Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Faithful Owners  (Read 11514 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Faithful Owners
« on: August 01, 2016, 05:08:00 am »

I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?

I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)

Rob C

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2016, 06:48:11 am »

Not quite, but its direct descendant. The K3 replaced the K7 and the better low-light performance has been wonderful. I also got to keep using all my lenses, which go back to just after all my Canon film gear was stolen: there was a brief experience with a horrid Nikon digital p&s, then I went Pentax. Since then, *ist-DS, K-10, K-7, K-3. The absudly named *ist was released early 2003, so I guess I've been upgrading every 4 years or so.
At the moment, there is nothing that even vaguely tempts me to change again, including the K1. If I dropped the K3 under a truck, I'd replace it with another one.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2016, 06:52:05 am »

I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?

Hi Rob,

I still use my EOS-1Ds Mark III from November 2007 on an almost daily basis. Because I at that time already found ways to circumvent it's limitations (HDRI, Stitching, etc.) I can still meet most of today's demands. I'm tempted by the new  EOS-1D X Mark II, with better DR and more modern everything else (video as a bonus), but I'd wait anyway for the introduction prices to come down to a normal level (can save some 1-2 K EUR). I'm not in a rush.

Quote
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)

As I said, I'm not after the latest fashion in Cameras, because tomorrow there will be yet a newer model. It must meet my requirements and it is still an instrument, I take and make the pictures. Only if a camera enables me to do something I cannot do in another way, or much more efficiently/faster, then I'll consider upgrading/switching.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2016, 07:15:15 am »

Hi Rob

I too was using my EOS 1Ds mk3 - about 7 or 8 years old until very recently.  I dropped it and it needs a repair - so I'm using our other cameras temporarily - but I will be back with the old camera very soon!

Jim
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2016, 08:15:16 am »

My 6 yr old Sony A850 still gets very regular use.
It is partially replaced (when I want to travel light) with an APS-C mirrorless body but when weight/size constraints are not important it's still my camera of choice.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

drmike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • On Flickr:
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2016, 08:26:22 am »

I'm note sure it's 5 years but I find I use my Fuji X100 more and more and miss it when I don't take it out. It's a camera that just plain works (for me). Clearly it can't do lots of things like sport, nature and macro work but I just get along with it so well.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2016, 08:56:51 am »

Hi Rob, My D3, which is my workhorse, is now eight years old. I've never seen a reason to replace it. I like the fact that it's a 12 mpx machine. That's plenty for what I do with it, and it eliminates a lot of storage problems.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2016, 10:27:06 am »

Hi Rob,

I use a bunch of cameras for various needs. Some as old as ten years, while most are two to five years.

Peter

graeme

  • Guest
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2016, 10:40:50 am »

The Canon 60D I bought in March 2011 is still my main camera for work & play. I'll use it until it breaks & then it'll probably be replaced with the cheapest Canon DSLR I can find: I don't need anything better.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2016, 11:06:02 am »

Happily still using my 5Dii which is six years old.
The only reason I use that rather than my ten year old 1Dsii is that the 1 doesn't have a self cleaning sensor.

More recent cameras might have slightly better resolution and dynamic range, but it's hardly noticeable in an A2 print, so I can't see any reason to spend money on upgrading. I prefer to use my money to go to interesting places to take photos instead.
It's also very nice not to have to learn a new body or system. Familiarity allows me to just concentrate on the picture.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2016, 11:15:10 am »

I moved from Canon EOS film to Canon EOS digital in 2009.

I moved from the latter to Sony Alpha 7 system 18 months ago.

So I am always reluctant to change cameras, I will stick with I have for at least 5 years, that is for sure.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2016, 11:52:53 am »

Thank you for your replies - Keith's post about changing genres/purpose made me think: that's a big moment in photographic life.

My usual - commercial - needs were all satisfied by 24x36 and 6x6, and for years that's all I ever thought about using, apart from the occasional notion for 4x5 (for still life) which I never followed up, knowing it would only lead to massive investment in studio lighting I didn't really need for anything else. Life went along smoothly enough without it.

Then I listened to the siren voices of stock agents and believed that I simply had to go 6x7. So that was what I did. Twice, on Bronica and then Pentax, the latter just as digital was coming out of the woodwork. And very shortly afterwards, the stock world stopped giving me anything worth shooting to get. So hey ho, all change, back to Nikon!

These desperate departures into new things have left a mark made all the deeper by retirement and the total loss of photographic income. As a result, I now own just two digital cameras, a D200 and a D700 with a selection of old and new glass. (I also have a seldom-used F3 that now can't use my latest 1.8/50 G Nikkor.) Surprisingly, I find that the old D200 gets by far the more use, along with the new af 50mm, if only because of the sorry state of my natural vision and lack of a split-image finder in either digital body. The 50mm makes a nice, light 75mm on the cropped camera. It suits my non-pro life. Chinese plastic, anyone?

Regarding Leica: I never owned one for various non-finance-related reasons during the time when I was working; today, ironically, I really do covet an M of some kind, despite the very shortcomings which kept it away during my pro days! Perverse? Damned right! I think my reason is almost historic: it feels like a missing link in any serious photographer's experience not to have or have had one.

But, I think the price is crazy. I simply don't buy into the belief that it has greatly superior build qualities - after all it's a marque that has had one helluva bad track record since its digital start, at least in the RF line-up. From shutters to sensors it's been a lot of bad news. With luck they are over that now, but then you come to lenses, too, and whilst I personally did observe differences in quality/look printing from M3 and a 21mm of some type for my very last employer in '65, it's not something I think shows in any digital reproductions I have seen. I don't have any idea if Leica is profiteering or is simply woefully inefficient in the manufacturing department; but they sure can sell dreams, even to seasoned old pros such as I!

All of which said, if I thought I could still afford to lower the bank account that much, I'd get one now. I think it's a decision not of the head but of the heart, unlike most other camera decisions.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 01, 2016, 03:03:18 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2016, 12:09:38 pm »

My three-year-old D800 has proven so incredibly capable I just doubled down and bought another (used) one.  I think I'm a classic example of Thom Hogan's  "Good Enough" and "Last Camera" syndromes.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2016, 02:27:30 pm »

If you'd asked me before mid-February this year, I'd have said my trusty 5DII has been in use since January 2009, so that's 7 years. Now I have a 5Ds.

Jeremy
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2016, 02:39:16 pm »

Rob,

NOPE!  LOL
Part of the fun of photography for me in recent years has been what I call "chasing the technology."  Although, I must say that my most recent cameras are "so good" that unless something really dramatic happens, technology wise, I suspect I'll have my current gear for at least 5 years. 

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2016, 07:01:07 am »

I started my hobby of photography in 1980.  Not counting P&S cameras, I have only owned five SLRs.  Three film and two digital.

One of my film SLRs (Canon AE-1) I used for over 20 years.  I just bought a new DSLR in 2013 and I expect to use that for many many years.

I only like to upgrade cameras when it is the camera that is holding me back.  And it is rare that the camera is the weakest link in my photography.   ;D
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2016, 08:16:05 am »

Still using my Canon 1Ds Mark 3!
Logged
Francois

Ray Cox

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2016, 10:04:58 am »

Not quite, but its direct descendant. The K3 replaced the K7 and the better low-light performance has been wonderful. I also got to keep using all my lenses, which go back to just after all my Canon film gear was stolen: there was a brief experience with a horrid Nikon digital p&s, then I went Pentax. Since then, *ist-DS, K-10, K-7, K-3. The absudly named *ist was released early 2003, so I guess I've been upgrading every 4 years or so.
At the moment, there is nothing that even vaguely tempts me to change again, including the K1. If I dropped the K3 under a truck, I'd replace it with another one.

Well these were my intentions also. Had a K5 then the K3. Absolutely no intention to upgrade. Then I used a K1. Don't do it! You will have the urge to throw the K3 under that truck  ;). The files are great and match the output from my 645Z. Be careful!
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2016, 11:40:54 am »

Lol! Thanks for the warning :-)
For the type of photos I take, a FF would be a liability: although I have a 50-150, I usually take the 70-200 out with me, together with the 17-50, unless there are weight constraints (eg flying). Buying a 120-300/2.8 is not an appealing idea... riding my bicycle into town with it on my back even less!
Of course I could crop, but since the pixel density is lower...

That without mentioning the tripod  ;)

Funny, going through Sumo, it's striking how bad the the photos are by standard technical measures: most seem to have been under-exposed and pushed. The blacks are blocked up and there is not much in the way of smooth tonal gradation... except where he wanted it :) Newton is even worse than Sieff and Jonvelle!

But that's not why he died famous and relatively rich...
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Faithful Owners
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2016, 05:05:14 am »

Lol! Thanks for the warning :-)
For the type of photos I take, a FF would be a liability: although I have a 50-150, I usually take the 70-200 out with me, together with the 17-50, unless there are weight constraints (eg flying). Buying a 120-300/2.8 is not an appealing idea... riding my bicycle into town with it on my back even less!
Of course I could crop, but since the pixel density is lower...

That without mentioning the tripod  ;)

Funny, going through Sumo, it's striking how bad the the photos are by standard technical measures: most seem to have been under-exposed and pushed. The blacks are blocked up and there is not much in the way of smooth tonal gradation... except where he wanted it :) Newton is even worse than Sieff and Jonvelle!

But that's not why he died famous and relatively rich...

I put that down to hard flash.

Newton was often wont to say that he hated 'good taste' and I wonder if this was actually a method of turning poor technique into a positive. Whilst 'taste' may usually be taken to refer to the content of the images as in subject material, perhaps it also meant photographic technique. Some of the worst abuses of that show up in shots made in Monte Carlo of women in black in brilliant sunshine. Something to avoid shooting at all costs!

What he had, by the bucketful, was the ability to create access. When you can do that you can do anything.

Sumo is my only Newton book; I didn't buy any of the others because I didn't really feel they were representative, somehow, but with Sumo, I think all the different personality bases get very well covered, so expensive as it is, it is probably the complete character.

I have yet to buy a Peter Lindbergh tome; I await a similar encyclopedic issue! I bought the single Hans Feurer book, but felt strangely disapppointed on one level: he's one of my two most beloved snappers, but the book omits too much of his newer stuff - for my tastes. I think he gets better and better and is most certainly not a guy of his own past.

Rob
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up