Rapid camera tech changes create whole new mindset amongst users

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.

 

ebay

 

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.

 

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.

 

that is a correct mindset, with the exception of major changes such as
manual focus lenses -> autofocus lenses.

 

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

2) The manual focus lenses are just as useful as they ever were.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.