Julie Edwards Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development. Given the tolerances involved I would guess thats unlikely in 35mm format ... although it already is possible at medium format (leaf do interchangeable backs which you can replace as technology improves)... The fact we are now talking mirror less / small sensor cameras is only brought about by this continual improvement.... there are benefits.. and as the lens mounts don't change there is no need to you to keep updating so unless you have absolutely no self control I don't see what the issue is with the continuing updating and new releases.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I have had a few changes of camera equipment over the last six years or so ending up with the X-T1s and lenses along with the RX100. That's it for me now as I have decided to stick, no more updates, even if the X-T2 comes out with higher pixel count and much better noise control etc etc etc. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating? What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ... In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out... I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? Nobody seems to have mentioned the cost of film. Even say a mere 1 roll of slide film a week, that would have been around £500 a year including development and mounting. And most semi-pros or serious amateurs would shoot a lot more than that. That would be equivalent to updating a semi-pro camera body every 3-4 years at the moment. And there are massive improvements in the Nikon second string from D700 to D800(E) which makes the upgrades almost essential for future proofing. Not so sure about the D810 though - I'm exercising self-control on this and sticking with the 800. The really important point to me is that image quality improves with each iteration. The quality of what I am shooting now with my D800E is far better than what I shot with the D700 and massively better than what I shot with my Canon20D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted September 14, 2014 Author Share Posted September 14, 2014 I started on the digital route with the Canon D30 (3Mpx) and initially went with each new generation as the gains were huge (and I had the income to do so). Now I am thinking in terms of adopting every other generation - a change about every 5-6 years. So my next (last?) dslr will probably be either the 1Dx replacement when it comes or maybe the iminent new 7D2 - not FF but the new technology and more suitable for sport than the old one; most important is it will be lighter and probably cheaper than the current 1Dx (or my old 1Ds3). Having a Fuji systems makes the decision slightly more complex but I have the Canon lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 The D800 is good but you have to have the lenses or it just won't resolve correctly. Went out with it yesterday, basically shooting street market stuff. As a street camera with say, a 24-70 2.8 on board, it's very good. But you can do the same thing and get good results with many different formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating? What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ... In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out... I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? Yup, when we buy a new camera these days, we're really just buying a new sensor -- with more megapixels, supposedly less noise, etc. -- in a differently shaped/sized box. The camera manufactures depend on us feeling insecure about falling behind in the race to technical nirvana because they have to keep pumping out new "improved" models in order to make a profit. It's not like film days when they could keep selling what were basically the same cameras, with a few minor changes, year after year. I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development. I'd drink to that but doubt that it will ever happen. There is also the question of lenses. They also have to be continuously upgraded. It's great to have ever more megapixels, but you have to have the lenses to match. Personally, I can't afford to keep buying expensive lenses. Consequently, I stick with lower megapixel cameras, so that I can make best use of the lenses I already own. I don't see much point in using lenses designed for a 14 MP with a 24+ MP sensor. Best to stay with the lower resolution camera IMO. Huge files aren't really necessary for most editorial usages anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhandol Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating? What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ... In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out... I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? Yup, when we buy a new camera these days, we're really just buying a new sensor -- with more megapixels, supposedly less noise, etc. -- in a differently shaped/sized box. The camera manufactures depend on us feeling insecure about falling behind in the race to technical nirvana because they have to keep pumping out new "improved" models in order to make a profit. It's not like film days when they could keep selling what were basically the same cameras, with a few minor changes, year after year. I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development. I'd drink to that but doubt that it will ever happen. There is also the question of lenses. They also have to be continuously upgraded. It's great to have ever more megapixels, but you have to have the lenses to match. Personally, I can't afford to keep buying expensive lenses. Consequently, I stick with lower megapixel cameras, so that I can make best use of the lenses I already own. I don't see much point in using lenses designed for a 14 MP with a 24+ MP sensor. Best to stay with the lower resolution camera IMO. Huge files aren't really necessary for most editorial usages anyway. Wasn't Ricoh heading in that direction with their GXR camera that used interchangable lens sensor modules. It seems logical to me that someone will one day manufacture cameras that can utilise slot in sensor/processor units since there is a demand for them. http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/ricohpentax-camera-reviews/ricoh-gxr-review/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhandol Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 in the meantime, ye old D2x still rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development. I'd drink to that but doubt that it will ever happen. There is also the question of lenses. They also have to be continuously upgraded. It's great to have ever more megapixels, but you have to have the lenses to match. Personally, I can't afford to keep buying expensive lenses. Consequently, I stick with lower megapixel cameras, so that I can make best use of the lenses I already own. I don't see much point in using lenses designed for a 14 MP with a 24+ MP sensor. Best to stay with the lower resolution camera IMO. Huge files aren't really necessary for most editorial usages anyway. Not sure that lenses are such a problem John, my best lens by far is an aged Olympus 50mm f1,8 manual focus job, comfortably out-resolving my two new(ish) Sony zooms. There are pros and cons relating to megapixel mania. It's very handy to be able to crop savagely on occasion, and, having got used to a 20 MP sensor on the Canon 5DII, I miss the extra few dots on the NEX. On the other hand the files are smaller taking up less storage space, while I wouldn't want to trade general usability (dynamic range/low light performance) for extra pixels. Folk have been warning for years that the Physics of light mean an effective limit to the number of pixels that you can have, but advancing technology continues to prove them wrong. There must be a limit, somewhere....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development. I'd drink to that but doubt that it will ever happen. There is also the question of lenses. They also have to be continuously upgraded. It's great to have ever more megapixels, but you have to have the lenses to match. Personally, I can't afford to keep buying expensive lenses. Consequently, I stick with lower megapixel cameras, so that I can make best use of the lenses I already own. I don't see much point in using lenses designed for a 14 MP with a 24+ MP sensor. Best to stay with the lower resolution camera IMO. Huge files aren't really necessary for most editorial usages anyway. Not sure that lenses are such a problem John, my best lens by far is an aged Olympus 50mm f1,8 manual focus job, comfortably out-resolving my two new(ish) Sony zooms. There are pros and cons relating to megapixel mania. It's very handy to be able to crop savagely on occasion, and, having got used to a 20 MP sensor on the Canon 5DII, I miss the extra few dots on the NEX. On the other hand the files are smaller taking up less storage space, while I wouldn't want to trade general usability (dynamic range/low light performance) for extra pixels. Folk have been warning for years that the Physics of light mean an effective limit to the number of pixels that you can have, but advancing technology continues to prove them wrong. There must be a limit, somewhere....... I was thinking mainly of current AF lenses, especially the less expensive variety that are within my budget (come to think of it, I don't even have a budget). You seem to have solved the lens upgrading issue by bringing back the past. Probably a wise move. Technical progress can be a double-edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allison J Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 Them's fightin' words, Geoff. Bookends, humph! You are a brave man Geoff, Mr Fuji and his faithful followers here will not be pleased, i can think of a few cameras that would make excellent book ends and boat anchors. I sometimes have a day out with my Sony RX100, however like Martin P Wilson, i love my DSLR's, fast and accurate in most cases getting what i want, yep! i enjoy working with the DSLR system. 3 DSLR bodies, 16mm to 600mm L lenses, hard to beat! Paul. I was in danger of becoming a Fuji fan boy until I got my DSLR out at the weekend and realised I get in the zone when shooting sport - it is as close to a passion as I get. So I can't get rid of the dslr for a year or two yet. I couldn't agree more. it's "horses for courses". Fuji autofocus is not up to DSLR standards yet. I have found the Fuji 55-200 very slow but pin sharp if and when it finds focus. I'm probably going to sell it and perhaps look at the XF-50-140 f/2.8 when it appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted September 15, 2014 Author Share Posted September 15, 2014 Them's fightin' words, Geoff. Bookends, humph! You are a brave man Geoff, Mr Fuji and his faithful followers here will not be pleased, i can think of a few cameras that would make excellent book ends and boat anchors. I sometimes have a day out with my Sony RX100, however like Martin P Wilson, i love my DSLR's, fast and accurate in most cases getting what i want, yep! i enjoy working with the DSLR system. 3 DSLR bodies, 16mm to 600mm L lenses, hard to beat! Paul. I was in danger of becoming a Fuji fan boy until I got my DSLR out at the weekend and realised I get in the zone when shooting sport - it is as close to a passion as I get. So I can't get rid of the dslr for a year or two yet. I couldn't agree more. it's "horses for courses". Fuji autofocus is not up to DSLR standards yet. I have found the Fuji 55-200 very slow but pin sharp if and when it finds focus. I'm probably going to sell it and perhaps look at the XF-50-140 f/2.8 when it appears. That's where I was going but I don't think it will be qquite the answer. I want to try the new Canon 7D2 to see if it is an APS-C equivalent of the 1Dx, fast AF etc and much less noisy than my 1Ds3 at high ISO. If it is wIll sell my Canon 1Ds3 and 1D2 and couple of lenses that only make sense for full frame along with the Fuji 55-200 to buy a 7D2 (or 2), the 100-400mm for my sports/ fast news outfit - I already have a comprehensive range of Canon lenses. I will then stick with the Fuji X-T1, 10-24mm and 18-135mm as my soft news/travel/ stock outfit. Could almost be a zero cost route. Then I will be entirely APS-C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.