All the latest cameras from every brand has now sacrificed image quality for speed or megapixels. at least photographers can choose their weapon based on their shooting preferences. no camera is better than the next, they are all just different. everyone needs to get over the my camera is better than yours and just shoot images that take advantage of their respected camera brand and design specs.
8 months ago
78
Yeah, never been cheaper to jump on high quality gear.
I picked myself up a brand new local stock original model S5, for a song. I don't do video so the AF is plenty good enough for me. The BSI 24MP sensor is fabulous, L mount lenses are plentiful, well made and very reasonably priced, it was a no brainer to jump back from m4/3. Good timesim amazed how much money some people have to buy gear, as soon as a new camera comes out they must buy it that week before anyone has even posted an image. im only in the market for a new a6700 because it has no blackout evf at 10+ frames and no buffer for jpegs for my macro work otherwise id keep my a6300.
Totally bogus.
Only reason I bought a superseded model new, was it was nearly cheaper than picking up a second hand FF DSLR and a fast 50. Which I had a bit of an itch for.
About Au $2000 including the most excellent Lumix 20-60mm, and a brand new Lumix 50 f1.8 for Au $400. All delivered to my door. How could you possibly go wrong with that?
There has certainly been no new camera release that has made me want to update or change my current camera gear. I can see my outdated D850 and Z7i remaining in my camera bag for a lot longer.
The pace of relevant camera gear updates has really slowed to a trickle.
There are hordes of tourists in my city; but it is extremely rare that I encounter one with a camera, as opposed to a phone, these days.
David
great buy, the a6700 is $1900 digidirect its not a bad price
Donald, I wouldn't say that image quality is "sacrificed" - it just isn't any better than before. But, of course, that is according to MY criteria, which is "how good it looks when I print it on MY printer (Epson 9700)".
I agree that new cameras are adding new features, rather than focussing (sic) on improving image quality. But then, what would you want to help improve image quality? For me, it would be much better dynamic range and much better high ISO quality (less noise). I don't know what's coming down the pipeline in sensor improvements - maybe others do.
Alan
That's what Donald is getting at I think. We've hit the wall, & in some cases, those metrics have gone backwards a little bit.
exactly the z6iii has lower DR than the original z6 same with the latest a93 same as canon R5 they all have gone backward.
It does seem like an arms race between the manufacturers, trying to hit the highest number of frames-per-second so people can take a gazillion photos of birds in flight.
Back in the nineties I did performing arts photography with film. At most I would use a couple of rolls of film, and got results good enough to be published in specialist magazines. I even made the cover of one mag. So, with 72 shots, I could bring the goods home.
On DPR, a guy is telling us how he shot 1500 frames with his Z6iii to document a concert, plus I guess a lot on his second camera. I used to call this sort of thing "motor-drive madness".
I get the feeling people do not really look at what they are photographing anymore, the new normal is spray and pray for a good shot.
I think one of the reasons for this is video. If the sensor’s resolution can’t fill the sensor with an even multiple of 4096 x 2160 or 8,192 x 4,320, then the camera will generally perform poorly or undesirably when recording video.
This generally works out to roughly 24 and 45 megapixels, because the DCI video aspect ratio is 1.9:1, while 35mm film aspect ratio is 3:2, so you can’t entirely fill the sensor when you shoot video. I’m sure a math nerd will chime in with more precision, but the net is that a sensor resolution such as 32mp or 65mp is undesirable for video.
Canon made two 50 megapixel DSLRs, and owners loved them, but they didn’t sell well because the higher resolution sacrificed frame rate. When we look at a resolution such as Canon’s 45 megapixel R5, you need a BIG jump to make a noticeable improvement. Another ten megapixels doesn’t do much. I think that’s why Sony’s highest res is 60 mp.
Hi,
I went to professional motorsports events beginning in the mid 70s and saw high speed Nikon F2 models with 250 shot film backs. And I thought that was madness. Just a drop in the proverbial bucket these days....
Me, I only shoot raw and manual process each shot. So I don't want fast, thanks! ;)
Right now, I am good with my 16 MP for small format and 50 MP for medium format.
Stan
I once had a discussion with a guy on DPR, who complained that his camera broke down after shooting 18000 frames in an afternoon, whist shooting a marathon. No I have not added a zero!
He got really upset when I said maybe he could have shot less, and still got good results.
I understand the guys who shoot swallows in flight and things like that, as the failure rate must be enormous. Just glad I do not have to sift though the results.
Hi,
Wow. One afternoon. I have my Kodak 760 with 80k frames on the clock. From 03 to 18 when I all but replaced it with a Nikon Df. The 760 then became dedicated on a copy stand in the electronics lab to shoot failed circuit boards.
Anyway, I thought that was a lot of shooting over that time period.
Stan
