Reading mode: Light Dark

the worst thing about digital cameras is

Go to last post
Mar Tin said:
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.
Click to expand...
How should any technology mature without being used?

To your example of LCD screens: In many use cases, even the early LCD were better the CRT monitors. Nobody needs 16 million colors for office documents, but to have a monitor that is not a big clunky monster that uses half of your desk is a big advantage.

It is the same for early digital cameras: It depends on the use case: In many cases even the early digital cameras had advantages to film cameras.
 
Mar Tin said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, you like Sony bashing, but i think you are wrong. Even the early MILC from Sony (NEX-series) where useful tools. The menu structure was a little bit weird but useable, and the picture quality was on par with the DSLR cousins, miles ahead of a phone from the same time.
 
Rambow said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it's your Kodak that is built like a toy, that's what makes it so tough. Body cast in one piece of plastic (even the back hinge), lens glued in with no adjustment possible or needed, simple shutter and film wind mechanics. Those cameras are wonders of simplicity of manufacture.

Even simple digital p&s cameras come with AF, Exposure Automation, zoom motor, lens retraction motors, and OIS drivers in a very tiny package. Olympus TG has all that AND is tough as nails. Not to speak of phone cameras.

Try dropping a 1950es German mechanical wonder and see how the rangefinder or selenium cell and the intricate mechanics controlling exposure would stand up to that. They were built like watches, not like toys.
 
Last edited:
OpticsEngineer said:
for me, it is keeping the batteries charged up. seems like I always have the wrong charger

I am curious what other people feel like the worst thing is...
Click to expand...
This why I love USB-C and in camera battery charging. Nearly every modern device has USB-C charging with Apple being the only real holdout on it. So you never have the wrong charger anymore.

With USB-C I can charge
  • My A7 IV
  • Nintendo Switch + its controllers
  • Kindle Kids
  • iPad Pro
  • Pixel 7
  • Soundcore BT Speaker
  • Sony headphones
  • work laptop
  • mouse
 
liopleurodon said:
OpticsEngineer said:
for me, it is keeping the batteries charged up. seems like I always have the wrong charger

I am curious what other people feel like the worst thing is...
Click to expand...
This why I love USB-C and in camera battery charging. Nearly every modern device has USB-C charging with Apple being the only real holdout on it. So you never have the wrong charger anymore.

With USB-C I can charge
  • My A7 IV
  • Nintendo Switch + its controllers
  • Kindle Kids
  • iPad Pro
  • Pixel 7
  • Soundcore BT Speaker
  • Sony headphones
  • work laptop
  • mouse
Click to expand...
I bought an iPad Air 5 this year, as well as an iPhone 14 pro. I was a bit dismayed when the phone arrived and I saw that it was still on the lightning connector. I guess another 2+ years before I can have one charger type....sigh.
 
This has been an interesting read because I couldn't come up with anything of sufficient concern (to me) to list.

Part of that may be due to frame of reference. Before converting to digital in 2009, my main film system had been a Leica/Canon thread mount (LTM) rangefinder system. This meant all operations manual and all prime lenses. Pretty primitive relative to other 35mm film technology at the time.

Conversion to digital then also included as much automation as I could want, along with zoom lenses, the ability to immediately see my results, and the opportunity to practice and experiment as much as I want without cost until I fire up my printer.

I too am loathe to drop a camera. My preventive measure is to have whatever camera I am using tethered to my camera case strap which I wear cross-body. I even do this with my 'tough' cameras.

For cameras without viewfinders I use a Hoodman Loupe.

In two of my three careers I had to be able to use different devices and equipment in emergency situations, day or night, in all weather conditions. These devices and equipment changed due to updating, replacement, improved capability, etc. It was my (and our) responsibility to adjust to the newer gear as quickly as possible in order to maintain our overall skill levels. Training was necessary for his purpose, but the result inevitably was greater efficiency.

Since I was accustomed to this in almost 47 years of professional life, it was and has been a simple matter to do the same for an avocation.

The result has been that my photographs are far better than what I was ever able to produce with film. The only thing that counts for me is the print I make and put on my or someone else's wall.

While bash fests are entertaining to read, and hopefully cathartic for some of the more intense contributors, I take a more optimistic view of how well off we all really are.

Since I have no complaint to register, this post can be taken as a non-contribution. But that is my perspective on the issue.

Obviously, as evident in prior posts, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Rambow said:
With digital is the opposite, can't afford to drop them, most are built like toys. Talking more about compact cameras, not dslrs.
Click to expand...
I can tell you from experience that if you drop a DSLR from high enough it will not survive. The lens won't either.
 
Guy Parsons said:
Rambow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why the hell would you want to drop them?
Click to expand...
The kodak film camera in question was actually found under a bench by my dad, we never knew who the original owner was. It probably slipped out of somene's coat pocket or something.

If I did the same with the rx100 the camera would survive but a tiny bit of rain would render it useless.

So things happen and it's nice not to have to worry about everything from falls to weather.

If i do in fact lose my camera one day i'id like it to be found and used by someone else, in the mean time i already dropped the M7 twice while in its bag and it actually shows. I don't drop my cameras but once every decade, an accident might happen. It's just human nature.

My most expensive mistake was when my $300 Tamron 17-50 was too front heavy for my $15 tripod and simply crashed into the floor. That was a sad day. Since then i have been a little more careful, but still.
 
Djehuty said:
How they come up with something better the moment you buy one.
Click to expand...
Does it matter? How? My camera from today is 10X better than the camera is started using 15 years ago, but i most certainly am not 10x better at taking images.

Basically this means the camera has more capabilities than i can take advantage of.

I am pretty sure i'm not the only one in this position because i see average looking images being uploaded on DPR every day.

"You don't need a GFX100s to take that picture of a tree with no leafs in the middle of the afternoon, big guy".
 
JustUs7 said:
With film, everything was a keeper because you had to be mindful of how often you clicked because every click costs money. Tough luck if Billy’s eyes were closed. That’s how we’ll remember Billy.

With digital, 25 pictures of the same group shot of the kids, then being unable to agree on which one to keep and which of the other 24 to delete.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.... correct.
 
Dennis said:
They're a necessary evil. Nothing would get me to go back to film, but I do miss shooting cameras that are simple enough to not need menus.
Click to expand...
They are not and you don't need them.

My cameras are in P mode since 2006, my most used button is the image review button. When i want to change shooting modes i then simply use the mode dial.

The menus are only useful when setting up the camera, just like you need a stem to be able to set the time in your quartz watch, that doesn't mean you have to do that every day.

One real reason why menus are best left alone is that it takes 5-10 minutes just to scroll through all the menu options and who has that kind of time? Not me.
 
Last edited:
OpticsEngineer said:
for me, it is keeping the batteries charged up. seems like I always have the wrong charger

I am curious what other people feel like the worst thing is...
Click to expand...
It takes unlimited pictures. Limitless picture facility has hampered thoughtfulness and artistry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top