boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The quote from the article. It really helps to read these things before critiquing them:
"Unless you’re eyeing a no-name “4K camera” on Temu or AliExpress (and you shouldn’t be), there are no bad cameras anymore. None. Zero."
They are not talking about the then-wonder now-dog you had back in 2000. RTFM
As to "What do they know?" you will find if you follow Wirecutter in the NYTimes that they know plenty.
"Unless you’re eyeing a no-name “4K camera” on Temu or AliExpress (and you shouldn’t be), there are no bad cameras anymore. None. Zero."
They are not talking about the then-wonder now-dog you had back in 2000. RTFM
As to "What do they know?" you will find if you follow Wirecutter in the NYTimes that they know plenty.
brothernature
Established
There are no bad cameras in that any camera that produces a photograph is a small miracle, but there are plenty of cameras that are bad for particular modes of expression that differ between human beings
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
You make too much sense, and you're a troublemaker! This is RFF, and we burn witches and troublemakers here!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It just with few I have bound , many I don't.
But not by tech specs.
In fact I have no cameras with impressive specs.
I prefer how camera renders colors, because it is impossible to paint black dog as white swan.
To me Sony, Nikon colors are bad indeed. Casts of green and blue.
Well, many cameras suffers from no WB, but blue. It looks bad.
My M-E 220 became prone to it after sensor was replaced.
Yet, old Leica X2 and Canon 5D gives colors just right for me.
But not by tech specs.
In fact I have no cameras with impressive specs.
I prefer how camera renders colors, because it is impossible to paint black dog as white swan.
To me Sony, Nikon colors are bad indeed. Casts of green and blue.
Well, many cameras suffers from no WB, but blue. It looks bad.
My M-E 220 became prone to it after sensor was replaced.
Yet, old Leica X2 and Canon 5D gives colors just right for me.
gzisis69
Established
Every camera is good if the person using it knows what he is doing and has some sort of photographic talent. That being said, there is also a big difference between a 2005 camera and a 2025 one. Of course not huge in the end they both take pictures but some cameras just make the job easier. If they somehow look good at the same time then even better. Some great cameras like ricoh gr, panasonic gx85/9, Fuji xe4 dont have a next model, which could bring very good new stuff or some others like nikon and canon apsc dont have the right lenses even they exist for long enough to have them. I think its all about how much money one wants to spend on photography. If i had 2000 to spend i would get a new camera not a 2005 one, if i dont have that money and the middle road is not good enough for what i need i will compromise.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I bought a Sony DSC S70 in 2000 for $1,000. The zoom stopped working about ten years ago so I got another DSC S70. $30. It took very good photos with its CCD sensor even though small. Check out this photo from 2001 in Mexico. There were good cameras "back then". A 3.34 MP sensor.
Last edited: