutter lag could be measured in full seconds, not milliseconds. It was atrocious.
 
My 2003 Olympus E-1 DSLR is still a superb camera, despite being 21 years old and having only 5 Mpixels, glacial write times, etc. The lenses are superb, writes to the card are buffered and don't stop you making more exposures, and it has the best ergonomics of any DSLR ever. Image quality is right there with the best.

No bad digital cameras? Hmm, that might be a bit of hyperbole. But there always were far more good cameras than croakers out there. ;)

G
 
Harry the K said:
At about 8 - 10 Megapixel Digital had caught up with film, at least 35mm film. Past 2010 you can buy any digicam you want, iq will be good enough.
Click to expand...
It's kind of amusing to me how initially the "received wisdom" was that digital would take forever to catch up to film -- each 35mm frame (to say nothing of medium or large format) contained so much information that digital couldn't compete. I'd say we have long since put paid to that argument. Now, digital cameras have settings that mimic specific films so you can get that Ektachrome (or whatever) "look."
 
I feel unless I need the extra megapixels or the faster AF tracking and accuracy, most digital cameras post 2010 are solid. It's hard to justify upgrading to the newest and latest thing when I can still get a lot out of my Sony NEX-6 or my Panasonic GX85.

I'd add my Olympus M43 stuff that I have, but I've had some crummy luck on an EP1 and an EPM2 with the IS failing on both and having the sensor no longer centered.
 
Last edited:
aw614 said:
I feel unless you need the extra megapixels or the faster AF tracking and accuracy, most digital cameras post 2010 are solid. It's hard to justify upgrading to the newest and latest thing when I can still get a lot out of my Sony NEX-6 or my Panasonic GX85.

I'd add my Olympus M43 stuff that I have, but I've had some crummy luck on an EP1 and an EPM2 with the IS failing on both and having the sensor no longer centered.
Click to expand...
Change the "you" to "I" in your first sentence and your statement will be absolutely correct.
... Other people's perceived needs/desires can, and do, differ from yours.

G
 
Coldkennels said:
They've obviously never used the truly god-awful Kodak monstrosity I owned at the end of the 90s/start of the 2000s. Shutter lag could be measured in full seconds, not milliseconds. It was atrocious.
Click to expand...

There “are” no bad digital cameras. Present tense.
 
I think the chances of someone uninformed as to what the full market is today digitally speaking, would be more likely to get a 'good' camera than someone purchasing a new film camera say 25 years after 35mm film became the standard by which those cameras were judged.
 
Some years ago Fuji X-E1 was sold at a considerable discount because there were newer models released. So, I bought my first and only digital so far. I don’t see any need to upgrade (of course, I shoot 97% film). What is funny is that now this model (socond hand) is sold for almost the same amount I paid for the new camera. First generation xtrans sensor are in fashion again.
 
For the general audience of the New York Times this article mostly makes sense. Most of them will rarely print anything and if they do it will probably be 8x10 or smaller and virtually any DSLR or mirrorless sold new today should meet that test easily. One thing that was touched on briefly but I think is important is to make sure that the camera feels right in the hands. All of the megapixels and expensive lenses won't matter that much if the photographer doesn't feel comfortable with it. There are a lot of bad menus out there and poor control placement with otherwise great cameras with great specs. For those of us who are more demanding and make bigger prints there are significant differences between cameras and lenses that are important to consider.
 
Image quality is a given in almost all cameras post 2016. The differences now come down to handling, operation speed, video features and quality, and overall shooting experience.

Among others, I still use my Canon 30D from 2006, 5D Mark II from 2009, Leica M9 from 2010, and Olympus E-M5 from 2012. Prosumer and mid-pro cameras from the late 2000s onwards are still viable, and anything post 2016 is fine for general consumers and many pros. I know a pro sports shooter who continues to use a Nikon D700 and D3, he's been using them for over a decade and he says he'll probably retire from photography when they give up the ghost.

I no longer use compact cameras like the Canon S45, S70, G10, or Fuji F30 and even the X10. Compact cameras came into their heyday around 2010-12 with models like the Panasonic LX7 and Sony RX100, and everything since then has been gravy.

My most used micro four thirds cameras are the GX85 and G9, which was released in 2016 and 2018 respectively, making them a surprising 8 and 6 years old. With careful exposure and processing, they produce superb image quality that can be used for all everyday purposes and quite a few paid scenarios. Given how good they are, my more recent Panasonic S5 could last at least another 5-10 years before I really feel the need for better image quality.
 
Well all I can say is I broke out my old GXR from 2009 got new batteries for it and added a 50mm f 2.5 and the A16 24-85mm lensor for it and I am very happy with the results. Plus it's nice and small and light to carry around.
 
Well, I mean if you buy anything from a high end phone to basically any digital camera you can buy new today, it is true. The average person doesn't require much.

Personally, 24mp is the low point that is currently acceptable to me. That is a very highly detailed 13x19" print. Sometimes it is nice to go bigger.
 
The article is from The Wirecutter which is the NYT’s buyers guide. It’s helping people choose what to buy, and they’re talking about current cameras, not those made 20+ years ago.

And I agree with their argument. Most current digital cameras are made for photography enthusiasts, because phones have taken the entire low to mid range market. The only cameras anyone is making are in the serious amateur and professional category, average price is high, and the cameras are very, very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom