Save Me - update

[Bongo]

after much research and thinking about it, came to realize I don't need another hobby - which is what medium format film would be to me -
but I do need/want a new camera - last I bought was my Sony Nex 6 -- 13 years ago. SO after more thinking and researching I landed on a
Sony rx100 IV -- just about the polar opposite of a Mamiya aC330. If like me, you haven't kept up with the prices of used compact digital cameras, there is a craze going on and the prices have absolutely sky rocketed. What was a few hundred dollars 3-4 years ago, today go for $800--$1,200plus for cameras 10-15 years old. For a digital camer that's along time. !! Insane.

So only way to get something a bit cheaper is to buy on Ebay from Japan or China - they do have reputable dealers. The night I was about to pull the trigger, Trump imposed 145% tariffs - so I panicked! And feared the price of used compacts on the domestic market would soon skyrocket even further overnight.

I'd been following influencers on Youtube, and a guy I Iike said the Nikon1 J5 (10 years old) was a cracker-jack camera and a sleeper on the market. I bought one that night with a 10mm 2.8 lens. It's slowly growing on me, with workarounds I had to figure out, but -would I buy it again? NO. Hard to know what's right for you without trying it first.

Well, f*ck it, I'm going to get another camera. Really analyzing my needs and the market - a lot more savvy on both fronts now.

 

[txomsy]

I find memories misleading. One often idealizes past experiences, specially good ones. That is enough for someone to evoke fond reminiscences of their camera one decade back and mythify it. Now all you need is that the guy/gal be an influencer for all followers to also get a mythical belief in the gadget.

I never trust anybody to be objective with their memories. From your influencer I'd take that s/he had some nice experiences with the Nikon, as did so many others, with their respective cameras, but that's all.

Would I recommend anyone my old Pentax K20D or the Contarex Bullesye? No way. Despite the wonderful Takumar and Zeiss lenses that I have. Now, if you were to ask me about the lenses...

But it is too easy to build up a myth from unreliable memories and past experiences, specially when you were learning and every minor detail made a huge improvement in the quality of your pictures. But those were more likely to come from using the 3/4 or golden rule, from tweaking the diaphragm to play with bokeh, from playing with exposition speed, from so many other "trivial" changes to how you worked... than from the camera you used. Certainly, it was a faithful companion of the time, but that doesn't make it mythical.

It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

I've also considered an upgrade many times, but the older I grow, the more I realize that the value of the picture is not in the megapixels (meaning the technology), but in your creativity, even if you only have a paltry Lomo or Holga (which by the way has also achieved a mythical status as well). And if that is not enough, consider this: screens are quickly reaching more resolution than your typical APS-C or FF (or even MF) DSLR, and so do cell phones. Soon any current camera will seem obsolete by comparison and it doesn't look like the DSLR market is aiming for significantly more Mpx, ISO or shutter speeds. Better hang on to your old one.

Take pictures, enjoy, experiment, have fun.

If you still can't get the itch out, think that soon most pictures will actually be in-camera AI-generated (there is only so many pixels one can pack in a sensor without the light rays interfering, so most modern cameras resort to AI to give more resolution, improve sharpness, enhance lighting, and whatnot). That's another major deterrant for me: I want to know it's me who takes the picture not an 'imp' inside a box (any other T. Pratchett fan around?).

 

[Terri]

If you still can't get the itch out, think that soon most pictures will actually be in-camera AI-generated (there is only so many pixels one can pack in a sensor without the light rays interfering, so most modern cameras resort to AI to give more resolution, improve sharpness, enhance lighting, and whatnot). That's another major deterrant for me: I want to know it's me who takes the picture not an 'imp' inside a box (any other T. Pratchett fan around?).

Easily avoided by just shooting film.

This is why I'm still glad to have never been more involved with shooting digitally beyond what my latest cell phone shots can give me. I had to upgrade my 6-year old Samsung recently so I took advantage of a Verizon special and bought a Samsung Galaxy s25 ultra, which comes with some rooty-gazooty digital features including a nice zoom.

That's all great, but I'd still rather reach for my film cameras (including that "paltry" old Holga!) when I'm shooting seriously. Those cameras sit patiently on the shelf waiting to be used, work great when used, and aren't charging me some BS monthly fee for access to digital editing programs.

And AI has nothing to do with it, and never will. It will always be me who crafts the photo.

 

[Artyczar]

I totally agree that it's the photographer, not the camera. My first camera was a Nikon FG, which I still have. I got it when I was 15. I have a couple of other cameras, like a Holga and a Canon EOS M50. My Samsung S20 also takes pictures, of course. But I could never take a good picture to save my life. I think, out of 100+ shots, I'd get one good one (if I were lucky). But I do like my M50 for taking photos of artwork. That's the only thing I got semi-good at.

 

[Bongo]

It's not the megapixels.... it's not even the photographs so much. It's the enjoyment of taking pictures. As mentioned you can get a good photograph out of just about any camera. But I want a camera that makes me smile just looking at it, admiring the function and form. And especially feels good in the hand and when I raise to my eye. How does the scene look thru the viewfinder - is it small and dim - big and bright-- I enjoy taking photos of certain subjects, so I'm looking for a camera that is good at that. The fact that "any" camera can do it,, is beside the point.

 

[txomsy]

On that you are absolutely right, and no criticism was intended. We all have our pet peeves and preferences, and that is probably why there are so many cameras out there, even discounting amateurs: one just needs only to look around to see each professional has a different one, which reflects on preferences. I do prefer reflex cameras, others prefer any of the many kinds of viewfinders (or even their lack) that exist. I made a choice on Pentax some 35 years ago, and with a large collection of lenses it's difficult to move. The Contarex still finds use despite its weight (which I find reassuring) but others prefer lightweight cameras...

There is already so much choice that it would be silly not to benefit from it to feel better.

OTOH, and totally unrelated, as a customer, one needs to be wary of costs and always ponder the question, do I really need this new gadget? (of course, if the answer is yes or the price right and you don't mind it, why not?).

As you said it is not the Art that matters. What really matters is the reason why we do it, which is to bring joy to our lives.

 

[Bongo]

Pentax some 35 years ago, and with a large collection of lenses it's difficult to move. The Contarex still finds use despite its weight (which I find reassuring) but others prefer lightweight cameras...

I used Nikon when I shot film. Then got a Canon Dslr when they first came out. Shot it so much I fried the shutter, then got a Pentax 10d when it first came out -battery grip, weather sealed, first digital with ibis, - at the time I too loved big heavy cameras. Thought I was cool by re-branding. Carried it in a $7.00 six-pack cooler set up for quick-draw.
C