AG Schnozz wrote:
> So what?
>
> There have been many cameras introduced since I bought my first
> OM-2S that were "better" in so many ways. Shoot, I missed out
> on buying the three-dozen EOS film cameras that came out before
> digital! I also missed buying a D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 1D, 1Ds,
> 1DmII and 1DsMII. Why is the 5D THE camera for me to buy now,
> when all of these others came and went and are no better than
> what I have been shooting all along?
>
I dunno. Who are you listening to anyway, yourself or others? I
certainly wouldn't presume to tell you what camera you NEED at the
moment. Sounds like a personal problem. And I suspect that if you are
able to stop being concerned about what others are saying and listen to
your own thoughts alone, it will all resolve itself. Self induced angst
is self curable.
> Why?
>
> The 5D is the cat's meow of cameras--the one everything is
> compared to. It's the "Messiah" of digital cameras! But wait,
> haven't I heard this theme before? The D30 was as good as 35mm
> Provia, the 20D as good as 645 Portra, now the 5D is as good as
> 4x5 Velvia. In retrospect, we realize that none of the previous
> claims are "true", but we keep falling for the "latest/greatest"
> hype and the "unbiased" tests.
>
So stop listening!
> In a couple very short months, the 5D will be rendered obsolete
> by Canon's next offering.
Oh, bosh! The 5D will be the same camera it was before. I bought mine
based on my personal assessment of my desires (rather than needs, as I'm
an amateur.) and it will still meet them to the same extent after its
replacement is announced.
> <snip more breast beating>
>
> I despise this current photographic world where we have to buy a
> new camera every 18 months to stay "current".
Says who? Current in what way?
> My E-1 is far from worn out and probably will outlast any practical
> application of the camera. Last night
<snip another example of how the E-1 is more that adequate for many
professional uses.
> Would a 5D have resulted in better images?
>
No, not for the purpose at hand.
> Possibly. But for the desired output would it have been worth
> the investment? No. Besides, I couldn't have fired that many
> shots since I was right down front and within three feet of the
> microphones.
>
So I'm convinced. If I had to do those kind of assignments regularly to
earn my living, I'd happily keep using the E-1 until it croaked.
> Yes, I need more pixels for various reasons, but why do we keep
> feeling the need to jump on the upgrade treadmill at really
> obscene costs?
What do you mean "we"?
> Why can't I just live in peace with the cameras I have?
Back to the personal problem, see above. Perhaps you have too much of
your sense of self and personal value projected onto your possessions?
Great craftspeople and artists concern themselves primarily with the
results, not the means/tools.
> My desire is to have a digital camera be viable for at
> least 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
>
No - for much work. Projects like you describe above will be the same 10
years from now. You upgraded from the 2S for sensible professional
reasons of costs, not because you could make better 4x6 photos of kids
than with the 2S. Future cameras will not likely improve on that.
Yes. Progress in camera capabilities will make some work possible,
physically and/or economically, that was not possible before. If you
want to do that, for either professional reasons or personal ones, you
will need to upgrade.
> The argument that you are saving money on film and processing is
> bogus. That only works the first time around. Besides, as I
> look back, I couldn't afford the film and processing anyway.
> I'm looking for cost-savings, not cost-tranferrences.
>
So - stick to what works and is cost effective. If you need another tool
for other aspects of your work, pick what will do it cost effectively,
buy it, use it until it dies or the needs of the job change enough to
require something else. At that time, evaluate cost of a new tool
against revenue stream and make a simple business decision. Get out of
that business or buy the tool you need. Then just move forward.
> The 5D is the current "shiny"
For some. Of course, it must have considerable appeal to you, or it
would not engender such strong emotional responses. This is not true for
many others, even many photographers.
> , but in too short of a period of time it will be rendered as out-of-date as
> the 10D and the E-1.
>
Out of date in what way? Functionally, or as a matter of fashion?
For me, the 300D was an important entry point. I made many images I
really like. I also was able to learn more about what a DSLR is all
about and what I would like in one. I was sure from quite early on with
it that I would eventually move up and it helped me clarify my criteria
for making that move. With the 5D, I found a level in features and
performance that satisfies most of what I want in a body. I haven't been
thinking or wondering about what's the next new body coming out. Rather,
my interests have moved in the directions of lenses, scanner and printer.
I actually think my next DSLR may be a used 20D or 30D as a "tele" body
to replace the 300D with higher rez in the APC size sensor. In that
sense, I'm looking forward to the 40D to lower prices of its
predecessors. In favor of the 30D are the bigger LCD, spot metering and
RGB histogram.
> It used to be that a professional photographer would go through
> two, perhaps three camera "systems" in his entire career. There
> is an entire generation of photographers who have used the same
> Hassleblad or Mamiya lenses and bodies for 25+ years. We have
> no such luxury today.
>
And the art of using a buggy whip is all but lost! So what? Things change.
> Just grousing.
>
Just grousing back. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|