What do you want?

[Bill Pierce]

I am constantly amazed by the long life of film cameras compared to digital models. I know of many Leicas, Hasselblads and other well made film cameras that are out there working over half a century after their introduction and often through multiple users. While the final film models from Leica, Hasselblad and others were not that different from those models released in the 1950’s, it’s not that surprising. Film has been around since George Eastman switched from a paper film (1885) to a celluloid base in 1888 or 89. Film cameras are a somewhat mature technology.

On the other hand, digital imaging in readily available consumer cameras was pretty much something that started with limited image quality around 1990. And it’s somewhat surprising that by the early 2000’s, digital cameras were outselling film cameras. And it is not surprising that digital improved so rapidly that the SuperCam2 really was a marked improvement over the SuperCam1. And just a year later, the SuperCam3 was better than both of them. But the SuperCam4 - I’m not so sure I’m going to have to get it. No question that it’s a little better than the SuperCam3, but can I take advantage of the improvements?

Most of the improvements come in the sensor/processor arena of image quality, usually more pixels (higher res image) with an improved processor holding down noise levels of what are now smaller pixels. I don’t make mural sized landscapes and stare at them from close distances; so, that very real improvement is often lost on me.

I do, however, take pictures in dim light at slow speeds and wide open apertures; so I do love magnified Live View from the sensor itself and bounce free electronic shutters. And while manual focus with magnified Live View can be great, in moving, changing situations, any improvement in autofocus is a super welcome blessing. Simple manual controls and simplified menus make preparing to take pictures less arduous and more error free. And, of course, as digital cameras get better and it doesn’t make sense to replace them - better build quality.

I kind of think the megapixel race is pointless for a lot of folks, but anything that leads to better, easier, quicker handling when you are dealing the very basics - focus, exposure, viewing and pushing the button - will always be welcome. What do you look for when you are contemplating a new camera?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Image quality. My trip through the digital world has been increasing sensor size, and therefore resolution, from an early Canon ELPH (1/2.5" 4MP), Canon G10 (1/1.7" 14MP), Canon G1X (1.5" 14MP), Fuji XE2 (APS-C 16MP), and now Fuji XT2 (APS-C 24MP). I'm thinking my next camera will be one of the GFXs. I am a deliberate still shooter and therefore do not need faster anything or video. It is really not about print size. At the native 360dpi resolution of my printer, the GFX yields slightly better than a 16x20 print-- not large by anyone's standards.

 

[Ccoppola82]

Maybe I’m a bit strange in that I think the limitations imposed by “lesser technology” often facilitated the creation of better works. I feel the same way when I oil paint. I work with a limited palette, and often work within a color/value gamut. Sometimes a full palette of endless possibilities leads to either lazy work and reliance on the technology or could potentially paralyze the creative vision by offering TOO many choices. Working within a set of known parameters helps to master the fundamentals and create a natural harmony. That being said, for what I do there really isn’t anything I would improve. I do wish that modern lenses were the size of earlier lenses.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Maybe I’m a bit strange in that I think the limitations imposed by “lesser technology” often facilitated the creation of better works.

For many decades......

 

[ptpdprinter]

Maybe I’m a bit strange in that I think the limitations imposed by “lesser technology” often facilitated the creation of better works. I feel the same way when I oil paint. I work with a limited palette, and often work within a color/value gamut. Sometimes a full palette of endless possibilities leads to either lazy work and reliance on the technology or could potentially paralyze the creative vision by offering TOO many choices. Working within a set of known parameters helps to master the fundamentals and create a natural harmony. That being said, for what I do there really isn’t anything I would improve. I do wish that modern lenses were the size of earlier lenses.

There is a difference between using a limited palette, and using inferior brushes, canvases, and paints. Not sure how the latter do anything to improve creativity.

 

[Timmyjoe]

It seems to me that the newest digital cameras market higher resolution (pixel count), higher ISO, and faster autofocus. Not sure why those are needed. I look at what the masters did with 35mm & 120 film, at speeds from ISO 100 to ISO 400, with manual focus lenses, and am not sure that can be improved upon.

Would a Winogrand image have more meaning had it been shot at 45MP, ISO 12800, with 493-Point Phase-Detect AF? Or would David Douglas Duncan's work have moved you more being shot with the same? Or Herb Ritts, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, etc.?

Sure, the newest digital wonders make taking a picture simple and convenient, but if I am looking for simple and convenient I can just use my iPhone. Also simple and convenient has led, IMHO, to a saturation of mediocre images. Yes, they were simple and convenient to make, but does that make them images worth viewing?

Just some "late in the day" thoughts.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I look not for mega pixels, not at all. But for the price and capabilities.
To me most capable cameras in normal price range and Ricoh GRII and Canon 6D.
Both are available new.

IMO, best Leica is used M240 (at this moment).

 

[back alley]

turns out the fuji xe3 is the perfect camera for me...not saying it's a perfect camera, just perfect for me!
since i bought my 2 bodies i have not looked at another camera, not seriously anyway. i have been concentrating on building up my lens inventory and plotting which lens will be next...so far the 16/2.8 will be the one, eventually adding the 10-24 and the 90. i have been using my 60 macro lots lately so wondering about the 80 macro instead of the 90.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I kind of think the megapixel race is pointless for a lot of folks...

I agree, but it's worth noting that since the release of the A900 a decade ago, Sony has always had a 24mp full frame body in their line-up. Their hugely hyped recent A7III still sits at 24mp and generated more excitement than I've seen for a new release in a while. Likewise, Nikon chose to sit one of their new mirrorless options at 24mp, and Canon has their 6DII at 26mp.

My point being that yes, there is still a megapickle race going on at the top end of the market that doesn't make a lot of sense for a lot of us. But the industry seems to be well aware of this and has settled on mid-20mp as a sweet spot for keen enthusiast models. Personally, 24mp is a good balance of quality and file management. Going beyond that becomes a turn off as much as anything...

Going back to the original question - I look for a camera that I will enjoy using. Everything in the market segment I'm interested in has the image quality, performance and lenses I want, so it ends up being about the shooting experience.

 

[Rob-F]

I think 10 or 12 megapixels is about the Goldilocks "just right" number for me. After that, other things are more important, like an excellent viewfinder. Say, a Fuji X100 upgraded with a 24-90mm zoom would be great!

 

[zuiko85]

Not only is the life cycle of digital short, but none I've held, DSLR or Mirrorless has given me the tactile pleasure of a metal, mechanical, manual 35mm SLR. Even a Sears KS-500, a rebadged Ricoh KR-5, that cost me $5 has a more pleasant feel than my DSLR. And yes, the Ricoh/Sears has plastic top and bottom covers, but the body and film door are metal, the wind on is smooth and the viewfinder is large and easy to focus with the standard 50mm f2 lens.

 

[al1966]

I think 10 or 12 megapixels is about the Goldilocks "just right" number for me. After that, other things are more important, like an excellent viewfinder. Say, a Fuji X100 upgraded with a 24-90mm zoom would be great!

I think you are about right, I can get a reasonable sized print from 10mp certainly A3 looks good enough. I feel for me the sweet spot was hit with the 16mp sensors but a fair bit of that was the overall output and how well they worked out for what I wanted to do (m43 especially).

I am hard pressed to think of anything they could do in a new camera that would make me want it. I shoot one frame at a time and apart from some occasional motorsport where 3-5 is fine that's no appeal. The dynamic range of all of them seem sufficient for my uses and as 16mp is plenty the idea of 100mp is more frightening making them take up more space and requiring larger HD space*. I remember when 800ASA film was pushing it 3200 as a usable sensitivity is wonderful and apart from the Green Room in Welwyn Garden City has been fine for gigs*2. So I am left wondering what would could they do to make me want something, perhaps a smaller sensor than 1" that is as good as m43 circa G3 EM5 era cameras for an even more portable system, don't know.

* Am doing a job that requires 50mp+ that is so the end user can zoom into parts and get the info they need, I was going to rent but a well priced cam has been bought on the gamble I should get the money back.

*2 What kind of damned fool puts a set of stage lights that illuminate the audience not the band :bang: idiots.

 

[gavinlg]

I basically just want a Leica M-10P

 

[pgk]

Ease of use. Simple UI. Easy to assimilate menus. A straightforward camera.

 

[:: Mark]

Would a Winogrand image have more meaning had it been shot at 45MP, ISO 12800, with 493-Point Phase-Detect AF? Or would David Douglas Duncan's work have moved you more being shot with the same? Or Herb Ritts, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, etc.?

No, but there is a far greater chance of someone shooting a meaningful image today with a modern camera than, say, Winogrand's equipment.

To get those good images, Winogrand shot a phenomenal quantity of film. The cost and time to get those processed - not to mention the editing time - meant that shooting in the same way was never an option for many many people. By reducing the barriers to entry, digital has levelled the playing field.

Equally, better digital cameras get out of the way when shooting. I find shooting with a state-of-the-art digital Olympus *much* easier than with a film Leica, thanks to the what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder and all the modern tricks that deal with camera shake, focus and exposure. This means that I can worry about the what of shooting instead of the how. Again this levels the playing field.

Better cameras give greater opportunity for more people to make unique and special images. Anything which improves that surely must be welcomed?

 

[Vince Lupo]

For personal work, this pretty much does it for me.


M-D and Coffee by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

 

[Dogman]

What do I look for when I'm thinking about buying a new camera?

User interface. Previously known as "ergonomics". And known prior to that as "handling".

The technical side of camera use is pretty simple, really. It's elementary geometry. It's shutter speed and aperture applied to the sensitivity of a type of media. After that, it can get hairy but with modern equipment all the hairy stuff has pretty much been shaven away. The hairy stuff had started balding even before the light meter was born. Simple. The only thing left is for the user to be able to...well, use it. Every single digital camera today is capable of excellent image quality and performance most of us will never need.

My main concern is how the camera handles because the rest of it has been taken care of.

 

[Photog9000]

Right now, I have what I NEED. But I would love a Leica Monochrom and a series of Leica lenses (28mm, 50mm & 90mm)! My now gone Nikon D2H help rid me of G.A.S. when an image from one body was blown up to 6 FEET x 12 FEET and used on a billboard. Now retired I am making do with what I have. If a Leica M3 and 50mm Summicron was good enough for Cartier-Bresson, my current cameras (both film & digital) will challenge me enough.😀

 

[Larry Cloetta]

......there is a far greater chance of someone shooting a meaningful image today with a modern camera than, say, Winogrand's equipment.

More resolution, autofocus, faster autofocus, extreme low light capability....none of those things have a bearing on the creation of “meaningful”. Meaningful still depends completely on the meat sack holding the camera, be it a Zorki or the latest wallet draining temptation.

“Better cameras give greater opportunity for more people to make unique and special images.”

Well. The opportunities are indeed there, but the “special images” have not been concommittantly forthcoming.

They used to talk about giving typewriters to a room full of monkeys, and waiting for the eventual good novel to be written. The democratization of photography with the advent of ever more “capable”, do-it-for-you digital cameras has indeed “leveled the playing field” in a way. But all it has done is given those same monkeys electric typewriters instead of the manual ones.

Maybe that seems a bit harsh, but, if the criteria is “meaningful” as opposed to “sharp”, I have not seen any photographic evidence that our new gear utopia has been especially esthetically uplifting. But sharp, we’ve got all the sharp we can use. It may be pointless, but it’s sharp. And there’s a lot of it.

 

[Michael Markey]

If a Leica M3 and 50mm Summicron was good enough for Cartier-Bresson, my current cameras (both film & digital) will challenge me enough.😀

Nothing stands still and that M3 and 50 Summicron were cutting edge at the time.
There is no reason to suppose that Bresson wouldn't be using something equally cutting edge today .