Chatting to a friend at work today (online) and I said I liked some photos she'd taken the night before of Tower Bridge lit up- what camera? And she said "That one you gave me" WHOA! About 6 years ago one of the regulars in the Bell's said "You know something about cameras is this any good? Have it I don't want it" It was a Sony compact, he found lying in the street, I can't remember the model but i did Google it at the time and it was a fairly expensive model. No memory card and no charger. But he'd walked past it 3 or so days before he thought to pick it up So when Vanda asked about buying a new camera I said "I have no idea if this will work but you just need a charger at first to check the battery and then if that is okay a memory card" . She got a cheapo charger and the battery worked so she went out and got a memory card and here we are 6 years later and she still uses it, it's been all over the place with her and she tells me it's the best camera she has ever had!
My son still uses the 12 year old Oly I passed on to him. I dug out an unused shot of mine from it recently and it won a competition. Can't think how many thousands I have spent on replacements since then.
I've still got my original digital camera and it was a Sony. I loved it. It behaved and took whatever I wanted it to take, regardless of light available or whatever setting I put it on. Good colour reproduction too. I'm trying to think how old it is, but it must be about 15 years ago?
I still have the Canon A510 I bought in 2005, and it still works. Its memory card is a 256Mb CF card.
I usually flog old stuff off, but I have a little 8MP Digital Ixus and 10MP Panny FX35 in my cupboard. Have to say the results are only acceptable on very bright days and then not magnified too far. Pretty little things though.
Both digital cameras I have are relics - I bought the Canon G10 in 2008, and the D200 was built about the same time. Meanwhile this is my oldest "regular" (ie every couple of years) user camera: Kodak No2 Folding Pocket Brownie by gray1720, on Flickr and I've used this one a little, which is a couple of years older: No 3 Folding Pocket Kodak Model E-2 by gray1720, on Flickr ..but I know RogerMac, I think, has one older than that by some way, and Footloose has a Sanderson that must be of similar vintage.
The oldest working film camera I have is a Contaflex 1 - from 1953. Mind you, there is a Praktica FX in the cupboard that is the same age, and would work - but I don't like waist level finders.
He has indeed and here is a montage showing the camera and the owners husband and son taken in 1884 with same camera.
That is a good story proving two things everyone knows. First, if you have good quality something it will work well for a really long time. Secondly, you need to know how to use your camera, there are many people with cool cameras taking average photos.
Well most of the ones insisting on full frame at present, I would guess. They don't know why they want it, they just do. FF has taken over from pixel count as the lazy shorthand for quality.
Have you done a detailed survey or is that just a "look at me I'm cool" statement? More to the point: who gets to decide what's "good", "average" or "bad"?
I still have the first digital camera I bought for a holiday,Canon Powershot A 530 and the Ricoh CX1 that I won in an AP prize draw.Not sure how long ago that was. My first DSLR was a Sony Alpha 100,now sold on Ebay with an overheating fault.I never heard more from the buyer so don`t know if it`s still around.
Is it just me, or does this comment come across as confrontational (at best) or just plain nasty (at worst)? Cheers, Jeff
Well not really when seen in the context of someone whose stated belief is he is as good as any photographer who ever lived, since he believes no-one can deny it.
There is nothing technically wrong with wanting full frame and if someone is prepared to pay the price, why not? As it happens it is possible to buy a used full frame body quite cheaply. Unfortunately, in this you are correct, though larger pixels are technically superior to small ones, in practice few people will ever notice the difference as they don't stretch the envelope enough to find the limits.
Come on, Mike. At least get your evidence right: my belief (as stated ad nauseum here) is that every photographer who ever lived is as good as every other photographer who ever lived.
I'm going to step in here and defend Jeff although I am sure he can do it himself, but that was out of order and the sort of comment a child would make. Jeff, as far as I can recall, has been far from nasty on these forums (which from your comment, is what I assume you are inferring). Can't get more chilled or funny, as far as I can see.
