Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Several times recently the subject has been raised in other threads and almost without fail contributors state 'the final image is what counts'.
However with other threads running I for one am horrified at how often people seem to change their cameras.
This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better but I get horrified when, say an owner of a Sony A7r? states on a Nikon/Canon mirrorless release 'not for me because it hasn't got.........' What makes you even consider changing cameras so quickly and what is 'so wrong' with the Sony camera that you think changing it will make a difference to the final image.
Then, the other scenario; 'No real difference in image quality between FF and micro...........' and then state that the Micro.......does everything better, a few days later they state how nice a FF version of this camera would be awesome?.......Why if you believed your initial argument that FF offers no advantage?
It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?
I have a D4 - 6 year old technology 16 megapixel that still performs brilliantly and does everything much better than I can; I really can't see any need to upgrade to improve my photography.
Thoughts?.............
However with other threads running I for one am horrified at how often people seem to change their cameras.
This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better but I get horrified when, say an owner of a Sony A7r? states on a Nikon/Canon mirrorless release 'not for me because it hasn't got.........' What makes you even consider changing cameras so quickly and what is 'so wrong' with the Sony camera that you think changing it will make a difference to the final image.
Then, the other scenario; 'No real difference in image quality between FF and micro...........' and then state that the Micro.......does everything better, a few days later they state how nice a FF version of this camera would be awesome?.......Why if you believed your initial argument that FF offers no advantage?
It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?
I have a D4 - 6 year old technology 16 megapixel that still performs brilliantly and does everything much better than I can; I really can't see any need to upgrade to improve my photography.
Thoughts?.............
Last edited: