Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Remember(some might) when you used an SLR, and it got worn? The chrome wore to the brass, or the thing got a ding or two? No one seemed to mind much, except the anal-retentives. Now, people seem paranoid about any signs ofuse on their equipment, and it's all down to how often people sell and buynew gear. If you had an SLR for five, ten years, you wouldn't care about wear much because you got your money's worth. Now, because you expect to sell what you have in a year or two, people baby their equipment, probably to the detriment of their photography because they'll need most of the moneyback they spent on it to get the next body, lens, etc.
     
    RichA, Mar 30, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    ebay
     
    Bowser, Apr 1, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I'm not sure that is true but what most realise is that modern cameras are far more delicate than the old ones and tehy dob;t retain their prices liketehy used to due to the more frequent introduction of better spec cameras.
    you'd have it because it was still the best you could most likely afford and yopu'd replace it when worn out rather than when a better spec camera appeared as a direct replacement.

    you wouldn't care about wear much >because you got your money's worth. Now, because you expect to sell what you >have in a year or two, people babytheir equipment, probably to the detriment >of their photography because they'll need most of the money back they spent on >it to get the next body, lens, etc.
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 2, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    The mindset some guys on Flickr seem to have is that bodies come and go,
    it's your collection of lenses that continue to be useful.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 8, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
    manual focus lenses -> autofocus lenses.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    1) There is a certain amount of manual focus snobbery.

    2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 8, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Guest Guest

    there is, but like most snobbery, it's not based on facts. autofocus
    can focus faster and more accurately than humans can in most
    situations.
    but still stuck with manual focus and old lens designs. modern lenses
    are not only autofocus, but of a better design and produce sharper and
    better quality images.

    you can always disable autofocus for the rare situations in which it's
    not desired.
     
    Guest, Apr 8, 2014
    #7
  8. I have had my Canon EOS 10D since it came out, 11 years ago. It's worn
    down to the magnesium on the bottom, and has several ugly scars where
    it hit pavement. My Epson R-D1 shows a bit less wear but is still
    missing quite a bit of paint. I have a Canon S90 that I got a few
    years back, but it's covered in skateboard grip tape (like sandpaper
    with tape backing) because the damn thing was slippery as a fish. And
    I just ordered my first new camera in years, an EOS M, because it can
    mount my EOS lenses and all my M / L39 mount lenses with the proper
    adapters. I'm sure I will end up wearing it quite a bit this summer,
    and in turn it will no doubt look worn.

    But yes, I have noticed the trend of anal retentive gear hound
    enthusiasts and their obsession with perfect condition. As you said,
    once you catch resolutionitis, you will need to preserve your camera
    (even if the resolution is more than adequate for all your needs) in
    perfect condition just in case another model comes out with higher
    resolution or other features. The biggest prints I have made with my
    10D and R-D1 are 20x30 inches, and the results were even better than
    35mm film in my opinion. Since the EOS M is 3x the resolution of
    either one of those cameras, I am expecting to be able to crop a lot
    more aggressively while retaining similar image quality. All this is
    probably pretty unimpressive to a person who is obsessed with the
    latest gear, though.
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, Apr 8, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Well, not quite 3x. 3x by area as opposed to linear resolution,which is what really counts if visible improvement is what you are thinking of. Threetimes resolution increase over a 6 megapixel camera would mean 54 megapixels in linear terms. 3000x2000 versus 9000x6000.
     
    RichA, Apr 8, 2014
    #9
  10. I meant what I said, 3x the resolution! I guess it comes from growing
    up in the midwest, where if you say you're farming "3x" as much corn it
    means area, not 3x as many acres per side (given infinite cornfields).
    I will really appreciate the extra resolution in any event, and it will
    be kind of fun to have the camera be even more of a mere accessory on
    the back of a large lens. I just hope this camera holds up over time -
    the 10D is an impressive old camera and took a lot of dust, moisture,
    salt spray, and clunking about without ever having any issues
    whatsoever. I just looked up the used value and it's worth $75 now,
    but I think I got my money's worth out of it and it still works fine.

    My other EOS camera I bought in 2001, it is a heavily used 1n that was
    pretty beat up when I got it. Still works as per new though, so no
    complaints, and it's still my only "full frame" EOS camera.
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, Apr 9, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Resolving power by definition is the ability to see detail of a specific size. If I want to "resolve" detail half the size that I current resolve (higher resolution) then I need to double the number of pixels in both the X-Ydimensions. Hence (for example) a 2x2 pixel array (4 pixels total) must become 4x4, or 16 pixels.
     
    RichA, Apr 9, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    There is a distinct advantage to manual focus lenses in low light when
    the autofocus is inclined to hunt and lose lock. In normal daylight the
    modern autofocus systems are generally pretty good now.
    Indeed. There are some very good second hand bargains to be had.
    All of my longer lenses are second hand manual focus only. YMMV
     
    Martin Brown, Apr 9, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    edge case, and only the low end cameras have problems in low light. the
    mid and high end cameras can focus in rather dim lightning conditions.

    there are also focus assist systems, such as a grid of lines from a
    flash.
    much more than pretty good.
    there can be but newer lenses are generally better.
     
    Guest, Apr 9, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Not everyone has mid range to high end cameras, I'd like to try a high end camera at gigs to see if I can get it to do what I want at the time I want it.
    or it could be that what I like doing is 'edge case'.

    Can't quite see the advantage of that.
    Will they get better is this like wsashing poweder that cleans making yuor whites whiter then everm then the new improved versions gives you blue whiteness and the next versionn is super bold white with nanite cleaning...
    then ultrawhite plus+.

    So are newer cameras and newer cars, but sometimes an older good product will have advantages over the latest version, all depending on price of course otherwise they'd be little market for second hand kit.
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 11, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Not everyone has mid range to high end cameras, I'd like to try a high end
    camera at gigs to see if I can get it to do what I want at the time I want
    it. or it could be that what I like doing is 'edge case'.[/QUOTE]

    nobody said they did. if you have a low end camera you are subject to
    its limitations just like anything else low end. if those limitations
    are an issue, get a more capable camera (or whatever product it is).
    but the camera can.

    a grid of lines provides the necessary contrast for the autofocus
    system to lock on in dim light.
    price is about the only advantage.

    today's lenses are much better than older lenses could ever be because
    of the vast increases in computing power in designing them and the
    higher precision of manufacturing them. many of today's lenses were not
    possible back then.

    and for the usual suspects in this group who will compare a top of the
    line older lens with a bottom of the line new kit lens in an attempt
    to prove it wrong, that's an invalid comparison and you know it.

    go find something that comes close to nikon's 14-24mm. you can't. even
    nikon said it's better than all fixed focal length lenses in its range
    (namely the ones made 20+ years ago) and independent tests confirm it.
    the real kicker is that it's a zoom lens that's better than a bunch of
    fixed focal length lenses, busting that myth too.
     
    Guest, Apr 11, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    yes and sometimes as with the the canyon situation buying a higher end camera might not be the answer, a basic tripod may be the solution of just putting the camera down on a camera bag like I used to. Manual focusing might solve a problem that a high end camera can't.

    Ah well I was talking about gig photography with flashing lights so I wouldn't be convinced it'd work as well as my manual focusing but oif course it might work but I'd be unwilling to spend a lot of money on upgrading for that reason alone wherre there is a cheaper and better way to go about it.

    Which can be a good reason.

    Why would it be invalid surely a seriosu photographer would buy teh best lens for the job, and if that were SH then they'd go for it.
    I've often seen statments reqarinf new lenses not being as good as their predesessor the same goes for cameras, generally they improve but it's not always the case.
    In the case a certain expensove camera of $2,500 that has light leaks doens;t make me think that newer and more expensove always equals better.


    well there's a suprise they say that their latest lens is better to buy then going SH.
    Those myths weren't myths at the time they came out.
    And now who's not comparing like with like.
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 11, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    How does it compare for aperture?

    There has been a lot of ooh-ing and aah-ing over Olympus' new "Pro" quality
    12-40mm zoom, but it's f2.8 while the fixed lenses in its range are f1.8 or
    even f1.4
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 11, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Ah well I was talking about gig photography with flashing lights so I
    wouldn't be convinced it'd work as well as my manual focusing but oif course
    it might work but I'd be unwilling to spend a lot of money on upgrading for
    that reason alone wherre there is a cheaper and better way to go about it.[/QUOTE]

    if there are flashing lights, autofocus is almost certainly going to
    work. you only need focus assist when it's really dark.
    if one is available. it might not be, and it might not be the best
    anyway.
    when comparing like with like, new lenses are almost always better.
    there are the occasional exceptions but that's rare.

    comparing a high end older lens, say the legendary nikon noct nikkor,
    with a cheap kit lens, is not a valid comparison.
    that's overblown and a defect.

    there were old cameras with light leaks too.
    they said that because it was true, which as i said, independent tests
    confirmed.
    i'm comparing like with like. anything else is invalid.
     
    Guest, Apr 11, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it's a constant f/2.8
    f/1.4 is not needed anywhere near as much because today's cameras can
    shoot at higher isos without any noticeable problems. plus, depth of
    field is very shallow at super-wide apertures anyway.

    4/3rds is also smaller than crop or full frame (which is what the nikon
    lens is). that means that f/1.4 on 4/3rds is comparable to f/2 on a
    crop sensor and f/2.8 on full frame.
     
    Guest, Apr 11, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    Do you actually understand what that constant f/2.8 means?
    That is the maximum aperture which can be maintained over the entire
    zoom range.
    That fine Nikkor can be stopped down to f/22.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 11, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.