fotolopithecus

I was able to examine a Nikon ZS6II yesterday , wow , this camera is shoddily built when compared to the old classic Nikon and some other older film camera's.

The ZS6 may be able to produce better results than the old classics , but the quality and engineering , in my opinion is just not there.

Are modern Leica's or Hasselblads any better ? , but only a few people are able to buy these.

But I suppose that in this modern "throw away" age , this is as good as it gets.

:D.

They started building cameras cheesier back during the film days except for their higher end models. Plastic, and stamped pieces of metal joined together. Now it's even worse because the manufacturers are spitting out new models every couple of years with more, and more useless features that add nothing to photography but at the cost of build quality. At one time you could expect a new camera every five years or so with film. Anyway, there's nothing you can do about it because a new generation is being catered to, and they like nothing more than a camera that will do everything but scratch their posterior.

I use several Sony cameras for video with a large video battery and dummy battery adapter. I keep a Sony battery in the camera to maintain the clock and memory, and other spare batteries on the side in reserve. I'm not always attentive to their maintenance.

 

I haven't keep clinical notes on the subject, but roughly a battery will lose about 50% of its change after 3 months, unused, in the camera, and about 20% of its charge outside the camera in a year. That said, a lot depends on the camera, the battery, and how the "charge" is measured.

 

A battery on the last bar in the camera (<25%) will usually register 50% in my Watson battery charger. The camera and battery (Sony) are "smart" whereas the charger ids comparatively dumb. My DJI drone batteries deliberately self-discharge to about 30%, starting 3 days after their last use. This is to preserve the longevity of the battery against crystallization and dendrite formation.

So the cameras assessment of the amount of charge left is fairly accurate I guess. It kind of surprises me how much charge simply dissipates from a little clock in the camera. I would think there was little internal backup battery in the camera, because what happens if you store your camera without the battery in it, or it runs out completely. I worked in a place where we had walkie talkies radios that had to be taken once a week down to hq to be drained completely on some machine otherwise they wouldn't hold their charge for a full shift. Don't remember what kind of batteries they were, but they might have been similar.

A variety of fine features have vanished, other things are "broken" with no explanation or apparent plan for repair. All of these factors have diminished the value and interest in membership. There has been no viable route to communicate with the site owners. I suggest the following as a course of action toward the goal of achieving communication and rehabilitating Photo.net.

All members who are dissatisfied with current conditions should consider posting a brief message, directed to Ownership describing broken, missing, or dysfunctional features important to them that reduce the value of their subscription. They might consider doing the same regularly on whatever schedule makes sense to them until improvement is seen. At the same time, reducing participation could be another tool to gain attention, and hopefully return to full functionality.

 

Should this initiative turn out to result in my removal, all the best moving forward to friends and foes alike.

 

Sandy Vongries

LOL. Don't be too sure of that. There's a more full quotation than the one most have only heard a portion of ...

 

Seriously, though, limits are relative. There are actually unlimited things one can do with a cell phone sensor but there are also some technical limits that and any other piece of equipment will constrain one to. Just as there are unlimited approaches to photography but probably some personal and cultural limits consciously or unconsciously imposed on the unlimited photographic possibilities, regardless of equipment size, shape, brand, and price.

 

Somewhere in the counterpoint of limits and unlimitedness, photos get made.

That sounds a bit philosophical, but I'm speaking more of the limit in physics. In any event I don't see a future time when a tiny sensor beats or equals a larger one given the same technology.

"photo gear" will be worthless in the next few years due to advances in smartphones...

I don't think phones are destined to take over the world, except for (excuse the terminology, no looking down the nose intended) Snap shooters. There are limits to what can be done with a tiny sensor

Leica M6, 50mm F2 lens. Traded for a Nikon D300.

The Nikon D300 was a nice camera with good highlight dynamic range as I recall, but........yeah, why did you do that.

I'm just curious how many people have sold photographic gear they later wished they hadn't. I once owned a Zeiss 34-70 f/3.4 zoom back in the eighties for a Contax camera I had. The camera company went bust so I changed back to Nikon. In any event I sold off the Zeiss, and have regretted it ever since. It probably could have been adapted to What I have now. To this day I miss the look that lens gave to scenes, and how different the lens coating colors were when I looked down into the barrel under a light.

Any similar regrets from some of you?

You do not have to update or upgrade. If the camera you have delivers, no need to get a newer one. Just because a newer camera can focus 5 ms faster and has a burst rate of 2 fps more? No valid reason, unless you found that this was the exact reason why the images you created weren't quite up to your standards. That applies to both film and digital cameras.

Good point, but I guess a lot of people like having the latest, and greatest even if a particular improvement doesn't apply directly to what they shoot. To your point, I didn't upgrade from the Sony A7RIII to the A7RIV which I normally would have done because practically speaking I felt I would have been losing some of the things I liked about the A7RIII. Nonetheless, the larger body, and higher res evf would have been nice.

In its most modern version, Leica offered the Digital Module R (DMR) for their R8 and R9 SLR camera; before that there were the various Kodak models based on Nikon SLRs and there are digital backs for medium format bodies. I don't think anybody would consider the Leica DMR to "stay close to the original size of the camera" unless one thinks of the camera+winder/motor drive; then indeed the size, except depth, hardly changed.

As to why it doesn't happen - demand and price would be my guesses. I imagine the price for such a back to be about the same, if not more, than that for a DSLR.

I'm sure you're right, but all the same you might expect some favorite film bodies from the past to be competitive with modern dslr bodies.

I'd like a Micro 4/3 camera where the sensor can tilt and move forwards and backwards.

Actually, I wouldn't want much - just a high resolution digital back to fit my Nikon Film cameras in place of the film. Compact, staying close to the original size of the camera and operation with original camera controls. As to new tech, I have what I need in digital for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I wouldn't want much - just a high resolution digital back to fit my Nikon Film cameras in place of the film. Compact, staying close to the original size of the camera and operation with original camera controls. As to new tech, I have what I need in digital for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I've heard about that digital back or attachment for film cameras for probably as long as digital has been a thing. I can't understand why it doesn't happen, because if it did I'd like one for a Nikon F100. That in my estimation was one nice camera.

Here's my old post on a look forward in 1940

 

The Future of the Camera, August, 1940

 

more on the nose than you might expect

That's interesting, prognostication at it's finest.

The camera I use the most is the D500 - and that's the one I'd modify. Eliminate the "quad" selector on the top left - I don't need any of that as my version would be permanently in M mode with Auto ISO on or off as the only option. The level indicator would always be on. I'd replace the AF-ON button with a second joy stick. Both would be so I can have different AF modes and AF area selectability available to me - like one being set on GRP and one at single or 153-area. I'd also move the AF area selector from the left front to the back right or front top right so that I can easily change AF area modes with my right hand. The "i" and "info" buttons can go, as can the liveview selector as there is no need for video. No need for the frame rate selector either - my D500 version would be permanently stuck in high-speed mode, with frame rate increased to 12fps. I would very much prefer my D500 version to be housed in a D5-style body so that I have horizontal and vertical controls without the need to add a battery grip; dual XQD/CFx card slots would come along with that change. No need for all those connectors on the left or front either. In essence, the camera would be optimized for high-speed action photography and stripped of everything that's not needed for that application.

 

As for the Sony A7R3 - I'd be happy with it having the A7RIV body and modified menu system. For the rest, I am fine the way things are (or simply don't care enough to design a change).

That's a fair amount of customization Dieter, but it sounds purpose built. I like the D500, and almost got one because I liked the body, but then I don't do your type of photography, so speed isn't that important for me. You know that has me thinking why there aren't companies around specifically for customizing cameras like there are for cars. I bet there's money in it for some guys that got laid off from some of the shrinking camera companies.