These Sony FF cameras, despite their price are just not builtlike full-sized DSLRs

On 5/17/2020 5:24 PM, RichA wrote:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63947735

I remember how expensive tiny Minox cameras were, but they were made like good watches and some still function. Can't see that with Sony's stuff years from now.

Longevity is not much of a factor in any modern consumer goods,
especially for those relying on electronics.

--
best regards,

Neil

I still have old digital cameras, some 15 years old, which all
still work. But I wouldn't want to use them anymore, simply
because technology in the meantime has moved so far ahead.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

I still have old digital cameras, some 15 years old, which all
still work. But I wouldn't want to use them anymore, simply
because technology in the meantime has moved so far ahead.
--
Alfred Molon

(Chuckles) The oldest I still have are an Apple QuickTake 100 (1994)
and Nikon CoolPix 995 (2001) They still work, but no one cares because
they were inadequate even by the standards of the time.

OTOH, I have film cameras from the 1950's that work fine, and take
pictures competitive with (some might say superior to) a modern
digital.

Which loops us around to the original point - modern cameras are not
built to last because they become obsolete so quickly. There's no
point.

OR, have modern digital cameras reached the point where there's no
technical need for a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, and we can go back to
once-a-decade releases like the Nikon F series used to use?

I'd love to buy something I knew would be supported and repairable for
decades.

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

I still have old digital cameras, some 15 years old, which all
still work. But I wouldn't want to use them anymore, simply
because technology in the meantime has moved so far ahead.

(Chuckles) The oldest I still have are an Apple QuickTake 100 (1994)
and Nikon CoolPix 995 (2001) They still work, but no one cares because
they were inadequate even by the standards of the time.

they were state of the art at the time of their release.

OTOH, I have film cameras from the 1950's that work fine, and take
pictures competitive with (some might say superior to) a modern
digital.

they might work fine, but film cameras of any vintage are not in any
way competitive with a modern (or even not so modern) digital camera,
let alone surpass. that ship sailed long ago.

Which loops us around to the original point - modern cameras are not
built to last because they become obsolete so quickly. There's no
point.

exactly.

OR, have modern digital cameras reached the point where there's no
technical need for a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, and we can go back to
once-a-decade releases like the Nikon F series used to use?

the 10 year cycle was only because technology didn't advance very
rapidly. very little changed year to year.

technology advances far faster now, and it would be incredibly stupid
for any company to ignore it. they'd be history if they didn't keep up.

on the other hand, film changed relatively frequently. those who
foolishly bought many bricks of film and put it in a freezer were stuck
with outdated formulations and could not take advantage of the newer
films.

I'd love to buy something I knew would be supported and repairable for
decades.

you can, but it won't do much.

In article , nospam
wrote:

(Chuckles) The oldest I still have are an Apple QuickTake 100 (1994)
and Nikon CoolPix 995 (2001) They still work, but no one cares because
they were inadequate even by the standards of the time.

they were state of the art at the time of their release.

Yes, but the state of the art itself was inadequate for any reasonable
purpose. The QT100 (IIRC) took eight 640X480 images, or sixteen 320X200
on its non-removable storage. It was really introduced for the
classroom market, where having the images within a 40 minute class was
a plus. Still, educators lined up around the block to NOT buy the $700
marvels.

In article , nospam
wrote:

technology advances far faster now, and it would be incredibly stupid
for any company to ignore it. they'd be history if they didn't keep up.


But does it need to? I have trouble distinguishing the end result
between my old 24 megapixel DSLR and my even older 12 megapixel model.

on the other hand, film changed relatively frequently. those who
foolishly bought many bricks of film and put it in a freezer were stuck
with outdated formulations and could not take advantage of the newer
films.

Hah! Working pros (or serious amateurs) couldn't find freezer space for
an over-supply. Further, older emulsions were far more commonly
cherished and hoarded rather than disdained because they were obsolete.

Once you established your workflow and "look" with a particular film,
you'd stick with it despite hypothetical "improvements." Film
photography was over 100 years old when I started in the 1960's. The
improvements in the last 50 years are fairly trivial.

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:


(Chuckles) The oldest I still have are an Apple QuickTake 100 (1994)
and Nikon CoolPix 995 (2001) They still work, but no one cares because
they were inadequate even by the standards of the time.

they were state of the art at the time of their release.

Yes, but the state of the art itself was inadequate for any reasonable
purpose. The QT100 (IIRC) took eight 640X480 images, or sixteen 320X200
on its non-removable storage. It was really introduced for the
classroom market, where having the images within a 40 minute class was
a plus. Still, educators lined up around the block to NOT buy the $700
marvels.

depends on the purpose.

today's technology is far more advanced than in 1994, allowing for a
lot more purposes.

future technology will widen that even further, and they'll look back
to today and laugh at how primitive it was.

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

technology advances far faster now, and it would be incredibly stupid
for any company to ignore it. they'd be history if they didn't keep up.


But does it need to?

absolutely.

I have trouble distinguishing the end result
between my old 24 megapixel DSLR and my even older 12 megapixel model.

that depends on many factors.

one benefit is you can crop down to 12 mp and get an effective
teleconverter.

other benefits include new camera features, such as hdr, 4k video,
faster frame rates, wifi, bluetooth, gps, compatibility with mobile
apps, etc.

on the other hand, film changed relatively frequently. those who
foolishly bought many bricks of film and put it in a freezer were stuck
with outdated formulations and could not take advantage of the newer
films.

Hah! Working pros (or serious amateurs) couldn't find freezer space for
an over-supply. Further, older emulsions were far more commonly
cherished and hoarded rather than disdained because they were obsolete.

some had dedicated freezers.

the point is that those with a stockpile of film are stuck with it
until it's used up, while their competitors can easily switch and take
full advantage of new emulsions, choosing the best film for a given
shoot.

over the years, film increased in speed and grain was reduced, giving
them far more opportunities that are impossible for the hoarders.

Once you established your workflow and "look" with a particular film,
you'd stick with it despite hypothetical "improvements." Film
photography was over 100 years old when I started in the 1960's. The
improvements in the last 50 years are fairly trivial.

more than trivial, including faster films with less grain, better
cameras and more.

In article , says...
I'd love to buy something I knew would be supported and repairable for
decades.

Perhaps you were born in the wrong century then. Do you expect a
PC to last for decades for instance?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On May 19, 2020, Scott Schuckert wrote
(in article ):

Which loops us around to the original point - modern cameras are not
built to last because they become obsolete so quickly. There's no
point.

Not necessarily.

OR, have modern digital cameras reached the point where there's no
technical need for a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, and we can go back to
once-a-decade releases like the Nikon F series used to use?

The newly released Fujifilm X-T4 is an update/upgrade I am not considering. I am quite happy with my 2 year old X-T3.

I'd love to buy something I knew would be supported and repairable for
decades.

Well I still have a working 52 year old Yashica Electro 35, and a working 44 year old K1000. Not that they get used much these days.

As for digital, I have worked my way through Nikon models/updates/upgrades since 1993, and Fujifilm since 2015. I still have all of the Fujifilm cameras I have bought.

I do have a few toys in mind to satisfy my tech GAS. I have ordered a drone, which will be a new experience for me. Then there are two, or three lenses that are tempting me.

--
Regards,
Savageduck