What is an old camera?

[blockend]

Looking at YouTube comments regarding digital cameras, you often see opinions like "Dude, it's a 2012 camera!" used as a pejorative. It's as though a five year old camera is an antique. In fact even cameras of the previous iteration are talked about as technologically irrelevant and creatively useless, with each successive model attracting the same superlatives.

A moment's appraisal of the photographs taken at an Olympic games, for example, shows digital cameras of that era, 6, 10, 12 mp or whatever the professional standard of the time was, captured images that still stand up to scrutiny. So if the quality of the photograph isn't behind the desire for the latest thing, what is?

Is it the belief that new models contain creative possibilities commensurate with the price asked for them? Is it insecurity and fear of being left behind? The successful professional I first began assisting back in the 1970s used Nikons, Bronicas and Hasselblads, which must have been ten years old at the time, a situation that would be unthinkable today. In fact the opposite was the case, and professionals hung onto their trusted favourites long after new models emerged, and sometimes their successor too.

Is the drive for the latest equipment an amateur phenomenon, from people who'll never test a camera's potential for the duration of their ownership, except as test shots? Has photography become simply another means of displaying spending power and one-upmanship? Has the screen moved the goal posts, and made the aesthetic quality of a whole image less important than the technical quality of its parts? Are we in fact moving to a post-picture era, and into an image sampling one?

 

[Rick A]

 

[jim10219]

Here's how the internet works. People post things, and some people start to stand out as seemingly more important than others. A virtual hierarchy ensues. This makes some people jealous and they want to be internet famous too. Then, when they sleep at night, they have dreams of making money of being famous on the internet. When they wake, they realize they're neither famous nor rich, so they call their doctor to get a prescription to numb them to the pain of being normal. The drugs and sleep imbalance combine to give people the idea that they need to do anything and everything to get famous and make money off of being famous on the internet. So they ostracize their family and friends, and create a virtual family and friends on the internet, through forums and social media, to replace them, because they're a lot less hassle and responsibility. This gives them more time to pursue their goal of being internet famous and rich.

Years of buying and trading likes has made their lives less fulfilling than the real life they gave up to pursue their internet dreams. The bar for success is lowered dramatically, as they become desperate for anything to label as progress. Then one day, a manufacturer takes notice of this person's struggle to become internet famous and how they've risen slightly above the others by spending their entire lives on the internet posting to various websites and establishing a medium number of followers on their YouTube/Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/whatever page. Said manufacturer then gives them a product to keep, with the suggestion that they will review their product on the internet. Our internet famous dreamer is now left with a dilemma. Either they give and honest review, and remain faithful to their followers, or give a glowing review of said product. Those who give an honest review, stagnate. Those who give a glowing review of the new product are noticed by other manufacturers, who also give this person their own products to review. With each new product, our internet dreamer is growing their number of followers on YouTube/Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/whatever, attracting the attention of more manufacturers, and making people on forums jealous. People will Google search reviews, so giving lots of reviews is a great way to increase the number of people who find and subsequently follow you. This in turn, increases the number of products the will review. It's a positive feedback loop. They enter into an unwritten, unspoken agreement with the manufacturing community that they will trade good exposure for good exposure. And since our dreamer is becoming famous, but not rich, he's forced to sell this gear that is given to him, in order to pay his rent and utility bills. This becomes their source of income, along with a paltry sum from advertisers that they share with YouTube/Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/whatever. So in order to make a living, he needs as much free gear to review as possible, which means he needs to give as many glowing reviews as he can.

So that's why every review on the internet talks about how every new piece of gear is a "game changer", and all previous gear is obsolete and useless. I'm quite familiar with this, having been chosen to review quite a few things on music recording forums in the past, and my fiancé has been chosen to represent and review a lot of stuff in the cosplay community. The reviewers can claim to be unbiased, because they're not getting paid by the manufacturers, and they'll review anyone that sends them stuff. But there's an unwritten rule that if you give bad reviews, you won't get stuff to review.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even before the digital revolution camera manufactures would bring out new models annually if not more often to encourage sales. As though how could you take photographs will you did not have all the latest features which you would not use anyway? Some of the new enthusiasts could not understand why others would not throw away their cameras and buy the latest model. Heck, there are people who think like that about cars and cell phone. That is just human behavior.

 

[blockend]

Does posting this thread in the philosophy forum meet your disapproval, or do you to simply like spreading internet memes?

 

[DWThomas]

My take is that in capitalist societies we are programmed from the time we pop out of the womb (maybe even before!) to want stuff. Perhaps to the detriment of our society, that appears to be quite successful.

Bucking that notion, my most capable digital camera is a circa 2007 Canon EOS 40D, 10 Mp. I just used it last week to photograph the winning artwork in a local show put on by a club I belong to. I shoot pretty much the entire framed artwork, crop it down to just the image, then downsize that to 400 pixels long dimension so we can throw it out on the web but hopefully not see the stuff showing up on greeting cards. Do I need a new DSLR? Nay, think not. I have a much newer Canon G15 high end P&S I use when traveling -- that and my Yashica 124G!!! (And maybe a folder ...)

I'm into that old bit attributed to New England --
"Use it up
Wear it out
Make it do
Or do without"

Guess I'm not too popular in retail circles ...

 

[blockend]

Even before the digital revolution camera manufactures would bring out new models annually if not more often to encourage sales. As though how could you take photographs will you did not have all the latest features which you would not use anyway? Some of the new enthusiasts could not understand why others would not throw away their cameras and buy the latest model. Heck, there are people who think like that about cars and cell phone. That is just human behavior.

I don't recall that being the case. For example Nikon's professional SLR timeline went, 1959, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2004. That means the company brought out a new pro model every 8 years, with the original F lasting 13 years. Some models continued to be manufactured after its successor had gone into production.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't recall that being the case. For example Nikon's professional SLR timeline went, 1959, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2004. That means the company brought out a new pro model every 8 years, with the original F lasting 13 years. Some models continued to be manufactured after its successor had gone into production.

Minolta came out with new cameras almost annually from the 1970's on. I quickly learned that if I bought a camera a new model would appear in a few months. I learned that once I bought a camera not to look at cameras again until I needed to replace it.

 

[blockend]

Here's how the internet works

The internet has added an extra element of virtual consumption. So bored people claim they're going to pre-order the latest model, knowing they have no intention of doing so, leaving the insecure to believe they must have the newest thing. It seems like a few people with lots of followers are given freebies to promote, influencing a small but globally significant number of people into buying any camera or lens with sufficient hyperbole behind it. Behind those consumers are ones who'll purchase the latest iteration from the manufacturer they're most financially invested in, followed by the majority who buy when something breaks. Around the food frenzy swim the bottom feeders, picking up the leftovers of the compulsive buyers.

Where photography sits in this festival of technological consumption, I have no idea.

 

[skorpiius]

I don't recall that being the case. For example Nikon's professional SLR timeline went, 1959, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2004. That means the company brought out a new pro model every 8 years, with the original F lasting 13 years. Some models continued to be manufactured after its successor had gone into production.

I think the digital realm has perhaps reached this point now, I find that at this point there is no need to upgrade DSLRs (or perhaps any digital camera) sooner than every 5 or 10 years. One interesting side affect of this, is if the image quality of a 5 or 10 year old digital camera doesn't come across as 'crippling', will this generation of digicams start to develop into sought after vintage as some point. There were definitely interesting digital cameras from the early 2000s which I pondered getting in the past few years, but the key that stopped me was they were of course only ~2 mp. I don't think that in 10 years I would have the same misgivings about a 2017 digicam.

Also, re: the original posting. Some people measure their (and therefore others) worth based on upon what they have purchased. Simple as that.

 

[blockend]

I think the digital realm has perhaps reached this point now, I find that at this point there is no need to upgrade DSLRs (or perhaps any digital camera) sooner than every 5 or 10 years

Interestingly the very top pro models (EOS 1D, Nikon D5) have a longer shelf life than their semi-pro brethren. Their specifications are off the pace compared to the technological churn of the less expensive cameras, but they still sell to people who demand absolute reliability above everything. This is a return to film days where cheaper cameras sported facilities professional cameras only adopted later, if at all. I assume there are still plenty of 16mp Nikon D4s in use, even though the market perceives 40mp to 50mp+ as the new norm.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm using a DSLR for 2012-13. It is starting to show it's age. Film cameras are a mature technology. Compare an SLR from the early 50's to one from the 80's and the newer ones do feel more mature. DSLRs are reaching a maturity. Pick up a DSLR from 10 years ago and one from today and the new ones are more responsive and less prone to technological glitches.

That being said, my 5 year old camera does not lack in image quality at low and mid ISO. It does the job and does it fine but I'm under no illusions that it's a perfect camera.

 

[removed account4]

never test a camera's potential for the duration of their ownership, except as test shots?

its always been like that, electronic cameras have nothing to do with it
but unfortunately it becomes the center of attention on a film based website.
its been like that since 1839 with photography and pretty much since societies
were plunked down in the fertile crescent and other places...
they used to call it "keeping up with the joneses"
" did you hear jim and mabel got a new tele-vision"
"did you see jane got a new convertible pierce arrow"
"did you see the living room console melvin and june have"
"look at that buggy whip, that's something else"
"look at socrates plough,,"
"able, i want that coat"

 

[Michael Firstlight]

LOL, if it is a digital camera, its the one that was announced yesterday.

MFL

 

[jim10219]

The internet has added an extra element of virtual consumption. So bored people claim they're going to pre-order the latest model, knowing they have no intention of doing so, leaving the insecure to believe they must have the newest thing. It seems like a few people with lots of followers are given freebies to promote, influencing a small but globally significant number of people into buying any camera or lens with sufficient hyperbole behind it. Behind those consumers are ones who'll purchase the latest iteration from the manufacturer they're most financially invested in, followed by the majority who buy when something breaks. Around the food frenzy swim the bottom feeders, picking up the leftovers of the compulsive buyers.

Where photography sits in this festival of technological consumption, I have no idea.

Exactly! It like I always say, "The internet isn't real"! There are fake websites with hidden, sinister motives. Fake accounts with fake people. Sometimes the fake people are "fake" in the way a used car salesmen or a celebrity might be. Sometimes they're actually fake like a computer algorithm. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. To this day, I refuse to believe that anyone actually enjoyed playing the game "Flappy Bird".

I think photography is just like everything else. There are genuine people, virtual people, sinister people, and all different kinds of people who occasionally come together because of shared interest.

My only point was, don't believe everything you read. Don't even believe it if they have pics and video and statistics from other websites to back it up.

 

[MattKing]

"Dude, it's a 2012 camera!"

My general rule of thumb is that if I see an exclamation that begins with "Dude", I look carefully at the source.
Other than that, I think a 2012 camera is old in some ways, and timeless in others.
If you are looking for certain things, things have advanced since 2012.
I make prints, and some of them are larger, so some of the 2012 pixel numbers are a bit of a limit.
But I do believe my old 12 MP digital camera does what I need it to do, because I use film to make the larger prints.
I do, however, definitely remember the days when camera manufacturers introduced new film cameras frequently. Those new offerings were mostly not the professional versions though. Professional grade cameras stayed relatively stable for several years, on average.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For young people, I think the relatively fast product cycles of cameras, phones, and games, feeds their curiosity and interest.

For sites like dpreview and K** R*******, they depend on hyping the latest stuff.

However, digital cameras have become good enough that the cycle has slowed. Mirrorless full-frame will start new product cycles again.

I'm content with my 2008 Nikon D700 and 2013 Fuji X-Pro1. Will probably never buy another digital camera.

For film cameras, I am fully concentrating on using my all-mechanical cameras from the 1950's.

To answer the question of this thread, for me an "old camera" is one that was designed to accept only coated plates or glass, not film.

 

[blockend]

To answer the question of this thread, for me an "old camera" is one that was designed to accept only coated plates or glass, not film.

Glass plates were made until quite recently, mostly for the astronomy market. According to Wiki they're still made in Eastern Europe (Foma?).

 

[BrianVS]

These days- one that is out of production, only available as "New Old Stock".

Different from Antique.

"Too Old"- more to the point for this forum. My definition- one that cannot be used for its intended function, either unrepairable for lack of parts or lack of skilled repair specialists..