Simpler times ...
There was a time when photography consisted of custom emulsions, darkrooms and having to work, effectively blind, to get things developed. Nature of the best, I suppose. Well, looking back on that and what we have to work with, today ... where Photography has "come into the light", so to speak, what qualifies as "simpler times." Because in my estimation, THESE are the simple times, in the art.
How simple? Consider, you can select your average harried, child-care taker; hand them a digital camera; and that person can get a picture ready for computer distribution in seconds. That's pretty simple.
So ... why is everyone having such trouble with DSLR operation? ;)
Digital camera, right? Light goes in the lens, hits the sensor when you press the button, right?
Still ... options drive people crazy. It forces them to make decisions. The more decisions to be made, the more frustrating it all seems, right?
Ahhh, simpler times. The land of no-thought.
After the +30 camera introduction, it does make you wonder what SONY-marketing is about to cut loose with next, doesn't it? :p
I often think of the fact that some of my favorite photographs were taken with much simpler equipment. I have built a small Canon FD system and there isn't as much variation. You buy the 28mm f/2.8 and know you have a good lens. There is a faster version, but it isn't really sharper, built better, or faster focusing. Now you have so many variations, sometimes the third parties are as good or better, some may be sharper while others focus better....
I picked out a Mamiya C220 for my Christmas present (so I can't use it yet :)) and it is super simple. Mamiya made about 8 lenses for the C seri, only one or two in duplicate focal length. And that was it. Get the camera, maybe get a generic cable release (which would have worked with all of your cameras) a tripod, and the couple of lenses that you needed, no questions asked.
The choice thing is funny. I think that is one thing that is kinda nice about Sony having a smaller selection. If you want a 70-200, you know the best is the Sony G. You don't worry if the f/4 or IS version is actually sharper. If you want an 85mm or 135mm you just buy the CZ. It makes that 85mm seem perfect, where with Canon's two choices, one is too heavy and doesn't AF as fast, the other isn't as bright or quite as sharp.
I think this is part of why I like Apple computers.
The reality of the situation is that a Sony A100 with the new 18-55 is way better than any pro gear before about 1995 except for the lack of speed on the lens. Sony/Pentax/Olympus are known to have poorer high ISO than Canon and Nikon, but ISO 800 on my A300 was as good or better than ISO 800 film, unless you really pulled some tricks. Most of the Sony glass (outside of that 18-70, and a few other lower end zooms) are the same or better than anything before. There is a good reason the 50/1.4 is pretty much the same optical design that Minolta has used since the 70s, and this is the case with most manufacturers.
The modern age of increasing consumerism and bickering on forums has greatly expanded the manufacturers ability to sell us more stuff. I feel so few limits with the Canon A-1 with a 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm in my shoulder bag. Why should I feel any limits with my 40D with the 17-50 and 85, almost all faster than the FD glass, plus way more latitude in ISO, way better metering, and the ability to fix tons of problems in post for nothing?
i dont know whats so complicated really. its as easy or advanced as you want it to be and its actually infinately easier with a dslr.
limited choices only make it easier if you are too lazy to assess what all the choices mean.
You are right, and that is what Don was saying, but I often suffer from paralysis by analysis. I'm getting better at spending less time here and more time shooting, but it keeps sucking me back in.
Originally Posted by Rooz