Why Buy a Camera?

[4xsama]

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

[vnx205]

???

It's not about the camera. It's about the photos.

The camera may be obsolete but you will still have the photos.

BTW You don't have to spend anywhere near $1k to take breathtaking photos.

[Eevo]

old rule:
90% lighting
10% camera

[4xsama]

I'm not trolling but how do you keep up with tech/pricing. Is it cost effective to invest in an SLR/Compact/Go Pro?

[Eevo]

I'm not trolling but how do you keep up with tech/pricing. Is it cost effective to invest in an SLR/Compact/Go Pro?

it depends what you want to do.

the lens is more important than megapixels imho

SLR/Compact/Go Pro all have very different uses.

[vnx205]

I know it isn't always possible, but I like to think that the ideal solution to your dilemma is to buy the item today and use it so often that by the time it is obsolete it is worn out. :)

[Bytemrk]

It's just one of those personal choices in life.... No NEED to buy a camera... lots of mobile phones now days take great pictures.

As VNX205 said, you certainly don't need to spend $1000 on a good camera - and the camera alone does not guarantee you good images anyway.

However it's also not purely about economics either.... I have lenses that cost many times that $1k....but it's one of my hobbies..it's what I do to relax

As long as I can afford them, I don't need to justify the expense of the equipment any more than my mate with a $2000 shotgun, or the one with 3 game fishing reels worth well over a grand each do.

If all you want is some happy snaps from trips you do.... you are right ,you don't need to buy a camera.

But others have different requirements.

[Bytemrk]

I'm not trolling but how do you keep up with tech/pricing. Is it cost effective to invest in an SLR/Compact/Go Pro?

4Xsama You can't look at buying a $1K camera as an investment... it's an expense.

For someone that gets into high end photographic gear.. good lenses can be an investment (Because they will have a far longer life - and outlive several bodies)... but otherwise camera gear is an expense , not an investment in my view.

That said... no one says you have to have the latest camera gear.... just because a new model is released - does NOT mean yours is now useless.

I know a couple for people that are taking beautiful photographs with Digital cameras that are now 6 -7 years old.

And I still regularly use one lens my dad gave me..that he bought new in 1972 !

[Tote]

I recently bought a Pentax DSLR, two reasons , the Canon EOS350 that I had used for nearly 10 years was getting a bit long in the tooth ( and I never liked the twin lens kit that came with it) and secondly I wanted to use the Sigma 70 - 300 lens that I had purchased for the previous SLR that I had.
The investment in lenses is usually recoverable and the reason that I bought a new DSLR was the same as the reason I bought the film one all those years ago - limitations in the capability of cheaper cameras to take the photos that I want to take.

Regards,
Tote

[Benz]

you can say the same thing with just about every piece of electronic gadgetry these days but you don't need the latest and best stuff.
It's all marketing...

I have a D90 with a nikon 18-200mm lens
yes it's obsolete now but it still takes wonderful photos and the only reason I would upgrade would be to gat a camera with better video capabilities.

If you just want something to take a few snaps spend less and buy a point and shoot.
but if you enjoy photography and want a camera that's responsive maybe go for a dslr.

point and shoots are getting pretty good these days though.

[stealth]

I don't have a camera. I don't have a video recorder. I don't have a watch. I don't have a GPS. I don't have a notebook or pen. (Well maybe a pen) I don't have a compass. Lots of other things I don't need...

Cause I got an I phone

[Homestar]

I have an older point and shoot that did me fine for my level of photography, but I stopped using it when I got a decent work phone. Lately though, I've been thinking of taking it out with me again, as the phone is useless in low light conditions. My old point and shoot can take some very good shots at night with a bit of fidling around - not great if you're in a hurry for a shot, but fine for planned shots.

Does me fine and only cost me $180 about 5 years ago.

[Mick_Marsh]

I have a couple of nice 35mm cameras I no longer use. They were great and I got some really nice shots I have had blown up and framed. I then moved to a medium format. Again, nice shots that have been framed. It's still the best camera I have.
The medium format was not good for happy snaps, so I bought a cheap point and shoot digital. At the time it was much better than a phone camera. That died, and also wasn't capable of taking shots of sufficient quality, so I bought a DSLR. It's great. The quality is not as good as the medium format but it is way more flexible than any of my other cameras and takes great shots.
If you're not interested in quality (as most seem to be nowdays), stick with the phone camera. If you may wish to have your photos enlarged, framed and mounted on the wall, get a DSLR.

[p38arover]

Some of the newer phones take great pix and they are always with you but they don't allow you (I don't think) to change camera settings. For example, if you want to focus on a person and blur the background, you need to be able to control depth of field (by opening up the lens aperture).

What you use is dictated by what you want to do with the camera. For happy snaps to post on Facebook or on a forum, then the phone might be all you need.

personally, I don't like point and shoots unless they have a viewfinder. I find it difficult to see and use the screen on the back of a camera. Having said that, I do have a small interchangeable lens camera (Pentax Q) I can carry in my pocket but, with an adapter, I can attach any of my DSLR lenses if needs be. I don't like the lack of viewfinder on it.

A good alternative to the DSLR is the bridge camera - between a point and shoot and a DSLR. Best bridge camera: the top SLR-style, superzoom cameras reviewed | News | TechRadar (http://www.techradar.com/au/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-bridge-camera-1259503)

They have a rear screen and an electronic viewfinder. I have an older Fuji FinePix S5500 and it takes great pix. However, it is sometimes slow to react and one can miss a shot - unlike a DSLR.

Camera fanboys are always updating their gear so you can pick up very good secondhand DSLRs at good prices. I have four Pentax DSLRs, *istD, K100D, K-7, and K-5. The first three I bought secondhand, 18 months-2 years apart before buying a brand new Pentax K-5 on run-out when the K-5 II was released. It would have been cheaper to have bought a new one to start with. :D.

I've passed one camera on to my daughter, one (the oldest) stays in my car for whenever I need it. If it gets stolen, I won't be heartbroken. The other two have near identical bodies so I can have one set up with a wide angle lens, and the other with a long zoom and can quickly switch from one to another when out and about and not have to worry about mixing up the controls.

My lenses from my old Pentax film SLRs - even from my 1968 Pentax Spotmatic- work perfectly with my Pentax DSLRs.

[Lightwater]

I use some old Mamiya lenses on my main camera. On overseas holidays I use a 5 year old compact digital Canon. Ok it doesn't have the quality of 21mp digital or medium format film, or large format 5x4 for that matter, but the tradeoff is well worth not having to carry an array of equipment. A compact used with care and RAW setting will provide reasonably good results.

[theresanothersteve]

I don't have a camera. I don't have a video recorder. I don't have a watch. I don't have a GPS. I don't have a notebook or pen. (Well maybe a pen) I don't have a compass. Lots of other things I don't need...

Cause I got an I phone

Sorry, not the same at all.

Recently we were in the Daintree when we came across a cassowary and chicks. I had a DSLR on the back seat, which I grabbed, turned on, zoomed, and shot. The wife had her smartphone, aimed and shot.

Which photos came out the best?

I had a 300D (cost $2,000 when it came out). Used it for years. Even though it was a 6MP camera, the images (because of the size and quality of the sensor, and the quality of the glass) meant it was still shooting images comparable to the so-called 14MP cameras. I replaced it a while ago with a 60D. Cost less than a grand. That's progress for you.

The 300D now sits behind the seat permanently. If I loose it, its obsolete. If a photo opportunity presents unexpectedly, I know I've got the equipment to capture a photo worth having.

And yes, I have a smart phone (and an ipad). They're not a camera, video, or GPS...

[p38arover]

A couple of years ago, I bought a 12Mp point and shoot to have in my pocket when marshalling at TerryO's motorcycling events.

It might have had a lot of megapickles but the lens was rubbish. Pix were pretty bad. Fortunately, I was able to get a refund.

[Tusker]

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

There's a difference between snapshots & great shots. Which do you want.

Regards
Max P

[weeds]

why buy a defender...........

I don't quite get your original question, we buy all sorts of things for our own reasons..........I research first than don't give a toss about what others think once I have it

[slug_burner]

I had a film SLR worth more than my car when I was in my twenties used it for twenty years, now I would struggle to get a set of tyres for what I can get a DSLR. My current cameras are an eight year old DSLR, a second DSLR same model but six years old now and a point and shoot that is seven years old. I certainly don't see the need to update my cameras with every new model.

I think it is difficult to get into a DSLR or large or medium format camera and worthwhile lenses if you don't appreciate a good photo. Selfies don't fall into that category. Wide angle and perspective distortion are not what I strive for in a portrait.

A little old fashioned perhaps.

If you do see your way into a DSLR you will love it, if your thinking twice about it and have other priorities then it might not be for you.

[austastar]

Hi,
After using a couple of 35mm Nikons professionally for 30 odd years, we transitioned across to digital cautiously with a $1000 point and shoot around 1999.

It was surprising what we could get from what is now a very primitive compact camera, and they have come a long way since then.

The biggest problem was getting consistent results for comparison over time. Getting the camera to do what we wanted it to do, not what it 'thought' was the best image.
This is still the problem with the simple cameras.

I left photography (professionally) before we got into the modern digital SLRs, which has always been a point of regret for me, and it is a bit difficult to rationalise the cost of a new Nikon DSLR as a retiree.

One day I will get a pre-loved Nikon DSLR just to satisfy the whimsy.

Cheers

[Ausfree]

Photography has been a hobby of mine since 1971 when I bought my first camera, a Praktica Super TL and since then I have gradually upgraded through the years and now own a Nikon DSLR D5100 with several lenses.:)

I guess like any interest it gets in your blood. Particularly if you are after a better quality shot than a standard point and shoot can deliver. If you have to ask the question, "is it worth spending 1K on a DLSR"? then I guess the hobby is not for you and a standard point and shoot will do everything you require.:)

[Lightwater]

I used medium format 645 & 67 plus some 5x4 inch large format. These days I use a 21mp camera. But on a long holiday in Europe I took a 5 year old Canon S90 10mp compact camera. Pixels in a compact are nowhere near as good as a DSLR. But I was quite happy to sacrifice some quality for convenience.

If you shoot RAW, use as low as possible ISO, bracket under & over a few exposures, you will get shots there are pretty reasonable. A DSLR with good glass makes life easier to take better photos. A compact is better than no camera. It can simply be easier not take a DSLR because it is too cumbersome & not get any photos!

There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old 10 - 12 mp compact camera. These will cost next to nothing.

[p38arover]

I used medium format 645 & 67

Pentax?

[Ausfree]

Yeah, there is nothing like the results from a photograph taken with a medium format camera.:)

During the 30 years ending 1999, I photographed weddings professionally and during the 1990's I used a Bronica ETR S 645. with speedgrip for studio work and also upper quality wedding coverages. The 645 format was ideal for wedding photography as you could get more frames (15/30)on a roll of 120/220 film than the larger 6x7 format. It is ideal for shooting wedding groups.:)

I still have the Bronica and last year I toyed with the idea of buying a digital back for it until I saw the price.:o

When I retire and get more time I will probably advertise it on fleabay or somewhere. Anyrate the Nikon I own does everything that I need.:) Plus being not as bulky.

[Hoges]

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

I think you have answered your own question...and it is a reasonable one;)
Many people buy expensive cameras for the same reason that well heeled weekend hackers buy top of the range golf clubs... they're deluded into thinking that tech wizardry will make up for poor technique:wasntme:

If you develop any sort of passion for the quality etc of the photographs you take, then you will quickly grow impatient with the shortcomings of point and shoot devices. Others who buy expensive stuff often have a different perception of the world from happy snappers and are subconsciously attuned to looking constantly for photographic opportunities...

If you just want snaps and a record of when and where, then buy one of the pocket point and shoot which also take video...less than $200 and will last for years.

I had a colleague once who had an "artist's eye" . He had a collection of expensive SLRs and lenses which he sometimes used. His best work was in black & white for which he used a battered 30 yr old Leica. Sadly he died before digital took hold. He sometimes observed to (ignorant) others when they'd have a dig about his old camera that "... good photos form in the mind... the camera simply records it..."

[Mick_Marsh]

Yeah, there is nothing like the results from a photograph taken with a medium format camera.:)

During the 30 years ending 1999, I photographed weddings professionally and during the 1990's I used a Bronica ETR S 645. with speedgrip for studio work and also upper quality wedding coverages. The 645 format was ideal for wedding photography as you could get more frames (15/30)on a roll of 120/220 film than the larger 6x7 format. It is ideal for shooting wedding groups.:)

I still have the Bronica and last year I toyed with the idea of buying a digital back for it until I saw the price.:o

When I retire and get more time I will probably advertise it on fleabay or somewhere. Anyrate the Nikon I own does everything that I need.:) Plus being not as bulky.
My medium format is a Bronica ETRS. Some years ago I tried to sell it. You'd be surprised how little they are worth. That's why I decided to keep mine and use it occasionally.

[Lightwater]

Pentax?

All Mamiya, all medium equipment is door stop material now. I did try to sell it years ago and did not get off square one. Wish I could afford a digital back but it was a choice between this & an Si4 as the old car has got to the point unfortunately of very sadly needing to be replaced, both new items similar price!

I do use some of the better Mamiya 645 lenses on my Canon. The Mamiya 80mm macro is better than my Canon 135 f2. The 35mm is better than 16-35 at the 35mm end (obviously).



Putting in a bit of effort and carefully taking pictures using RAW files, it is surprising what one can get away with with a compact camera. But prefer a DSLR if I am prepared to carry it.

[p38arover]

All Mamiya, all medium equipment is door stop material now. I did try to sell it years ago and did not get off square one. Wish I could afford a digital back but it was a choice between this & an Si4 as the old car has got to the point unfortunately of very sadly needing to be replaced, both new items similar price!

I do use some of the better Mamiya 645 lenses on my Canon. The Mamiya 80mm macro is better than my Canon 135 f2. The 35mm is better than 16-35 at the 35mm end (obviously).


Mamiya was going be my alternate question. Secondhand Pentax medium format stuff still sells at quite good prices - and the lenses can be used on the Pentax medium format DSLRs, the 645D and the newer 645Z (released this year).

[kogvos]

why buy a defender...........


The voices in my head told me to.

[Ausfree]

My medium format is a Bronica ETRS. Some years ago I tried to sell it. You'd be surprised how little they are worth. That's why I decided to keep mine and use it occasionally.
That's why I haven't been in a hurry to sell it. Probably use it as a doorstop..:(

[p38arover]

I had a colleague once who had an "artist's eye" . He had a collection of expensive SLRs and lenses which he sometimes used. His best work was in black & white for which he used a battered 30 yr old Leica. Sadly he died before digital took hold. He sometimes observed to (ignorant) others when they'd have a dig about his old camera that "... good photos form in the mind... the camera simply records it..."

Zackly! Which is why most of my pics aren't great, I don't have an eye for it.
Occasionally, I get a good shot. :(

[Chucaro]

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

:confused: Why it will be obsolete in 1 year?
My D200 still a good camera and it can use 40 years + old lens and also the new ones.
To take a good shot you do not need a new camera, good glass is more important and in some cases a long range one if you like avian or other wild life photography.
Go to a reputable photography equipment gear and get a Nikon D80 for $200 and a Nikon 50mm F1/8 and you will be able to take awesome shots.

[Chucaro]

Seriously.

Unless you want to capture a scene like a sunrise or a close up of a critter why would you invest in a $1k camera?

I don't want to believe in what I am posting but if the beloved & I go camping for a few days and want to record a bit of history why would we invest in some (digi) tech which will be obsolete in 1 year?

:confused: Why it will be obsolete in 1 year?
My D200 still a good camera and it can use 40 years + old lens and also the new ones.
To take a good shot you do not need a new camera, good glass is more important and in some cases a long range one if you like avian or other wild life photography.
Go to a reputable photography equipment gear and get a Nikon D80 for $200 and a Nikon 50mm F1/8 and you will be able to take awesome shots.
This image was taken with a D200

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/10/499.jpg

[s7000]

Because everything is used for a different purpose.

A DSLR, an SLR, a TLR, a compact, a phone, all do different things.

If you think you can take the same picture on a phone as a DSLR... Well, good luck to you.

As for the technology being obsolete... Sorry... I still use cameras from the 50's, and have lenses that span 60 years back. New technology doesn't always mean better. It comes back to certain things doing different things.

[Lightwater]

Zackly! Which is why most of my pics aren't great,(

99.99% of photos are not great but that is not the point.



A Nikon D200 with a 50mm f1.8 is a great setup to get going. A 10mp DSLR is more than adequate for virtually every situation.

I used a Canon 20D 8mp (still got it) for A3 professional images, and quite a few got blown up to large posters. It would produce similar quality to 645 meduim format. 12mp Canon 5D was better, and about as good as 67 medium format.

[Ausfree]

Two of the best cameras, I ever owned were a Nikon FM2 and a Nikon 801s. They were both excellent cameras, easy to use and took great photo's. I gradually upgraded through the years and traded my old camera's in for new ones. Doing professional wedding photography, I wanted to keep up with the latest technology, but that is not necessary for the amateur enthusiast.:)