Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I work most of my time for a company that on a regular basis sends installation and service teams to customers around the world. Because we need to document the work they do, they all bring cameras. By the nature of their work, these are people with a sound understanding of mechanics and engineering. Still, being able to understand and remember the settings they should use for the relatively simple cameras they bring (mostly Nikon P330 at the moment), is mostly beyond their reach. So every camera is pre-set by me before they leave. Unfortunately, far too often, somebody fiddles with the settings, and we get back a pile of blurry VGA resolution photos.
What this tells me is that current cameras are too complicated with too many choices for the average user. This reminds me a bit of the frequent, and often heated, discussions between Apple and Windows users on the internet. At the top of the discussion, when an Apple user has claimed that it's difficult to do certain things on a Windows computer, som MS nerd will come to the help with a list of twenty something parameters that has to be set and voila... it's sooo simple. He then goes on to say that those who don't build their own computers aren't really worthy of using one... etc.
As for obsolescence: Yes, there has always been obsolescense, but Olympus still had parts for my OM-1 in the late nineties, 25 years after the camera was launched. Some independent repair shops still have parts in stock, 40 years later. My first DSLR, a Fujifilm S3, had more trips to Fujifilm during its 4 active years than the OM-1 had to repair shops during its entire 35 year life (the Olympus went in for repair one time only, and many camera shops could fix this and other cameras when needed). After 4 years, vital parts for the S3 weren't available any longer, and although it can still be used, it is with limitation that don't make it very tempting. The S5 that followed it developed a faulty mainboard after 3 or 4 years and doesn't AF. No grand prize to those who have guessed that the main board isn't available any longer. While it was, changing it cost as much as buying another, used camera. Batteries for the S5? Nope, no have, at least not from Fuji.
So I buy second hand pro cameras with low shutter counts nowadays. They last longer and parts seem to be in stock longer too. But I also use an OM-2, and to those who claim that old cameras only look good with rosy tinted glasses: That's simply not true. The OM-2 is a much more satisfying camera to use than all of my digital boxes and it features all the functionality I need. If there was a digital version, something like the Leica 60, I would be all over it.
The greatest irony is still the Nikon F6. It was designed at the same time as the D2H/X and shares many features with those cameras. Still, it's a much better camera, smaller, lighter, more nimble, simpler... a gem in every way. 10 years later, after the D2H has been replaced a dozen times, the F6 still soldiers on and is still, from a camera body perspective, a better camera than either the D4s or the D810. Not because it can compete on features, but because it's still, smaller, lighter, with a better grip, nimbler and easier to use.
Rosy glasses? I leave that for the memories of my old Citroen cars with which I spent countless hours in cold, Norwegian winters hoping that they would finally start. But thrugh those pink glasses, they still look good.
When all that has been said; yes, there has been progress, but the progress lacks focus on photography. It seems to me that camera manufacturers are run by a team of marketing people and bean counters. Maximise the marketing value (lots of features) and minimise the cost (minimum spare parts, none after 5 years). I enjoy the new cameras, but mostly because some of them are lovely gadgets.
Grain-free daylight photos taken at midnight? If that is the target, by all means, but it isn't for me. Call me a grumpy, old man if you want
What this tells me is that current cameras are too complicated with too many choices for the average user. This reminds me a bit of the frequent, and often heated, discussions between Apple and Windows users on the internet. At the top of the discussion, when an Apple user has claimed that it's difficult to do certain things on a Windows computer, som MS nerd will come to the help with a list of twenty something parameters that has to be set and voila... it's sooo simple. He then goes on to say that those who don't build their own computers aren't really worthy of using one... etc.
As for obsolescence: Yes, there has always been obsolescense, but Olympus still had parts for my OM-1 in the late nineties, 25 years after the camera was launched. Some independent repair shops still have parts in stock, 40 years later. My first DSLR, a Fujifilm S3, had more trips to Fujifilm during its 4 active years than the OM-1 had to repair shops during its entire 35 year life (the Olympus went in for repair one time only, and many camera shops could fix this and other cameras when needed). After 4 years, vital parts for the S3 weren't available any longer, and although it can still be used, it is with limitation that don't make it very tempting. The S5 that followed it developed a faulty mainboard after 3 or 4 years and doesn't AF. No grand prize to those who have guessed that the main board isn't available any longer. While it was, changing it cost as much as buying another, used camera. Batteries for the S5? Nope, no have, at least not from Fuji.
So I buy second hand pro cameras with low shutter counts nowadays. They last longer and parts seem to be in stock longer too. But I also use an OM-2, and to those who claim that old cameras only look good with rosy tinted glasses: That's simply not true. The OM-2 is a much more satisfying camera to use than all of my digital boxes and it features all the functionality I need. If there was a digital version, something like the Leica 60, I would be all over it.
The greatest irony is still the Nikon F6. It was designed at the same time as the D2H/X and shares many features with those cameras. Still, it's a much better camera, smaller, lighter, more nimble, simpler... a gem in every way. 10 years later, after the D2H has been replaced a dozen times, the F6 still soldiers on and is still, from a camera body perspective, a better camera than either the D4s or the D810. Not because it can compete on features, but because it's still, smaller, lighter, with a better grip, nimbler and easier to use.
Rosy glasses? I leave that for the memories of my old Citroen cars with which I spent countless hours in cold, Norwegian winters hoping that they would finally start. But thrugh those pink glasses, they still look good.
When all that has been said; yes, there has been progress, but the progress lacks focus on photography. It seems to me that camera manufacturers are run by a team of marketing people and bean counters. Maximise the marketing value (lots of features) and minimise the cost (minimum spare parts, none after 5 years). I enjoy the new cameras, but mostly because some of them are lovely gadgets.
Grain-free daylight photos taken at midnight? If that is the target, by all means, but it isn't for me. Call me a grumpy, old man if you want
