« Open Mike: The Gruelandgrass Diet | Main | Craze-y Days »

Monday, 02 September 2013

Comments

All very true - and yet, digital bodies often really do get better - usually minuscule but very real improvements in sensors, etc that make it worth ...well make it worth wanting to get, anyway:) I never felt the need to replace my EOS A2, since it wasn't going to make Delta 3200 look like Delta 100, but a usable stop or two improvement? That might be worth something. What's worse is the constant upgrade path you can get on by wanting to sell your most recent beloved before it's replacement is announced in order to avoid the price drop. That's some ugly math to look at 3 cameras or so later...

I don't know, I'm still enjoying my "old" Nikon D90 and a Sony Nex5N with the optional finder. Other than WiFi, I doubt this new Panasonic will have any features that could tempt me away from them. It's still fun to read about, though.

" ... you seldom encounter anyone saying how much they love their three-year-old camera and plan to buy a second body on closeout ... "

That was exactly my plan, but then your GX1 body offer showed up :)

Unobtanium has always been the quality most desired in products

Three cheers for three year old cameras!

I love my 3 year old camera (Pany G1). I think I missed the closeout window on those, but a I'd grab a used body for the right price. I rented an OMD, and while nice, it didn't leave me with a hole in my heart when I sent it back (the PanaLeica 25/1.4 on the other hand...).

I suspect the issue here is selection bias. People who are a happy with an older model don't need to hang out on message boards shouting about how they made the best decision, three years ago. They're too busy actually taking photographs.

Mike,

You are channeling Andy Rooney, right on!

(For those too young or non USA TV watchers, Andy Rooney was an essayist on a national news program who was known for his biting insights on human behavior.)

Here, here. Well said Mike. So I can get it when?

A very good comment on the state of digital photography! But, manufacturers of course must make a profit to survive. We, as consumers, conversely, must decide what we want to spend our money on. I am entirely satisfied with my five year old camera, even though it is not a "big sensor, interchangeable lens monster", but just a very good image maker, when I can manage to see good images. By the way, it is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35.

I think we may be approaching the point where this camera lust subsides a bit. I love my Nikon D7000 and have no plans to replace it any time soon. Might even buy another one if the price were right (though I confess I'd more likely buy the D7100 if I wanted a second body).

I remember the bad old days of film cameras when these debates were much more subdued or almost nonexistent. The biggest debate I remember having was whether to buy the tried and true Nikon F or the newly released Nikon F2. I went with the F because, after all, I wasn't sure I really wanted a battery permanently built into my camera. I also wasn't too sure about that new-fangled hinged back instead of the removable one on the F. How are you supposed to attach the 250-shot magazine if the back doesn't come off? (Yes, I know they had a solution for that...but still, it couldn't be as good as the old way, could it?)

Our eagerness to buy new camera's has helped get us today's abundance of excellent camera's to choose from. For me personally that works out great... I can buy last years model used for half the price it was new and that way get a 'new' camera on a budget every year!

"It's funny how, with digital cameras, you seldom encounter anyone saying how much they love their three-year-old camera and plan to buy a second body on closeout so they can continue shooting with it for as long as possible."

Not really very surprising that digital cameras are less desirable after a couple of years. As you often mention the technology is maturing at a very rapid rate. What surprises me is that analog technology is seen as somehow better for not having improved substantially for decades.

Here is the flip side of continuous improvement. Gee I sure wish the newest model of my three year old analog film camera could do something better than the one I already have. Of course film is better than digital precisely because it is not improving. We all know that.

I know the digital and analog quasi religious debate is meaningless. We all know that. It reminds me of other religious debates such as counting angels on pinheads.

My D700 made me lose interest in SLR updates. Slap on a Zeiss 35/2, and it's darned close to perfect.

"Mike replies: Thanks. Glad to have you. And, you're just in time to meet Joe and Jim."

Glad to be here...howdy Joe and Jim.
I could upgrade,have tried the D600 and D800 and just don't feel the same satisfaction as when I'm holding and shooting a D700...

cheers, Bob

I got to play with one of these a couple of weeks ago, I have a lot of M4/3 lenses so I really wanted to like it...but I am left eyed and wear glasses...really a bad match up for me, couldn't see the whole picture with glasses and I'll be wiping nose prints off the LCD forever...too bad

The D700 seems to have solved that issue, for almost 4 years now.
The only reason to get something else would be weight, not quality or features.

"...it's just a camera." That's Internet heresy! You'll get your dpreview account revoked for saying stuff like that.

With film cameras, one often needed more than one at a time. With digital cameras, not so much. And so the equivalent phenomenon is when you skip an upgrade because the previous version is so good the upgrade won't likely be worthwhile. The canon eos 5d markII has this status in my bag. If it dies, I'll happily buy a markIII.

By the way, a very enligthening experience is to end up with two new cameras at about the same time (due to long waits) - in my case, an M type 240 and an X100s. They are both wonderful. And if you had a shooting lull with the M and pickedup the x100s, you might think "this is enough". When you try them brand new side by side - um, the M, very good, yes...

The GX7 is of course a fancy EVF camera, in some ways a development of the x100/x100s ideas. We'll see how good it is in practice...

I think that probably after a year or so, I might pop for the GX7, and send my GF1 out for IR conversion, and maybe stop there. I also need to upgrade my old phone, so looking at Samsung S4 'zoom' which would become my carry camera, replacing the LX-5.

Since I still always keep a Powershot 530 with CHDK hack in my car, I think I'm covered for the next several years - probably bothering the manufacturers no end. Last Camera Syndrome, anyone?

This phenomenon isn't new or unique to cameras - it occurs for computers and software, cell phones, cars,and as you mention, fashion. Its really a symptom of the accelerated rate of technological change we have experienced in the last century and a half. In the past, it was less widespread less noticeable and less commented on, and a smaller part of the population was able to participate, but it was there. The rate of technology change has increased and the time between significant changes in products has dropped sharply. The new 'light field camera' (Lytro) with its "shoot now, focus later" motto may be a forerunner of the next major camera revision -or something else may beat it out. The old saw that 'the only constant is change' has never been more true.

Although I'm usually relatively impervious to new camera lust, I am currently in the market for a new and (I hope) Last Travel Camera, and the GX7 is on the list, along with the as yet non-existent successors to the Sony NEX-7 and the Fuji X-Pro 1. (Well yes, the as yet not released Olympus EM-1 might get a look as well.)

I have an 8-page essay on my computer, discussing what would constitute a travel camera/lens outfit that would be significantly better than my current Panasonic GH-2 and 2 zoom lenses. I've been considering this for about a year now, and don't need to make a decision until my next bit trip — likely the spring of 2015.

This is how I've chosen my two best cameras: create the camera on paper and then wait for someone to build it. My best camera ever was the late lamented 35mm Hasselblad/Fuji X-Pan … but film has become too much of a hassle and expense for long-distance, month-long touring travel. The GH-2 was a good choice when we did all our touring on foot, but now that my wife and I are getting a bit long in the tooth and are travelling by tandem bicycle instead of trekking on foot, I can handle equipment with a little more size and complexity in return for a bit better image quality and the ability to make bigger prints.

A camera chosen this way has never been a disappointment. (And the extended process of contemplating and window-shopping is pleasurable and cheap.)

Well, I'd get another Nikon D300 (lordy, it's 5 years old already), but my first one is just fine.

On the other hand, my 2-year old Olympus E-P3 seems to be starting to go to pieces. The little dinky thumb wheel which I used to adjust shutter speed for manual exposure no longer works for that. The sensor has vertical lines on it in the EVF and LCD. No effect on photos, but not likely a good sign. If I got another E-P3, would it hold up for 2 years and a similar number of exposures? Maybe at 1/3 original price I would get another E-P3 body.

Another Fuji x100? Uhhh....no, that's ok, thank you.

I was so pleased with my D700 that I bought another one on closeout. The files it produces are sublime, and I have no interest in "upgrading."

- Dale

Mike,

I think you have described the cycle of gear acquisition syndrome (GAS) almost perfectly. But it cannot be denied that sometimes a new piece of gear does, indeed, have features that will enable us to improve our photography. Small incremental improvements can sometimes yield disproportionately large rewards. A simple example would be improving an autofocus system from one that is erratic to one that is precise. That alone would produce a much higher percentage of keepers and would be worthy of an upgrade.

My point is that there is no stopping the forward march of technology, and as human beings, almost all of us hunger for something that is better. Where the real problem arises is when technological improvement becomes a substitute for artistic improvement, an all too common occurrence.

I also like the look of this new Lumix. But we'll see how it is after it comes out.

I am also still satisfied with my D700 ... except I got too tired of carrying it around, so I got something smaller for trips.

Still, I don't see selling it. It does basically everything I need, except for its size.

Add me to the D700 list. Bought one early in its life; still have it. Of course it's only fair to add that I also have an E-M5. In consequence I seldom use the D700. Does this count?
Roy

You know, that also applies to dating someone new.

"It's funny how, with digital cameras, you seldom encounter anyone saying how much they love their three-year-old camera and plan to buy a second body on closeout so they can continue shooting with it for as long as possible."

Meet me!

I love my OLYs - my son stole my E-P1 on a trip to Turkey in 2010, so I replaced it with a EPL-1, added a E-PL2 in 2011 as a second body and a couple of lenses to take to Africa, then recently added a E-P3 used from KEH because of its faster focusing for my "critter cam" with a Pana 100-200 and VF1.
I do not want more than 12Mp - I've done 4X3feet enlargements from the current cameras - and no new features like 5-axis stabilization seem worthwhile - the current cameras are fine for my needs.

Mike, But I already know Bob! Though he's in Toronto and I'm in NYC, we've gone out shooting many times.

Small world here in TOP Land.

I miss Andy Rooney.
My Sunday evenings aren't the same.

I have GX1s, two of them, and they're my main cameras, although I also have a NIkon system. The thing is, the GX1s are good enough for almost all of what I do -- but one continuing problem is seeing the screen when you're shooting with the sun at a back angle. I have a optional viewfinder, but sometimes, when I'm just carrying the camera, I don't take it. I either forget it, or make a conscious decision that I don't want that thing poking up off the camera. I often regret not having it. So, the GX7 looks like the answer to that problem, along with providing some additional benefits. I don't really need much more image quality, just more handling quality. For example, the GX7 has that build-in image stabilization and since I have a couple of Olympus lenses that I love (like the 45), I can use that. So, I'll buy two of them, when they become available, which I expect will be sometime before Christmas.

Here's another vote for the D700! Although I did take a brief detour with the Sony Nex6 &7, albeit only to use my RF lenses and MF Olympus lenses. At my age I think two D700's just might get me to the light at the end of the tunnel!

I attended a demo of the GX7 recently at my local brick and mortar store and I was very impressed with the camera to put it succinctly.

Is it a perfect camera? No, but the quality of the JPGS shown were very impressive (I'm a RAW shooter BTW.) The video capabilities were impressive (though truth be told I'm not much interested in videography). A single frame can captured very easily though while in video mode.

There was definitely a big push to showboat the video capability of the camera; Panasonic seems to be hedging their bets by broadening the appeal of the camera to those in need of quality video and still images in a rangefinder style camera.

Since I'm transitioning to MFT I found the camera to be exciting and capable. Reports of declining sales of MFT are in my mind a function of our poor economy (domestic and world wide.) The future of MFT vs big DSLRs IMO is positive. I think more and more pros will be attracted to the format for various reasons and along with aging amateurs needing to lighten the weight of their kits.

My 2 cents.

I love my 5(or so) year old Canon 1Ds MarkIII. I've owned four "serious" digital cameras before it. This will be the last until some really major new feature that's critically important to me is invented or images from digital cameras start looking like 8x10 contact prints.

For a brief period of time, I was a Canon and Nikon shooter. I had gone through all of the early Canons, the 10D, 20D, 30D, but couldn't quite pull the trigger on the 40D and instead bought a Nikon D300 (I still kept my Canon 30D) as I considered the Nikon a real game changer. When the Canon 7D came out, I bought it because I still had LOTS of Canon glass. In use, each camera had great points (my preferred camera would have been an amalgam of both cameras). After using the two in tandem for a couple of years, I ended up trading the D300 for another Canon 7D, primarily because of the amount of Canon glass(especially the 400L F5.6... I haven't seen anything from Nikon to rival its balance of performance and price) I had, rather than any perceived difference in the actual camera bodies. Today I am still shooting with 2 Canon 7D cameras, but I do follow all of the new camera introductions. Unfortunately, I just can't convince myself that any pictures that I end up taking with one of the new cameras would be any better than what I can achieve with what I have. I remain limited by my own inadequacies rather than my equipment.

Hmmm...maybe sufficient reason to not replace my Sony RX100 with a Rx100/2 and a EVF (about the same total price, I think.

I've got a buddy that opted out of the Lumix stuff and went for the NEX 7 not because he didn't like the system, but because he didn't like the add on finder, or just holding the stuff up and using the back screen, he thought (and I agree) that a camera without an eye level finder is just a non-started for a pro...now he's going to be disappointed! Big Time!

Well, for the first time I'm financially able to upgrade w/o waiting for a closeout sale.....and I find myself waiting and skipping an obvious upgrade to my A850. We'll see about the NEX 7, but it will have to be much better than the current model. I see comments like this from more and more people. So, cameras today are truly good enough to stand pat with, but this is a pretty recent development imo in digital. And that is one reason I'm very intrigued about Sony's apparent abandonment of incrementalism. They seem (we'll see, of course...) to be recognizing that to get people to upgrade today, and pay semi big money, you need to give them something more spectacular.

But yes, this is a sweet little camera, this new Panny. I checked on it for my wife, but too much. Got a closeout on a Nikon 1 V1 instead.

Put me down as another D700 retentive. Partly it is down to money; partly it is because I am comfortable with the pair of them (even the one with the slightly stiff hotshoe and missing rubberised grip on the back); and partly, if I am honest, because I haven't outgrown them yet - I'm still really learning how to use them.... (oh the shame).

My 3 years old D700. Best camera, period.

Come to think of it, my Canon 5D (original) lasted about four years. My current fav, a Fuji XE-1, beats the 5D in every dimension, and shows signs of lasting.

I'm in the John Camp camp (except I've never taken the EVF off my GX-1). I'd buy another GX-1 in a heartbeat if it came with an EVF. Which, of course, is why I'm waiting with bated breath for the GX-7. That and one more lens (well, maybe...) and I'll be set for years to come.

And yet another vote for the Nikon D700. Rather than spend money on a new camera body I prefer to spend it on better lenses.

For mtn biking and canyoneering -- where weight and size matters -- I carry a smaller camera (Lumix FZ150). It's not as good but I don't mind if it gets a little beaten up.

DavidB

The Lumix looks nice. It's a shame it doesn't have an input for external microphone. I'll wait for the next version.

BTW, my Pentax K5 (with Pentax Limited lenses) is still satisfying my dSLR needs!

There's still no replacement for the D700 out there; the D800 and D600 both have real advantages, but they don't come up to the frame rate, which can be VERY important for sports shooting for example. (The D4 is presumably an adequate replacement for a D700, but rather out of my price range.) (The D800 is, obviously, far better than a D700 for some kinds of work that the D700 was never the best choice for.)

My D700 just got sent in for AF repair, and will be away for MONTHS. Or so they estimate. And my lack of a real backup body suddenly becomes an issue, sigh. I've arranged to borrow a friend's D800 for next Saturday's roller derby bout, that should be interesting.

When adding to or replacing within a system, I'm usually looking for specific things.

ALL µ4/3 cameras suffer from shutter shock in normal mode. It's been well documented that the all the Olys and all Pannys until very recent models in EFC mode have a blur in images shot in a range somewhere between 1/60 and 1/200, varying slight with model. In the tests I've seen, the Pannys have been worse than the Olys.

All the Olys have an option to delay some part of shutter action, with settings down to 1/8 sec. On mine, the 1/8 setting eliminates visible blurring/double imaging.

An electronic first curtain also solves the problem. Two or three Pannys, including the GX7, have EFC, with the sacrifice of other functions not important to me when in EFC mode.

For most of my shooting, the slight extra shutter lag doesn't matter, but eliminating it is a big plus.

I use both an E-M5 and an E-PM2, side by side. It is obvious to me that the 5 axis IBIS is superior to the 2 axis. As it's Pannys first IBIS, I suspect it's licensed from Oly, and not as good as the 5 axis version.

Using the E-PM2 makes it obvious that I would sometimes, although not too often, like an EVF on the second camera. The GX7 adds an EVF, but it sounds like I would have to try one in person to see if it works with my glasses. At least I'm right eyed.

Remote live view and shooting on smart phone or tablet, if well implemented, should be useful for several things.

So there are a few particular things that make the GX7 interesting, and size, weight, 2 axis IBIS and possibly price against it. Not interesting enough at that price to jump before seeing some tests.

Oly's history of models with the Pens suggests that an update of the E-M5 (EM-6?) should be along relatively soon, with all the new goodies of the E-P5, plus some other upgrade. Waiting is OK.

Moose

I just got off that bandwagon. I've just sold two cameras systems and bought the low ranking csc (Model year 2012 ) from a well known camera maker and invested in three lens. And now, I've got some money left over.

Joe Holmes responds: "Mike, I already know Bob! Though he's in Toronto and I'm in NYC, we've gone out shooting many times. Small world here in TOP Land."

Joe, I'm in ArlingtonVA , right outside D.C. I've lived here almost 30 years and still feel like I'm just visiting. My heart's in the Jersey Highlands where I grew up...

Cheers, Bob

Add me to the "can't bring myself to unload my D700" camp. Two of 'em, actually. Too bad they don't shoot video. I did buy a D800 earlier this year, and I love it for serious tripod-based landscape shooting (and video), but for schlepping around and shooting handheld the D700 is still hard to beat. Part of the attraction, I think, is the quality of the best Nikon FX lenses. Great glass.

I was in the middle of writing a comment on how nice this camera looked when Mrs Plews called me out to the deck to check out the sunset.
A handful of sunflower shots with the family S95 and my pulse is back to normal.

I'm over all that, really. Guess what you can buy for $650, brand new with US warranty? The 12th best performing sensor ever, of all time, according to DxO... Err, whatever, everyone saw it can take great, fat, dynamic files and is built like Leica used to be. The Pentax K5 of course. Used to sell for $1,750 two years ago. I suspect it took the same great, fat dynamic files back then too. No one can really say if the "new" K5 is better in any appreciable way, at least not to the eye. What we can say for certain is that it's twice as expensive as the old K5 I picked up a couple months ago. The difference bought me another Pentax Limited lens, heh heh heh.

My point is it's clear things are good enough, and it's time to go back to doing things the way we used to. Get a decent set of lenses that are good for the way you shoot and get a new body only if there is some leap forward-- that hasn't really happened lately.

BTW, the GX7 looks really nice. But I took a look at a set of Hong Kong street photos shot at night with the GX1 ($250 new now?) and they look pretty decent too. I'll pass for now.

I think certain cameras were the peaks for their companies... Nikon's D300 and D700 certainly were. Very responsive, great ergonomics for large male hands, good all around performance and rare quality control issues... and their 12mp file size is a sweet spot ~ large enough for professional use with hogging processing time or requiring exceptional lenses and shooting technique.

Again, being one of those XXL males, carrying a prosumer Nikon body with a single $200 prime is not such a hardship... I greatly prefer it to trying to navigate the tiny buttons of the almost too light m43 cameras I've owned. I go light by not carrying a rack of 2.8 zooms....

For a while I carried two D300s, a 24 and 50 mounted, and that's it. Pretty nice set up.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote: "the D800 and D600 both have real advantages, but they don't come up to the frame rate, which can be VERY important for sports shooting for example."

Oh boy, you got that right. And not just for sports. I routinely bracket three exposures, and a high frame rate is invaluable. With the grip, I was completely spoiled by the D700's. What is it, like 8fps, right? Twice what the D800 will do. I miss it every day.

It's very good looking with added tiltable evf. We'll see if it beats the contender OM-D E-M5 which still sells fairly well near it's original price a year & 1/2 later.

As many have said here, directly or indirectly, 12 mpix is quite adequate for 16x20, better than 35mm film for me. My current Oly OMD-EM5 is even better, but I have to stick my nose over that size print to tell the (very slight) difference. To me, those that have chosen to stay with the D700, a superb camera, or any other good 10 to 20 mpix camera, and spend the money in new, good lenses, have taken the most wise decision. Superb lenses yield excellent results, even if the camera have few mpix. Three month ago, I bought a Voightlander 17,5mm f0.95 MFT lens for my OMD and PEN EP3. I have been exploring this lens doing half to full body portraits from wide open f0.95 to f2.8 that really resemble the portrait I do with an 8x10" using a Schneider 240mm G-Claron lens, which is an equivalent focal length, when I use it from f11 to f32. The Voightlander out of focus image is somewhat similar and very pretty. Now, when I do portraits and plan to print not larger that 16x20", this lens give me beautiful results. Well, I don't have the view camera movements, but I also don't have to spend hours cleaning my 8x10" film scans.
The GX7 is a beautiful and desirable camera, but It will not give me appreciable better images than my OMD, so I will not get one, as I will not get the OMD-EM1. I'll better get the Voightlander 42.5mm f0.95 whose emerging samples in the web are beginning to depict the arising of a new classic lens.

I'm a single prime shooter, and there really isn't a better lens/sensor combo this side of medium format digital that competes with the Sony RX1, to me, so I plan on using it until the doors fall off. It's remarkable to have such image quality in such a small package. Fun camera.

My EOS 5D (yes without any "Marks") is still kicking strong and after 7 years I have no urge to replace it. It replaced my 10D which is now my backup body. Both are now used exclusively for my professional work. For everyday shooting and personal stuff I use an Olympus EPL1 - guess all those cameras make me an oldtimer ...

I still love my GF1, battered but unbowed - 4 years old? And will love it forever like a Leica CL......

I was very happy with my Canon 1Ds, right up until 2 years ago when I sold it, and all my other canon gear, as I needed to downsize my kit to a much lighter version. I still miss the look of the files of the 1Ds sensor, despite its paltry max iso 1250. When i got a 2nd 1 series body the only thing that stopped me getting the 1Ds over the 1D2n i bought (already 2 models out of date) was I needed a higher frame rate and bigger buffer for a specific project.

Whilst i do believe that good cameras don't stop being good cameras due to age, the lure of the new and shiny is still strong, sadly.

" (...)because it is revealed that, in fact, despite early indications, it's just a camera, and does a lot of the same things that other cameras do.(...)"

This, of course, don't applies to Leica products.

Umm... another D700 user here, and I have no need (or desire, really) for another camera.

Unless Nikon can re-issue the D200. With better high ISO performance and a modern focus module, but no other changes (I know, the sensor limits the high ISO. But dang, that is a sweet sensor). I have 2 of them, and dug one out a couple of days ago to loan to a friend who is planning an upgrade from an old Fujifilm P'n'S (she's thinking of a D5100, and the D200 is close enough in size and shape to use as a tester). Before I handed it over, I spent a couple of hours re-familiarising myself with it, because I know there'll be questions... I miss using it. I'm going to get the other one out and shoot a lot with it. 1GB CF cards hold 115 NEF files, which makes for a convenient amount on an afternoon jaunt.

D800? Pah. The 'throw money away' gearhead in me says 'NOW!', the guy who sweats for the money asks 'Why?' The D700 is more than enough camera for me. (And I do so love my V1, as well. Not for everything, but what it does do well, it does amazingly well.)

My Canon 1ds mk lll just hit five years old. It's my only camera since the day I bought it, not even held another camera in that time. I'm 48 lbs lighter than I was five years ago, but the old girls as heavy as she ever was and she doesn't see as well in the dark as other models and she's not easy on the eye or wrist.

Still, whenever I fail to get the result I was hoping for, I tap the old girl and tell her... It's not you... It's me

New technology is great, no doubt. Live View (for macro work) was transformative for me. New sensors, despite higher pixel counts, continue to exhibit improvements with dynamic range and noise characteristics.

However, at the risk of boring you with another "I'm sticking with old tech" response, I'm sticking with old tech. :)

My first DSLR was a Canon Rebel XT (350D to the rest of the world) purchased in February 2006 prior to the birth of my first child. I've not stopped shooting with it since then. My wife and I added a T1i in Dec 2009 (we were tired of sharing one camera, see also the aforementioned Live View) but the XT continues to provide images. I bring it with me to work every week and use it nearly daily. (52,800+ shutter clicks.)

I know it's going to give up the ghost at some point and need to be replaced. And while I certainly won't be finding any close-out, boxed, XT's anywhere, used models go for under $100. Does my daily photography need more pixels? Not really. More dynamic range? Well that would be nice, but not critical as I shoot in a lot of mid-day sun.

I can buy one of these used cameras and not have to buy any memory cards or any batteries and continue shooting with all the known positive (and negatives) I've always had.


There are a ton of arguments why buying tech from 2005 is a bad idea. And I'm sure there are those agast at the idea, but for me, if I already know 90% of the problems with my images are because of the wet tech behind the viewfinder, then why do I need to spend hundreds more to replace what I'm already pretty happy with? I have an 11x17 print hanging in my house made from this camera. What more could I want?

The cameras I like best are the ones that are between 50 and 60 years old. They are so much more fun than the 'here today and gone tomorrow' modern ones, yet still knockout excellent photographs if you make the effort. They actually require you to DO something too, leaving you feeling like you actually took the photograph, rather than just pressed a button.

Ooh, an article born of some cynicism. I approve.

Also, what David Miller said - spec it out and wait for someone to build it. That sits pretty well with my new approach: I need to be able to name 3 areas in which it'll improve my output before I'll buy it.

(GH2 over 3 years old now, and still going strong.)

I've never owned a D700 and was so very happy to see your post take a very different turn than most blog entries elsewhere similarly titled. Well done

I just got a Canonet GL17, a super sexy black one, for $109 and it's great. The focusing lever screws were a bit loose but an O-ring fixed that. I mostly shoot a Mamiya 6 but wanted something smaller for street shooting, and of all the things I miss about my sold Leica M2 kit it was the sweet CV 40mm lens. So I got my 40mm rangefinder and I like it better than the Leica. Silent vibrationless shutter, bright viewfinder (with parallax correction framelines), needle aperture indicator. Really, what more could I want? Between this and the Mamiya and my android phone with the Vignette app, I'm set. And if it breaks, there are another million out there floating around.

I still use my Nikon D70s that I bought in 2006. the files i got when it paired up with my 50mm f1.8 AF-D or 24mm f2.8 AF non-D are beautiful. it's a 6 MP camera, but can produce files that can make big prints. I especially love the 1/500 sec sync speed.

I wish Nikon continues to produce D70/D70s so I can buy another new one, or refreshes it just with D70Hs that features 15 cross-type AF sensors and better performance in hi-ISO setting, retains its hybrid electronic/mechanical shutter and 1/500 sec sync speed, built-in flash that can act as a commander, AF motor for non-AF-S lenses, adds wi-fi and liveview, and as light as D3200.

Gee, I thought my Leica M9 was that camera! The first digital camera that makes me feel like I am still shooting a film camera. Been looking for a second body that I can afford to put on ice.

The comments to this entry are closed.