Slated by the net

Watching the attempted demolition of the new Nikon reminds me of the first reaction to the Sony A7 line. Given the praise now heaped on their latest incarnations it will be interesting to see how the updated Nikons fare in 4 years time. Have you a camera that was hammered on release but which has been a good tool for you? I have two such, a Leica X type 113, and a Sigma DP3 Quattro. The Leica was labelled a camera for Leica fans unable to afford the real thing. Slow auto focus, never bothered me, no viewfinder, a cheap Olympus ovf for their 17mm lens solved that, and a lens that changed from its 1.7 to 2.8 as you got close, no problem. Nice build, great glass and yes a nice feeling that you own a Leica assembled in Germany. I would like an M10 and a couple of lenses but that is way out of my league. A Q made sense, good value for a full frame body and lens, but still pricey and I prefer the 35mm lens of my camera.I can regain a bit of Leica cred by carrying my M2 or a couple of Barnacks but I would have to say ,very quietly ,that the X113 is my Leica of choice.Any defence of the Quattro I,ll leave to see if anyone is interested. Please join in with any examples of cameras or lenses that you like to use that have been slated by the internet critics. Perhaps I should start saving for the Nikon mk.4, all the best, Charles.

Honest and truly, WHO CARES? This ridiculous fascination with gear has almost no bearing on actual photography.

Most of the opinions I see/read on the internet around camera introductions are from fanboys who can see only black and white and exagerate the flaws and virtues to no end. Some are so over the top focussed on spec sheets, they only leave you wondering whether that person actually ever tried any serious photography at all. All those opinions have little to do with reality. And, yes, some sites attract more fanboys than others (p.net is fortunately relatively free, though exceptions exist) and some brands attract more. So, all we see now are the Nikon fanboys defending the new cameras at all cost, and the Sony fanboys picking on every little flaw they can find. Frankly, 'Leica cred' falls straight into the fanboy territory too. And when the next mirrorless camera lands, that brand will go into this cycle. And so the internet keeps itself entertained and all large photography sites will feed us clickbait links to keep the useless flow of comments and spec-sheet opinions going.

 

And as said above, none of this has any bearing on actual photography.

 

Use the gear that works for you. What others think about it is pretty irrelevant until they either know your photography well enough to understand your needs or unless your gear actually doesn't work for you, but against you.

Mr.Wogears, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I am fascinated with camera equipment as well as really enjoying taking snaps, I thought the site could be a broad church to accomodate us fanboys. Yes Mr. Willemse, you have me bang to rights, I am a fan of Leica and until I choose otherwise I can pass for a very old boy, but I am not sure if a true Leica fanboy would own up to possession of an X 113. I do take a few pictures, today I used my Instax to photograph a neighbours child and giant sunflower that she had grown for her reception class competition. She seemed happy to take the prints.Thank you for replying, all the best, Charles.

I've tried to buy the best Nikon film equipment I could get since 1978 when they went with AI and later AIS lenses. Occasionally I'll mention, for example, that I'm going out with my F3HP's or such over the coming weekend, as in the "What Camera Are You Using This Weekend" thread. I don't think that makes me a Nikon fanboy.

 

Hmm... maybe... maybe

not...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

While looking up reviews of unfamiliar equipment, I avoid all the superlatives that are present in many online reviews. I just skim through the facts. For example, when the Panasonic LX100 came out, everyone was saying how great it is and all that. Hidden deep in those reviews was the fact that this camera suffers from terrible/ugly lens flare when pointed at bright lights. Thats very true and since I own this camera, I find it a big deal from time to time. Many of the reviews didn't make a big deal of that though. Such facts help me to decide whether its a deal-breaker or not. Other than that, liking a camera is subjective to some extent (yes, the fanboy effect is there) and shouldn't be given too much importance, unless I know the personality of the reviewer.

 

That said, I have a camera which has not so good reviews on the internet (Fujifilm HS50 EXR) and for good reasons. Its picture quality is subpar due to excessive noise even at base ISO, which needs lot of work and care in post processing to make things watchable, but I enjoyed using it. There is one feature thats missing in most bridge cameras, that is non-motorized zoom. The lens barrel is freely rotatable by hand like a DSLR lens and I like that. It allows me to create those cool zooming effects on long exposure, like the image below. Last year, I almost got rid of it (at least I thought) by selling to Amazon buyback program, but they returned it to me saying they don't want it. So, its sticking with me, at least for now :).

 

Mr. Peri, I love that picture and the thought bubble, it always makes me smile. At my very advanced age I would love to be called a fanboy, I have been a fan of photography for 60 years, and was thrilled to move from my box brownie to my tremendously advanced Ilford Craftsman, which was a fake TLR. The first upgrade of many. I guess my post was a bit nuanced, which is difficult to convey here, but it was something like don,t bother about what others say, choose and shoot what you want, the Nikon will be a success in time. Today I took some macro shots with my Quattro, Mr. Willemse is absolutely correct to say use the gear that works for you, if I listened to others I would not be able to see the screen in broad daylight, jpegs are rubbish, only use on a tripod, impossible to hold the camera,(how did we manage before stabilised gear?), I might as well put it in the bin, amazingly the shots were ok for me, that lens and sensor is something. One of the only good things about growing old is a diminishing fear of appearing ridiculous, as you would know if you observed my choice of headgear. A lifetime fascination with photography isn,t the worst way to fill in the gap.All the best, Charles.

Mr. Supriyo, thank you , you get it. Brilliant to draw attention to bridge cameras, the real photographers faint at their mention but I found a Panasonic bridge of such great use that I had to give it away to my niece as it was making my other cameras redundant. I admire your pictures and bet you have plenty more good ones from this camera. All the best, Charles.

One of the only good things about growing old is a diminishing fear of appearing ridiculous

 

I like that statement. When I see so many pretty people sensitive about figure and skin and body image, sometimes it appears that if they get even the slightest wrinkle in their skin or belly fat, they will kill themselves, but surprisingly they all survive into the dusk. Old age diminishes that fear, perhaps by taking away the choices. When there is no choice, there is no fear, just peace.

Brilliant to draw attention to bridge cameras, the real photographers faint at their mention but I found a Panasonic bridge of such great use that I had to give it away to my niece as it was making my other cameras redundant. I admire your pictures and bet you have plenty more good ones from this camera.

 

Charles and Supriyo, my first digital camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50. Primarily the feature that attracted me was a Leica lens with a 35mm equivalent of 35 - 420 mm. However, having no real understanding of noise at that time, I found out rather quickly that the quality of most of the images it produced was subpar, to say the least. However, it served me well at the time. I even got a wide angle attachment for it. Between my ownership of that camera and the present, I learned that having a better camera doesn't necessarily result in better images.

When I see so many pretty people sensitive about figure and skin and body image, sometimes it appears that if they get even the slightest wrinkle in their skin or belly fat, they will kill themselves, but surprisingly they all survive into the dusk.

It’s not a concern anymore, though, because we can all just photoshop away our wrinkles for a facebook profile photo and stay forever young and beautiful behind the comfort and safety of our desktop monitors and mobile devices.

This putting the bad word on good cameras went on before the net. 40 years ago I shot with an OM1 and bought an OM10 as a backup. I found it a really useable camera but even then there was a lot of talk about it being sub-standard, not as good a second string as an FE2 or FM2. It has never failed and never been serviced apart from foam replacement. The OM1 went back to Jessops for seized film advance several times, I think they used it as an office football. Mr. Turner, I knew it was a mistake never to learn photoshop, all the best, Dorian Gray.

from fanboys

 

AB SOL lutely

 

There are too many 'reviews' by people who have never even seen, much less used, the gear they talk about .

Welcome to 21 century, it is called marketing and has very little relation to photography itself. It is more like Victoria Secret campaign, if you will buy that lingerie to your wife or girlfriend, she will get body of Gisele Bündchen:).

Wanna shoot like Henri Cartier-Bresson, buy Leica. Like Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl" , have to get latest Nikon. And I don't envy you, if you like Annie Leibovitz work, that Hasselblad will bankrupt you right out of the gates, even before you get that shot of Amy Beth Schumer.

Sony didn't produced any talents yet:)

Thank you Mr.D, which Leica model do you suggest would allow me to shoot like Cartier-Bresson? As a callow youth I wandered around London with two Nikon F cameras around my neck with a 35 and 100, I was convinced I was Burrows, Page and Ut rolled in to one, although possibly in less danger. As a step down from that , today I shall continue to photograph Pamber forest with my D4 fitted with a Lomo pinhole lens, great fun for a £20 lens. All the best, Charles.

Like Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl" , have to get latest Nikon.

Did they make the latest Nikon 30+ years ago?

Man, they got some catching up to do!!!

;)

Perhaps you meant “....shoot with film”

;) ;) ;)

if you like Annie Leibovitz work, that Hasselblad will bankrupt you right out of the gates,

After her little Stormy Daniels shoot, “bankrupt” seems an apt term.

After her little Stormy Daniels shoot, “bankrupt” seems an apt term.

Well, she is in vogue now. Putting Stormy Daniels in company of John Lennon, Queen Elizabeth II and Hollywood stars, looks like fart of American democracy to me.

Again, not to forget she shot Madonna.

 

When you got it,baby, flaunt it (Max Bialystok in the Producers)

Lomo

Ah LOMO, when I was kid, I did convinced my mother, that I absolutely needed that beautiful "Leningrad" rangefinder produced by LOMO. It was in pawn shop, so I checked camera shutter, it had some problems and we walked away, I was ready to cry. Mother have bought me brand new camera in camera store, two blocks down the street, but somehow, that one I didn't get, stays in memory.

" Life is short. Time is luck" Miami Vice

Edited September 5, 2018 by Nick D.

There must be a plethora of "good enough for a couple of things" cameras out by now, including the used market and even cell phones. The 1st one I bought for myself was a Pentax *ist D (already back in it's days). My oldest in regular use is a (sufficiently controversial for the OP?) M8 that I got 3 or 4 years ago.

 

A camera buying decision can be very different from putting something on the pedestals of "most versatile and capable bang for the buck" or "*insert brand*'s most amazing flagship product". I don't know what a reviewer is supposed to do. What I value most about their work is putting a new product somewhere into the big picture; giving me an idea what it might do differently, if at all or how well or badly, compared to the rest of the market.

 

I don't entirely understand what the Nikon Z bodies are about or what the reviewing world would have wanted them to be. - Sure, something significantly cheaper than a Sony A9, beating that one's specs and ergonomics in every field, is desirable. - On the other hand a significant improvement over the a Df behind a manual focus lens might be worth buying? I'd love to have a MILC with good EVF and IBIS that operates apertures of heritage glass like the old film SLRs did.

 

While I made compromises in the past to become able to use glass I already owned on digital, I'll either shoot that stuff till it 'll finally fall apart or spend serious money if it buys me better, good reviews earning AF performance. - I'd love to get my hands on a camera that focuses dim kit zooms in bad light well and swiftly.