First is best?

In my small collection of digital cameras I have a few that were first in a range, what you could call the originals, Nex 5, A7, X100, RX100.All surpassed by many later editions and in no way comparable except---- is there any sense in which the first cameras have more soul because they are the blueprint from the design team? Later models are perhaps more consumer driven, eg.video,stabilisation, more pixels when in some way the original spec was right for that camera. Some have said they like the colour rendition of these early types.All work as well as new and although I am as prone to spec lust as the next punter they all take better pictures than I can. Any other fans of the firsts? All the best, Charles.

yes people could have special feelings for their first love first car first camera

 

none of my cameras have the kind of soul if they have it at all that photos or people do

 

as blueprints firsts even if they get surpassed can be important - but thats not my idea of soul

Cars, Film Cameras, Rifles - for me, yes. Digital cameras more like Televisions over the years (tho I no longer use one) technical upgrades, previous versions demoted to lesser and lesser use till finally disposed of. That's not to say I just get rid of them! I just replaced a refrigerator - if it had kept working and been adequate for my needs, I'd still have it - digital the same.

For these mechano-electronic devices, I usually skip the first version if I can. Many glitches and deficiencies are ironed out in the second or third iterations based on hundreds of consumer feedbacks over time. Edited August 22, 2018 by Supriyo

 

With the one--known to many of you--exception, I never met a camera I didn't like.

 

Once, they were out of reach financially; but now most of my objets de covetousness are less than a fancy pizza.

Thank you for replying, as someone very interested in religion I can see that my use of the word soul was rather silly, can I call it authenticity or rightness? I have largely stepped off the upgrade cycle, my Nikon and Panasonic cameras cover me for everything I want to do digitally. From my first digital camera, a Nikon D50, I,ve not felt that I couldn,t take reasonable shots and yet I kept upgrading. Those first series would even now be capable of great work with an expert photographer. I was interested that Mr. Vongries makes a distinction between film and digital, allowing that film cameras have it, but not digital. So my M2 has it but an M8 doesn,t, he may be right, I,m still thinking about it. I guess I can explain why I like these first cameras by looking at my first Mini car, great lightweight, sharp handling, quirky open dash and pull down windows, it was fun. Over the years , like me, it has put on weight and, unlike me, sophistication and lost what Issigonis intended. I still use my X100, especially, with great pleasure. All the best, Charles.

A friend used to say that at some point, most people get trapped in time and don't even know it. In my case, could just be symptoms. Can't imagine giving up my DF, exception to the rule....

Betamax

Nah, just a couple of crated of VHS movies and a player!

Bless 'em all.

The long and the short and the tall

 

With the one--known to many of you--exception, I never met a camera I didn't like.

 

Once, they were out of reach financially; but now most of my objets de covetousness are less than a fancy pizza.

I’m like that with beer, except there is no exception.

 

Please tell, what’s the exception?

Kodak Signet 35 - it's a long story.

You are correct Mr. Vongries, looking at my photo equipment I appear trapped between 1950 and 2018. That is enough, there is freedom in stepping off the treadmill.The Instax SQ6 is my last new camera, what a way to go out! All the best, Charles.

I'm going to disagree - most camera series improve with time. The original RX100 is not that good IMO. The original NEX cameras are not that good either. That is, I don't feel the need to go back to them.

 

Having said that, the original A7 is a damned good camera. It has nothing that the A7II or A7III don't have, but I'd use one today for sure. Just don't use it with RF lenses.

 

Many say that the M 240 was inferior to the M9, but I think it's fair to say that the M10 is superior to both. The M10-P is even better.

 

As far as film cameras go, the M7 is better than any other M body. IMHO. Too bad it has been discontinued, but maybe Leica found a way to improve it.

Mr. Ghantous, thank you for such an interesting post, for me investing in better lenses seems to give me more benefits than upgrading, but I am sure you are correct to say that most digital cameras improve through the series. This seems less clear with film cameras, where does my M2 come in the Leica pecking order, which is the top dog in the Nikon pro line, is the original Rollei slr or 35 the best? I know it doesn,t matter, just put your best lens on the camera of your choice and have fun. All the best, Charles.

Show me a single digital camera with the fine quality of an M3.

Somehow I don’t foresee a market 60 years from now for today’s DSLRs that will be comparable to today’s market for the M3, relatively speaking.

And I understand full well the difference in the photographic capabilities.

Just sayin’......

Edited August 23, 2018 by Moving On

Amazingly ,two of these first generation models are still available new from Clifton Cameras, an excellent company, the A7 at £799 or £899 with kit lens and the RX100 for £329. Are the latest models really worth several times that price? Staying with the price factor I believe Mr. S when he says that the MP is a fine camera, please tell us more about using it and how it is better than a mint M2/3 at £800, I am genuinely interested as the owner of a fine M2 and not likely to experience a new Leica for myself.Thank you for any help.All the best, Charles.

The best.

 

The best is you…no camera can compete with that.

 

Cheap Fuji x-e2 with a cheap Artisan lens from China.

 

59 gbp for the lens 200gbp for the body.

 

Show me better image quality.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Allen Herbert

Sony rx100

 

Words speak for those who like speak; photographs speak for photographs.

Incremental changes are just that.

 

Incremental changes...

Everyone can talk a story....

 

But is a photograph about the story or about the photograph

 

Seems to me most folks like the story.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Allen Herbert

A photo because that is what we do.

 

Maybe some just like the speak ….

Just a few thoughts.

To help.

 

For those who want to understand.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Allen Herbert