Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: the real cost of it all...  (Read 15321 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2015, 06:26:22 am »

Perhaps even better to upgrade when there's a compelling need?


That's far too sensible to post on a chat show!

I have a good mind to report you!

;-)

Rob

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2015, 07:00:24 pm »

Perhaps even better to upgrade when there's a compelling need?
That's my methodology. Though in the real world finances don't always allow compelling needs to be met.  ;)
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

tnargs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • Just testing, very testing
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2015, 07:21:00 pm »

Ah, but there is probably no such thing as a compelling need, except for pros. For the rest of us it's just a game of I wanna.
Logged
“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, n

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2015, 07:11:04 am »

Ah, but there is probably no such thing as a compelling need, except for pros. For the rest of us it's just a game of I wanna.
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
As without upgrading from your camera kit lens to such equipment, you will normally tend to struggle.
You most certainly need specific kit for specific types of photography, so either you don't do that photography [or even any photography come to it] or get the better kit.
Also if you find you are not getting your shots because of say camera shake, an IS version of your lens would be a compelling upgrade and not just an 'I wanna'.

Actually for pros, upgrading may happen less often as from a business point of view upgrading has to provide a return on investment [ROI], not just be a better tool.
So even if there seems to be a compelling need, you may not upgrade.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

zomg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2015, 12:05:29 pm »

Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
As without upgrading from your camera kit lens to such equipment, you will normally tend to struggle.
When you don't have something, and then you buy it, it's not really "upgrading". Upgrading is when you already have that ~600mm (ff equiv) covered by a zoom lens for your APS-C/MFT camera — with which you can take more than decent pictures — but wanting to buy a full frame camera with an insanely expensive 600/4 prime instead. It's hard to argue with what tnargs said, most amateurs never really "need" to upgrade to a higher end piece of gear that does pretty much the same thing but with better quality results. Especially these days, when the difference between the files produced by a $200 camera and a $2500 one is so small. Most photographers just like to buy new toys, but we almost never actually need them. It's not like you need to be able to get a certain level of detail/resolution/noise/etc in your files cause otherwise the editor at the magazine or the stock photography site won't accept them. Nope, it's mostly just the desire to play with a new toy, to pixel peep your files and say to yourself something like "wow, that's better than I've had before".

I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2015, 02:25:23 pm »

When you don't have something, and then you buy it, it's not really "upgrading". Upgrading is when you already have that ~600mm (ff equiv) covered by a zoom lens for your APS-C/MFT camera — with which you can take more than decent pictures — but wanting to buy a full frame camera with an insanely expensive 600/4 prime instead. It's hard to argue with what tnargs said, most amateurs never really "need" to upgrade to a higher end piece of gear that does pretty much the same thing but with better quality results. Especially these days, when the difference between the files produced by a $200 camera and a $2500 one is so small. Most photographers just like to buy new toys, but we almost never actually need them. It's not like you need to be able to get a certain level of detail/resolution/noise/etc in your files cause otherwise the editor at the magazine or the stock photography site won't accept them. Nope, it's mostly just the desire to play with a new toy, to pixel peep your files and say to yourself something like "wow, that's better than I've had before".

I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.

Welcome to LuLa; a sensible person!

Rob C

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2015, 06:14:25 pm »

I used to upgrade my gear on the regular basis many years ago, but now the idea of buying some new hyped camera or lens doesn't even cross my mind. :) It seems like a waste of time and money to bother about all the new hot things that are released each n months, when the (pretty old now) gear I've got works perfectly fine. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single camera I've had in the last 5 years that I wouldn't be satisfied with today.
Upgrading digital cameras was done a lot to start with as it was emerging tech and newer models were markedly better than previous ones. Nowadays you can choose a camera based on the features it offers, as they are all darn good.
I recently bought some Olympus kit which is actually lower res than my FF Canon gear, but I was going on a family holiday and didn't want to carry hulking cameras with me and also needed lighter kit for other work. But the feature that sold the kit to me was light weight not the image quality. Heck my pocket camera is good enough for pro work now.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

tnargs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • Just testing, very testing
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2015, 06:26:09 pm »



Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
"I wanna" take photos of birds.
"I wanna" better and better photos.
"I wanna" 600 mm lens.

Wants, not needs.
Logged
“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, n

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2015, 06:50:19 pm »

"I wanna" take photos of birds.
"I wanna" better and better photos.
"I wanna" 600 mm lens.

Wants, not needs.
No. I want to take photos. Thus I need equipment to take said photos.
The particular equipment depends on the type of photography.

To take your argument to its 'logical' end point you do not need any camera of any kind. Or anything really, other than the bottom tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
By not doing enjoyable things because they are merely a 'want' you'll probably end up being quite miserable. Doing things that make you happy/life worth living are as much a need as eating the things that satiate hunger.

Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2015, 07:25:11 pm »

There is a very real distinction in the photographic community (and others) between two different kinds of wants.

I want to take pictures of a certain type. There is, in general, a variety of equipment that will do it with roughly the same degree of difficulty, quality of output, or whatever criteria I choose to admit to. Then there is a subset of that equipment that I actually want to own. In general, I have reasons I do not admit, perhaps not even to myself, as to why, and they typically have nothing to do with any of the criteria I have outlined.

Almost anyone who owns a Zeiss Otus, for instance, will explain to you why they need it for the kinds of photographs they make, and almost all of them are rationalizing wildly, as there are in general a dozen lenses that are cheaper and would meet every criterion they care to admit to. And yet, they bought the Otus.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2015, 05:54:23 am »

Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.


He he! It is my suspicion that a lot of photograpers profess an interest in photographing birds which is not actually matched by their interest in ornithology - but rather that birds are an exacting subject requiring high quality equipment, and thus justifying its purchase.

Of course I could just be an old cynic ...
Logged

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2015, 10:07:57 am »

Less people, better batteries...
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

HansKoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
    • HKPHOTO
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2015, 11:42:21 am »

Most gear that we upgrade from will have a nice second, third or even fourth life in the hands of those that appreciate it still. Not always a waste, people with smaller budget will get their gear now for the price they can afford, with bit of patience. As stated, its often still very good.
Logged
"Its better to create something that others criticize than to create nothing and criticize others" (Ricky Gervais)

gbdz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2015, 02:06:58 pm »

Chernobyl disaster cleared the area of human beings which is good for the flora and tha fauna. The data is there, the animals are there and they are thriving. The nuclear scare of the cold war and the industrious lobbies of Greenpeace and other airheads has created an image of everything that radiates as something profoundly evil, toxic and deadly.  The misinformation and emotionally charged marketing has lead to reactions which well-informed adults would not have as individuals. A mass is another thing and an internet crowd probably one where the least amount of rational processing can be detected.

Now it seems that a radiation catastrophy is far less danger to the biosphere than the civilisation that caused it.
Which again leads to think that the dystopias of Margaret Atwood ( a brilliant Canadian writer!) hit closer to the mark the we would like to admit...

As for the hystery for better and better equipment, –photo, audio or whatever– it is driven by artificial needs.  Artificial in this context meaning 'man made'.  Would somebody 'need' a 50 MB sensor on his camera without the babble of the pixel peepers so abundant on all of the photographic sites on the Internet?
So now you can count the feathers of a squeekbill you photographed in the Northeastern territories near dark, half a mile away.
Who or what instance on this planet needs those feathers to be counted? 
You do it because you are in a position to want it and you have the means. 
Now, looking at the situation you can analyse the flowcharts of causality many ways one of which has to do with genuine ornithological interest, another has more to do with social status and still a third one would have the positive feeling of mastering the medium in its center. Somebody has a 'situation' at home that necessitates time out somewhere where the silence is broken only by the gentle 'squeek' from the weeds. Surely, there are other motives there as well but the well-being of the squeekbill does not rate very high in any of them.

People think they need so many things.  The economy that is based on 'fiat' money, loans, interests and speculation, needs constant growth.
this is the economy we have now and it seems that it is the only kind of economy that our money people in their glass and steel temples are willing and able to provide us with. Everything we buy loses at least a fifth of its value once it leaves the shop.  Make an exception here with gold, silver and some collectors' items.  Most of the commodities go down while only a few go up...the lucky rich get filthier and richer while those who pay for their ticket, lose money.
And we are many.

This is the deep nature of our economy. 
In the photography market we see it in small scale.  The lenses I bought ten years ago now have their new versions out and they have become obsolete and very difficult to sell at any price at all.  Which would be a problem if I had not bought them to take pictures, of course.  Good Canon stuff that 'nobody' seems to want. They want the newest and the best, with top MTF curves and DxO ratings.

Why do you think there is such and institution as the DxO if not to boost sales. I cannot think of any other reason. How many times have you been in a situation where your picture is unacceptable because your LENS was not up to the job?

Well, another rant. I hope to be able to get home from here soon...

PS. The Ethylotest one has to pass before posting is a brilliant idea.


Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2015, 02:47:15 pm »

Why do the 'rich', whoever they may actually be, have to be considered filthy?

I've known some, been friends with a few, and they are neither better nor worse people than anyone else that I know to the same degree.

If there's a difference, it's that their fiscal problems often differ from ours and, in fact, they have a helluva lot more to loose than most of the rest of us. It's so goddam facile to blacken an entire class of people for the sin of being more successful than we are. Of course there are fraudsters, as there are con men at ever level of society. It's simply a matter of whether or not you get hurt in whichever scam that happens to go down. Does anyone imagine that no rich people have lost their shirt, underpants, business and home to bad luck, poor decisons and fraud by other people at either end of the financial balance?

Loss ain't reserved for the poor, any more than is filth.

Rob C

telyt

  • Guest
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2015, 03:37:40 pm »

Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.

Or better field skills.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2015, 04:57:56 pm »

He he! It is my suspicion that a lot of photograpers profess an interest in photographing birds which is not actually matched by their interest in ornithology - but rather that birds are an exacting subject requiring high quality equipment, and thus justifying its purchase.

Of course I could just be an old cynic ...
Well one of the reasons I recently got an OM5II was to use the 40-150mm zoom, so when I go for a wildlife wander with the girlfriend I can get a shot of the wildlife that isn't merely a dot in distance.
I shoot almost exclusively wide angle on my Canon kit, so getting a long lens meant the difference between getting a shot or not bothering.
So definitely a need.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4726
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: the real cost of it all...
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2015, 05:07:35 pm »

Quote
Well if your photographic interest is photographing say birds, there is a certainly compelling need for a 600mm lens or similar.
Or better field skills.
Not always practical or possible.
Personally I prefer to shoot wide angle but not often an option.
This mugshot was taken from less than 2m away.
The nest shot was even closer.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 05:20:43 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up