No announcement yet.

Camera quality

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Camera quality

    Do you agree?

    'Olympus (Canon, Nikon, whatever) cameras are better than others'.

    Not true: all major players make cameras better than needed by the market at which they are aimed.
    Most photographers (including myself) use better equipment than they need. Really. Andre Wrotniak.

    I know I do.

  • #2
    Re: Camera quality

    I think mine is probably better than I need, yes.

    But it doesn't mean that one day I will probably buy an even better one. You can only buy what's for sale, I can't imagine any manufacturer downgrading something.
    - my pictures -


    • #3
      Re: Camera quality

      I think what he's saying is that in line with many things these days our 'expectations' are getting way out of line with our actual needs. This drive to have 'the best' runs through society at large I believe. Kids who 'expect' to get on the housing ladder at 23 or family holidays to Tahiti or Bali rather than Brighton or Sitges. Even the adverts - 'Because you're worth it' etc - all set up expectations.

      Same with cameras. When you read some of the techy tosh about minute differences in image quality it's pretty laughable.Where does it end - cars that are capable of racing at Le Mans as standard, holidays in space........or will the credit crunch reality bring us all back down to earth with a painful bump!

      Here endeth the sermon...............


      • #4
        Re: Camera quality

        Yes, but continued spending would put an end to the impending credit crunch: recession can only occur if there's a sustained decrease in money circulation. So Tahiti holidays, supercars and E-3 for all! :-)

        Getting back on subject though: one of things that trading up from a Nikon F65 and two budget lenses to an E-1 and 14-54mm years ago taught me was that bad quality glass ruins otherwise perfectly good photos. In those days, I couldn't "see" barrel distortion - never even heard of it in fact - but the fact it was there, I later discovered, meant that many of my pictures somehow didn't look quite right, certainly not how I wanted them to.

        So, I reckon that better glass makes everyone's pictures better. The rest, however, is a different matter. It's my opinion that all the expensive technological advances make up for the deficiencies of the people who use them: can't hold a camera still? no problem, IS is your buddy; don't know how to focus? 30-point AF should do the trick; can't time a shot? try shooting at 7 frames a second; have no idea what metering is? ESP/matrix/pattern metering does the job for you; not sure how flash works? iTTL flash takes the grunt work out of that ... The list could go on...

        So, in my mind photographers don't usually have better equipment than they need; they need better equipment because they're not as good as they'd like to be.


        • #5
          Re: Camera quality

          Yep there's a lot in that. I personally love old cameras and old technology.
          I've recently started using my E-1 in manual mode + manual focus etc much much more - and the results are better than with full AF etc!!

          NO substitute for fantastic glass though - never had any but always wanted some.

          As to recession - can't agree with you. This time it's already here - and it's been driven by forces bigger than UK retail figures. It's possibly a bumpy ride ahead.