Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do we still want better cameras?  (Read 8840 times)
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1881


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2010, 08:48:21 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread blends the ideas of consumerism with the more utilitarian goal of suitability to a particular task.

Cameras are largely a consumer product, and as long as people have wants there will always be a market. Especially for those who are in the endless pursuit of “better” whatever that actually means.

But someone who is good with a camera tends to seek specific goals. As examples, does the camera work well in low light, does it offer a large sensor and produce a large enough image for the print size desired, is it light weight, yada, yada…

As long as a camera is suitable to a task or a number of them there is no utilitarian need to replace it. For some, the cost (more the better) and bling appeal *are* utilitarian needs. But of course those are really examples of consumerism.

If one identifies a part of them-self closely with a camera, they may well have an endless pursuit of having the “best” camera they can get. It may be based in utilitarian need or the need may the perfect confluence of consumerism and suitability to a particular task, when the “task” just may be little other than the appeal to vanity.

Anywho, people desire “better” in all things, so the answer to the OP’s question is an unequivocal yes.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8344



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2010, 10:41:40 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread blends the ideas of consumerism with the more utilitarian goal of suitability to a particular task.

Cameras are largely a consumer product, and as long as people have wants there will always be a market. Especially for those who are in the endless pursuit of “better” whatever that actually means.

But someone who is good with a camera tends to seek specific goals. As examples, does the camera work well in low light, does it offer a large sensor and produce a large enough image for the print size desired, is it light weight, yada, yada…

As long as a camera is suitable to a task or a number of them there is no utilitarian need to replace it. For some, the cost (more the better) and bling appeal *are* utilitarian needs. But of course those are really examples of consumerism.

If one identifies a part of them-self closely with a camera, they may well have an endless pursuit of having the “best” camera they can get. It may be based in utilitarian need or the need may the perfect confluence of consumerism and suitability to a particular task, when the “task” just may be little other than the appeal to vanity.

Anywho, people desire “better” in all things, so the answer to the OP’s question is an unequivocal yes.

Thanks. Smiley

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2010, 08:12:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Not a tiny camera, tho.
I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. Cool
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6944


« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2010, 10:00:23 AM »
ReplyReply

… I may have some scottish genes.
Grin
Logged

Francois
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2873


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2010, 10:46:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. Cool
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.

I hope you mean that as a compliment? If not I know of some wild highlanders who are handy with claymores and are looking for something meaty to practise on.  Wink Grin
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2010, 03:15:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I reckon - but for the moment, I didn't find something really less bulky that could still have a ground glass viewfinder. I can't really use a screen as I work more often than not in the sun. Cool
And yeah, I still could buy a newer Rebel X-something and save one hundred grams, but mine f* works! I may have some scottish genes.


Too late for you, Niko, but if you have a delightful eighteen-year-old daughter... wait: according to Jerry Lee's song, 17 to 25 is around perfect.

I'd love to offer to help, but my vintage probably doesn't promise much of anything other than disappointment these days, and neither would I hold my breath in vain hope. But I suppose I could always burn a few bras for you instead; not that that might help all that much. Hey, how about seeing the gene genie?

Rob C


Logged

tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2010, 04:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Not me.  Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier.  I just bought one of these:

Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2010, 07:51:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Not me.  Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier.  I just bought one of these:


Grin

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2010, 01:31:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Laugh all you want.  This camera ROCKS.  It has a 22mm fixed focus lens, an aperture of f11, and a shutter speed of 1/125 sec.  Pick your film speed based on current conditions and snap away.  No meter, no batteries, all plastic, super lightweight.  $25.00 brand new, so you can really take it anywhere.


Mangrove-Out-There003 by MsMambo, on Flickr

Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2010, 02:23:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Not me.  Each new camera I buy seems to get crappier and crappier.  I just bought one of these:


Either that is a big camera, or you are a petite lady!
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2010, 04:36:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Laugh all you want.  This camera ROCKS.  It has a 22mm fixed focus lens, an aperture of f11, and a shutter speed of 1/125 sec.  Pick your film speed based on current conditions and snap away.  No meter, no batteries, all plastic, super lightweight.  $25.00 brand new, so you can really take it anywhere.


You've got some lovely images at tokengirl.com. I bet some of them were taken with a camera that costs at least $30.
Anyway, you clearly show that the eye is more important than the camera!

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
solardarkroom.com
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2010, 04:18:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I like this shot and perhaps even more because of the camera and your attitude.

I haven't shot a roll of film since 2006. Now my 5D2 feels like the last camera I'll ever need...but every now and then I take out my old CONTAX and feel like I might be missing something. I know I don't miss being hunched over a light table for hours or scanning slides so what is it? Maybe it's the feel of real metal instead of engineering plastic or the incredilby big and bright viewfinder that I took for granted all those years.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8344



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2010, 06:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

On the original question, it would seem that Michael agrees with me, he has not even mentioned the Nikon D7000 announcements in his news although it appears to be speced as the best ever value offering for a landscape shooter willing to go light. Smiley

I would bet that most high mountain photography in the coming 2 years will be shot with this baby. Galen Rowell would have been all over this camea, it looks like it was designed for him.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2010, 06:25:12 PM »
ReplyReply

On the original question, it would seem that Michael agrees with me, he has not even mentioned the Nikon D7000 announcements in his news although it appears to be speced as the best ever value offering for a landscape shooter willing to go light. Smiley

Canon 550D is about 2/3 the weight and price of D7000, and is specced similarly or better when it comes to landscape shooting. Not sure how 550D, 60D and D7000 compare with weather sealing (or lack thereof).

Some things go for D7000, though. Its shutter is rated much higher. 550D's sensor is likely to be inferior, as well, but by how wide a margin is something we'll have to wait until objective tests come out.

Michael of TOP was lamenting the other day how Nikon and Canon seem to churn out the same cameras, and he's spot on. I don't see any meaningful differences between 550D, 60D and 7D for my use, so I went for 550D from 450D (which is currently on sale in the appropriate subforum Wink ). 550D sensor is slightly worse than the big brothers', but it's still better than my first digital camera, 30D. Finally, I'd rather have the light weight of 550D and save some money to buy a nice prime.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8344



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2010, 06:39:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon 550D is about 2/3 the weight and price of D7000, and is specced similarly or better when it comes to landscape shooting. Not sure how 550D, 60D and D7000 compare with weather sealing (or lack thereof).

Well, that's the whole point, the D7000 is weather sealed and has a magnesium body. Its AF is also speced much higher meaning that it will be usable also for wildlife shooting.

It is a camera you can forget about.

As far as Nikon and Canon delivering the same cameras all the time... well what's wrong with them? The real innovation we would need is not in pellicular mirrors, it would be in openess... as described by Thom Hogan a few months back. Sony is just as bad as Canon and Nikon in this regard because they don't understand the business model.
 
Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2010, 08:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I would bet that most high mountain photography in the coming 2 years will be shot with this baby.
I believed real men used a Canon, though? Huh

On a less serious note, I think it has already been posted around here, but the magnesium is no warranty of resuistance, and the ability of plastic to withstand impact is not to be underrated. Question of rigidity and mass, I'd think.
And speaking of mass, you always hate when there is more in high altitude...
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2010, 09:05:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I believed real men used a Canon, though? Huh
Real pack animals use Large Format or Medium Format Digital View Cameras.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8344



WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2010, 06:06:57 PM »
ReplyReply

On a less serious note, I think it has already been posted around here, but the magnesium is no warranty of resuistance, and the ability of plastic to withstand impact is not to be underrated. Question of rigidity and mass, I'd think.
And speaking of mass, you always hate when there is more in high altitude...

Yes, valid points indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2873


« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2010, 03:16:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I believed real men used a Canon, though? Huh



I believe real men can use any type of camera?
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2010, 03:49:05 AM »
ReplyReply

My D3x is a a well made camera and I can tell a lot of different stories with it.
I am sure that if it could talk it would have a lot of recommendations for me to improve…
Still I have some things to wish for.

a better autofocus and sharpness spot- especially performing better with wide angel lenses and subjects at some distance
Build in wireless triggering
Overall faster data handling
More dynamic range
More high iso sensitive - like the D3s
200 gram lighter
far less noisy ( do not try shooting at violin concerts!) - being able to keep the mirror up while shooting
shooting 4000k movie with an external microphone

---
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad