the worst thing about digital cameras is

[bjn70]

I bought a brand new FE body in 1981. I don't recall what I paid but I wonder how much that would be in 2022 dollars.

 

[MarkInSF]

A quick Google says an FE was advertised in 1979 for $330, which would be about $1350 today. I think that's body only.

 

[Autonerd]

...they get new people to concentrate on trivial minutiae and skip learning the basics and fundamentals of photography.

Aaron

 

[Aaron801]

... which drain way too fast on all three of the m43 cameras that I've owned thus far, I don't have much of a complaint. Though I have to admit that there's something compelling about film, on balance digital has nearly every advantage going for it and the cameras these days leave little to be desired.

 

[skysurfer5]

They taste terrible, even with ketchup.

 

[silviunaum]

Having to explain to my wife every time I change camera

 

[Mar Tin]

The worst are medium-quality companies spoiling the market mindlessly. Sony is an example: they bought out Minolta and thought that meant they knew how to make cameras. With the delicacy of a battering ram, and with the momentum of huge money, they began to push out dozens more underdeveloped models with impressive theoretical parameters, but with meager real quality. Unfortunately, inexperienced photographers are mesmerized by irrelevant numbers on the package (1000 photos per second, 10000 MPix resolution) and paid reviews. Never mind that the camera can't be held in the hand, never mind that the pictures are like from a phone, that you can't see anything through the viewfinder. Sony releases its 100th mirrorless model, still unergonomic and with moderate-quality pictures, and spreads rumors that Nikon and Canon have run out because they can't keep up. They have reasons for not keeping up: they care about quality and don't want to release an avalanche of overpriced rubbish. It's only after a few years that Nikon is releasing (prematurely anyway) the first mirrorless models, at a level that Sony can dream of. It's funny that still the best photo quality in its class is offered by the Nikon D850, not the 50 flagship mirrorless cameras produced later. But impatient people won't understand this anyway, and will lead to the destruction of good manufacturers and lower quality.

 

[Supisiche]

The worst are medium-quality companies spoiling the market mindlessly. Sony is an example: they bought out Minolta and thought that meant they knew how to make cameras. With the delicacy of a battering ram, and with the momentum of huge money, they began to push out dozens more underdeveloped models with impressive theoretical parameters, but with meager real quality. Unfortunately, inexperienced photographers are mesmerized by irrelevant numbers on the package (1000 photos per second, 10000 MPix resolution) and paid reviews. Never mind that the camera can't be held in the hand, never mind that the pictures are like from a phone, that you can't see anything through the viewfinder. Sony releases its 100th mirrorless model, still unergonomic and with moderate-quality pictures, and spreads rumors that Nikon and Canon have run out because they can't keep up. They have reasons for not keeping up: they care about quality and don't want to release an avalanche of overpriced rubbish. It's only after a few years that Nikon is releasing (prematurely anyway) the first mirrorless models, at a level that Sony can dream of. It's funny that still the best photo quality in its class is offered by the Nikon D850, not the 50 flagship mirrorless cameras produced later. But impatient people won't understand this anyway, and will lead to the destruction of good manufacturers and lower quality.

Sony cameras look ugly

 

[Djehuty]

Film roll costs eventually adds up though.

 

[rurikw]

Wow, if they are that bad, AP made a huge mistake?

 

[BGD300V1]

I can't find anything bad about my camera.

You must be using FZ-1000 ...

Try sending your camera (any digital make or model) for a service after 10years! Many early film cameras are still working with the help of a regular CLA.. L

Lots of folks have one camera.

Try it with an FZ-1000 and you won't have anything to shoot with until it gets back from the shop.

 

[Mar Tin]

Sorry, I am not a natibe English speaker, I don't recognize the "AP" acronym. Acute pancreatitis?

I just wanted to gave an example to describe the general trend: A blind, chaotic run to set absurd technological records that are completely useless in practice, instead of calm, rational development. It used to be the same with LCD screens, for example. For at least 15 years after their first models, the old, clunky CRTs were clearly superior. But manufacturers pushed LCD monitors by force because they gave a better profit (cheaper to produce, small, light to transport and store) despite the fact that they only displayed basic colors. Of course, later techmology developed enough to make them better. But naive people misled by advertisements, dazzled by descriptions for 15 years bought trash.
The same was true with the first 10 years of the digital cameras.

The same is true now. I mean the general trend. Sony just happened to be a good example, which is why I mentioned it.

 

[Mackiesback]

Sorry, I am not a natibe English speaker, I don't recognize the "AP" acronym. Acute pancreatitis?

I just wanted to gave an example to describe the general trend: A blind, chaotic run to set absurd technological records that are completely useless in practice, instead of calm, rational development. It used to be the same with LCD screens, for example. For at least 15 years after their first models, the old, clunky CRTs were clearly superior. But manufacturers pushed LCD monitors by force because they gave a better profit (cheaper to produce, small, light to transport and store) despite the fact that they only displayed basic colors. Of course, later techmology developed enough to make them better. But naive people misled by advertisements, dazzled by descriptions for 15 years bought trash.
The same was true with the first 10 years of the digital cameras.

The same is true now. I mean the general trend. Sony just happened to be a good example, which is why I mentioned it.

For being a non-native speaker, your English is quite good.

AP stands for Associated Press, a press agency that just signed a contract with Sony for gear. I believe they were formerly Canon.

Regarding gear of any kind, its all disposable now. Appliances, TVs, pretty much everything.

 

[rurikw]

Having to explain to my wife every time I change camera

She notices?

 

[Rambow]

My first camera was a kodak film pocket camera. I could drop that thing every day and it never affected it. It still works now, just needs two AA bateries and film.

With digital is the opposite, can't afford to drop them, most are built like toys. Talking more about compact cameras, not dslrs.

 

[Guy Parsons]

My first camera was a kodak film pocket camera. I could drop that thing every day and it never affected it. It still works now, just needs two AA bateries and film.

With digital is the opposite, can't afford to drop them, most are built like toys. Talking more about compact cameras, not dslrs.

Why the hell would you want to drop them?

 

[bjn70]

Film roll costs eventually adds up though.

I was loading bulk Tri-X and processing my own so that helped a little bit.

 

[bjn70]

A quick Google says an FE was advertised in 1979 for $330, which would be about $1350 today. I think that's body only.

That's interesting and makes sense. I wonder what the modern equivalent would be, maybe a Z6 ?

 

[Autonerd]

bjn70 wrote:.

I was loading bulk Tri-X and processing my own so that helped a little bit.

I still am (with Ilford films, though, not Tri-X) and even with the rises in film prices (which haven't affected B&W as much), the cost of a new digital rig and a couple of lenses would keep me shooting a roll a week for around seven or eight years... and still leave me enough change for a couple of nice film cameras!

Aaron

 

[Aaron801]

bjn70 wrote:.

I was loading bulk Tri-X and processing my own so that helped a little bit.

I still am (with Ilford films, though, not Tri-X) and even with the rises in film prices (which haven't affected B&W as much), the cost of a new digital rig and a couple of lenses would keep me shooting a roll a week for around seven or eight years... and still leave me enough change for a couple of nice film cameras!

Aaron

I shot and printed 35mm B&W stuff years ago so I know what that's like... and I'm very happy shooting B&W digital (and when I occasionally get prints the digital prints look great). I shoot m43 and even that small format, I believe has far more resolution than the 35mm film that I was shooting, particularly when the ISOs go up. I have a newer camera now, but I sold my previous body, a Olympus EM10 mkI which was a very capable camera for something like just $200. Sure, if you need to have the very state of the art thing that shoots 4K video without the need for a gimbal and auto-focus nearly faster than you can even press the shutter, shoot 20 frames a second, etc then you're going to be spending a lot. For a capable stills camera that would compare very favorably (better) than a 35mm film camera in terms of image quality, if you're willing to go used and pick up something that's a few years old, you can get by far cheaper than it would have cost to buy 35mm gear... and you're not spending for film and processing...