On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,801
Re: It's no different than film was....

veroman wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

... The case you seem to be trying to make is I should have ignored this new improved film because a good photographer could make nice images (and make up for?) this new, better film? No one would have refused to use this new improved film back then, why should people do it now?

How much is a roll of film & processing? How much is a new DSLR body that would prove to be substantially better than an "older" body. I don't think your analog works all that well. To me, trying out a new film would be the equivalent in digital of purchasing a better tripod head or perhaps a superior UV filter ... and even THAT analogy doesn't work all that well because film, by its very nature, was at the heart of film photography. The light-tight box that carried the film was of far less consequence than the film/lens combination.

So why is the lens/sensor combination some how not important today?

And over time, a new body is no more expensive than switching film being used was. As far as "trying it out" you can see the results from each sensor type easily online to see the strengths and weaknesses.

Obviously skill is needed for any of this to matter (why this keeps being brought up is beyond me), but you guys seem to be discounting the importance the sensor has on the end result. And the "This guy with a lot of skill and an old tech camera can make better images than this novice with the newest tech" is just silly and obvious to anyone.

-- hide signature --


 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow