Digital SLR - DPChallenge Forums

08/06/2003 05:08:40 PM · #26

really? you look at an image that's been resized for web and go "blah that looks like it was shot with a lowly 3 mpx camera?" lol. you can't even SEE 6 mpx all at once at 100%, except in print :-D .. not without scrolling around. Even on an apple cinema display.

it's not the # of pixels that makes a picture make you go 'wow' anyway, it's what it's OF. I think that's the point some are missing.

i see pics from all sorts of camera levels, including 'obsolete' D30's (3 mpx) that are flat-out amazing.

no argument that they'll get more pixels at better prices, but if a picture already blows you away in it's capture of details and color that approach reality, anything above that becomes diminishing returns. ESPECIALLY viewing at websize.

there are pictures that were taken 40 years ago with 'obsolete' film emulsions that still make people go 'wow'. cameras are not like computers where the software can't be run by the older models.

with today's technologies, you could, assuming your camera didnt wear out, take excellent pictures, that you could make posters out of, for years to come.

to the original poster: don't let people psych you into thinking your pics suddenly suck just because a new camera came out with more features for cheaper. an image is an image is an image.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..

Actually, I believe it does. Our perception of "wow" shifts to incorporate what we know is possible. In any technology area, as the performance benchmarks are set, people become used to them, and anything less is then... less. After seeing pix from the 1Ds, everything else is... less. Not BAD, just a bit below the high-water mark. The fact that we have surpassed 35mm film in performance (the previous mass-market camera benchmark) makes the advances in digital all the more amazing. But three years hence, 6Mpix will look to us a bit like 3 does today.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/06/2003 05:10:46 PM · #27

this makes the most sense. i think it's important to make that distinction - instead of mindlessly encouraging unnecessary upgrade-itis, and obsolesco-phobia

Originally posted by Refracted:

and kollin, no one ever said that.. but the camera ITSELF will be outdated (compared to the technology that will be out at that time).. not the pictures it takes :)

mjcecil

Nikon D100

08/06/2003 05:11:45 PM · #28

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..

Not what I said. Cameras get obsoleted, not photos. Given a digital camera from today, say, and one from two years from now, and I can say that the quality of the photo produced by the later model under the same circumstances should be better. This is strictly a technical quality issue, not an artistic value issue. A camera with better features enables me to take better technical photos, and sometimes even to take photos that were technically impossible before.

The *photograph* is in the vision, composition and execution, not in the electronics of the device. This is a very important distinction to make. Once an image is rendered, it is either compelling or not, and that won't change over time (if the photograph is a good one). An example of this is my friend Cecil Rimes, whose most popular and acclaimed work is done with a simple pinhole camera. Sure, the F5 can take photos faster, or can use a wide array of new films, or can be coupled to a pro speedlight setup, and thus renders the pinhole camera "obsolete." But the photos themselves are timeless, independent of the state of obsolescence of their capturing mechanism.

08/06/2003 05:21:10 PM · #29

exactly -

this was my original point when i asked gordon to clarify what he meant by obsolete

and mj i dont think i was so much directing what i was saying at your response, but thanks for the discussion. a lively discussion is always enjoyable :)

Originally posted by mjcecil:

But the photos themselves are timeless, independent of the state of obsolescence of their capturing mechanism.

08/06/2003 05:35:30 PM · #30

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

I can look at an image that's been resized for the web and say 'that was shot with cheap optics using a crappy sensor and badly post processed' though.

There is a whole lot of difference in the picture quality - number of pixels is a very small part of the equation, that unfortunately apply too much significance to.

08/06/2003 05:44:16 PM · #31

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

this makes the most sense. i think it's important to make that distinction - instead of mindlessly encouraging unnecessary upgrade-itis, and obsolesco-phobia

Was anyone doing that ? The original question was what DSLRs are good and affordable.

I stand by the answer that they are all pretty good, none of them are what could be sanely considered affordable and they will all be replaced by cheaper versions with a much improved image quality in a few years time.

Nobody said you have to buy the new ones when they come out. But the current DSLR market place is much like the PC market place was 10 years ago. Rapidly innovating and tumbling prices. The film camera market has reached a much more stable state.

08/06/2003 05:46:47 PM · #32

see, with all due respect, i dont believe that you can - i think that image quality at websize with the current crop of cameras that cost $>400, esp when shot within their comfort zone is so good as to be practically indistinguishable from DSLR output.

not to beat a dead horse, but with a DSLR you're not really paying so much increased quality as you are for speed, responsivness, optical flexibility, enhanced iso range, etc.

anyway, my point was pretty specific - that a D30 image doesn't suddenly suck because it's *only* 3 mpx.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
really? you look at an image that's been resized for web and go "blah that looks like it was shot with a lowly 3 mpx camera?" lol. you can't even SEE 6 mpx all at once at 100%, except in print :-D .. not without scrolling around. Even on an apple cinema display.

I can look at an image that's been resized for the web and say 'that was shot with cheap optics using a crappy sensor and badly post processed' though.

There is a whole lot of difference in the picture quality - number of pixels is a very small part of the equation, that unfortunately apply too much significance to.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 17:47:06.

08/06/2003 05:48:58 PM · #33

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

see, with all due respect, i dont believe that you can - i think that image quality at websize with the current crop of cameras that cost $>400, esp when shot within their comfort zone is so good as to be practically indistinguishable from DSLR output.

anyway, my point was pretty specific - that a D30 image doesn't suddenly suck because it's *only* 3 mpx.

Actually, this seems to be your new, very qualified point. it was shot with a lowly 3 mpx camera? doesn't exactly sound like you mean a >$400 current camera or a couple of year old $3000+ D30. I can look at a shot I took side by side with my 5+ year old HP C20 (1Mp camera) my 2 year old Canon G2 (4Mp) and my D60 (6Mp) and resize them all down to 640x480 and its pretty damn obvious which was shot with which.

Digital cameras are improving by leaps and bounds, extremely quickly. There is nothing obvious to say we've reached a point in that evolution that says image quality isn't going to improve a large amount in the next few years either.

Megapixel count is almost meaningless in evaluating the image quality.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 17:53:08.

08/06/2003 05:54:39 PM · #34

no. kirbic said "But three years hence, 6Mpix will look to us a bit like 3 does today." that says to me 'oh a 3mpx d30 or s1 "looks bad" now? that's patently ridiculous.

the part about the >$400 cams was separate and in response to your 'i can tell the difference between etc etc' statement. i guess when you wrote that you meant REALLY crappy imaging systems, not just consumer level.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
see, with all due respect, i dont believe that you can - i think that image quality at websize with the current crop of cameras that cost $>400, esp when shot within their comfort zone is so good as to be practically indistinguishable from DSLR output.

anyway, my point was pretty specific - that a D30 image doesn't suddenly suck because it's *only* 3 mpx.

Actually, this seems to be your new, very qualified point. it was shot with a lowly 3 mpx camera? doesn't exactly sound like you mean a >$400 current camera or a couple of year old $3000+ D30. I can look at a shot I took side by side with my 5+ year old HP C20 (1Mp camera) my 2 year old Canon G2 (4Mp) and my D60 (6Mp) and resize them all down to 640x480 and its pretty damn obvious which was shot with which.

Digital cameras are improving by leaps and bounds, extremely quickly. There is nothing obvious to say we've reached a point in that evolution that says image quality isn't going to improve a large amount in the next few years either.

Megapixel count is almost meaningless in evaluating the image quality.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 18:03:24.

08/06/2003 05:56:55 PM · #35

that's right. that was my point earlier, and you and I as well have agreed about this in other conversations - such as the one where we talked about how people are going to think the new D2H isn't 'good' because it's 'only' 4 mpx.

however, another poster earlier in this thread said "But three years hence, 6Mpix will look to us a bit like 3 does today." And also made some comparisons about the 1Ds to the current 6mpx.

But number of pixels don't mean better pictures.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Megapixel count is almost meaningless in evaluating the image quality.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 17:58:25.

08/06/2003 06:06:50 PM · #36

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

Yup - most people don't even need a 3Mp camera, unless you want to do prints bigger than 8x10. But bigger is always better in some people's minds.

There is a market for high resolution cameras, but it isn't the prosumer market place, or the sports market either for that matter.

But there is also a reason that many professional wedding photographers don't use 35mm because the quality isn't good enough and the difference is obvious in the prints.

However, a 4Mp shot today will look a whole lot worse than the same shot, taken with a 4Mp camera (that costs less) in 5 years time, because a lot of the other drawbacks with the cameras will have been improved upon.

The current cameras will still take the same quality pictures, but they (the cameras) will be obsolete.

In much the same way that early auto focus and auto exposure cameras are obsolete compared to newer cameras with more advanced metering systems, that can handle more complex lighting situations, with matrix modes or can focus much faster with higher performance focus motors. I don't quite understand why the thought of that tweaks your buttons so much in this thread - it seems pretty self evident that it is going to happen.

08/06/2003 06:11:54 PM · #37

i just think its silly to characterise something that still works perfectly fine in it's ultimate capacity as an imaging device as 'obsolete'.

To me, obsolete connotes that it can't do the job anymore.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
that's right. that was my point earlier, and you and I as well have agreed about this in other conversations - such as the one where we talked about how people are going to think the new D2H isn't 'good' because it's 'only' 4 mpx.

Yup - most people don't even need a 3Mp camera, unless you want to do prints bigger than 8x10. But bigger is always better in some people's minds.

There is a market for high resolution cameras, but it isn't the prosumer market place, or the sports market either for that matter.

But there is also a reason that many professional wedding photographers don't use 35mm because the quality isn't good enough and the difference is obvious in the prints.

However, a 4Mp shot today will look a whole lot worse than the same shot, taken with a 4Mp camera (that costs less) in 5 years time, because a lot of the other drawbacks with the cameras will have been improved upon.

The current cameras will still take the same quality pictures, but they (the cameras) will be obsolete.

In much the same way that early auto focus and auto exposure cameras are obsolete compared to newer cameras with more advanced metering systems, that can handle more complex lighting situations, with matrix modes or can focus much faster with higher performance focus motors. I don't quite understand why the thought of that tweaks your buttons so much in this thread - it seems pretty self evident that it is going to happen.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/06/2003 06:16:55 PM · #38

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

It might be silly to you, but it is correct English.
Obsolete in one sense means 'can't do the job' but also means 'an out of date design'. In the second sense it is perfectly true to say that in a couple of years all of the current DSLRs will be obsolete. There will be newer, better designed versions, with more features, that perform better and are cheaper.

I feel sorry for anyone who buys a DSLR just now and considered it a good long term investment (I've seen people under this delusion in other web forums) It isn't a Leica. It isn't going to have much resale value in 5 years.

My first digital camera currently has an ebay resale value of $10.
My second digital camera sells on ebay for about a quarter of what I paid for it.
My third digital camera I can't even buy any more, because I can now buy a newer, better featured version for $700 less. In the actual meaning of the word, it is obsolete. It still works. It still takes great pictures. It is still obsolete.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 18:19:41.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/06/2003 06:23:01 PM · #39

Sheesh, what did I start? Perhaps using # of pixels was unfortunate, there are so many other considerations, and DSLRs as well as consumer level cameras are improving in many respects. I agree with Gordon that you in many cases CAN tell the difference, and image quality (all aspects) will continue to improve.
No, rcamera will not strictly be obsolete, as it will still take useful and possibly striking images, just that a leading-edge camera will do more, in more challenging situtations, with less struggle to achieve a desired effect.
Maybe it is crazy to be upgrading every 3-4 years, but we all still do so regularly. It's not a case of need, its a case of want.

08/06/2003 06:23:03 PM · #40

i would buy a dslr now (and did), not as a financial investment but as a tool to create the best images i can, starting today and hopefully for some time to come :) ..

waiting for theoretically perfect dslr's of the future would preclude me from the enjoyment of creating images NOW.

i would hope that the poster asking the original question would not be scared to buy one thinking that they should wait for 'better and cheaper' down the road.

In fact, one of the best buys right now in DSLR's is the D30, an excellent 'obsolete' camera ;) .. you can pic one up for $700 and the cameras that have 'replaced' it still don't match it's gorgeous color rendition.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i just think its silly to characterise something that still works perfectly fine in it's ultimate capacity as an imaging device as 'obsolete'.

To me, obsolete connotes that it can't do the job anymore.

It might be silly to you, but it is correct English.
Obsolete in one sense means 'can't do the job' but also means 'an out of date design'. In the second sense it is perfectly true to say that in a couple of years all of the current DSLRs will be obsolete. There will be newer, better designed versions, with more features, that perform better and are cheaper.

I feel sorry for anyone who buys a DSLR just now and considered it a good long term investment (I've seen people under this delusion in other web forums) It isn't a Leica. It isn't going to have much resale value in 5 years.

08/06/2003 06:24:13 PM · #41

i'm sorry that my willingness to have a conversation about this is so distressing to some ;)

i thought that's what forums were for. . . .

08/06/2003 06:25:38 PM · #42

this i agree with. this sounds different from the statements you made before, but if this is what you meant, then I wholehearedly agree :) .

Originally posted by kirbic:

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/06/2003 06:31:09 PM · #43

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

You don't need to put the quotes around it, it is obsolete :) I bought my D60 secure in the knowledge that something better would come along any minute. (the 10D was announced about 3 days later and appeared about 7 months later) I took some images I'm extremely happy with that I wouldn't have it I had waited for a 10D. I don't see anything that makes me think that this will not happen for at least the next 5-10 years until it reaches a more mature technology point. There will then still be innovation, just not at the ridiculously fast pace that it is happening just now.

The consumer space is starting to hit that slow down point in terms of MP, but there is a huge amount of immprovement needed to reach the quality of a $10 disposable film camera in terms of responsiveness.

Also, neither the D60 or the 10D could be in any way considered 'affordable' which is what the original poster asked about. (although yet again, affordable is a relative term) If someone is asking about which DSLR is affordable, I get the impression that they are cost sensitive though and no current DSLR fits that profile...

Morgan

Nikon D800

08/06/2003 06:52:21 PM · #44

Obsolescence is not really a point of technology as much as it is a point of marketing.

My old 1969 Nikon F is in many ways superior to my 2002 Nikon F100 or 1999 Nikon F5s. For one, the all glass lenses on the older cameras are much sharper than some of the plastic optics offered for sale today. Of course, the newer cameras do have many other amazing advantages, such as auto-focus, which is why they are so popular. Demographics suggest that our ever aging population needs these aids due to worsening eyesight, shaky hands and lack of interest in working a camera.

I find the idea that a 4 megapixel camera of a few years ago will be considered less desirable than a 4 megapixel camera of today a bit difficult to swallow.

Today's enhancements may include extreme onboard image processing and other high power DSP driven stuff in order to enhance the image, but is that stuff really desirable? I am not too sure. Especially, when it is just as easy to post-manipulate the image in a PC with software like Photoshop. There is more control outside of the camera.

It is a bit like computers I suppose and Moore's law (Andy Moore of Intel fame). But, all of that is still heavily laden with marketing hype built upon "gotta have it" and "need it" demand from the consumer. Bigger, better, faster, etc., that sort of thing.

Placing the emphasis on the photographic artwork is really a far better approach to the subject. I learned this first hand a long time ago.

Years ago, I took a drive through the Canadian Rocky Mountains, stopping many times to take photographs. It so happens that a good friend of my who is a well-known R & R musician was touring with his band in the same area, at the same time.

When we met up back in Toronto, we showed each other our pictures. Many images were of the same subjects, but his were outstanding and mine were, how shall we say it, less outstanding.

I had over $40,000 worth of Nikon gear and he had an old Kodak 110 pocket Instamatic that I gave to him when I discarded it as it was of little value to me due to its "obsolescence". I learned that my mindset is that of a technician and a technolgists, and my musician friend, Rod, is a real artist, in every sense of the word, that was the difference. Not the equipment.

So, the bottom line, it is not the tools, gentlemen, it is the creativity and the abilities to "see" that make the photographer. Patience, experience, practice, and a solid understanding of light make for a great photographer, not megapixels.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 18:55:49.

08/06/2003 07:26:46 PM · #45

Originally posted by Morgan:

I find the idea that a 4 megapixel camera of a few years ago will be considered less desirable than a 4 megapixel camera of today a bit difficult to swallow.

Why ? The sensors are vastly improved.

Noise immunity is better.

Access time is improved, decreasing shutter lag and inter shot delay.

Most technology progress can be charted as a steep slope, followed by a shallower slope. At the start rapid progress is made, until the product becomes 'good enough' and then things settle down a bit. DSLR technology hasn't quite reached 'good enough' and certainly wasn't several years ago.

what we have in SLR these days has almost (but not quite yet) reached the level that 35mm film cameras have been at for years. At a much inflated price point.

Of course it is going to get cheaper and better - I'm perplexed why people even seem to question that.

And I'm not saying you can't take a good picture with the current DSLRs.

Nor am I saying you can't take a good picture with a shoebox, a small hole and some light sensitive paper. But the topic is Digital SLRs and the current technology is still very immature compared to the potential it has.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 19:28:37.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/06/2003 09:13:50 PM · #46

morgan hit the nail on the head when he alluding to obsolescence being an excellent tool of the marketing people. obviously, the more they can encourage the idea that your output isnt good enough, and you need later, greater, newer, just to be good enough, the more units they'll sell.

Well, I say, that if it still works and it does a good job, it ain't obsolete. it's just that simple.

Main Entry: 1obÂ·soÂ·lete
Pronunciation: "Ã¤b-s&-'lEt, 'Ã¤b-s&-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus
no longer in use or no longer useful (my bolding..)

Considering that the D30 obviously still works (given that it takes better pictures than most of the stuff being sold), it definitely isn't obsolete :) ..

Considering that the D1, D1H, and D1X are still in use all over the world, irrespective of their pixel output, they are not obsolete.

The eyeglasses, a medieval technology, still in use, not obsolete.

Contrast: Model-T. Can't go fast enough. Doesn't use the correct fuel. Doesn't comply with safety standards. Not in use. Obsolete.

BTW, the person looking for affordable DSLR: I'd wholeheartedly recommend the D30. GREAT camera, very low price now.

Message edited by author 2003-08-06 21:14:08.

Morgan

Nikon D800

08/07/2003 06:28:15 AM · #47

Gordon,

You answer like the true engineer. All of your points are valid. Others may include lower thermal noise, lower power consumption, higher pixel count, better colourimetry, greater dynamic range, faster inline transfer rates, etc, etc.

But, does the advance of technology make something obsolete if it still functions well and still exceeds the expectations of the user and the needs for the application? I do not think so.

Michael

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/07/2003 09:34:47 AM · #48

okay enough already - I've already said which meaning of obsolete I was using, and several people have stated which version they were using.

It means too slightly different things :

1/ no longer useful
2/ replaced by a new and improved design

I'm using it in the second sense, from a design and engineering background.

At least Mag and Morgan are using it from the first sense.
Over and over again I've said that the older DSLRs still work, still take great pictures - there is no argument for all the repeated posts. However, they are also made obsolete in the second meaning of the word, which is the meaning I use day to day, when producing new products that make older ones obsolete.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/07/2003 11:37:04 PM · #49

Man, how come Gordon and magnetic9999 end up becoming such measurabators? :)