Thread: Why Buy a Camera?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lightwater

I used medium format 645 & 67

Pentax?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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..."

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by p38arover

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.

Originally Posted by Lightwater

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).