How much has technology really moved on?

alexisgreat · Jun 10, 2014

as per the last post

all unedited (some decent- others okay)

E4500

E4500

E4500

E990

E4500

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E990

E4500

E4500

E4500 IR

E4500 IR channels swapped

E4500 IR channels swapped

E4500 IR

E4500 IR channels swapped

E4500 IR channels swapped

E990 CPL filter used

E990 CPL filter used

E990 CPL filter used

E990

E4500

E4500

E4500

E4500

E4500 double exposure mode

E4500 double exposure mode

E4500

E4500

E990

E990

Olympus C-70

Olympus C-7070 super macro mode (first frost of the season)

Olympus C-7070 super macro mode (first frost)

Olympus C-7070 Blizzard

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

Olympus C-7070

--
https://supermanalexthegreat.shutterfly.com/

photoreddi · Jun 10, 2014

You'll be banned for life if a moderator or any of DPR's grander fromages get a gander at all of the photos that you posted in a single reply. I guess that you never read sub-clause 18 of DPR's chiseled in stone commandments.

alexisgreat · Jun 10, 2014

haha no and oops, I'm sorry, I just wanted to post 76 images in honor of the Spurs record shooting 76 percent in the first half of tonight's NBA Finals game. I'm still upset over the giveaway loss last year so this is a good step in rectifying what happened back then.

I wonder if the moderating was as stringent back in 2000-2005. I dont think it was. Of course posters seemed more polite back then too. I remember first posting on this site back then in the Nikon Talk and Nikon SLR forums (back when Phil was around and they had the best compact camera reviews around.) I think somewhere around 2005-2008, the reviews started slacking off and by that time I was posting in the Olympus Talk and Olympus SLR forum, I was using other sites more because their reviews were better. But the forums on here are always the best (when there isn't much drama going on lol.)

BTW DPR has apparently removed the edit limitations of 15 min and 2 edits per post, as I've edited some posts up to 10 times over 2 hours lol.

--
https://supermanalexthegreat.shutterfly.com/

Andy Hewitt · Jun 10, 2014

Kim Letkeman said:
Andy Hewitt said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Not really sure what you're dying there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I assume you meant saying ... although I acknowledge the Freudian slip.

Sorry, spell checker slip.

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman said:

That is so. However, I do note that many discussions can often get a little narrow minded in some areas, and this does actually make my statement have a feeling of truth to me.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole thread is a study in wistful anecdote instead of evidence or science, so I suppose that's fair ...

Now you've got it. It was my original intention to be anecdotal, and hopefully have a gentle discussion about it, I had no real intention of getting 'scientific' about it - indeed, I was actually looking at the non-scientific aspect of the hobby.

Remember, I'm here as a hobbyist, not a pro. Historically I have found that photography often degrades into abrasive discussions, possibly like no other subject I've come across. Of course there is a 'mechanical' part of photography, obviously necessary to get an image onto output media. But there's also an organic part of photography, one that often can't be quantified, and one that does not require such pixel peeping, or scientific study, and will be anecdotal.

photoreddi · Jun 10, 2014

alexisgreat said:
haha no and oops, I'm sorry, I just wanted to post 76 images in honor of the Spurs record shooting 76 percent in the first half of tonight's NBA Finals game. I'm still upset over the giveaway loss last year so this is a good step in rectifying what happened back then.

I wonder if the moderating was as stringent back in 2000-2005. I dont think it was. Of course posters seemed more polite back then too. I remember first posting on this site back then in the Nikon Talk and Nikon SLR forums (back when Phil was around and they had the best compact camera reviews around.) I think somewhere around 2005-2008, the reviews started slacking off and by that time I was posting in the Olympus Talk and Olympus SLR forum, I was using other sites more because their reviews were better. But the forums on here are always the best (when there isn't much drama going on lol.)

Yeah, when Phil was around the reviews were the biggest draw. Late appearing reviews were always annoying but the apparent solution, to post pieces a bit here, a bit there, with previews, studio samples added to previews, etc. so that by the time the full review is posted, who cares anymore? And despite the work done to "improve" the reviews, too much has been eliminated because DPReview knows better than us what we want to see. Too little hard data and too much reviewer opinions. If DPReview never published another review I wouldn't grieve very much. It seems that Amazon is driving the emphasis away from DPReview and more towards CONNECT and DPR's Gear Shop, which seems to be just another Amazon affiliate designed to get first dibs at sales.

HornOUBet · Jun 11, 2014

DickyAus said:
DMillier said:

Make a 60 x 40 inch print at ISO 1600 from a 2MP Coolpix 950 and compare to one from a D800.

That'll give you a baseline.

Click to expand...

cantanima · Jun 11, 2014

Andy Hewitt said:
Remember, I'm here as a hobbyist, not a pro. Historically I have found that photography often degrades into abrasive discussions, possibly like no other subject I've come across. Of course there is a 'mechanical' part of photography, obviously necessary to get an image onto output media. But there's also an organic part of photography, one that often can't be quantified, and one that does not require such pixel peeping, or scientific study, and will be anecdotal.

So, to sum up for everyone:

1) Every article of evidence provided that technology has moved on, somewhat significantly, is dismissed as irrelevant.

2) The thread now features serial dumps of old photographs, all of them (as far as I've checked) in good light, shot at ISO 100ish. In one case, the dump was for no better reason than, hey, look a basketball team scored 76 points last night!

3) & finally it comes to the OP stating that he wants to talk about the "organic" part of photography, not the actual technology.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to title this thread, "How much has technology really moved on, if we exclude every advance in technology over the last 15 years?"

OK, I agree, technology hasn't moved along.

[IMG width="400px" alt="I'll bet your FF Sony with scoliosis-inducing lens sizes and candlelight-capable video at ISO 400000 can't take a shot half this nice! forget doing it with a super zoom! Forget Raw processing, this is SOOC!!! 1/2.7" Bayer sensor FTW!!!"]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/8993787968_54ed47bc7c_o.jpg[/IMG]
I'll bet your FF Sony with scoliosis-inducing lens sizes and candlelight-capable video at ISO 400000 can't take a shot half this nice! forget doing it with a super zoom! Forget Raw processing, this is SOOC!!! 1/2.7" Bayer sensor FTW!!!

Andy Hewitt · Jun 11, 2014

cantanima said:
Member said:

Remember, I'm here as a hobbyist, not a pro. Historically I have found that photography often degrades into abrasive discussions, possibly like no other subject I've come across. Of course there is a 'mechanical' part of photography, obviously necessary to get an image onto output media. But there's also an organic part of photography, one that often can't be quantified, and one that does not require such pixel peeping, or scientific study, and will be anecdotal.

Click to expand...

So, to sum up for everyone:

1) Every article of evidence provided that technology has moved on, somewhat significantly, is dismissed as irrelevant.

2) The thread now features serial dumps of old photographs, all of them (as far as I've checked) in good light, shot at ISO 100ish. In one case, the dump was for no better reason than, hey, look a basketball team scored 76 points last night!

3) & finally it comes to the OP stating that he wants to talk about the "organic" part of photography, not the actual technology.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to title this thread, "How much has technology really moved on, if we exclude every advance in technology over the last 15 years?"

OK, I agree, technology hasn't moved along.

Oh fed goodness sake, you're all missing the point of what I was trying to say, and blowing it up all out of proportion, as is flippin' usual here. There are times when I wish I hadn't started something, and this is one of them.

Obviously I haven't used a good vocabulary to make clear what it is I wanted to say here, so I'll accept responsibility for that, and apologise, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

--
Andy Hewitt
Using FujiFilm X-S1 and Apple iMac 27" 3.2GHz

Gonini · Jun 11, 2014

Andy Hewitt said:
My intention here is not to set up an argument between different cameras, but to show how much difference does the technology in real terms. We're always out trying to get 'better' all the time, but I have to ask myself, does it really get better?

Nowadays its more like technology simply goes where the $$$ is, it does not mean it gets better, I would of preffer technology moving towards nicer colors, true skin tones, DoF etc... but now manufacturers aim to the high ISO marketing and its more ridicolous then the MP one.

Lisetta · Jun 11, 2014

alexisgreat said:
I just wanted to post 76 images in honor of the Spurs record shooting 76 percent in the first half of tonight's NBA Finals game. ...

I wonder if the moderating was as stringent back in 2000-2005. I dont think it was. Of course posters seemed more polite back then too.

You mean "polite" like not wasting people's time spamming threads with 76 photos to celebrate the first half of a basketball game?

Wilde's Law: "When one or more people carry their unresolvable argument into unrelated threads--even using the same pictures over and over to push their point of view--the quality of discussion has deteriorated to a point where even Oscar Wilde himself couldn't save it."

Lisetta · Jun 11, 2014

Andy Hewitt said:
cantanima said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Remember, I'm here as a hobbyist, not a pro. Historically I have found that photography often degrades into abrasive discussions, possibly like no other subject I've come across. Of course there is a 'mechanical' part of photography, obviously necessary to get an image onto output media. But there's also an organic part of photography, one that often can't be quantified, and one that does not require such pixel peeping, or scientific study, and will be anecdotal.

Click to expand...

So, to sum up for everyone:

1) Every article of evidence provided that technology has moved on, somewhat significantly, is dismissed as irrelevant.

2) The thread now features serial dumps of old photographs, all of them (as far as I've checked) in good light, shot at ISO 100ish. In one case, the dump was for no better reason than, hey, look a basketball team scored 76 points last night!

3) & finally it comes to the OP stating that he wants to talk about the "organic" part of photography, not the actual technology.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to title this thread, "How much has technology really moved on, if we exclude every advance in technology over the last 15 years?"

OK, I agree, technology hasn't moved along.

Click to expand...

Oh fed goodness sake, you're all missing the point of what I was trying to say, and blowing it up all out of proportion, as is flippin' usual here. There are times when I wish I hadn't started something, and this is one of them.

Obviously I haven't used a good vocabulary to make clear what it is I wanted to say here, so I'll accept responsibility for that, and apologise, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

--
Andy Hewitt
Using FujiFilm X-S1 and Apple iMac 27" 3.2GHz

Your point was clear. It's just that many people write about whatever they want to here, regardless of the topic of the thread. It's so predictable.

Your point got me thinking back--and realizing that I am probably spending more time reading about new cameras--and buying--or thinking about buying--new cameras than I am spending time on developing my skills as a photographer by using the (already quite good) camera technology I already have.

I think I just saved quite a bit of money reading this thread.

Lisetta

--
Wilde's Law: "When one or more people carry their unresolvable argument into unrelated threads--even using the same pictures over and over to push their point of view--the quality of discussion has deteriorated to a point where even Oscar Wilde himself couldn't save it."

alexisgreat · Jun 11, 2014

Spamming is making the same post multiple times ..... that wasn't done here. Also, who was arguing? I think we all came to the same conclusion regarding photography in good light, taken at ISO 100.

photoreddi · Jun 11, 2014

Lisetta said:
alexisgreat said:

I just wanted to post 76 images in honor of the Spurs record shooting 76 percent in the first half of tonight's NBA Finals game. ...

I wonder if the moderating was as stringent back in 2000-2005. I dont think it was. Of course posters seemed more polite back then too.

Click to expand...

You mean "polite" like not wasting people's time spamming threads with 76 photos to celebrate the first half of a basketball game?

Unlike others that frequently spam posts with more than the allowable number of photos (rule #18 again) this was a one time occurrence and since alex is nowhere near the top of the forum's photo spammer list, and alex is one of this forum's most polite posters, do you think that you could find it in your heart to forgive this one rather mild transgression? Anyone that endlessly paged down to view all of the photos wasn't paying attention to the scroll bar that hinted at what was to come. The reward for viewing all of the photos was to share an historical moment ("Tonight I Became an Honorary 76'er") and that's not referring to Philadelphia.

We see some things alike, such as preferring that others trim their replies to eliminate page after page of irrelevant, unrelated context, but coming on too strong with your pet peeves, such as your now ever present "Wilde's Law" tagline :

Lisetta said:
Wilde's Law: "When one or more people carry their unresolvable argument into unrelated threads--even using the same pictures over and over to push their point of view--the quality of discussion has deteriorated to a point where even Oscar Wilde himself couldn't save it."

shows that you may be a better fit in today's forum than the forum as it was back in 2000-2005.

And what about the threads that contain nothing but really dreadful photos? I have nothing against them; not everyone puts in the time and effort to become good photographers. But the replies oozing with superlatives ("Great color", "Wonderful", etc., etc., etc.) aka "attaboys" are the true useless spam that clogs the forum's arteries. There are a few people here that post nice photos, but the praise that they get is no better than the photos that have practically no redeeming qualities. Now it appears that we're in for an onslaught of hype about the X20 (a good camera that deserves better). If you want a better forum, alex is not only too easy a target, he's the wrong target.

alexisgreat · Jun 11, 2014

Thanks PR- the basketball thing was actually a joke- what happened was I went back to count the number of pictures I posted and when I realized it was the same number as the historic shooting percentage of Spurs, I made that post tongue-in-cheek. I think you realized that, but I guess others dont have our sense of sarcasm ;-)

Lisetta · Jun 11, 2014

alexisgreat wrote: the basketball thing was actually a joke- what happened was I went back to count the number of pictures I posted and when I realized it was the same number as the historic shooting percentage of Spurs said:
And what about the threads that contain nothing but really dreadful photos? I have nothing against them; not everyone puts in the time and effort to become good photographers. But the replies oozing with superlatives ("Great color", "Wonderful", etc., etc., etc.) aka "attaboys" are the true useless spam that clogs the forum's arteries. There are a few people here that post nice photos, but the praise that they get is no better than the photos that have practically no redeeming qualities. Now it appears that we're in for an onslaught of hype about the X20 (a good camera that deserves better). If you want a better forum, alex is not only too easy a target, he's the wrong target.

Guess we "agree to disagree" here too. I always like people with the guts to put up pix and ask for feedback (It's a tough room!) Looking for genuine positives--"great color" , "nice composition", "interesting subject matter" etc. -- can be more difficult--and just as important--as finding the flaws (even with the best photos, that's easy to do, isn't it? But still very subjective).

As to your other point, I'm not sure I've ever seen a photo that has "practically no redeeming qualities" or at least, never seen one here, unless they were asking about a camera malfunction.

And re: Alexis, it was nothing personal. What really annoyed me was that I actually was enjoying his pix until I began to feel kind of insulted by anyone posting in that quantity for no real reason (with a lot of annoying near-repetitions)--you know, time being what it is and all. 76 photos to scroll through? Nothing personal, but I don't feel bad at all for saying that was just ridiculous--especially when someone includes with them a post about how other people aren't very polite here anymore. But, I have no doubt generally that you're right that he's a nice fellow (and he took my comment in the spirit intended, which I appreciated.)

Lisetta

--
Wilde's Law: "When one or more people carry their unresolvable argument into unrelated threads--even using the same pictures over and over to push their point of view--the quality of discussion has deteriorated to a point where even Oscar Wilde himself couldn't save it."

[/QUOTE]

photoreddi · Jun 11, 2014

Lisetta said:
.

photoreddi said:

And what about the threads that contain nothing but really dreadful photos? I have nothing against them; not everyone puts in the time and effort to become good photographers. But the replies oozing with superlatives ("Great color", "Wonderful", etc., etc., etc.) aka "attaboys" are the true useless spam that clogs the forum's arteries. There are a few people here that post nice photos, but the praise that they get is no better than the photos that have practically no redeeming qualities. Now it appears that we're in for an onslaught of hype about the X20 (a good camera that deserves better). If you want a better forum, alex is not only too easy a target, he's the wrong target.

Click to expand...

Guess we "agree to disagree" here too. I always like people with the guts to put up pix and ask for feedback (It's a tough room!) Looking for genuine positives--"great color" , "nice composition", "interesting subject matter" etc. -- can be more difficult--and just as important--as finding the flaws (even with the best photos, that's easy to do, isn't it? But still very subjective).

But they most certainly don't have the guts to "put up pix and ask for feedback". Give real constructive criticism and at least one goes ballistic ('It's my thread and you're not welcome here'), others see edits of their photos and say that they shouldn't have posted any edits without permission.

It used to be different, but that was years ago. I'd rather not point to links of the bad photos I'm talking about, but unless I'm mistaken, you'd be able to see them and agree that the photos were poor at best. I'm not talking about really good photos that might have minor flaws. I'm talking about photos that I believe that you, I and most halfway decent photographers would never consider to be "keepers" and they'd never be archived unless they archive every photo they shoot.

.

Lisetta said:
As to your other point, I'm not sure I've ever seen a photo that has "practically no redeeming qualities" or at least, never here unless they were asking about a camera malfunction.

That may be one of the silliest things you'll ever say but I'm sure that you can believe it as a debating point.

.

Lisetta said:
And re: Alexis, it was nothing personal. What really annoyed me was that I actually was enjoying his pix until I began to feel kind of insulted by anyone posting in that quantity for no real reason (with a lot of annoying near-repetitions)--you know, time being what it is and all. 76 photos to scroll through? Nothing personal, but I don't feel bad at all for saying that was just ridiculous--especially when someone includes with them a post about how other people aren't very polite here anymore. But, I have no doubt generally that you're right that he's a nice fellow (and he took my comment in the spirit intended, which I appreciated.)

If you try really, really hard, I'll bet that you'll be able to find some redeeming qualities in his 76 photo post, not just in the photos themselves but in the ensuing conversation. If not, you may be like some other forum folk here, those who lack a sense of humor, are too easily annoyed, and are too eager to express their annoyance.

.

Lisetta said:
Wilde's Law: "When one or more people carry their unresolvable argument into unrelated threads--even using the same pictures over and over to push their point of view--the quality of discussion has deteriorated to a point where even Oscar Wilde himself couldn't save it."

Godwin's second corollary :

Lisetta said:
Hitler's love of pets and young children shouldn't be considered redeeming qualities.

.

For example :

Lisetta said:
Hitler shook hands with all the people he hadn't greeted before. After that he talked to us regularly.

"His authority was extraordinary. He was always polite and charming. There was really nothing to object to."

...

Not to spare the children was madness, dreadful."

Hitler was fond of them, she added, and drank hot chocolate with them and allowed them to use his bathtub.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/02/germany.artsandhumanities

.

Lisetta said:
By all accounts, Hitler was very fond of Blondi, keeping her by his side and allowing her to sleep in his bedroom in the bunker, an affection not shared by Eva Braun, Hitler's girlfriend, who hated Blondi and was known to kick her under the dining table, according to Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge.

Hitler had been given a German Shepherd before, in 1921, during his years of poverty, but he had been forced to lodge the dog elsewhere, although it managed to escape and return to him. Hitler, who adored loyalty and obedience, thereafter developed a great liking for the breed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Hitler's_dogs_name

Andy Hewitt · Jun 11, 2014

Lisetta said:
Andy Hewitt said:

Oh fed goodness sake, you're all missing the point of what I was trying to say, and blowing it up all out of proportion, as is flippin' usual here. There are times when I wish I hadn't started something, and this is one of them.

Obviously I haven't used a good vocabulary to make clear what it is I wanted to say here, so I'll accept responsibility for that, and apologise, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

Your point was clear. It's just that many people write about whatever they want to here, regardless of the topic of the thread. It's so predictable.

Your point got me thinking back--and realizing that I am probably spending more time reading about new cameras--and buying--or thinking about buying--new cameras than I am spending time on developing my skills as a photographer by using the (already quite good) camera technology I already have.

I think I just saved quite a bit of money reading this thread.

Lisetta

, bingo Lisetta, now we've got it.

Although I've been used to discussions about equipment, and new technology, or speculation of what's next, it's not always something that is helpful to all of us. More often, in reality, people are not always buying the newest technology - I for one couldn't have afforded an X-S1 at it's original price, and I only managed to buy the HS50 once I'd sold my DSLR gear. Even then, my DSLR gear was usually second hand, and at least a generation or two behind in technology. Despite that, I managed to enjoy taking photos.

I'd certainly welcome discussions on getting the best out of existing equipment too, but even they seems to degrade into rants about how you must use medium size images with EXR dynamic range expansion turned on, or your photos will be rubbish. I want to explore all the settings of my camera, and see what it does for myself, and I want to be able to prefer a different setting to everyone else if I think it works better for me.

I'm not even saying that we shouldn't embrace the newest technology, and enjoy it if we can afford it, but it isn't going to make you better as a photographer. Why not carry on enjoying older equipment if it still works for you, without worrying about not having that newest technology.

Yes, save your money, you don't need to spend it because of peer pressure in places like this forum. But it's still your choice in the end, if you still want to upgrade

.

SpeedyGonzalys · Jun 12, 2014

Andy Hewitt said:
My intention here is not to set up an argument between different cameras, but to show how much difference does the technology in real terms. We're always out trying to get 'better' all the time, but I have to ask myself, does it really get better?

Well, sometimes there is a BIG jump in technology, or even a tripple-jump.

1" sensor... DFD focus... 400mmm in one .. game-set-match

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3684502

That means we will see other brands follow with even lower prices.

We-all-bennefits ;-)

photoreddi · Jun 12, 2014

Andy Hewitt said:
Lisetta said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Oh fed goodness sake, you're all missing the point of what I was trying to say, and blowing it up all out of proportion, as is flippin' usual here. There are times when I wish I hadn't started something, and this is one of them.

Obviously I haven't used a good vocabulary to make clear what it is I wanted to say here, so I'll accept responsibility for that, and apologise, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

Your point was clear. It's just that many people write about whatever they want to here, regardless of the topic of the thread. It's so predictable.

Your point got me thinking back--and realizing that I am probably spending more time reading about new cameras--and buying--or thinking about buying--new cameras than I am spending time on developing my skills as a photographer by using the (already quite good) camera technology I already have.

I think I just saved quite a bit of money reading this thread.

Lisetta

Click to expand...

, bingo Lisetta, now we've got it.

Although I've been used to discussions about equipment, and new technology, or speculation of what's next, it's not always something that is helpful to all of us. More often, in reality, people are not always buying the newest technology - I for one couldn't have afforded an X-S1 at it's original price, and I only managed to buy the HS50 once I'd sold my DSLR gear. Even then, my DSLR gear was usually second hand, and at least a generation or two behind in technology. Despite that, I managed to enjoy taking photos.

I'd certainly welcome discussions on getting the best out of existing equipment too, but even they seems to degrade into rants about how you must use medium size images with EXR dynamic range expansion turned on, or your photos will be rubbish.

Nice straw man you've created to take your swings at. I don't recall ANYONE that has ever said that. I've argued (unsuccessfully it seems) that the DR setting should be chosen to match the lighting, that too many people automatically use a too high DR value. But even if the wrong value is used it doesn't turn ANYTHING into rubbish. It just produces photos that are suboptimal, either more drab or more harsh than a better value would have produced.

I've also said that sometimes M size produces better images but also that at other times L size would produce better results. What I do know is that at least one person here has adamantly maintained that L size ALWAYS produces better results.

.

Andy Hewitt said:
I want to explore all the settings of my camera, and see what it does for myself, and I want to be able to prefer a different setting to everyone else if I think it works better for me.

It doesn't appear that anyone has prevented you from doing this.

.

Andy Hewitt said:
I'm not even saying that we shouldn't embrace the newest technology, and enjoy it if we can afford it, but it isn't going to make you better as a photographer. Why not carry on enjoying older equipment if it still works for you, without worrying about not having that newest technology.

There have been so many people here advocating just that, that they're too hard to count. Several of them have been praising the S100fs, and others say that they prefer the HS10, HS20 and HS30 over the latest models and others prefer even older Fuji cameras. I don't recall seeing anyone telling them that they're wrong. The thing is, most people here don't have as a goal to become excellent photographers and there's nothing wrong with that. So for most people there's little reason to get a camera that has a much better lens or sensor but every reason to get a newer camera that provides desirable features such as greater focusing speed, better LCDs and EVFs, better controls and button layouts that make taking pictures easier and more pleasurable. An old camera that still produces photos with very good image quality doesn't stand a chance of being embraced if it uses xD cards that take 30 seconds to save a single RAW file and doesn't have image stabilization.

I personally don't mind low resolution EVFs. What I'd like are EVFs of any resolution that have no lag, so you could pan fast moving subjects because the EVF shows you where the subject IS, vs where the subject WAS.

.

Andy Hewitt said:
Yes, save your money, you don't need to spend it because of peer pressure in places like this forum. But it's still your choice in the end, if you still want to upgrade .

Hmm, the majority of the cameras I've recommended and bought are older, often discontinued models no longer in production, most recently the X10, XF1, P510, even a used Ricoh GXR. That doesn't mean that I won't occasionally buy a newer model still in production, but when I do buy those it's not because of peer pressure. There's a lot of talk about new models such as an X30 or the new Panasonic 1" sensor camera, but there's always going to be discussions about the latest gear, but there's no reason to feel pressure to buy one. There may be some pressure to discuss them but anyone that ends up buying the latest and greatest has only themselves to blame.

DickyAus · Jun 12, 2014

HornOUBet said:
Is yours the OLD Optio 30 or the Optio A30 (10MP model ??)
Dwight
take a peek at the world I see at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96816407@N07/
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

Mine is the old Optio 30. The 3Mp model - still going strong with a 512Mb SD card.

Regards,

Dicky.

How much has technology really moved on?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

cantanima

Guest

Senior Member

Active member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts