High-end cameras make epic comeback despite smartphone ubiquity

[LetTheWookieWin]

I think now for those with money so many good cameras, lenses, equipment ( tripods, light boxes/reflectors , closeup tools ), plus online and software tools , instant feedback , instant online help in forums etc

Agreed. TBH, you don’t even need a ton of money anymore as there are really good used DSLR bodies and lenses available. I stopped buying new lenses and now buy used Canon L glass (I’ve had good luck with KEH).

Here’s a clip of a guy who bought a nice wildlife setup relatively cheap on the used market. It’s not top of the line, but it’s light years ahead of the telephoto capabilities of smartphones.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

I think a camera can retain it's photo quality better with editing, but maybe I'm wrong. But as Scottie said on Star Trek: "How many times do I have to tell you? The right tool for the right job!".

 

[captaincranky]

The Leica is a massive fashion statement piece, which is evident by the form over fubction design and smattering of "look, brand, fashionable!" marketing, anyone actually buying cameras considering their performance and so on wpuld probably grab something like a Sony a7 series or similar for less

Well, not quite. Once upon a time, Leica rangefinders were "all the rage".

They had their uses in press photography and elsewhere, when quiet was essential. The clanking shutters and slapping mirrors of an SLR were annoying and distracting in certain circumstances.

As for price, well, if you wanted that precision German engineering, you had to be willing to pay through the nose for it.

Then boyz and gurlz, along came the Japanese brands...(No not then, much later, well after Pearl Harbor).

 

[LuckyMenace]

Discussing camera quality in relation to photography is missing the assignment. Great images can be made on a smartphone and terrible images made on a Leica. If photography is just a measuring contest on who’s got the most expensive camera, then we really lost our way.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Discussing camera quality in relation to photography is missing the assignment. Great images can be made on a smartphone and terrible images made on a Leica. If photography is just a measuring contest on who’s got the most expensive camera, then we really lost our way.

That’s a valid point - you can certainly get great photos from a smartphone and bad photos from a pro mirrorless rig if you don’t understand composition, lighting, exposure, or the art of photography in general.

The technical side is important too, though, especially if we have to work with available light, difficult constraints, or want to obtain optimal photos for a specific purpose.

 

[CrisisDog]

Zoom. My phone never, EVER, has enough zoom to bring in a subject that is across a football field or stadium…

 

[captaincranky]

That’s a valid point - you can certainly get great photos from a smartphone and bad photos from a pro mirrorless rig if you don’t understand composition, lighting, exposure, or the art of photography in general.

The trouble with phones is the fact they have "normal" (50 mm @ FF 35mm) to slightly wide angle lenses. I've never been able to wrap my head around that perspective. It's probably a character flaw on my part, but I firmly believe that "nifty fifties", are nothing but "snapshot lenses". Harsh? Perhaps. But if you give anything else, from a full frame fisheye, to a 400 mm tele zoom, I'll have a ball with it.

The only trouble with high end stuff, is those damned settings. They'll give you enough rope to hang yourself every time.

 

[captaincranky]

Zoom. My phone never, EVER, has enough zoom to bring in a subject that is across a football field or stadium…

Incoming......even more bad news.

A "normal lens" ( 50 mm) on a 35mm camera, has negative magnification at infinity. (about .85% IIRC). Which means on the average phone camera, whomever you were trying to photograph across the field, appears even further away in the photo, than they did when you hit the button.

FWIW, "Enough zoom" on today's market, is about $14,000. And even at that, you'll likely need a $500.00 teleconverter to go with it.

 

[BogdanR]

The Leica is a massive fashion statement piece, which is evident by the form over fubction design and smattering of "look, brand, fashionable!" marketing, anyone actually buying cameras considering their performance and so on wpuld probably grab something like a Sony a7 series or similar for less

While Leica, much like Rolex or Omega has a good dose of look/ brand/ fashionable marketing, it also has, much like Rolex or Omega, excellent performance to back that up.

I don’t disagree that similarly excellent performance is available at quite lower prices (Nikon / Fuji pro photographer here) but saying disparaging things such as “form over function design” shows more sour grapes than actual knowledge about Leica’s history in particular and photography in general.

 

[BogdanR]

Discussing camera quality in relation to photography is missing the assignment. Great images can be made on a smartphone and terrible images made on a Leica. If photography is just a measuring contest on who’s got the most expensive camera, then we really lost our way.

No argument here for the most part, but it is, in the end, a question of having the right tool for the job. I wouldn’t use neither a smartphone nor a manual focus Leica over my Nikon and f/2.8 (or lower) aperture glass when shooting a wedding, particularly the evening part when the lights go down and the party gets started.

On the other hand my massive Nikon combo has no place in my small kitchen when I shoot the images for my insignificant cooking blog.

People usually bring in the discussion Michelangelo and the fact that it wouldn’t matter which tools he used but I happen to believe he would have hated poorly made brushes leaving hairs behind with every stroke.

 

[captaincranky]

I think a camera can retain it's photo quality better with editing, but maybe I'm wrong. But as Scottie said on Star Trek: "How many times do I have to tell you? The right tool for the right job!".

You're 100% correct. (However much guesswork or intuition may have allowed you to arrive at that conclusion) No shame in that at all.

Here's why: Today's cellphones capture a bajillion pixels. However, those are then treated to a good stout Jpegging The compression destroys the color depth, or "dynamic range", if you prefer.

My "elder" Nikon DSLRs can capture Jpeg files graded, "basic (1:16), medium (1:8) & fine (1:4)", with respect to compression ratios. However "RAW" capture is done without compression, but at different bit depths. It's either 14 bit, 12 bit, or 12 bit compressed**. Keep in mind those bit depths are beyond any paper or monitor's ability to reproduce. Your "billion + colors" monitor is only 10 bit color. Which is why, (assuming you're still with me), on the specs you'll see, "this monitor will display, xx% of sRGB, or xx% of Adobe RGB color spaces".

** 12 bit RAW compressed is normally only used in fast action shooting in an attempt to avoid overloading the camera's buffer while it's trying to write to the memory card. (Or if one is too cheap to buy faster SD cards).

Camera buffers are getting larger with each generation. It's a rough equivalent to how our CPU's cache sizes have grown massively over the years

 

[captaincranky]

Discussing camera quality in relation to photography is missing the assignment. Great images can be made on a smartphone and terrible images made on a Leica. If photography is just a measuring contest on who’s got the most expensive camera, then we really lost our way.

Well, isn't the eternal human condition one form of pissing contest or another? In fact it goes so far as, "my H-bomb is bigger than your H-bomb". And FWIW, IMO, we've likely never had our way in the first place.

So yeah, "my graphics card was more expensive that yours", and "my CPU has more cores and is twice as fast as yours". I wonder where one might find a urinating distance and volume evaluative, "discussion", on that topic. Hmm....

 

[captaincranky]

Agreed. TBH, you don’t even need a ton of money anymore as there are really good used DSLR bodies and lenses available. I stopped buying new lenses and now buy used Canon L glass (I’ve had good luck with KEH).

FWIW, I imagine KEH is fine for lenses. However for used bodies, it's perhaps a different story. KEH refuses to post the shutter count. And trust me, that can vary wildly, particularly when you get up into the "prosumer", and pro range. KEH rates and their used bodies solely on physical appearance and included gear. (charger, strap, what have you).

When you get into something like a Nikon D-500, (don't know squat about Canon numbering, sorry), you're quite likely to run into counts of 100K and up.

I went on a body buying binge recently, ( D-3300, D-5200, spare D-7200), basically so I'd never have to change a lens on the street.. One came from UsedPhotoPro, one from MPB, and yes, to my utter trepidation and amazement, one from Ebay.

At the very least, whatever you're looking for, I"d suggest you cross shop these two outlets in addition to KEH.

https://usedphotopro.com/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwo8S3BhDeARIsAFRmkOM1aqfMldSDPzNAnOs-uZtvoJeBb3qpk663SXWBlSjbY0Z3DRXATUAaAhf2EALw_wcB

https://www.mpb.com/en-us?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US%7CGoogle%7CBrand%7CSearch%7CNew%7CAll%7CExact%7CUS&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwo8S3BhDeARIsAFRmkOOzUEJPBkny97UBqWajL3ZgrhEObel0YKrmaxdEl59EvqW8Fes08VwaAqnQEALw_wcB

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

FWIW, I imagine KEH is fine for lenses. However for used bodies, it's perhaps a different story. KEH refuses to post the shutter count. And trust me, that can vary wildly, particularly when you get up into the "prosumer", and pro range. KEH rates and their used bodies solely on physical appearance and included gear. (charger, strap, what have you).

When you get into something like a Nikon D-500, (don't know squat about Canon numbering, sorry), you're quite likely to run into counts of 100K and up.

I went on a body buying binge recently, ( D-3300, D-5200, spare D-7200), basically so I'd never have to change a lens on the street.. One came from UsedPhotoPro, one from MPB, and yes, to my utter amazement, one from Ebay.

At the very least, whatever you're looking for, I"d suggest you cross shop these two outlets in addition to KEH.

https://usedphotopro.com/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwo8S3BhDeARIsAFRmkOM1aqfMldSDPzNAnOs-uZtvoJeBb3qpk663SXWBlSjbY0Z3DRXATUAaAhf2EALw_wcB

https://www.mpb.com/en-us?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US%7CGoogle%7CBrand%7CSearch%7CNew%7CAll%7CExact%7CUS&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwo8S3BhDeARIsAFRmkOOzUEJPBkny97UBqWajL3ZgrhEObel0YKrmaxdEl59EvqW8Fes08VwaAqnQEALw_wcB

Thanks for the references. I have seen the same criticism levied regarding KEH not posting shutter counts. I’ve only bought lenses, an extender, and an intervalometer from them, and for that they were great. But I agree 100% about shutter counts and the importance of checking that if buying a used body.

Having multiple bodies to avoid lens changes sounds nice. Are you shooting for paid work or just for enjoyment? I could see where having a body for telephoto and one for wide angle would be nice.

 

[captaincranky]

Having multiple bodies to avoid lens changes sounds nice. Are you shooting for paid work or just for enjoyment? I could see where having a body for telephoto and one for wide angle would be nice.

Well no, I'm not a pro. I do have an photo AAS degree from Philly Community. Unfortunately, I went as an "old man", but at the very end of the film era. They did forgive me for having a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to a couple of courses. Portraiture was one. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why I should shoot head shots of 20 year olds with a Hassy, while having to stick on a soft focus filter, when I could just bang them out with my 80-200 f2.8, print them to the required 11" x 14", and they looked just dandy, no filter required.

Then there's entry level pro, the infamous wedding photos. That's a hard pass. My kid (40+) was in his 1st wedding and 2nd childhood. He didn't hire me, (thank god). The missus had to have a pro.. OK, so I banged out what they admitted was the best shot of them getting out of the car at the church.. Then took my leave after the ceremony. Well, "the pro" managed to have all the of photos from the reception focused on the back wall, but no one in the room. The whole concept of weddings raises my hackles anyway.

Then I was in PCC's color lab, (after graduation), and this young lady student was printing wedding photos she had taken. Printing up a storm she was. I couldn't keep up. Then when she got them into the light, I couldn't help but notice they were at least .40 too cyan. Oh well, hopefully her customers didn't notice. Those were the "good old days", 1/2 degree temperature control and seemingly endless test prints.

I'd like to do nude art work, but I'm not in the Ukrainian or Russia mobs, so that's out. There's no oligarch's den to borrow for a shoot where I come from. Not to mention no women with a BMI under about 30%.... or so.

Getting back to on off topic, I've always shot with two bodies My "normal lens" (80 - 200 2.8), and either my 18 -70, (now 16 -80), or some trick nonsense, 8 mm FF fisheye, 10-20 or 8 -16 Sigmas. I bought the D-5200 for the 24 meg sensor, fold out screen, 46 pt autofocus, specifically for the 8 mm. Sure, it's all 10 YO junk, but as is said, "it's new to me".

I can easily understand why today's crop of photogs, don't have my "grab a couple of bags and go" approach. The prices of that mirrorless stuff, even the low end, is absurd. But then again, even my now archaic D-90 was a grand new.

I did manage to finally get off my a** and catch up with the Budweiser Clydesdales in Margate NJ. This after not being willing to pay the outrageous admission at the Devon Horse Show, and fed a Google map that was marked five miles off from the beer distributor where they actually were.

Oh well, enough of my whimpering and reminiscing, Cheers.

This should provide you with a good laugh about "used lenses":

https://www.adorama.com/us1627462.html?gad_source=0&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3bm3BhDJARIsAKnHoVVp3ThJUyYB8cVHgkfdJ081kuapI-jbM09MXt2Bj0nO5wJeOtI05IYaAmYTEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_source=inc-google-shop-p

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Well no, I'm not a pro. I do have an photo AAS degree from Philly Community. Unfortunately, I went as an "old man", but at the very end of the film era. They did forgive me for having a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to a couple of courses. Portraiture was one. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why I should shoot head shots of 20 year olds with a Hassy, while having to stick on a soft focus filter, when I could just bang them out with my 80-200 f2.8, print them to the required 11" x 14", and they looked just dandy, no filter required.

Then there's entry level pro, the infamous wedding photos. That's a hard pass. My kid (40+) was in his 1st wedding and 2nd childhood. He didn't hire me, (thank god). The missus had to have a pro.. OK, so I banged out what they admitted was the best shot of them getting out of the car at the church.. Then took my leave after the ceremony. Well, "the pro" managed to have all the of photos from the reception focused on the back wall, but no one in the room. The whole concept of weddings raises my hackles anyway.

Then I was in PCC's color lab, (after graduation), and this young lady student was printing wedding photos she had taken. Printing up a storm she was. I couldn't keep up. Then when she got them into the light, I couldn't help but notice they were at least .40 too cyan. Oh well, hopefully her customers didn't notice. Those were the "good old days", 1/2 degree temperature control and seemingly endless test prints.

I'd like to do nude art work, but I'm not in the Ukrainian or Russia mobs, so that's out. There's no oligarch's den to borrow for a shoot where I come from. Not to mention no women with a BMI under about 30%.... or so.

Getting back to on off topic, I've always shot with two bodies My "normal lens" (80 - 200 2.8), and either my 18 -70, (now 16 -80), or some trick nonsense, 8 mm FF fisheye, 10-20 or 8 -16 Sigmas. I bought the D-5200 for the 24 meg sensor, fold out screen, 46 pt autofocus, specifically for the 8 mm. Sure, it's all 10 YO junk, but as is said, "it's new to me".

I can easily understand why today's crop of photogs, don't have my "grab a couple of bags and go" approach. The prices of that mirrorless stuff, even the low end, is absurd. But then again, even my now archaic D-90 was a grand new.

I did manage to finally get off my a** and catch up with the Budweiser Clydesdales in Margate NJ. This after not being willing to pay the outrageous admission at the Devon Horse Show, and fed a Google map that was marked five miles off from the beer distributor where they actually were.

Oh well, enough of my whimpering and reminiscing, Cheers.

This should provide you with a good laugh about "used lenses":

https://www.adorama.com/us1627462.html?gad_source=0&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3bm3BhDJARIsAKnHoVVp3ThJUyYB8cVHgkfdJ081kuapI-jbM09MXt2Bj0nO5wJeOtI05IYaAmYTEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_source=inc-google-shop-p

Thanks for the background and fun stories! I was rolling on the floor with your 30% BMI comment!

I started with film as a kid, though I never developed anything myself. My world opened when I bought a Rebel XT DSLR in 2005. I currently own a 5D mark III as I really wanted to go FF for available light photography. It’s 11 years old now but still going strong and I have no plans to replace it. I don’t know much about the various Nikon models, other than seriously considering the D70 before buying my rebel (I already owned a Canon speedlite at the time, so I stuck with Canon).

P.S. that used lens link is really something - I don’t think I’ll be buying that one anytime soon!

 

[captaincranky]

I started with film as a kid, though I never developed anything myself.

Not even B & W? I had my kitchen setup as a darkroom, with black plywood plates, and studs in the window sills, for quick conversion. I wish I still had the ambition, I had 25 years ago. I still have the enlarger & lenses, plus all the "pots & pans" necessary to pull off printing & film development. But then, I'm a bit of a hoarder. And a lazy hoarder at that.

Color film processes aren't particularly "home user friendly". IIRC, color slide film requires temperature controlled to 1/4 degree F, certainly no more than 1/2 degree. IDK if that's what you meant by "not developing anything". "Reform college" had a $50K+ color print processor.

B & W infrared film was a gas. I gives you white foliage, with every other shade of gray being, "in the wrong place".

My world opened when I bought a Rebel XT DSLR in 2005. I currently own a 5D mark III as I really wanted to go FF for available light photography.

Yeah, all my stuff is APS-C. That's a good news/bad news issue. lenses are cheaper, focal length is multiplied 1.5 X. If you're shooting RAW, a couple of stops of highlight & shadow detail can usually be recovered. Be that as it may, low light work still requires fast, (and expensive), glass. Today's astronomical ISO speeds are great, but if the AF can't acquire the target fast enough, they're sort of moot. I used to love doing indoor events like skating, women's gymnastics, & dance. (I'm a perve, so what)? Of course when HIV positive Rudy Galindo hit the ice skating to "Y.M.C.A.", it was time for a smoke. (Not fully "woke" yet, but honest injun I'm working on it. Swear to whomever).

I've always been paddling upstream with gear. I started with Canon, then went to Nikon. I had the first Canon "automatic exposure" SLR, the "EF". Too bad the light box foam melted, froze the mirror, and obviously disabled the shutter. This was in the '70's. With all those white L lenses popping up, I thought I was doing the process of changing systems, backwards.

P.S. that used lens link is really something - I don’t think I’ll be buying that one anytime soon!

About that lens: It's a "concept lens", released in 2008, and pretty much a clunker. My guess is that it's NOS, not sold and bought back, and Adorama is stuck with it. I don't even think it's auto-focus. Here's a couple if reviews to ponder:

Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8

And after I gave MPB such glowing praise, I discover this nonsense.

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/content/kit-guides/sigma-200-500mm-f-2-8-hands-on-review?srsltid=AfmBOoo4XFVsaf49Na_3wjjf_sYATDACa5_oI2QUOjNxQ6rueDpNvZVR

Seriously, who in their right mind would take a 500 mm f2.8 tele out to the beach on a bright sunny day to display its capabilities? Dimwits, that's who.

With full realization that I do so run on and on ad infinitum, perhaps annoyingly so. I'm resisting the temptation to explain Nikon's lens mount and numbering system to you.

Close for now. Cheers

FWIW, I don't think you really missed anything by not grabbing a D70.