Lives in Brazil São Paulo, Brazil
Works as a Entrepreneur
Joined on Oct 22, 2012


Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
In reply to:

disraeli demon: All sneering aside, this highlights the problem with digital cameras as a long term investment. Back in. the 90's you could buy an M2 or M3 and with the most recent emulsion loaded you were guaranteed image quality pretty much on a par with the mot advanced cameras of the time. Now your camera IS your film, and with advances in technology camera bodies face the same redundancy issues as any other consumer electronics.
I always said to myself if I ever got a big enough windfall I'd invest in an M rangefinder and a set of lenses, but between the decent but not stellar image quality and my having got used to conveniences like autofocus, tilting screens and good image stabilisation, I'd no longer be willing to sink money into a kit that would hold its value reasonably but not be that great to use. On the other hand, going for a top-performing camera like a D850 or A7RIII would cost maybe half as much and give much better performance, but not hold its value in the long term.

Your comment, while basically correct, sounds a bit ungrateful towards digital photography.
We can easily do things today, like correcting in near-total impunity a 4-stops underexposure or shoot at 50K ISO, that we couldn't even possibly dream of back then.
The counterpart is that digital cameras get older quickly as technology advances. But old doesn't necessarily means obsolete.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

turvyT: After the Pentax affair, I don't trust dxomark. Also, digital photography is a relative disgrace. Good cameras are made to last, but sensors don't last. I have a Leica M3, and the relative (to other cameras) quality of its output is as good or bad as when it was built. It depends slightly on the film, and crucially on the photographer. Digital cameras don't maintain their relative to other cameras quality. In some years, they are out. They are almost disposable cameras.

Yet, they still shoot the same pictures they did when they were new.
If it worked back then, why can't it work today?
Perhaps we should ask ourselves why digital cameras are disposable goods. Sometimes it might not be just camera's fault.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Kashim: So this is a full frame camera that produces image quality on par with cropped sensor cameras, but costs 6-8x as much. And this is somehow a good thing? What am I missing here?

I can't find anything in the article that seems to point at it as a good thing.
It just looks like a statement to me. Leica's FF sensors are on par with the best APSC contenders.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

Andrew Higgins: Fine photos. Proves two well known points, 1- its the photographer not the camera, 2- who really needs mega megapixels? The Lx5 was/is a great compact, I miss mine. and The Ricoh GX100 had very 'Tri-X' like noise/grain, very nice.

Let's not forget, 3- whatever camera looks good at web resolution ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 22:36 UTC

This lady sure knows how to take good pics, but, to be honest, in most of them I don't see that "vintage modern" look that the article seems to imply. Just gorgeous pics.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 12:33 UTC as 79th comment
In reply to:

straitouttahell: D600 sensor in a D700 body

I'm not a big fan of the D800 sensor, being limited by diffraction at f8 leaves me cold. Great sensor, but not everybody's cup of tea IMO

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 23:39 UTC

D600 sensor in a D700 body

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 17:05 UTC as 89th comment | 2 replies
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7