Why do you buy a camera?

"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c1ba88$0$4942$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many
> well acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results.
> I am sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done,
> using some cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.

I generally agree, but some areas of photography, such as birds in flight,
are enhanced by fast focus and AI focus. I don't think A. Adams would
disagree.
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c1ba88$0$4942$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>
> I hear things like:
>
> * It is not sharp enough.
> * I does not have a large enough sensor
> * It has too much, too little contrast
> * It does not have good colors
> * The lens fells cheap
> * The camera feels cheap
> * The design is too old
>
> I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
> They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the tool
> as more important than the results.
>
> Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>
> For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?" I
> see five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>
> On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
> camera.
>
> Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many
> well acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results.
> I am sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done,
> using some cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia 's Muire duit
>
>
>
I buy another camera when the one(s) I am using cannot accomplish what I
want to do.
For instance:
In 1953, I bought a Praktica FX (a very primitive 35mm SLR) to replace a
Kodak roll film camera because I wanted to make 35mm color slides.
In 1956, I bought a Nikon S2 to replace the Praktica because I wanted a
camera that would not wake the dead every time I clicked the shutter.
In 1968, I bought a Canon FT-QL because the shutter on the S2 went south. I
also wanted an SLR.
In 1988, I bought a Nikon F3 becase the shutter on the FT went south.
In 1996, I bought a Nikon N90S because I wanted to use AF.
In 2004, I bought a Nikon D70 because I wanted to own a digital camera.
It would be nice to own something like a D300, but really the camera is not
the limiting factor for my photographs. I just might wait for the next big
thing in cameras.
Both the N90s and the F3 still take as good a photo as they every did.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

Your newsreader program is probably telling you that the name of this
newsgroup is rec.photo.digital.
You naively assumed this newsgroup is about photography, an
artistic/aesthetic pursuit.
As such cameras and lenses should be considered tools and not absolute ends
in themselves.
The actual name of this newsgroup is Cameraholics.anonymous.net.
It is for those obsessed with the technical qualities of digital
photographic gear rather than the actual uses to which that gear is supposed
to be applied.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
> I hear things like:
>
> * It is not sharp enough.
> * I does not have a large enough sensor
> * It has too much, too little contrast
> * It does not have good colors
> * The lens fells cheap
> * The camera feels cheap
> * The design is too old

Maybe I am missing something, but for me those would be reasons why _NOT_ to
by this camera.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

On Feb 24, 1:42 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM... DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:
> It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>
> I hear things like:
>
> * It is not sharp enough.
> * I does not have a large enough sensor
> * It has too much, too little contrast
> * It does not have good colors
> * The lens fells cheap
> * The camera feels cheap
> * The design is too old
>
> I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
> They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the tool
> as more important than the results.
>
> Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>
> For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?" I see
> five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>
> On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
> camera.
>
> Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well
> acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I am
> sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some
> cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia 's Muire duit


I bought a DSLR for many of the reasons you listed above. Shot a
couple of events with a Nikon 995 and found;

The camera had severe shutter lag, wasn't fast enough
The lens wasn't sharp enough
The lens wan't fast enough
There was too much noise in the images
The sensor wasn't large enough
The camera was too light to hand hold at telephoto ranges
Though late in it's use I found the b&w mode wasn't bad at all.

I bought a D200 because Nikon's fast 24mm (shoot alot with fast 35mm
on film) was cheaper than Canons (mostly because it isn't autofocus).
Didn't buy Canon because the 5D was more than I wanted to spend, but
did almost buy a 20D. Didn't want a D70 either because of the awful
viewfinder (especially with a slow zoom). The main reason for the
digital camera when I had Leica M and Canon FD already was that a
magazine approached me with an offer to do some work but they only
wanted digital, 8mp or better, no upsizing.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

I buy gear for the same reason, normally: I'm looking for different
capabilities. My last (and very recent) purchase was a G9. My shoulder is
causing my a bit of pain as of late, and I really needed to lighten the load
when travelling. Image quality is not up to the 5D, but I just can't lug
that thing for 8 hours a day without really feeling pain. The G9 fit the
bill nicely, too. Nice image quality at lower ISOs (I do miss those high
speeds), nice zoom range, full manual control. It's a great travel camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM... RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:
>     It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>
>     I hear things like:
>
>     * It is not sharp enough.
>     * I does not have a large enough sensor
>     * It has too much, too little contrast
>     * It does not have good colors
>     * The lens fells cheap
>     * The camera feels cheap
>     * The design is too old
>
>     I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
> They seldom know how to use the camera.  Other people seem to see the tool
> as more important than the results.
>
>     Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>
>     For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?"  I see
> five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>
>     On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
> camera.
>
>     Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> equipment.  Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well
> acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results.  I am
> sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some
> cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>

Adams used the largest camera he could carry. There are photographers
who really did not care that much about what gear they used, but Adams
was not one of them.

The last new camera I bought was nearly two years ago, I got a Canon
350D to replace my Sony F828, which sounded like it was going to die
soon.

Mostly I get a new camera when a new one will blow away the one I
have. But I may be in the market for a new one before too long, the
350D now has over 50,000 shutter clicks on it, I don't know how much
longer it will last.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c1ba88$0$4942$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.

I suppose that I could still take pictures with my Pentax K1000. After all,
it serves well, takes wonderful photos, and that and its standard 50mm prime
are, in some regards, all that I really need.

But I'm not about to turn my back on the ensuing 30 years of technology that
has gone on around me.

dwight
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

On Feb 25, 4:33 pm, Scott W <biph....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
>
> > I hear things like:
>
> > * It is not sharp enough.
> > * I does not have a large enough sensor
> > * It has too much, too little contrast
> > * It does not have good colors
> > * The lens fells cheap
> > * The camera feels cheap
> > * The design is too old
>
> > I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress people.
> > They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the tool
> > as more important than the results.
>
> > Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the only
> > reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
>
> > For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?" I see
> > five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
>
> > On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a better
> > camera.
>
> > Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting "better"
> > equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many well
> > acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I am
> > sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done, using some
> > cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
>
> Adams used the largest camera he could carry. There are photographers
> who really did not care that much about what gear they used, but Adams
> was not one of them.
>
> The last new camera I bought was nearly two years ago, I got a Canon
> 350D to replace my Sony F828, which sounded like it was going to die
> soon.
>
> Mostly I get a new camera when a new one will blow away the one I
> have. But I may be in the market for a new one before too long, the
> 350D now has over 50,000 shutter clicks on it, I don't know how much
> longer it will last.
>
> Scott


Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most
of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his
landscapes. He was kind of a cheater with the 8x10 as he has a
modified station wagon, Cadillac I believe, that had a roof rack big
enough for him to photograph with an 8x10. Where Moon Rise was taken
from. In his later years he used a Hassleblad and was even shooting
color with it. In the mid '80s he predicted that digital photography
would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm,
in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

"tomm42" <tmonego RemoveThis @wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:4aab3334-36ad-4ba5-ae39-e888e21480ef@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 4:33 pm, Scott W <biph... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>
>
> Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most
> of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his
> landscapes. He was kind of a cheater with the 8x10 as he has a
> modified station wagon, Cadillac I believe, that had a roof rack big
> enough for him to photograph with an 8x10. Where Moon Rise was taken
> from. In his later years he used a Hassleblad and was even shooting
> color with it. In the mid '80s he predicted that digital photography
> would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm,
> in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big.
>
> Tom

He also did a fair amount of work with a 35mm in color. I thought it
was good, but I don't believe it ever got to the level of his primary works.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <nowhere.RemoveThis@noone.com> wrote:
>"tomm42" <tmonego.RemoveThis@wildblue.net>:
>> Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most
>> of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his
>> landscapes. He was kind of a cheater with the 8x10 as he has a
>> modified station wagon, Cadillac I believe, that had a roof rack big
>> enough for him to photograph with an 8x10. Where Moon Rise was taken
>> from. In his later years he used a Hassleblad and was even shooting
>> color with it. In the mid '80s he predicted that digital photography
>> would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm,
>> in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big.
>>
>And back then, when optical storage was just dreamed of, nobody knew with
>what we would be filling our GBs... Then, the best they expected, would be
>digitalized books, like all books from a university library on a cd-rom...
>Nobody expected, of course, the internet, the mobile phones, the digital
>video, the dvds, the modern computer games, digital photography... If you
>happen to have Reader's Digest magazines from the '80s, have a look at them,
>you'll see what they expected from 2001. It's quite funny.

Perhaps you are right in terms of what the average
person in the street dreamed of in the 1980's, but it is
entirely wrong to say tat "Nobody expected, of course,
the internet, the mobile phones, the digital video, the
dvds, the modern computer games, digital photography..."

The Internet already existed, as did mobile phones and
at least the concepts of digital video and digital
photography.

Modern computer games existed too! I recall in the
early 1980's a Data General maintenance tech (at a time
when I was using a very highly modified Kaypro portable
that everyone else went ga-ga over, and this guy had a
home computer that ran DG's AOS system!) describing a
version of the classic text base game "Adventure", which
was graphics base! And I was, as were the others who
heard this tale, in absolute awe of having a simple
desktop with that much compute power.

The only thing about your list that "nobody dreamed of"
that *I* personally wasn't dreaming of, is how damned
long it took to become ubiquitous! I was literally
expecting 10 years, but it took 20.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera? 

? "tomm42" <tmonego DeleteThis @wildblue.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4aab3334-36ad-4ba5-ae39-e888e21480ef@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 4:33 pm, Scott W <biph... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 8:42 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM... DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > It seems many people buy cameras for reasons unknown.
> >
> > > I hear things like:
> >
> > > * It is not sharp enough.
> > > * I does not have a large enough sensor
> > > * It has too much, too little contrast
> > > * It does not have good colors
> > > * The lens fells cheap
> > > * The camera feels cheap
> > > * The design is too old
> >
> > > I have known a few people who buy cameras strictly to impress
people.
> > > They seldom know how to use the camera. Other people seem to see the
tool
> > > as more important than the results.
> >
> > > Why does anyone worry about the quality of the camera, when the
only
> > > reason for a camera is to produce a result, the final image.
> >
> > > For every one person who asks "How can I make my images sharper?"
I see
> > > five who say, my camera is not sharp enough.
> >
> > > On another level I hear people suggest that all then need is a
better
> > > camera.
> >
> > > Sorry, but no one will become a better photographer by getting
"better"
> > > equipment. Frankly I have some equipment that is far better than many
well
> > > acclaimed photographers, but my results are not near there results. I
am
> > > sure A. Adams could have totally blown away anything I have done,
using some
> > > cheap "junk" available today or cheap equipment in his day.
> >
> > Adams used the largest camera he could carry. There are photographers
> > who really did not care that much about what gear they used, but Adams
> > was not one of them.
> >
> > The last new camera I bought was nearly two years ago, I got a Canon
> > 350D to replace my Sony F828, which sounded like it was going to die
> > soon.
> >
> > Mostly I get a new camera when a new one will blow away the one I
> > have. But I may be in the market for a new one before too long, the
> > 350D now has over 50,000 shutter clicks on it, I don't know how much
> > longer it will last.
> >
> > Scott
>
>
> Actually Adams used what he felt was the best camera for the job, most
> of his commercial work was done on 4x5, as were many of his
> landscapes. He was kind of a cheater with the 8x10 as he has a
> modified station wagon, Cadillac I believe, that had a roof rack big
> enough for him to photograph with an 8x10. Where Moon Rise was taken
> from. In his later years he used a Hassleblad and was even shooting
> color with it. In the mid '80s he predicted that digital photography
> would take over from film. That is when video resolution was the norm,
> in the day 40mb hard drives were considered big.
And back then, when optical storage was just dreamed of, nobody knew with
what we would be filling our GBs... Then, the best they expected, would be
digitalized books, like all books from a university library on a cd-rom...
Nobody expected, of course, the internet, the mobile phones, the digital
video, the dvds, the modern computer games, digital photography... If you
happen to have Reader's Digest magazines from the '80s, have a look at them,
you'll see what they expected from 2001. It's quite funny.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Why do you buy a camera?