p.3 #1 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
A74me wrote:
love my new x100vi, black leather case arrived today and have a small rig lens protector on its way. ive been testing the 50mm and 70mm crop printing A4 prints against my a7iv and im very happy 10 meg is great.
I love the Fuji X100VI---I can take it anywhere including model shoots. Security guards don't pay much attention to compact cameras :-)
p.3 #2 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
Overall, I go towards longevity / solid gear. I would much rather spend $900 on a good, solid 35mm prime than spend $900 on 3 cheap 35mm primes that all have their quirks, even if it is groundbreaking that we can get a 35mm AF lens with goodish IQ for around $300.
If I can add a third option, lately I am finding myself wanting more consistency. Back in the DSLR era, I feel like camera and lens manufacturers had a design language and stuck to it. Then maybe once every decade or so, they would make a new design and then release basically all their lenses over again, updated and in the new design style. Now it seems like design language is constantly changing, and it's getting harder and harder to build a cohesive kit. The advantage is that we get improvements faster, but part of me is getting tired of the friction, and I find myself trying to use my gear to the lowest common denominator of consistency. For example, I always find myself adjusting aperture on the camera body with my AF e mount lenses, since some lenses have aperture rings and some don't, even by Sony. Another example on the camera side is how the a7rVI has quite a few changes from the a7v, which was only released about 6 months ago, such as the new batteries. So now they have become more cumbersome to pair, we are probably at least 2 years away from an a7VI, and who knows if in 2 years Sony won't change the design language from the a7rIV. BTW I used Sony as the example since this is in the Sony form, but it's definitely not just Sony. For example, Nikon got us used to OLED displays on lenses and then took them away.
p.3 #3 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I tend to be more pragmatic about cameras. Part of it is the feeling that if something's working, it's not worth changing. And, as interested as I am in technological advances, I'm rarely moved to purchase until it's had full post software support, a few firmware revisions, and a grand or so taken off the MSRP. The only camera I've broken that rule for in the last fifteen years or so was the a6700, which I jumped on as soon as Adobe had support.
With lenses, my interest in tech and my willingness to pay for it more often intersect, but is rarely about obtaining the state-of-the-art. I have three primes right now that I consider to be the best available (300GM, Otus ML 85, and CV AL 28/2) but my ownership is incidental to that fact. The bulk of my kit is on the usable with character side of things, and the transitions I make there are typically along the lines of trading a Canon EF 28-135 IS (wanted to see how it did with IR) for a Tamron A05 17-35/2.8-4 and a Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 (same reason).
p.3 #4 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
my answer today in 2026 is "Longivity."
If you has asked me this a few years ago, I would have said "Groundbreaking Technology"
Because having the a1 II now, the only thing I wish Sony would somehow make it possible is making it so the a1 II would do 40fps at a lower megapixel lossless RAW or in APS-C... For me, that would have made the a1 II perfect. But for now... I'll live with 30fps (I know I know... first world problems, right? )
p.3 #5 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I suppose there is an argument that buying the most modern technology is investing in longevity because the system will remain forward compatible for the longest, will have the features which will remain 'current' the longest, will hold down GAS for longer, etc. I realise that I'm translating 'longevity' as 'will keep the buyer satisfied the longest' but for electronics in this day and age I'm not sure that is an exaggeration? Regardless of philisophical considerations and the fact that it is the manufacturers mission to their shareholders to ensure we will always want the next shiny new electronic thing.
That said, using the latest batteries and USB ports is more concrete longevity also.
Mirrorless by definition will have greater longevity due to far less moving parts and a model with a half million actuation shutter will last far longer than any of their DSLR ancestors. They also can use a huge range of lenses in comparison to DSLR's, including with autofocus, inclusive of AF lenses from other manufacturers. There may be a vast selection of cheap DSLR lenses on the used market but the market being opened up to cheap, modern chinese mirrorless lenses makes this advantage somewhat moot. I bring this all as an example of where longevity is not all that relevant in the modern age where newer technology is not only far better, far easier and more compatible but also at a price and availability which makes the advantages of investment in longevity somewhat irrelevant to any but a collector. In other words, the next technological leap can make mirrorless just as 'old, worn and oversized' in comparison.
My conclusion is buy what will keep you satisfied for the longest, within budget. Whether a house, car or camera system. But then I'm rather boring.
p.3 #7 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I have always tended to go for used, higher-end equipment. When I buy a camera, it is usually a few years old, and 2 or 3 models old. It allows me to have better equipment for a fraction of the original cost. When buying, I search for lightly-used condition, low shutter counts if determinable. I'm a hobbyist, so my equipment stays virtually the same as it was when I purchased it.
Lenses are sort of the same philosophy, even though they stay current for years and years. I still tend to buy used at 1/3-1/2 the cost of new. I stick with L glass for the most part, just for the image and build quality. Generally, I go for excellent condition lenses. I'm a filter user for the sole purpose of keeping the front element clean. I can't stand cleaning glass, as there is always a chance of scratching or seeing swirls. Thus, filter on at time of purchase, and is always in place. I never use anything but a UV filter.
p.3 #8 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Digital technology and longevity are an antagonism.
Depends on use case and mindset. Digital retro is now trending.
I just bought second hand very early series Nikon D700 with 35/1.4. lens. Very soon that camera will be 20 years old.
The limiting factor with D700 is me. In technical terms it is a very good and reliable camera, although heavy and bulky with some oldskool limitations, such as OVF and very clumsy live view. Anyway using D700 is fun and exciting, very much because of the lack of EVF.
I would not use it for serious or professional work, but the sheer joy of photography is there. DSLR is amost like shooting on film. I could argue that D700 is much more fun than the latest mirrorless Sony or Canon
I have also brought some of my early 2000 digital compacts back to life. I know using them is very fashionable right now, but I did it just because I felt bad seeing cameras lying around without getting any use. Bringing old tech back to life has a special value in itself.
p.3 #9 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I still use my 1953 Rolleiflex and 1985 Hasselblad.
Also the Loxia 50/2.0, which is the 1896 Planar design. And a great lens. (And was quite cheap used.)
But on tecno gizmos, my policy is to skip a generation. The A7Rvi doesn't look all that much better than the A7Rv, but the A7Rv was a big improvement over the A7Riii. Maybe the A7Rvii will tickle my fancy.
p.3 #10 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I had Nikon dslrs before switching to Sony a7m3. Then to a7r4. Then to a9 which I used for a looong time and I even got a second a9. Then Canon r6ii briefly. Then a7m4. Then Nikon z8. I love it so much I have two z8 now. I also have Sony a7r5 and zve1 now.
The z8 technology is pretty good, it literally has one of the fastest readout and best dr at that readout speed. The only thing is the weight.
To me the z8 was like the Sony a9 which is years ahead of its time and ages very well. The only bad thing for me is its size and weight.
p.3 #12 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
wind30 wrote:
I had Nikon dslrs before switching to Sony a7m3. Then to a7r4. Then to a9 which I used for a looong time and I even got a second a9. Then Canon r6ii briefly. Then a7m4. Then Nikon z8. I love it so much I have two z8 now. I also have Sony a7r5 and zve1 now.
The z8 technology is pretty good, it literally has one of the fastest readout and best dr at that readout speed. The only thing is the weight.
To me the z8 was like the Sony a9 which is years ahead of its time and ages very well. The only bad thing for me is its size and weight. ...Show more →
And how have you photos changed after going through all that gear?
p.3 #13 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
Longevity is a must as far as the quality of the equipment purchased. This does not preclude swapping it out if it turns out to not be properly suited to my needs, or if the needs evolve. My experience since starting Digital in 2004 with a Rebel is that none of the equipment ever failed, it was just superceded by better equipment at the point where the "better" was significant enough (i.e. not swapping out just for a few more megapixels or such). In the early days the rapid evolution of autofocus quality meant that there was quite a churn on the bodies while the lenses remained more or less constant. When finally settling on the 5D mk 3 and a 6D as second body, that remained my kit for 7 years until mirrorless arrived. I feel the same now about the R6 mk2 and R8, they tick all the boxes for the photography I do and while it is clear that there is better gear it will take a lot for me to feel a need to upgrade. Over these 20 some years of upgrading gear I will comment that it became increasingly more arduous to learn new cameras as the amount of options never ceases to grow. This steep learning curve also creates a barrier to more frequent refreshes. My current lens mix feels just about right, and while some admirable new glass has been released in recent times, none of it comes across as compelling at this point in time (famous last words...).
p.3 #14 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Digital technology and longevity are an antagonism.
For the sake of an argument, I would object to that. Electronic equipment treated with reasonable care will continue to do exactly what it is designed to do for a very long time. There are few if any mechanical adjustments, few if any lubrication issues, less need for mechanical dampers that may harden over time, etc.., in all aspects far less to go wrong or age compared to a fully mechanical system. Now the argument may be that the performance of the digital item falls behind the performance of more recent versions or competitors, and digital systems can be improved with few changes to components or bodies so they iterate faster, but that is a different conversation.
p.3 #15 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
Rivermist wrote:
For the sake of an argument, I would object to that. Electronic equipment treated with reasonable care will continue to do exactly what it is designed to do for a very long time. There are few if any mechanical adjustments, few if any lubrication issues, less need for mechanical dampers that may harden over time, etc.., in all aspects far less to go wrong or age compared to a fully mechanical system. Now the argument may be that the performance of the digital item falls behind the performance of more recent versions or competitors, and digital systems can be improved with few changes to components or bodies so they iterate faster, but that is a different conversation. ...Show more →
If this were true, why do digital cameras develop "error" messages that end up turning the camera into a brick? Why do electronic contacts on AF lenses fail? Why do batteries for these cameras fail? Etc....
p.3 #16 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I've had numerous problems with cameras and lenses. There are dozens of failure modes and I've experienced many of them starting nearly 50 years ago. The best mitigation is to have multiple bodies and some extra lenses.
p.3 #17 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
EB-1 wrote:
I've had numerous problems with cameras and lenses. There are dozens of failure modes and I've experienced many of them starting nearly 50 years ago. The best mitigation is to have multiple bodies and some extra lenses.
p.3 #18 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I don't need the bleeding edge of tech or my landscape, nature stills and music videos. Most recent prosumer and pro cameras are more than good enough for me. However, I value good ergonomics and high reliability. I, like most here, rarely keep a digital camera more than 5 years. I used my first new camera, a Nikon FM, for more than 20 years and, yeah, it was reliable but had the ergonomics of a brick merged with a bar of soap. AF got me to finally switch to Canon. My R7 is a joy to hold but FW 1.5 bricked it and it required a new main board (Canon covered it) after only a couple years of shooting. It still gets an error nearly weekly and requires a reboot. My R6 MK II has proved to be more reliable.
p.3 #19 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
snegron7 wrote:
If this were true, why do digital cameras develop "error" messages that end up turning the camera into a brick? Why do electronic contacts on AF lenses fail? Why do batteries for these cameras fail? Etc....
I guess mileage varies depending on many variables. The only time I had a camera failure was after dropping my first F-1 and damaging the photocell mechanism, making me travel through the Middle East for 2 months with the instructions on the Ektachrome box as only exposure guide, resulting nonetheless in 80% of the photos being correctly exposed. After that, I did indeed as suggested elsewhere always have 2 camera bodies for travel. But touch wood, through all the digital cameras I have owned (Rebel, XTi, 40D, 5D, 7D, 5D mk3, 6D, SL, SL2, RP and now R6 mk2 and R8), none have ever failed, only some rare instances of needing to shut down and restart. Only one SD card failure (but the pictures could be salvaged) and no batteries giving up the ghost. A few instances of a lens not connecting after mounting, always resolved by taking it off and putting it back on again. I do admit that I coddle the digital cameras and lenses much more than I did the old F-1s and FD lenses, which were built like tanks and had little or no electronics. A digital camera and lens is after all combination of two high precision electro-optical devices (lens and body) exposed to the elements during lens changes, so humidity, contaminants and hard knocks will affect them more. Cell phone manufacturers seal their units entirely, everything is soldered or glued together, and their huge numbers of units allow them to build custom chipsets with high integration and fewer connectors, something the low numbers of DSLR units make uneconomical.
p.3 #20 · Do You Prefer Groundbreaking Technology or Longevity?
I've had two smartphones die due to manufacturing/design defects, not abuse. Even though they are higher grades doesn't mean they don't have failures.
I've bought over 2 dozen DSLRs/MILCs and plenty of them have failures, especially on the higher-grade Canon 1D series, but also the mid-grade Nikon DSLRs. I'm rather surprised you never burned through a shutter after a while in the DSLR era. Many of them lasted only a few years with heavy use, but the shutters and mirror boxes were economically repairable on the better cameras.
In the film era cameras were also always breaking down or acting up. It wasn't better back then, but the cameras did much less so failures were simpler.
)
