The Entry Level Shooter Part 1

PROLOGUE

This is the first of a series of posts addressing the ongoing battle that most of us serious shutterbugs have with the marketing psychologists at the big brand camera manufacturers. It's a battle which most of us regularly lose.

It doesn't have to be this way, you know. We can all fight back and win if we take up the challenge with cold hard logic.

THE REAL ARTICLE STARTS HERE FOLKS

Once upon a time we bought a film SLR to last us for maybe 10-15 years or so. The basic principle of good SLR design had been pretty much established in the late 1960s and didn't really change much (except for nibbling at the edges) until digital models started to appear about 9 years ago.

The top of the line Minolta SRT101 cost me about $300 back in 1967. It had through the lens Cadmium Sulphide sensor metering, an accurate single point microprism style manual focus screen, bayonet lens mount, damped mirror action, depth of field preview and sturdy metal construction built to "take it". It had a small replaceable battery which had to be changed every 18 months or so and that was pretty much THAT.

One could change the shutter speed via a little dial on the top of the camera, the metering sensitivity could be changed via a collar under the shutter speed dial, the aperture could be changed on the lens barrel and a big fat easy grip ring gave us nice precision for accurate and fast manual focus. You changed the exposure settings until a little needle hit the mark in your viewfibder and you were ready to fly.

There was very little reason to update the camera. It gave no trouble and the later models such as the SRT101b or SRT100 or the SRT303 were basically the same camera. Newer models offered maybe a maximum shutter speed of (say) 1/2000th second instead of 1/1000th second, there might have been a split/prism style focussing point instead of the microprism one and the body styling may have changed minutely ... but they were basically the same. Cameras were kind of like cars. The models changed superficially every year or two so that people had a reason to buy a new one and be SEEN using/driving "the latest" If you looked after the old model however, you might not LOOK quite so cool but the film and the fuel were consumed the same way producing the same pictures and covering the same distances turning basically the same steering wheels and pushing basically the same shutter release buttons.

Even film, re-assuringly, stayed the same for year after year. If new, faster, more colourful, finer grained (whatever) versions of old favourites came along you loaded up the new roll and were immediately operating with the latest and greatest. It didn't matter one whit how old the camera was. My picture quality with "the new Kodachrome 64" was just as up-to-date with my OLD camera as Fred Nerk's roll of Kodachrome 64 was with his brand new one.

Somehow millions of photographers went around with these basic tools, capturing memorable (occasionally legendary) images on film. Incredibly we did it without such essentials as "live view" or "auto ISO" or "face recognition" (imagine having to get by without FR - gasp!) "51 auto focus points" or the ability to shoot "8 fps" etc etc etc

Now, of course, things are somewhat different. Apparently every few years they change the nature of light, the physical parameters of exposure vary from what they used to be somehow and the way that photographic subjects behave goes through some dramatic transformation. Hence we simply MUST have the very latest camera model to work with or we just won't be able to produce good images any more. Indeed each new camera model comes with a host of new gimmi ... er ... features, without which (we are breathlessly informed) photography as we know it becomes quite inconceivable.

Of course it could be argued that we are now dealing with "digital" systems which unlike "film" are an immature technology. Naturally every year or so massive new technical strides are made which will mean huge improvements to the capabilities of new camera models. Right? If one ISN'T using the latest and greatest, one's pictures really won't be any good. tch tch

I am not sure that things are QUITE like that but certainly more so than they used to be. Most assuredly it is in the perceived interests of camera manufactures, retail stores, photographic magazines, technical journalists and enthusiast bloggers that we potential puchasers THINK that this is true - else life as they know it might surely end.

Certainly the following things seem to be true:

1. No digital camera will continue to give service and provide state-of-the-art performance over many many years in the way that traditional film models once did.
2. Digital cameras are infinitely more complex and vulnerable than traditional film models. Alas, after five years or so we can expect that our oft used toys may start to give trouble. We can ALSO expect that camera manufacturers (whose only REAL interest is in flogging the latest model) will start to "lose" the original parts with which one might expect one's old camera to be repaired. At the very least, rare parts will soon get sufficiently expensive for repair to seem uneconomical.
3. While there AREN"T staggering revolutions in camera performance, with each new model, after five years or so, the latest cameras may WELL be expected to offer tangible improvements for the discerning enthusiast and worthwhile profit earning efficiencies for the professional.

Whichever way you look at it, we live in an age when serious photographers can expect to HAVE to purchase new cameras on a regular basis.

Question: How much disposable cash does one have to have and/or how much money does photography have to be earning you before it becomes a good idea to buy truly expensive equipment and for you to replace it with similar kit each time the need arises?

Answer: HEAPS

Another Question: For what you (yes YOU) do with cameras, how much difference will it really make to your pictures if you spend up big on expensive gear - as opposed to (say) the universally despised "entry level" gear?

Answer: Let's BEGIN to discuss it in detail .... next time.