What camera do I buy? / general gear talk

It's silly arguing on the internet, you're clearly very emotionally attached to Leica as a brand so nothing I say will possibly convince you that innovation has occurred despite the fact that camera, mount, lens, sensor, digital innovation in the last decade or two has essentially rendered obsolete and even superseded the best from 20y ago.

At no point did I argue that historical innovation didn't occur, but I originally responded to Amey's declaration that there has been no innovation in cameras in the last couple of decades. So much has changed that a camera today is barely recognisable if you looked beyond the ergonomics and basic shapes that people are habitually attached to.

Even details like autofocus motors are just a leap beyond what they were, now being silent magnetic drive, low-power, smooth, sealed. But yeah you can argue Leica had mirrorless, or Hasselblad did something interesting... you can argue Leica had lens that were excellent... sure, I'd buy that argue for the time that it occurred. But you could never have pointed a Leica at a night sky and captured the number of stars that you can capture with a digital mirrorless and a modern lens, despite the fundamental physics of "get as much light to the film/sensor as possible in as clean a state as possible" being as true then as it is now. Night sky and astro photography may feel like an edge case, but it demonstrates so neatly how much innovation has truly occurred (including the fact that lenses today can transfer from hot to cold environments with less condensation and moisture build up). It's just such a huge leap, it happened incrementally and then exponentially, but it's so big a difference. But none of this will persuade anyone who is so emotionally invested in a brand that they're unwilling to acknowledge it.

Innovation in cameras in the last decade or two has outstripped innovation in cameras for almost the entirety of photography that preceded it. The pace is stunning. Cameras now launch with significant new features multiple times per year. It's an exciting time to have an interest in photography and all I'm doing is sharing that excitement.

You seem to be assuming I know too little about the subject. I could have used examples of other manufacturers because I'm not that tied to one brand. What I don't need is a primer in camera tech. I'm not emotionally attached to my cameras I have more of a technical interest in photography.

Ultimately this seems like a misunderstanding about semantics. I think the innovation has mostly occurred in sensor technology and electronics. There have been some improvements in lens accuracy due to manufacturing improvements and the change from the less accurate film to sensors meaning that advances in lens accuracy could be seen.

I don't agree with a lot of what seems like hyperbole for the last decade of development. It all seems to have been a pretty linear development of sensor technology and the resulting changes in camera performance. It does seem that overall you are counting as innovation capacities that were available for a long time but are now commonplace, like waterproofing/condensation resistance. That's not really innovation.

I'm not a big fan of astro photography though so to me it is an edge case.

It's great that you are excited about photographic equipment though. Like I said initially I'm not arguing about all the innovation in your list but I don't think you can say 'mirrorless' is an innovation. The return to the mirrorless format was enabled by sensor technology. In terms of increasingly sharp lenses, sensor technology enabled us to pixel peep sharpness and the public has been prepared to switch back to prime lenses to get the sharpest wide open lenses. For a while it was all about massive zooms. Now it's changing to phone cameras.

Lol. That was not the assumption I made.

Good news. I hate being underestimated on the internet.

The M9 was the first full frame, digital, mirrorless, interchangeable-lens, commercially available camera. That was released 13 years ago but wasn’t really a niche product. It kinda worked. It cost a lot … but not more than ‘pro’ cameras traditionally have.

Isn’t it generally accepted now that mobile, motion picture capture and action/drone cameras, telescopes n shit have all driven advances. And that consumer dad cams mostly just get trickledown tech?

Here we go, another Leica fan boy banging on about last decades tech 🤪

A bit guilty.

One reason to shoot film is you’re not distracted by following the technology arms race that (whilst useful commercially I guess) has fuck all to do with the photography I find interesting.

Isn’t it generally accepted now that mobile, motion picture capture and action/drone cameras, telescopes n shit have all driven advances. And that consumer dad cams mostly just get trickledown tech?

That would be the story that mobile device manufacturers would love for you to believe.

But the fundamental physics of "get as much light to the film/sensor as possible in as clean a state as possible" is still there.

Mobile phones are never going to be equivalent. I'm obviously very pro-tech and software, but even I freely admit that all the software filling the in the gaps because you don't have enough light hitting a large enough sensor surface is always going to fall short of the times you do have enough light hitting a large enough sensor.

The illusion works really well, but yet it takes time. If you add time into what a camera can do then you degrade other aspects, i.e. if you want your camera to do video then you really can only do that on a mobile with a lot of light around you because if software is involved in infilling the image and the software isn't real-time you're going to lag or use tricks like recording at a lower res and upscaling.

Photography always comes down to light, and small lens and small sensors are always going to be second to larger lens and sensors.

The only true advantage phones have over cameras is "the best camera is the one you have on you". That's it. When I don't have my camera (a lot of the time) then I'm pretty damn glad that my mobile phone has all these tricks to squeeze more out of less light. But if I have my camera and take a photo on both that and the phone there is no comparison at all, more light hitting the sensor always wins. Physics is a bitch like that. A phone can't even do most of what a camera does, the tricks it does are to compensate for so little light coming in - e.g. I know of no mobile phone camera that has hundreds of autofocus points and can flawlessly track subjects.

Phones are great, the cameras are miraculous given the size and power constraints they have, their innovation is stupendous in the software to make it all work - but cameras will always win because of the physics.

This stuff is obvious, no?

Didn’t phones get basic versions of the latest AF tech first? Eye recognition etc?
The churn of users replacing phones yearly and the shear market size would explain why.

There’s some pretty trick stuff with multiple lenses and sensors for virtual DoF, augmented light-sources etc that doesn’t care how big your aperture or sensor is. I don’t know if ‘phones’ or ‘cameras’ will handle that best.

I find the same thing. With the M240 I can shoot zone focus in good light with a 28/35mm and just worry about framing knowing everything will be in focus and importantly the colours of the scene will be rendered well.

… but the M10 is just that lil bit slimmer. It’s got those authentic film body vital stats 💸

Yes, slippery slope. I would like an ISO dial but I'm not travelling as much as I used to so it's not a priority. I missed out on a film body when they were still quite cheap. Too many hobbies to get into film though.

The weight of them is an issue too, especially with some of the longer lenses.

How much you use a 50mm? If the answer is ‘Yes’ then a nice Konica IIIa might scratch the itch for an M3 for a fraction of the price. They’re very nice things, mine cost about £250 a year ago.

#enabler

I have a few 50's but I've been in a 28/35/40 cycle for a few years. I prefer 40 to 50 so I'd probably go for the CL body and pair it with the 40. I'll have a look at the Konica III though, it might be easier to live with.

CLE body

ftfy

greatest M mount camera ever made

The 40mm summicron that was made for it is one of my favourites.

Not sure the body is better than the classic M series but it's always been on my list to try.

I too would prefer a 40mm tbh. It’s a shame the 1960/70s leaf-shutter rangefinders (with their 38-45mm lenses) aren’t more reliable.

The 40 summicron is definitely a character lens but the length is great. 50's a bit narrow for walking around.

Panasonic's GX cameras with their 20mm f1.7 was a fabulous combination in that range (40mm equivilent). If they ever bring out a faster autofocus version in similar size, its an instabuy for me.

They had a great reputation when they were available new.

Panasonic just released the S5ii which is their first camera with phase-detect autofocus. It's something people have been demanding of them for years. Hopefully it will be present in all of their future micro four thirds cameras too.

Yeah, I think it is an important addition, because although their DFD autofocus is excellent, lack of phase defect AF especially considering everyone else has it now has been damaging.

I don’t think they see a huge market for an affordable replacement GX8/GX9, but I hope they do. They have their vblogging focused camera the G100, if they update that with PDAF, higher res viewfinder and update the 20mm lens with faster focusing, that would be a banging camera in a tiny form factor.

I was looking at an Olympus four thirds camera today - I had intended to look at a Panasonic G9 but the chap in the shop steered me towards the Olympus partly because of the phase detect AF. Their longer lenses seem excellent too. But the Olympus stuff is just a bit too pricy for my needs. Hmmm.

I see you in the bird thread enough, if I had the money I'd be all over an OM1 and 100-400, seems incredible bang for buck for wildlife

I watch the second half prices and it hasn't quite dropped low enough for me to palate yet

^yes, if I could justify it, that would probably be my choice. Might see if MPB can do a G9 and Leica 100-400 that I could just about explain away.