gdanmitchell wrote:
The Canon 1D was introduced in 2001 with a list price of $6500. In inflation adjusted dollars that would be over $12,000 today.
A 4.1MP 1.3x cropped sensor. 8 fps with up to… 2 second bursts.
;-)
Yup. I bought one used for $4500 about 8 months later. And it sold me on digital being viable. Then about 6 months later, mid 2002 IIRC, I paid $7500 for a brand new 1Ds — oh, and shortly thereafter, I paid $400 for the then state of the art, massive capacity 1gb CF “micro drive” for it! 🤣
Don’t even get me started on how much I spent on Leica bodies and lenses back then… Or shortly thereafter, PhaseOne backs, cameras and lenses.
RoamingScott wrote:
The dense as a brick wall crowd can't wrap their heads around the fact that we all MADE DUE with limitations back in the day because there was no other way around it.
You stopped down, or put an ND on and moved on. You didn't have a holy grail 1/32,000th camera to look lustfully at and wish yours could do the same.
We also didn't have the same glut of ultra fast glass, either.
The “dense as a brick wall crowd” thanks you for your comments. Actually, I agree with much of what you say, but many of us don’t view 1/32000 second as an important specification and for those that use filters as a matter of front glass protection, or weather sealing .. ND filter use is not an issue, nor a bother. It is a choice and with that choice we are able to have a camera with specifications that we value. That does not relegate non “brick wall” posters as idiots for preferring these fast shutters. Different choices, different needs and different calculations. If I were still shooting events, I would certainly prefer a camera with a shorter flash sync and would dump the ND for fast shutter speed if I were in and out of doors with a fast lens. No question the A1ii is a more flexible, better all around camera vs the A7Rvi.
bwcolor wrote:
The “dense as a brick wall crowd” thanks you for your comments. Actually, I agree with much of what you say, but many of us don’t view 1/32000 second as an important specification and for those that use filters as a matter of front glass protection, or weather sealing .. ND filter use is not an issue, nor a bother. It is a choice and with that choice we are able to have a camera with specifications that we value. That does not relegate non “brick wall” posters as idiots for preferring these fast shutters. Different choices, different needs and different calculations. If I were still shooting events, I would certainly prefer a camera with a shorter flash sync and would dump the ND for fast shutter speed if I were in and out of doors with a fast lens. No question the A1ii is a more flexible, better all around camera vs the A7Rvi. ...Show more →
One problem with ND filters is that many present a color cast.
mogul wrote:
One problem with ND filters is that many present a color cast.
This is a very good point and brings up the other objection, the better ND filters are expensive. With a shutter speed of 1/8000 we aren’t talking needing highly opaque ND filters that might be needed with a Leica M film camera, so quality and low density are on our side.
Another side effect, although not necessarily so, is that some buy the lens for the filter. Some will compromise based on whether or not the ND they currently have fits the lens and so create an ecosystem around an ND filter that already fits the other lenses they own.
Jul 17, 2026 at 10:55 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
The dense as a brick wall crowd can't wrap their heads around the fact that we all MADE DUE with limitations back in the day because there was no other way around it.
You stopped down, or put an ND on and moved on. You didn't have a holy grail 1/32,000th camera to look lustfully at and wish yours could do the same.
We also didn't have the same glut of ultra fast glass, either.
I don't think that anyone is as dense as a brick wall, which of course is a pretty mean spirited thing to say. I had a Leica M10 and it has a base ISO of 200 and a max shutter speed of 1/4000, and I had fast f/1.4 lenses and even one f/1.2 lens for that camera. Some people shot and still shoot f/0.95 lenses with that camera. People who used that camera know a bit about making do with limitations.
Even if you know about making do with limitations, however, that doesn't mean that a base ISO of 100 and a max shutter speed of 1/8000 will create limitations for everyone. It doesn't for me. In light that bright I always want to stop down to at least f/2.4 or f/2.6. Just too much risk on modern sensors of purple fringing with any lens I have used at f/2 or faster in light that bright. I generally find light that bright really unappealing as well. So I avoid it if at all possible and if I can't because I need to take a shot in light that bright, then I will always stop down and almost always to at least f/2.8 and at most a half of a stop or a third of a stop more than that. Adopting that strategy doesn't make me "dense as a brick wall," but it does mean in the light where I live anyway, which is further north than you and at close to sea level, that I don't ever need a shutter speed above 1/8000, YMMV and likely does. Nobody is saying nobody needs a shutter speed faster than 1/8000. Just some of us are saying it isn't a capability we would ever use, so we don't care that the camera doesn't have it.
(I do not think we are thinking of the 9 or 10 stop NDs that are more likely to exhibit this issue.)
Also, if you need 1/32000, get the A1ii and problem solved. If you don’t, it isn’t an issue.
And if 1/16000 is enough even the A7 V has that. Sony has other cameras that are both less expensive and more expensive with a faster max shutter speed if that is important to you. For now, anyway, if you want more than 50 MP resolution, then you will have to live with the 1/8000 max shutter speed, and if you want a faster max shutter speed than 1/8000 you will have to live with less resolution. You can have either feature, but you can't have both.
I want to keep FM a place where everyone feels comfortable posting, so insulting or disrespectful comments are not something I can allow here. I'd rather not have to step in further, but if this continues, I'll need to start removing posts, and take stronger action if necessary.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I want to keep FM a place where everyone feels comfortable posting, so insulting or disrespectful comments are not something I can allow here. I'd rather not have to step in further, but if this continues, I'll need to start removing posts, and take stronger action if necessary.
I applaud your decision not to intervene. And don't underestimate the entertainment value of watching a bunch of gearheads fight. Frankly, that's like 80% of the value of these forums. While everyone likes to pretend that conversations here are about photography or technology, it's not. There are books, manuals and AI to talk to about those things.
The forum and its threads are about people and how silly we all are. And this thread in particular is just about just one word the OP used: he was "bothered". He was bothered by a camera not including a tiny and rarely useful feature that happened to be important to him. And the fact that he was "bothered" apparently "bothers" others.
old-gregg wrote:
I applaud your decision not to intervene. And don't underestimate the entertainment value of watching a bunch of gearheads fight. Frankly, that's like 80% of the value of these forums. While everyone likes to pretend that conversations here are about photography or technology, it's not. There are books, manuals and AI to talk to about those things.
The forum and its threads are about people and how silly we all are. And this thread in particular is just about just one word the OP used: he was "bothered". He was bothered by a camera not including a tiny and rarely useful feature that happened to be important to him. And the fact that he was "bothered" apparently "bothers" others.
Bothered is a relative term... I'm a neurosurgeon, and deal with life, death and sickness daily. My perspective on things is a pretty grounded in reality.
Trust me... I'm not losing any sleep over it. I just asked a simple question...
I never thought it would spark so much conversation... or actually maybe I did
old-gregg wrote:
I applaud your decision not to intervene. And don't underestimate the entertainment value of watching a bunch of gearheads fight. Frankly, that's like 80% of the value of these forums. While everyone likes to pretend that conversations here are about photography or technology, it's not. There are books, manuals and AI to talk to about those things.
The forum and its threads are about people and how silly we all are. And this thread in particular is just about just one word the OP used: he was "bothered". He was bothered by a camera not including a tiny and rarely useful feature that happened to be important to him. And the fact that he was "bothered" apparently "bothers" others.
I’d say that an occasional “one word” is something that we ctih an let slide — and which many of us have probably done ourselves over the years.
On the other hand, I think it is good and appropriate for a moderator to have a conversation with community members who engage in that sort of thing a lot, particularly when it is directed towards other forum members and is intended to be demeaning.
The main issue is that such posting degrades the forum in multiple ways. It doesn’t just affect the person who is the object of the gratiutious insults. It has a wider effect on the quality of the forum. You may or may not know this, but there are members of this forum — including some who are generally highly respected — who have told me that they won’t post here because of the attacks. That’s a loss to all of us. Many of us also know of other former members who left at least in part because of this sort of thing.
I managed online forums for decades in a variety of situations, and my philosophy — which worked really well — was that I’d tolerate low-level misbehavior, have an offline talk with folks who were too often doing things that degraded the quality of the community, and occasionally removed people whose effect was harmful to the community at large.
(Indeed, some tolerance is necessary, and no one wants admins to act as “thought police.” Effective admin work is tricky stuff, more about using good judgement and steering things than about the strict enforcement of rules.)
Along those lines, nothing at all would be lost in a thread like this if folks would lose the insults. The same legitimate (and other) points could be made, the same counter-arguments offered, the same facts shared.
My comments should not be taken as a criticism of Fred, but rather as the opinion of one person who successfully managed a number of online forums, including one that had 18k members.
