** Poll ** Your Age Group , Please.

Barry Stewart said:

I just left the second-most popular age group!

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

Marty4650 wrote:

My initial feeling is that it could cut both ways. Older people probably prefer lighter gear, but younger people might prefer newer technology and not have any sentimentality or nostalgia about SLRs. So those factors could cancel each other out, and result in the exact same distribution but for different reasons!

Click to expand...

Guy Parsons said:

Wormsmeat said:

Sorry, haven't got time to read the whole thread...why do you ask and are you conducting similar polls in other areas?

Click to expand...

A similar poll here some time back revealed the old age group was the biggest but the groupings were too coarse and didn't show the decade age ranges like this one.

In particular the poll is only for the M4/3 forum inhabitants as that is my "home" and I'm just plain curious.

Click to expand...

Guy Parsons said:

I don't intend to run other polls because I don't really inhabit any other forum much, only the Casio very sleepy forum because both my wife and I have Casio pocket cameras. In my case for ease of use when that is all that is needed to be carried.

As for a reason why I'm here in M4/3, been there done that with the heavy gear in film days and no way wanted to repeat that. The heavy gear tends to stay at home but the light gear gets out the door more often, so more chances of shots that may interest or amuse me, or just plain record "history" in my life.

Despite the desire for lightness and simplicity I can count 5 Pen bodies and 12 lenses for M4/3 plus maybe 7 or 8 old 4/3 lenses I could adapt if I felt like it. I never carry the lot of course but stick with my old film days approach where each time out the door the bag is packed differently to hopefully fit the occasion.

Click to expand...

Guy Parsons said:

Again the age group suits the type of forum here, immediacy of places like farcebook and twit are not needed, all we want are answers to questions, and are prepared to wait - the older groups know how to wait.

Back in film days I was in the late unlamented Photoshopper forum and that was a nightmare due to the young ones, obvious peaks in obnoxious behaviour when college started again as in those days there were less people with home access to the Internet. They treated the forum as a place to be smart-asses and not for information as we older folks (even then) were trying to do. Despite them I did learn more in say 6 months there than I had myself in previous years from books and magazines.

Like the trick learned from there with my Nikon N8008s (F801s) film SLR where it has a secret reset button to fix the occasional lockup, never revealed anywhere by Nikon. It did save me on two occasions and also a camera club friend on a day out when his F801s locked up. That reset trick alone was worth putting up with the nonsense on that forum.

Too much information as usual, but first post of my day and it always gets long as I flush stuff out of my brain that accumulated while sleeping. (Sydney, Oz time zone)

Regards.... Guy

Click to expand...

Sabatia said:

Interesting that someplace! says that photography can keep the brain stimulated and healthy.

I'm a little older than you and retired two years ago this month. I love it! But what has surprised me is the studious, if fun and in some instances outdoorsy directions that several of my hobbies have taken me. In addition to greatly upping my crosscountry skiing skills--and expensive equipment--I've become almost obsessed with understanding and photographing alpine wildflowers, often obscure and tiny. While I've dabbled in macro stuff for many years, suddenly I am buying all these new books and pieces of both inexpensive and expensive equipment and spending hours a day learning from and being stimulated by those books, and blogs, and websites, etc. Also having to learn much more about botany, including lichens, grasses and sedges, clubmosses, etc. I just had a few shots taken last spring solicited for a new book. And it feels like I'm just getting going. My mind is alive! Unfortunately, in spite of intensive work on health issues, parts of my body are just wearing out. I pray that I can continue to hike to remote summits and wild northern shores.

And that last part is why I was attracted to m4/3: Lighten the load to make it easier to get to those remote places. With the GM5, for the first time in years I have a camera I can lug up those long and challenging climbs with image quality and resolution worthy of the effort.

Click to expand...

honeyiscool said:

honeyiscool said:

Marty4650 wrote:
My initial feeling is that it could cut both ways. Older people probably prefer lighter gear, but younger people might prefer newer technology and not have any sentimentality or nostalgia about SLRs. So those factors could cancel each other out, and result in the exact same distribution but for different reasons!

Click to expand...

I think younger people prefer lighter gear, too, but we all grew up in an era where a big Nikon or Canon DSLR is the only kind of camera we'd ever seen good pictures taken on, and then by the time any of us could afford an actual camera, a lot of us decided, "who wants to carry that when my iPhone works?". Most of us are extremely sensitive to carrying more weight than necessary. A lot of my friends don't even wear a watch.

The thing is that young people are a huge potential market for camera manufacturers. We hang out in bars, go to concerts, and share photos of black cats in dark bedrooms on Instagram because it's cheaper than raising kids. It's actually some of the most demanding shooting any photographer could ever wish for, and not only that, the moment you get a decent camera, you become the person with the nice camera and people notice right away because your Facebook and Instagram snaps start becoming much better because people of my generation consume photos at a ravenous rate. And it's extremely gratifying.

Yet manufacturers haven't really figured out how to sell to us. Sure, I've bothered to learn how to take care of a camera, how to take pictures, how to change lenses, how to keep the camera batteries charged, how to transfer photos, how to process photos off the SD card and manage highlights and shadows, and then finally how to share them, but I'm in the extreme minority. The day that a manufacturer brings out a camera that is as capable as, say, an RX100 or LX100, as easy to use as an iPod Touch, takes good video, doesn't distort audio when standing next to a live drum set, and for less than $349, it's over. It really would be over. They would never be able to keep a camera like that in stock. Yet that camera doesn't even exist, not even at $3,000. The better the camera is, the more complicated it is to use. The more "pro" a camera is, the more esoteric they get.

Why is it impossible to have a good camera that's easy to learn? We just keep getting told it's impossible by camera manufacturers and so we're forced to believe it, but really, we all know they've never even tried. Camera processing engines and sensor technology are several years behind what the latest technology and semiconductor production lines are capable of. Battery life is horrid when you think about how smartphone and laptops keep getting faster, increasing cores and gigahertz and RAM, yet also improving battery life. We are constantly fed the same spiel: "become a real photographer." Most people don't want to become real photographers. Most people just want to take real photographs and the tools to do so are too difficult to use.

When camera manufacturers stop trying to only sell cameras to people who grew up with cameras, they'll pick up the younger generation. Right now, the only people who can afford to buy and learn the cameras they're selling are either working pros, camera geeks, or retired folk.

Click to expand...

honeyiscool said:

I'm 28. Must be why all I care about is fast primes, low light, and discrete event shooting. I can't afford to be outside when the sun is out if I want to keep my job so I can buy expensive cameras while still paying rent.

Click to expand...

Sabatia said:

Interesting that someplace! says that photography can keep the brain stimulated and healthy.

I'm a little older than you and retired two years ago this month. I love it! But what has surprised me is the studious, if fun and in some instances outdoorsy directions that several of my hobbies have taken me. In addition to greatly upping my crosscountry skiing skills--and expensive equipment--I've become almost obsessed with understanding and photographing alpine wildflowers, often obscure and tiny. While I've dabbled in macro stuff for many years, suddenly I am buying all these new books and pieces of both inexpensive and expensive equipment and spending hours a day learning from and being stimulated by those books, and blogs, and websites, etc. Also having to learn much more about botany, including lichens, grasses and sedges, clubmosses, etc. I just had a few shots taken last spring solicited for a new book. And it feels like I'm just getting going. My mind is alive! Unfortunately, in spite of intensive work on health issues, parts of my body are just wearing out. I pray that I can continue to hike to remote summits and wild northern shores.

And that last part is why I was attracted to m4/3: Lighten the load to make it easier to get to those remote places. With the GM5, for the first time in years I have a camera I can lug up those long and challenging climbs with image quality and resolution worthy of the effort.

Click to expand...

honeyiscool said:

I'm 28. Must be why all I care about is fast primes, low light, and discrete event shooting. I can't afford to be outside when the sun is out if I want to keep my job so I can buy expensive cameras while still paying rent.

Click to expand...

honeyiscool said:

honeyiscool said:

Marty4650 wrote:
My initial feeling is that it could cut both ways. Older people probably prefer lighter gear, but younger people might prefer newer technology and not have any sentimentality or nostalgia about SLRs. So those factors could cancel each other out, and result in the exact same distribution but for different reasons!

Click to expand...

I think younger people prefer lighter gear, too, but we all grew up in an era where a big Nikon or Canon DSLR is the only kind of camera we'd ever seen good pictures taken on, and then by the time any of us could afford an actual camera, a lot of us decided, "who wants to carry that when my iPhone works?". Most of us are extremely sensitive to carrying more weight than necessary. A lot of my friends don't even wear a watch.

The thing is that young people are a huge potential market for camera manufacturers. We hang out in bars, go to concerts, and share photos of black cats in dark bedrooms on Instagram because it's cheaper than raising kids. It's actually some of the most demanding shooting any photographer could ever wish for, and not only that, the moment you get a decent camera, you become the person with the nice camera and people notice right away because your Facebook and Instagram snaps start becoming much better because people of my generation consume photos at a ravenous rate. And it's extremely gratifying.

Yet manufacturers haven't really figured out how to sell to us. Sure, I've bothered to learn how to take care of a camera, how to take pictures, how to change lenses, how to keep the camera batteries charged, how to transfer photos, how to process photos off the SD card and manage highlights and shadows, and then finally how to share them, but I'm in the extreme minority. The day that a manufacturer brings out a camera that is as capable as, say, an RX100 or LX100, as easy to use as an iPod Touch, takes good video, doesn't distort audio when standing next to a live drum set, and for less than $349, it's over. It really would be over. They would never be able to keep a camera like that in stock. Yet that camera doesn't even exist, not even at $3,000. The better the camera is, the more complicated it is to use. The more "pro" a camera is, the more esoteric they get.

Why is it impossible to have a good camera that's easy to learn? We just keep getting told it's impossible by camera manufacturers and so we're forced to believe it, but really, we all know they've never even tried. Camera processing engines and sensor technology are several years behind what the latest technology and semiconductor production lines are capable of. Battery life is horrid when you think about how smartphone and laptops keep getting faster, increasing cores and gigahertz and RAM, yet also improving battery life. We are constantly fed the same spiel: "become a real photographer." Most people don't want to become real photographers. Most people just want to take real photographs and the tools to do so are too difficult to use.

When camera manufacturers stop trying to only sell cameras to people who grew up with cameras, they'll pick up the younger generation. Right now, the only people who can afford to buy and learn the cameras they're selling are either working pros, camera geeks, or retired folk.

Click to expand...

• "young people are a huge potential market for camera manufacturers. We hang out in bars, go to concerts, and share photos of black cats in dark bedrooms on Instagram because it's cheaper than raising kids. It's actually some of the most demanding shooting any photographer could ever wish for"
• "people of my generation consume photos at a ravenous rate" ..."Yet manufacturers haven't really figured out how to sell to us.
• "The day that a manufacturer brings out a camera that is as capable as, say, an RX100 or LX100, as easy to use as an iPod Touch, takes good video, doesn't distort audio when standing next to a live drum set, and for less than $349, it's over."
• "Why is it impossible to have a good camera that's easy to learn?"..."We are constantly fed the same spiel: "become a real photographer." Most people don't want to become real photographers. Most people just want to take real photographs and the tools to do so are too difficult to use"

Olymore said:

The problem / risk there is that people who are younger will still prefer to use their phones and people like myself probably wouldn't touch a camera like that with the proverbial 'bargepole'.

To me the main issue is that people don't want to have to learn and work at producing technically good photos and want it all automated, and despite all our technology the camera phones are cutting edge at automating the process.

Cameras offer modes like iauto which seem to be as capable as phone apps but the only advantages that 'real cameras' can bring to the table are bigger sensors and better lenses and that ends up being a disadvantage as people not only want it all automated but also want it to be small.

And they are willing to forgo the IQ advantage in order to have the size advantage.

There's no real answer for the camera manufacturers' and those that have tried, like Samsung with the Galaxy camera haven't exactly been a roaring success as it falls between the two stools of 'real cameras' and phones.

Click to expand...