jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm going offend some people with this, and I apologize, but this is my opinion.

There are two expressions that have been going around for a long time, and I think they are meaningless.

1. "You get what you pay for." Of course you get what you pay for - unless you forget to bring it out of the store when you leave. You select it, you pay for it, and you bring it home. The expression is supposed to suggest that if you pay more, you get a better product. Nonsense! Look for online reviews of anything, and you will see that price does not correlate with quality.

2. "The best camera is the one you have with you." This implies that you shouldn't worry about how good your camera is as long as you have one when you need it. Again, nonsense! In order for you to have it with you, you must first buy it. That involves lots of decisions concerning price, needs, make, and model. I've bought lots of cameras over the years, and I put a lot of thought into each purchase.

That's my rant for the day - well, for the morning, anyway.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jerry, I agree with you on these, especially the second statement.
--Bob

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

What a wise man you are!

petrochemist Loc: UK

The first is meant to mean if you don't spend lot you end up with c**p. I've found there can be some truth to it, but I've often managed to find a bargain. Like a good condition CZJ flektagon for less than 1/20 it's typical resale price.
I've also known people get scammed & pay well over the odds for cheap c**p. The actual cost is IMO fairly irrelevant, but there are issues with trimming the budget too far!

There's [plenty of value in the second statement too. I have a great large format camera that might take fantastic landscapes but it's too heavy for me to carry for miles, where a much inferior camera technically might be small enough to carry up a mountain to that fantastic view.
For many people today the camera they have with them is a phone. It will record the sights they see much better than the heavy DSLR that's been left at home.
As photographers we try to ensure the camera we have with us is good enough to record our subjects to the quality we want. But when I was working in Australia (the far side of the world from home) I couldn't justify bringing my SLR & had to make do with a compact. Hopefully I'll make it back sometime & have a chance to explore a bit more. Four evenings is woefully short even just for the city of Sidney where I had to work during the days.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Often enough, purchasing cheap tools of any sort does not work out well. Cameras included.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm very well aware of that.
--Bob

neco Loc: Western Colorado Mountains

Amen

Meadwilliam

You’re being concrete when the expressions are not meant that way. The second one in particular means if you like to take photographs, be sure to take a camera.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I wish to add to your first statement. Often when a product is offered, be it a camera, a tool and items here a range is offered, such as say an air conditioner there is a sort of 'Murphy's Law' to this; that is if one is offered a choice of say five models, I find the best choice to be the one just below the top offered choice. I can't explain 'why', it has been my experience that the model that is just below the top model is a more reliable unit.

Another observation is to not trust most of the consumer evaluation offerings. As example, I lost total confidence in Consumer Report when they insisted that Leica Cameras were poorly made. This I just can not believe.

Common sense tells on that the 'best' made car is a Rolls Royce. Discussion is rather pointless on this.

In photography flash equipment, it is Braun or under the name broncolor. There are many arguments about the 'quality' of broncolor flash, but the acid test for these is safety.

clickety

Jerry, I’m shocked at your topic choice, I got the feeling that your requisite word was ‘free’.

WILLARD98407 Loc: TACOMA, WA.

My fave-------. "Ooh, it's to die for"

I then like to pose the question to the exclaimer, "So if I gave you a ( named object or experience), and you partook, you would then be alright with me shooting you in the head?"


Right up there with " Ya know?" and "Right?"
I like to rapidly respond with, "No, I don't know. Could you explain it to me?" or "Gee whiz. I'm not sure if it's right or not. Could we discuss it before you continue?"

I guess I'm just getting to be an old fart, because such inaneties are starting to pester my sensibilities beyond what is probably reasonable.

Ooh. I think I just heard my vent slam shut.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

With the first statement I would have to say that I agree with it in most cases but not all. Sometime you pay for a name that just does not equate to quality.
Now I believe the first statement is used to imply that there is a lot of junk out there that one can waste their money on and it would have been smarter for the individual to have forked over a little more cash and gotten the better product and not wasted their money on the other products. It really is a quantity vs quality statement. But then again sometimes it is just not wise to invest big money on something to use only once.