4 ms·

I can see the point. My hobby is photography. I love my Nikon D5300 to bits, but after a year of usage two buttons are stuck and the eyecup needs replacing. An

by jevgeni 11y ago

I can see the point. My hobby is photography. I love my Nikon D5300 to bits, but after a year of usage two buttons are stuck and the eyecup needs replacing. And then there are people using twin reflex cameras from the 50s and they run like butter...

leonroy 11y ago
Having had one of these old cameras I can tell you they are not immune from the ravages of age! They do need a good service periodically!
- jevgeni 11y ago
  Thank you for the advice. I kind of reckoned one would need to. I'm about to buy one and currently looking, if there are shops that do repairs, if need be.
StavrosK 11y ago
Could it be because your camera is now pretty much a whole photography studio in a compact package, and to make it as sturdy as those old cameras that had three moving parts it will need to cost twice as much?
- jevgeni 11y ago
  Of course. I believe, it's because of the manufacturer's (and the consumers') changed priorities. I think when a product arrives at a certain level of quality, it's difficult to see a difference, unless you have very good knowledge of the subject matter. For example, I don't know how to tell the difference between the quality of Carl Zeiss Planar and Tessar lenses. Or when I would need to. But as a company you need to differentiate yourself. Hence, you go digital, then you introduce all kinds of gizmos, built-in HDR processing, retouching capabilities, etc., etc. You save on the build quality to be able to claim the pole position in the megapixel race. Understandable, but does not cover the whole market.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    I don't really agree, at least when it comes to photography. Photographers care more about low light performance than they do about megapixels, for example, but there's a simple reason for build quality taking a back seat to features: Fifty years ago, next year's camera would be 3% better. Nowadays, next year's camera will be 100% better. Why would you spend money on build quality for a camera that will be de facto obsolete in two or three years?

by jevgeni 11y ago

leonroy 11y ago

Having had one of these old cameras I can tell you they are not immune from the ravages of age! They do need a good service periodically!

jevgeni 11y ago
Thank you for the advice. I kind of reckoned one would need to. I'm about to buy one and currently looking, if there are shops that do repairs, if need be.

StavrosK 11y ago

Could it be because your camera is now pretty much a whole photography studio in a compact package, and to make it as sturdy as those old cameras that had three moving parts it will need to cost twice as much?

jevgeni 11y ago
Of course. I believe, it's because of the manufacturer's (and the consumers') changed priorities. I think when a product arrives at a certain level of quality, it's difficult to see a difference, unless you have very good knowledge of the subject matter. For example, I don't know how to tell the difference between the quality of Carl Zeiss Planar and Tessar lenses. Or when I would need to. But as a company you need to differentiate yourself. Hence, you go digital, then you introduce all kinds of gizmos, built-in HDR processing, retouching capabilities, etc., etc. You save on the build quality to be able to claim the pole position in the megapixel race. Understandable, but does not cover the whole market.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  I don't really agree, at least when it comes to photography. Photographers care more about low light performance than they do about megapixels, for example, but there's a simple reason for build quality taking a back seat to features: Fifty years ago, next year's camera would be 3% better. Nowadays, next year's camera will be 100% better. Why would you spend money on build quality for a camera that will be de facto obsolete in two or three years?