Equipment Longevity

Will it work (as in function)? Absolutely.

Will technology have moved on so far that you'll wonder why you would want to? Absolutely.

As technology moves more into the digital realm, Moore's Law apply moore and moore  

 

I expect that they will still work in ten years. Whether we'll still have them, or want to use them or not, is another matter. How well they'll survive will say a lot about how well we look after what we have. Could be that we will be using 50 megapixel digital rangefinder(ish) cameras by then, or medium format digital. The future looks good to me :smile:

All the best,

Colin

 

Narnian,

I like this thread.. unfortunately I'm off to purchase some 'ice melting" chemicals...
But, I'll be back.

 

I restrict myself to purchasing stuff that will make my photography goals simpler to reach, or offer some other tangible improvement.

I bought a digital Rebel in 2003 - the first 'affordable' DSLR. It produced great files then, and does so now. My wife uses it frequently.

I moved to a 20D in 2005 for the increased speed of operation: it was the kids and sports stage. Great camera, really great. I sold it when the kids moved on to other stuff (boys, and no camera is fast enough for that...) and purchased a used 5D for my landscape work. It was designed in 2004, yet today I was reading how in terms of file quality it still holds it's own. Well, I knew that.


I can't foresee me needing to replace my 5D for years. I look after it and it looks after me.

The only reasons to replace my GF1 will be some damage / failure, or a camera with features that attracted me to the GF1 in the first place but are significantly better and really attractive for my type of photography (built in EVF, manual controls, maybe better dynamic range). Otherwise, the GF1 is it for years.

Looked after, I suspect an electronic tool can last a very long time. What doesn't last so well is our common sense around what we want as opposed to what we need.

 

The camera companies survive because of fear and desire. The desire for shiny new things and the fear that somehow your equipment is not keeping up with the Jones's. Those two things will keep them in business.

As far as photography, there is going to be a point when adding pixels does not matter anymore. At what point that comes is a subjective line that each photographer will decide. Fortunately, pixel peeping will keep folks buying. We are at points where people are unhappy with what they have, even though in any practical terms it is not going to make a blind bit of difference--if you want to see the OCD just go to Luminous Landscapes.

I am not certain that cameras can continue to improve like computers. You cannot pack an infinite number of pixels on a chip. Lens technology has very real limits in terms of what it can do and the reality of producing it. Increasing storage from 100GB to 100TB may have practical uses--at work I could fill up 100GB with 50 files easily. Increasing sensors from say 40MP to 400MP would be fairly useless--except in the mind of the consumer and folks at LL.

 

Just daydreaming a bit... thinking that what would change the game would have to be some major revolution in sensor design... It must be in the works...

All the best,

Colin

 

I just uploaded images from the last 40 some odd years to Flickr.
My vision has remained basically in tact.
That's all I care about.
Cameras/lenses come and go but you must remain true to your vision.

It's important to find your way with what you have in hand. Cherish the moment, they fly by without warning.
The past is a memory and the future will take care of itself....
This applies to cameras as well.

 

You said it all :smile:

 

Perhaps cameras will have multiple lenses and sensors, who knows.

I do think the megapixel cold war is winding down. Nikon releasing a 12 MP flagship was like Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall".

 

Now that's funny.....!

 

Ray, Things were easier for me back then as far as cameras go.
I'd load the M4 or whatever, pop on the 35..
Lux or Cron and hit the streets. No light meter, just a few tissues and rolls of film.

Now.. I have to decide if the battery will make the day... What ASA to use...
Look at the meter double guessing my ability to feel light.
Then... Walk and make photos.
My vision and subject matter has not changed.

My choice of camera, lens and processing has changed but guided by my vision.
Anything that gets in the way of that...
Well...it ain't pretty.

So the new technology is only as good as those who know how and use it.
The M9 is a natural growth of the Leica M camera system.
It has a past and present and no doubt a future.

The m4/3 cameras, well who knows in a few years.
I do know this about cameras and lenses.
NO matter what you use, the images are a product of your concentrated vision.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Technology can make leaps an bounds in the future but the images one makes...
Will not be because of that technology.

There is no magic camera, no magic lens and no magic software...
The magic comes from within us to see outside of ourselves.

 

Point #1- (per the OP)
My six-ana-half year old, heavily used, 20D still function very well and the images are very acceptable. Grant it, my 5D and 1Ds will kick its butt at 16x20 and high ISO, but all-in-all it will hold its own on an amateur skill level.

Point #2- (the hijack - lol)
I was a lot better in my youth than I am now. Even with all the auto features of modern cameras, my images were better decades ago. (Maybe because I was in more image-rich environments and less people with cameras scaring the fish away ... Or maybe because I was much more competitive back then or a combo of the two.) I remember it much easier to shoot on the streets 30 years ago then it is now. Maybe I just need to work harder.

While my images were better back then, the IQ doesn't come close to what I get with today's cameras.

Gary

 

Gary, I don't see a hijack.
We are talking about cameras and lenses and their past and future.
Directly related to imaging.

I remember many years ago a friend, a pro shooter had one of the first Blads with the digital back.
I was amazed.... He did a shoot here in Philly for an agency in Boston for a client in California.
He uploaded the image and about 45 min later, was talking about corrections for the image.

Today, that takes seconds.... The image would still be the same but the gear different.
He paid I think, $50,000.00 for that back.
So new technology will help the struggle but the images will be from within.

I still love my 6mp files from my Eppy...
Would they be better if they were 20mp?
I don't think so...

I'd like to be able to just wink my eye and record an image.
Maybe someday...but not soon...

 

Incredible and inspiring

Don - I accidentally clicked on the link to your website rather than to your FLICKR post and just went through your first set of Leica photos. Amazing photography, absolutely brilliant timing, use of shadows and reflections, definitely powerful and even funny "decisive moments" in the Cartier-Bresson mold (the runner in Atlantic City, for one). The mood tends toward moving and melancholy, and I see that a lot in your recent work on the winter Philly streets. Really good stuff, inspires me to work harder at my photography. Thanks for posting, will look at the site and FLICKR post some more.

 

"Hijack" ... was all tongue-in-cheek.

Deadlines were/are always a problem. IIRC, we had six deadlines a day at the LA Times. For big events ... say a Rose Bowl, we had messengers on motocycles, whisking the film from the endzone to downtown for developing and prints. Every week I had to print from wet negatives ... today, getting images from the field to a news desk is just a laptop away. Huge improvements from a motocycle weaving down Arroyo Blvd heeding to the 110 Freeway.

Gary

I enjoyed your website ... try as I may I couldn't sign the guest book.
G