Modern Camera Build Quality.

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by za33photo, Jun 18, 2022.

  1. Yes, and what an IS it is!

    Were different "film types" really a plus?
    Now I just change the settings on the camera, or (even long after the fact) edit in RAW...
     
    q.g._de_bakker likes this.
  2. It's about the only option when shooting film, limited at that. On my last extensive photo tour with film, 2001, I carried about 100 rolls each, ISO 400 Neg, ISO 100 Neg, and ISO 80 Slide. With two bodies, I was reasonably prepared for indoor and outdoor shooting. ISO 400 was about the limit for acceptable grain and color. Now 12,000 is not a particular challenge.

    From that tour, 21 years ago, I have scanned and archived only about half of the images. Since then, I have added nearly 200,000 digital images to Lightroom.
     
    ajkocu likes this.
  3. SCL

    SCL

    "Shoddy" really? I'm sure the engineering in fact isn't. Perhaps the tactile look or feel is inconsistent with your perception of quality. But as others have noted quality isn't just a measure of appearance, or even longevity, but includes functionality and the end product - the characteristics of the image produced, as well. Just my opinion.
     
    tholte and ajkocu like this.
  4. Everything was better 40 years ago, I was only 22 :)
     
  5. The Nikon Z6ii is a high end and expensive camera , I expected better.
    I have a manufacturing background , and I would like to think that I can recognize cheap manufacturing methods and sub-standard material when I see it.
    Nikon is quite capable of making really good stuff , the WX series of binoculars is proof of this.
    Today factories exist for one purpose only , and that is to show a profit , the cheaper an article can be made , with as low and cheap materials that they can get away with , the better for them.
    This is just me.
    :D.
     
  6. As the policeman said to me when I turned on a red light at a multiple intersection, "that fools a lot of people"

    It's often something called the "Dunning-Kruger Effect"
     
    SCL likes this.
  7. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Before I switched to Canon 5D and successors in 2008 I had a decade or more shooting Medium format Bronicas and Mamiya 7ii. With most medium format you were supposed to have the equipment serviced every few months and I still had a whole series of electrical issues. Frankly they were not made in sufficient volume to bring the reliability you expect from true mass production. It was imperative to carry a spare body. I had an aborted trip due to camera malfunction. Servicing and repair was a budget line in my business. Meanwhile my Canon gear has never been serviced, and I've had just one malfunction with body or lens with probably 15 000 actuations a year.

    Frankly in my experience it was the old stuff that was, by comparison, shoddily made by comparison with more recent cameras. Even my EOS 10's from the 1980's couldn't hold a candle to my last decade's experience. Just goes to show how much mass production techniques have improved. Frankly these days I suspect margins are so slim that businesses just can't afford to pay for a high incidence of warranty claims.
     
    SCL and ajkocu like this.
  8. Camera build quality is where I think this started. While my D4 is well designed and well built and functions quite well the same can be said about the F2 and F4s. Still Iā€™m pretty sure the F2 could beat the crap out of the other two. It runs on common batteries and is smooth as can be.

    Rick H.
     
    SCL likes this.
  9. Although they are many times more complicated than earlier Nikon F's, the D3's -D6's were professional level cameras. designed to operate in extreme conditions like war zones, and I haven't really heard that they were poorly built. Instead, just the opposite.

    Likewise the high end Sony and Fuji's are really solid. It all depends on the camera maker and model.
     

Share This Page

1111