I have not bought any new camera for 12 years. The Sony A99 and A7 were my last purchases. I don't even look at what's new. No camera has ever prevented a photographer from taking great pictures. Improve your skill, not your camera.
As somebody who admittedly still has a lot to learn, I am very happy with my D850, and continue my journey learning how to use it even after many years. Yes, I bought it and a few lenses new. I also have a few older but wonderful lenses that I bought used and I enjoy using them every time.
I certainly fall to G.A.S. as much (if not more than) the next fella. I do think there are some types of photography where the new advances offer material benefits over what came before. Some examples:
1. Birds in flight. You can achieve things now that would have required extreme luck in the past, with both improved AF and frame rates.
2. The access to 16 bit color in medium format makes a difference when you shoot astrolandscapes and naturally only access a small portion of the dynamic range of your camera. That said, the d850 continues to be a workhorse in this genre.
3. Ultrafast focus bracketing in OM-Systems and Canon make it possible to focus stack without a tripod, if that’s important to you.
All three of these are niche use cases and may not be your personal bag. But for those that do enjoy them, the new tools are useful. For most general photography the arms race doesn’t bring much, though.
I would agree with some previous posts I believe you’ve made about how the feature race into hybrid/video features do nothing for still photographers. That’s the big thing that keeps my G.A.S. in check - much of the ‘improvements’ aren’t relevant to the types of things I like to do and thus, for me, entirely skipable.
Yep... there are some things that are "better", the real question is if they matter. Birds are and always will be a carve out. Thank goodness I am not a bird shooter. Always a quest for more crop and more focal length. As for dynamic range... Hmmmm, see my comment regarding crappy light and cell phones handling that auto-magically. I kind of cringe when I see cameras with huge dynamic range edited in a way that makes images look a lot like what cell phones do. Focus stacking? Meh, I have yet to see anything that was make or break due to focus stacking, especially hand-held. Another milestone towards the set it and forget it mentality that slowly eats into making decisions about focus, exposure, light, composition, etc.
I really don’t think cell phones do a great job at low light if you’re looking anywhere but a small screen. Yes, they have very impressive computational photography capabilities (and this is something that no manufacturer but OM seems to be interested in including in dedicated camera bodies), but they really don’t look good up close. Believe me I wish they did, it would make it so I had to carry much less crap out into the desert at night.
I respect that focus stacking isn’t your jam, but it is necessary for certain types of ‘modern’ landscape photography (super intimate foregrounds with distant backgrounds all in sharp focus). If that’s your aesthetic then the technique is important.
I think that for the vast majority of use cases new cameras are huge overkill. Heck, I DO shoot birds and I still really only take advantage of a small subset of the features in the new Sony bodies.
The good news is that if you don’t benefit from the features in a new model, it’s an easy way to save money. The new Sony a1ii is a great example. Phenomenal camera, but if all you’re doing is shooting birds it really offers very minor upgrades over the original a1. If you do video though, it’s a big upgrade.
It’s sad to me that so few camera manufacturers are really focused on still photography. I think it’s only Hasselblad (and maybe Leica?) Both of which are more luxury brands these days. I’m uncertain how much of that is camera manufacturers trying to address the broadest possible audience with their lineup and how much is a real flattening of the curve in regards to potential new features focused solely on stills.
Pretty much a clarification of my point. Have almost zero need for most new models and "computational photography" is more of a trap to homogenize results that saps a lot of creativity. Speaking from many, many, mistakes and impulse purchases over the decades most stuff is not worth the money and ends up being a distraction in the long run.
I think there is a typo in the first paragraph. Near the end is the word "Mmmber" which I don't think is a real word.
My comment on the post is that cell phone cameras are eclipsing stand alones. My wife who just takes pictures on her Google Pixel 6 brings me images to print out for here. Most of the time, very little processing is required in Lightroom as the phone camera usually gets things right. I've printed some images at 11 x 17 and the clarity is very good. This is not making me throw out my Nikon Z-6 but it is another reason why camera gear is getting more expensive. The user base is shrinking.
Ooops, I did make a serious mental error... when I said I ditched my x pro 3 for an x pro 4, I meant I went back to the x pro 2... I read that 2x and it didn't register. I am crap at editing, I see what I thought rather than what's actually there.
1. The Mmmmber is definitely not a word. It's an intentional distortion of "remember", just my style of humor and conversational style to keep ahead of AI, remember I promised no AI here. ;-)
2. Yep, as the gear we use becomes more of a specialty item the cost will go up...
3. I am NOT a fan of the iPhone/cell phone post-processing at all looks fake to me, I am also not a fan of post-processing camera RAW files in that particular style either. I tend to classify it into doing things because you can doesn't me you should. It kind of makes all pictures and all light generic and is GREAT for shooting in "bad" light. Kind of a recipe for not paying attention to the possibilities of the scene. Maybe I'll write a few thoughts on this soon in the context of pre-digital Nat Geo where everything was shot on slide film with about 4 usable stops of dynamic range and what the pictures looked like due to those limitations -- typically fantastic.
Well done ... we as photographers are living in the must have and have forgotten that we were pleased with the results from our older camera bodies & lens.
Coming at this from someone with less than 10 years in the hobby and who has impaired vision...
The technological innovations provided by my Sony A7r5 make my experience more enjoyable when I want to get the shot and enjoy the moment, and not fuss around. Sony's autofocus and EVF are significant features for me, as they allow me to utilize the focusing aids. Without it, my experience would be diminished. I'm thinking about photographing my family and dogs here. And I enjoy the focus stacking feature for my landscapes. Obviously, photographers were able to do this before I came along, but why not use the tech if it's available.
To your point about future upgrades, I agree. With this system, I don't currently see a reason that would lead me to consider a new camera body.
Having said that, I do have two other cameras when I want to be more "in the moment with the camera" rather than simply in the moment. One is a Canon AE-1 for film, and the other, an M-11, which I purchased partly because of a previous article from you or Lester suggesting the virtue of having two completely different systems for the creative aspect (paraphrasing). The experience with it is definitely different than the Sony, but the images are not so much. (I found the EVF made my experience with the M more enjoyable when I need to get critical focus.)
Technological advancements should make life easier or more enjoyable. If they don't, no one says you have to buy them.
When discussing three VERY different cameras such as the A7r5, the M11, and the AE-1 there's a crap ton of overlap in terms of subject matter and far more than conventional popular thought would suggest. For instance, kids, approaching photographing your children with an A7r5 vs the M11 are two different beasts demanding two completely different approaches. I've found that the change in approach yields completely different results and many times the you'll find that different approach and associated result is something you prefer rather than a more or less "enjoyable experience". I did an interview somewhere or two places specifically on portraits that I was doing (many of them my little kids just being them) with my M vs AF cameras. Now if I can only remember where they are located on the internet...
I totally agree if you approach a subject like children with the M11 the same way you would with the A7r5 it will fail, the point is find the approach that works and I assure you the results will also change, many times for the better, and possibly make it more enjoyable.
I agree with some of the earlier comments that there may be certain areas of photography that benefit from the new technology but in general the endless discussions of the latest greatest are only moderately relevant to picture making. One thing I agree with that Bob has mentioned in several posts is the tactile element, how the camera feels when using it. I’m pretty sure this can’t be completely explained and certainly may override all other rational reasons to buy.
I have lusted for the Leica camera for many years. While in college in the 70’s , my teacher Ray Metzker loaned me one to use. I used Nikon cameras then and as much as I wanted to love the Leica, I could not get use to the focusing system in the rangefinder. As I have gotten older I have looked at small lighter gear and actually looking at the Fuji X Pro 2 for that range finder feel without the Leica price. Curious as to what lens you have decided on Bob for your Fuji camera?
Man that is really throwing it out there! Sort of reminds me of advice my Photography teacher gave at East Los Angeles College back in the late 60’s Joe Lingrey Ph.D. He said go with Pentax – for cost and a war horse for durability. Now go for Nikon Z6III for one reason – ability of automatic focus.
I have not bought any new camera for 12 years. The Sony A99 and A7 were my last purchases. I don't even look at what's new. No camera has ever prevented a photographer from taking great pictures. Improve your skill, not your camera.
As somebody who admittedly still has a lot to learn, I am very happy with my D850, and continue my journey learning how to use it even after many years. Yes, I bought it and a few lenses new. I also have a few older but wonderful lenses that I bought used and I enjoy using them every time.
An embarrassment of riches, fraction of the cost of the "latest greatest" bonus is the luxury of an optical viewfinder.
I certainly fall to G.A.S. as much (if not more than) the next fella. I do think there are some types of photography where the new advances offer material benefits over what came before. Some examples:
1. Birds in flight. You can achieve things now that would have required extreme luck in the past, with both improved AF and frame rates.
2. The access to 16 bit color in medium format makes a difference when you shoot astrolandscapes and naturally only access a small portion of the dynamic range of your camera. That said, the d850 continues to be a workhorse in this genre.
3. Ultrafast focus bracketing in OM-Systems and Canon make it possible to focus stack without a tripod, if that’s important to you.
All three of these are niche use cases and may not be your personal bag. But for those that do enjoy them, the new tools are useful. For most general photography the arms race doesn’t bring much, though.
I would agree with some previous posts I believe you’ve made about how the feature race into hybrid/video features do nothing for still photographers. That’s the big thing that keeps my G.A.S. in check - much of the ‘improvements’ aren’t relevant to the types of things I like to do and thus, for me, entirely skipable.
Yep... there are some things that are "better", the real question is if they matter. Birds are and always will be a carve out. Thank goodness I am not a bird shooter. Always a quest for more crop and more focal length. As for dynamic range... Hmmmm, see my comment regarding crappy light and cell phones handling that auto-magically. I kind of cringe when I see cameras with huge dynamic range edited in a way that makes images look a lot like what cell phones do. Focus stacking? Meh, I have yet to see anything that was make or break due to focus stacking, especially hand-held. Another milestone towards the set it and forget it mentality that slowly eats into making decisions about focus, exposure, light, composition, etc.
I really don’t think cell phones do a great job at low light if you’re looking anywhere but a small screen. Yes, they have very impressive computational photography capabilities (and this is something that no manufacturer but OM seems to be interested in including in dedicated camera bodies), but they really don’t look good up close. Believe me I wish they did, it would make it so I had to carry much less crap out into the desert at night.
I respect that focus stacking isn’t your jam, but it is necessary for certain types of ‘modern’ landscape photography (super intimate foregrounds with distant backgrounds all in sharp focus). If that’s your aesthetic then the technique is important.
I think that for the vast majority of use cases new cameras are huge overkill. Heck, I DO shoot birds and I still really only take advantage of a small subset of the features in the new Sony bodies.
The good news is that if you don’t benefit from the features in a new model, it’s an easy way to save money. The new Sony a1ii is a great example. Phenomenal camera, but if all you’re doing is shooting birds it really offers very minor upgrades over the original a1. If you do video though, it’s a big upgrade.
It’s sad to me that so few camera manufacturers are really focused on still photography. I think it’s only Hasselblad (and maybe Leica?) Both of which are more luxury brands these days. I’m uncertain how much of that is camera manufacturers trying to address the broadest possible audience with their lineup and how much is a real flattening of the curve in regards to potential new features focused solely on stills.
Pretty much a clarification of my point. Have almost zero need for most new models and "computational photography" is more of a trap to homogenize results that saps a lot of creativity. Speaking from many, many, mistakes and impulse purchases over the decades most stuff is not worth the money and ends up being a distraction in the long run.
I think there is a typo in the first paragraph. Near the end is the word "Mmmber" which I don't think is a real word.
My comment on the post is that cell phone cameras are eclipsing stand alones. My wife who just takes pictures on her Google Pixel 6 brings me images to print out for here. Most of the time, very little processing is required in Lightroom as the phone camera usually gets things right. I've printed some images at 11 x 17 and the clarity is very good. This is not making me throw out my Nikon Z-6 but it is another reason why camera gear is getting more expensive. The user base is shrinking.
Ooops, I did make a serious mental error... when I said I ditched my x pro 3 for an x pro 4, I meant I went back to the x pro 2... I read that 2x and it didn't register. I am crap at editing, I see what I thought rather than what's actually there.
1. The Mmmmber is definitely not a word. It's an intentional distortion of "remember", just my style of humor and conversational style to keep ahead of AI, remember I promised no AI here. ;-)
2. Yep, as the gear we use becomes more of a specialty item the cost will go up...
3. I am NOT a fan of the iPhone/cell phone post-processing at all looks fake to me, I am also not a fan of post-processing camera RAW files in that particular style either. I tend to classify it into doing things because you can doesn't me you should. It kind of makes all pictures and all light generic and is GREAT for shooting in "bad" light. Kind of a recipe for not paying attention to the possibilities of the scene. Maybe I'll write a few thoughts on this soon in the context of pre-digital Nat Geo where everything was shot on slide film with about 4 usable stops of dynamic range and what the pictures looked like due to those limitations -- typically fantastic.
Well done ... we as photographers are living in the must have and have forgotten that we were pleased with the results from our older camera bodies & lens.
Coming at this from someone with less than 10 years in the hobby and who has impaired vision...
The technological innovations provided by my Sony A7r5 make my experience more enjoyable when I want to get the shot and enjoy the moment, and not fuss around. Sony's autofocus and EVF are significant features for me, as they allow me to utilize the focusing aids. Without it, my experience would be diminished. I'm thinking about photographing my family and dogs here. And I enjoy the focus stacking feature for my landscapes. Obviously, photographers were able to do this before I came along, but why not use the tech if it's available.
To your point about future upgrades, I agree. With this system, I don't currently see a reason that would lead me to consider a new camera body.
Having said that, I do have two other cameras when I want to be more "in the moment with the camera" rather than simply in the moment. One is a Canon AE-1 for film, and the other, an M-11, which I purchased partly because of a previous article from you or Lester suggesting the virtue of having two completely different systems for the creative aspect (paraphrasing). The experience with it is definitely different than the Sony, but the images are not so much. (I found the EVF made my experience with the M more enjoyable when I need to get critical focus.)
Technological advancements should make life easier or more enjoyable. If they don't, no one says you have to buy them.
When discussing three VERY different cameras such as the A7r5, the M11, and the AE-1 there's a crap ton of overlap in terms of subject matter and far more than conventional popular thought would suggest. For instance, kids, approaching photographing your children with an A7r5 vs the M11 are two different beasts demanding two completely different approaches. I've found that the change in approach yields completely different results and many times the you'll find that different approach and associated result is something you prefer rather than a more or less "enjoyable experience". I did an interview somewhere or two places specifically on portraits that I was doing (many of them my little kids just being them) with my M vs AF cameras. Now if I can only remember where they are located on the internet...
I totally agree if you approach a subject like children with the M11 the same way you would with the A7r5 it will fail, the point is find the approach that works and I assure you the results will also change, many times for the better, and possibly make it more enjoyable.
I agree with some of the earlier comments that there may be certain areas of photography that benefit from the new technology but in general the endless discussions of the latest greatest are only moderately relevant to picture making. One thing I agree with that Bob has mentioned in several posts is the tactile element, how the camera feels when using it. I’m pretty sure this can’t be completely explained and certainly may override all other rational reasons to buy.
I have lusted for the Leica camera for many years. While in college in the 70’s , my teacher Ray Metzker loaned me one to use. I used Nikon cameras then and as much as I wanted to love the Leica, I could not get use to the focusing system in the rangefinder. As I have gotten older I have looked at small lighter gear and actually looking at the Fuji X Pro 2 for that range finder feel without the Leica price. Curious as to what lens you have decided on Bob for your Fuji camera?
I used to have EVERY ONE!! Now I have the original 18mm f/2 (tiny) and the classic 35/1.4. That covers everything I use it for.
This RB I happen to be sitting at Les' computer... Sorry I didn't think about who was logged in here.
Man that is really throwing it out there! Sort of reminds me of advice my Photography teacher gave at East Los Angeles College back in the late 60’s Joe Lingrey Ph.D. He said go with Pentax – for cost and a war horse for durability. Now go for Nikon Z6III for one reason – ability of automatic focus.