DSLRs (Page 7): :sm17:...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

radiojohn wrote:

No camera is obsolete until it cannot do what you want to do.
....

pj81156 Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

What is the “driving force” that makes me buy a film Minolta Maxxum 9 or an Olympus E 30 dslr? Because they are what I want. I love using them. I just checked. Yup, I have pictures taken with them. How could that happen when they aren’t the latest technology?

muphoto

Architect1776 wrote:

Why do those people who have a choice in a system that still has DSLRs and mirrorless still purchase technologically antiquated and some discontinued DSLRs that came out years ago that will soon not be supported.
They have the option of buying far more technologically advanced cameras for the same money that will still receive service.
Just curious what is the driving force to spend money on old obsolete cameras?

I have 2 Nikon 850s and 8 lenses that work just fine. I see no need to switch to mirror less just for the sake of switching. I’ve been a professional photographer since 1978 when I took the job at Marshall University. I retired in 2020 but still do several freelance jobs, with pay, a month. Including still shooting sports for Marshall. I have used a couple of friends mirrorless and I could not see much difference in the final results. Some day, I may have to switch, but for now I will stay with what I have and may try to pick up another D850. By the way, I haven’t had to have any service on my camera bodies since the 1980s.

Hip Coyote

I imagine there are a few different types of folks,,,one who simply refuse to jump into mirrorless, for what ever reason, and those who have tried mirrorless and prefer DSLRs. I am in the third category of using mirrorless and had to use a DSLR (a borrowed camera) a while back and found it to be lacking.

What is clear is that R&D, new manufacturing, etc is in the mirrorless camp. DSLRs will eventually no longer be sold new. Of course people can keep their DSLRs, just as they can keep their film cameras.

Like cars, guns, tennis racquets, tools, and about any other thing, far too many people obsess on equipment and ignore technique. Where I worked, long time ago, we had a guy who was a world-class pistol shooter (as in winning international competitions). If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times, people asked him what kind of pistol he shot. Only a few times, did I ever hear someone question him on his training techniques or other skills to become a world champion. Guess who were the better shooters?

BebuLamar

Bridges wrote:

To some the motivation to buy mirrorless is simply... (show quote)

Not really good example. While the low end watches of $45 are about as accurate as the $250 ones but speaking of technology among those with high technologies are atomic watches which sync to atomic clock via radio, GPS which syncs with the satelite and the Apple Watch those are more expensive but the most expensive ones are those that have very old technologies like spring wound, spring escapement, etc.. and those that hold the value well. Apple did sell an Apple Watch at $17,000 but I wonder how much that one is worth now? Compare that to Rolex, an Omega or a Philippe Patek the high tech ones are worth a lot less and hold values very poorly.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Architect1776 wrote:

Why do those people who have a choice in a system that still has DSLRs and mirrorless still purchase technologically antiquated and some discontinued DSLRs that came out years ago that will soon not be supported.
They have the option of buying far more technologically advanced cameras for the same money that will still receive service.
Just curious what is the driving force to spend money on old obsolete cameras?

Seems like a lot of answers were a little offtrack from your question but one possible answer might be that they are as much a collector as anything else... Maybe a certain model fulfills a niche in their system collection... I myself like Olympus and have a small collection of EPLs just for collectable purposes, even though 12 mp is pretty outdated.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you want to be the creative type, to be an artist, you have to be willing to buy a mirrorless camera.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Architect1776 wrote:

Read the original post.
It is hyper clear that a stupid iPhone is explicitly excluded from the question.

Come on! You asked a silly question, and you know it! Just move on!!!

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

DirtFarmer wrote:

I quit using Timex watches about 50 years ago. Bef... (show quote)

I bought a Timex 12 years ago. About 30 bucks. I still use it, and it only gains less than 6 seconds a month, All I want to know is the time with the flick of a wrist

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you want to be the creative type, to be an artist, you have to be willing to buy a mirrorless camera.

I was going to respond ,but considering the source I realized it is Just bait .

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

sodapop wrote:

I bought a Timex 12 years ago. About 30 bucks. I still use i,t and it only gains less than 6 seconds a month, All I want to know is the time with the flick of a wrist

Takes longer to get the cell out of my pocket, wake it, and return it to my pocket.....

BebuLamar

Longshadow wrote:

Takes longer to get the cell out of my pocket, wake it, and return it to my pocket.....

I do not like to use the cell phone as watch either. I don't have a watch in a long time because I am not allowed to wear watch at work. I am retiring and perhaps I would get me a watch now.

therwol Loc: USA

BebuLamar wrote:

I do not like to use the cell phone as watch either. I don't have a watch in a long time because I am not allowed to wear watch at work. I am retiring and perhaps I would get me a watch now.

I find using a cell phone as a watch to be inconvenient as well, though better than having nothing. Not only that, I've been known to forget my cell phone when I leave my house. I've been wearing the same Seiko titanium kinetic watch for perhaps 25 years, one of their first models when titanium was still relatively expensive. It's is as light as a feather for a metal watch. It cost $600 on sale at the time. I've had to send it back to Seiko twice to replace the capacitor inside that stores the juice that runs the watch, but the second time they replaced it with a rechargeable lithium battery. The second watch I have is an Acutron from just a few years ago that commemorates the Apollo missions. It's super accurate, but it feels like a brick on my wrist compared with the titanium Seiko, so I gave up wearing it. It's all old technology, of course.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

Because we all have choices and individual priorities.
A Canon 5D Mark IV or a Nikon 850D, will always be quality cameras and take very good photos until the day it dies. Yes, mirrorless have new features, but if some one buys a 5DIV or a 850, it is because they like it. That is really all that matters.

By the way, I have been a m43 user for five years.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

I do not like to use the cell phone as watch either. I don't have a watch in a long time because I am not allowed to wear watch at work. I am retiring and perhaps I would get me a watch now.

On the other hand...
I kinda quit wearing a watch when I retired... But will on occasion.