Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?  (Read 428689 times)

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 325
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2017, 04:57:34 am »

I never feel the need to buy anything that I don't need. It's about buying specific tools, and its largely based on what the gear makes the image look like. If what it does contributes to my work, then I buy it.

I've never "upgraded" just for the sake of it. Truth be told, there is very little new equipment out there right now that inspires me or gives me something I don't find in what I already own (perhaps just a bit better IQ).

I have more interest in large format film again. I would be more interested in some technological advanced home film development equipment, a sort of nespresso coffee machine of film development, a new drum scanner. Some sort of innovation that makes film more accessible and easier to work with ( but concede that maybe digital ;D ).

Of course the other thing I'm interested in is lenses - Medium Format lens development stalled. We need a modern 80mm f2 or even 1.8. I would buy a whole new system if that were available. I find almost all modern medium format lenses quite boring.
Logged

CeeVee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2017, 09:34:53 am »

My 850 is supposed to arrive early November. My life has gone Nikon film cameras to D100, D300, D7000 now the 850. As a professional photo technician (a dying breed) I value every single Pixel _iff_ properly positioned and recorded. Personally I will only be satified when a sensor is capable in the hundreds of megapixel range and the supporting circuitry/firmware makes sense. A rather large ask.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3312
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2017, 09:39:55 am »

My 850 is supposed to arrive early November. My life has gone Nikon film cameras to D100, D300, D7000 now the 850. As a professional photo technician (a dying breed) I value every single Pixel _iff_ properly positioned and recorded. Personally I will only be satified when a sensor is capable in the hundreds of megapixel range and the supporting circuitry/firmware makes sense. A rather large ask.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Hard not to make a humorous comment on the different uses of the word 'Pixel.'  I also have a Pixel phone and like lots of Pixels in my camera. :D
Logged

CeeVee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2017, 10:44:27 am »

Take your point, "pixel" got capped by the spelling nanny my Google Pixel XL phone but ... I should have caught that


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20744
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2017, 11:26:12 am »

If one gets satisifaction out of their hobby whether that's taking photos with old archaic equipment or purchasing the latest greatest equipment...then I feel it's not a waste of money. What's a real waste is hurding your money for that raining day without realizing it's already raining.

My wife and I always dreamt about retiring early and spending our time traveling the world. Well 5 years ago my wife was diagnosed with Parkinson's and her travel days are over.

No one ever knows what's around the next corner. I never feel anything is a waste of money if it brings pleasure.

Well, there's always pleasure in that glass too many, as well. Had a few of those in happier days when I could take alcohol without killing myself, but now I can't.

Once one winter, when my wife was in hospětal having yet another cancer operation, she sat out on the room's terrace overlooking the Bay of Palma. It was winter, but when the sun shone it was hot. The oncologist came in as she was there, and I asked him whether it was a good idea for her to soak up the sunshine like that, considering the way we now know it damages the skin and causes cancers of its own. He smiled and said well, it's not that strong during winter... she may as well enjoy it. I never suspected that he knew more about her condition than he'd told us. Ironically, he was quite young, but when he vanished and another took his place, we discovered that he, too, had cancer and had gone back to spend his remaining time in his village in mainland Spain.

So yeah, it took out the oncologist as well as my wife. If you watched the ending of House you get a good idea of how illness affects the way we view this life, the ending of life decisions we decide to make.

But then it's not always raining already. For the greater portion of our lives, life was a walking miracle and I suspect that we actually knew that: I had the job I wanted and she the home and family.

Waste? Well, perhaps one should have specified resources available. If there's enough to throw away, then perhaps any old expenditure is fine; if not, then buying stuff you can live perfectly well without is putting at risk for yourself survival of the day that it actually pours. And it inevitable does for us all. And you don't have to be old to feel the wet.

Rob

BrownBear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2017, 11:37:28 am »

I read with interest the various reviews, blogs and comments on the Nikon D850 and prior to that all the excitement regarding the X1D and prior to that.......

We have a very talented photographer who comes over every two weeks to take  a series of documentary photos for a client's twitter feed.  Every two weeks she brings a fresh eye and many usable pix.  This asme person spends three months in India every year leading specialist tour groups.  She invariably shoots with a Nikon D700 and a 50mm lens (an oldish one).  The images are great, her prints look great and it all works.  It has never crossed her mind that she would buy another camera unless and until the D700 inevitable fails.

I have a D810 for travel photography and it consistently exceeds my abilities.  I have a Hasselblad H6D-100C which by a larger margin exceeds my abilities.  These two cameras are so well made and so good I cannot envisage the need to buy another camera until, as for my friend, something irretrievably fails.

Quite frankly even the D700 is still a great camera that meets 99% of photographic needs for most people.

Like modern cars these things are so good and so well made why do we think we need to keep changing?

You've pretty accurately described the life and world of a pro shooter.  You can fritter away your income on keeping up with the Joneses, or you can put your money into more useful stuff with a direct bearing on your long term financial well being.  If a new piece of gear allows you entree into a new market, so be it. If not, compare the cost of the gear with other things the money can do for you. Like pad your retirement accounts.

My wife and I had an interesting relationship in making business decisions. I was (am) a gearhead, while she's a flinty-eyed, no-nonsense business manager. I'd approach her for approval to purchase new gear and she'd sit me down with questions like "What's the pay-off schedule?" and "Show me the new business it's going to generate."

Among the working pro's I know there's kind of a mantra:  How do you spot the pro shooters in a crowd? They're the ones driving 20-year old cars and shooting scruffy out-of-date gear. 

I can't complain about my wife, and in fact owe a large measure of our current happiness to her flinty eyes and leaden heart. We retired well, and in fact I've bought more new gear since retiring than I was ever "allowed" to buy while in business. 
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2506
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2017, 02:47:56 pm »

And then there are those who like using vintage lenses. People are all ga-ga over the recent Nikon 105mm f/1.4, but the now-humble AI-S 105 f/2.5 is a sweet lens to use. Nikon was good at designing lenses whose aberrations gave the image a pleasing look. You can have a lot of fun and fond memories with (the better) old lenses and newer digital cameras.

I'd rather have a cosmetically unaltered head and shoulders portrait shot from the 105 f/2.5 than the equivalent from a super-sharp, "no" aberrations lens.  ;)
Logged

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 739
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2017, 08:35:42 pm »

And then there are those who like using vintage lenses. People are all ga-ga over the recent Nikon 105mm f/1.4, but the now-humble AI-S 105 f/2.5 is a sweet lens to use. Nikon was good at designing lenses whose aberrations gave the image a pleasing look. You can have a lot of fun and fond memories with (the better) old lenses and newer digital cameras.



I'm very much into historical lenses as well.  I too own the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS, which I use on a Nikon F3T.  It pairs well with the 28m f2 & 50mm f1.2.  However, I go much "deeper" into historical lenses than modern multicoated lenses.  I've had SK Grimes put the following lenses into Nikon mount as well:  1895 Darlot achromatic doublet, 1880s rapid rectilinear, 1870 Darlot Petzval, and an 1851 CC Harrision Petzval.  These 19th C. lenses give a very unique look to landscapes and portraits alike!  I also have a couple of lenses from the 1840s, but only use those on 4x5.


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.

CeeVee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2017, 08:38:46 pm »


I'm very much into historical lenses as well.  I too own the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS, which I use on a Nikon F3T.  It pairs well with the 28m f2 & 50mm f1.2.  However, I go much "deeper" into historical lenses than modern multicoated lenses.  I've had SK Grimes put the following lenses into Nikon mount as well:  1895 Darlot achromatic doublet, 1880s rapid rectilinear, 1870 Darlot Petzval, and an 1851 CC Harrision Petzval.  These 19th C. lenses give a very unique look to landscapes and portraits alike!  I also have a couple of lenses from the 1840s, but only use those on 4x5.


Kent in SD
A Steam Punk Nikon. Now who'd-a thunk it!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Logged

HywelPhillips

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2017, 05:17:02 am »

For a while I upgraded my dSLR body every 18 months to 2 years.  Then I invested in a Hasselblad H3DII. This is still giving excellent results well suited to my main business, 8 years on. It cost a not so small fortune, but by now has paid for itself at least 50 times over.

I bought an A7RII because it covers the two shooting scenarios that the Hasselblad really didn't - available light shooting in low light levels, and portability for lugging up mountains. It's paid for itself, expensive lenses included, in the couple of years I've had it.

But yes, stills cameras are a pretty mature technology at this point. There's room for a shakeup of how we control them in my opinion (we're still controlling them like they are film cameras, rather than fully embracing the digital aspects) but I don't see anything massively revolutionary coming along now we have 50-ish megapixels, on a stabilised platform, with a plethora of lens options from ultra-sharp f/1.4 mega modern lenses through to crappy old Russian flare monsters on the front.

I will be buying an A7RIII because I need a backup body for the Sony system and because it addresses the biggest issues I've had with the A7RII (autofocus, especially controlling focus points and eye focus, and crappy battery life).

In the same time I've gone through iteration after iteration of cameras primarily for video, because that's not such a mature technology. I've got phones and stabilisers and GoPros and Pansonics and Canons and all manner of kit, but I'm finally just about settled with a RED Scarlet for "big" work mostly on static heavy tripod and the A7RII on a Zhiyun Crane for anything more nimble. The touchscreen of the A7RIII will hopefully make this use case a lot easier, and I'll be down to just four cameras in day to day use. I'm planning on a mass sell-off of second hand kit if all goes well, actually, along with a bunch of lighting now LED tech has settled down. Usable ISO 1600 + Arri Skypanels = my video lighting needs sorted.

So I think it is all down to your use cases, and whether the tech has quite caught up yet. I mostly sell pics online, just moving into print sales but those are only up to 24" x 36" so 42 megapixels is plenty for me.

But I'm sure there are plenty of use cases where the tech isn't all it could be just yet, and so you might still be in the replace bodies every 2 years cycle.

Cheers, Hywel

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up