3 ms·

Lots of other people have pointed out the issues with this analogy. My reasoning for thinking this is not a good analogy is the supercar is a device that canno

Lots of other people have pointed out the issues with this analogy. My reasoning for thinking this is not a good analogy is the supercar is a device that cannot be used/exploited in normal operation. It is illegal to use the top speed or acceleration of a supercar. It cannot make traffic move out of the way for you. A Supercar will not get you to work any faster than a Toyota Corolla. The Corolla will go fast enough to send you to jail, just like the Supercar. You can't use the Supercar features without legal risk without going to a special place (the race track). People who own sports cars and supercars try to rationalize this away but it's true. They are really just driving them around to show off and can't realistically use the cars capabilities in the real world. If a fancy DSLR or Mirrorless camera is like a supercar than it would mean everyone who had a DSLR or Mirrorless camera had to use the camera with one fixed prime lens that had bad quality and was locked at a small aperture. You had to use it in green "full auto" mode all the time. You had to set the camera up to run in it's slowest mode, and you had to set the camera up run at a very high ISO and to store photos in a high compression JPEG setting. Only when you went to the special zone of photography would you be able to use the extra features. (Changing lenses & settings for maximum effect.) Most people who carry DSLRs & Mirrorless cameras around can exploit their advantages ruthlessly in the real world whenever they want.. nothing at all like paying for a sports car or supercar and just using it as a show-off token. I am not arguing against Om's point though. I'm in the same boat as him, I have a pretty expensive camera setup but have bought minimal camera gear since 2012 and use my Smartphone more and more.

braythwayt 7y ago
I personally think you're reaching. You might as well point out that a Supercar doesn't take pictures. I mean, really, are we going to get into discussing the people who buy a supercar and hold it as an investment/collectible and rarely drive it? Or what about the people who track their McLaren and absolutely use it to its full potential? Those people 100% absolutely drive them for performance and use every bit of it. And yes, there are camera owners who collect cameras. And camera owners who buy "Prosumer" models just because they want a nice camera, even if they don't use it to its full potential. Maybe not you, but we both know there are such people. That doesn't really invalidate my analogy or validate it. If you feel around to the edges of any metaphor, it breaks. But the question is whether the basic idea is right. I think it's right enough, you don't. Ok.
asdkhadsj 7y ago
I think those counterpoints to the example are being a bit literal. I too have a "fancy" DSLR and I definitely consider the sportscar analogy accurate. I think the heart of the analogy is different from what you're giving as examples though. To me it means that there are places where you do want to use the sportscar, and places you don't. I rarely use my DSLR - why? Because I'm usually "commuting" and it's just too bulky for a daily driver. My commuter car fits in my pocket, and is always with me. Talking about how special places are designed for the sports cars and inferring that it can/should only be used there seems to me incorrect inference of the analogy. At that point we may as well talk about expensive tire repair and maintenance, but I don't think that was intended either haha.
CleaveIt2Beaver 7y ago
I don't see how the supercar analogy is any different than the standard use case of a phone camera vs a standalone. Sure, a standalone gets you higher resolution, optical zoom, etc, but consider where those photos are most likely to be viewed - you can't get the most from them without going to a special place (printer). You can't make people view them on a PC. Realistically, most people are going to be viewing their photos on their phone, whether they originated there or not, after they've been mushed through facebook or insta's compression anyway. People who own cameras try to rationalize this away but it's true.
kube-system 7y ago
You're being silly. All you have established is that cars and cameras are very different things governed by different laws. The point others were making is much more simple: neither DSLRs or purpose-built sports cars are particularly convenient for casual utilitarian use. People who buy both of these things lean more towards the 'hobbyist' side of things. You are absolutely right that there are many people who lug their DSLR everywhere. But I think you might be underestimating just how many people actually do go to racetracks. Of course, some people own fancy things as status symbols. But also, hobbyists don't have to continually "exploit the capabilities" of their hobby to be legitimate hobbyists either.

braythwayt 7y ago

I personally think you're reaching. You might as well point out that a Supercar doesn't take pictures. I mean, really, are we going to get into discussing the people who buy a supercar and hold it as an investment/collectible and rarely drive it? Or what about the people who track their McLaren and absolutely use it to its full potential? Those people 100% absolutely drive them for performance and use every bit of it. And yes, there are camera owners who collect cameras. And camera owners who buy "Prosumer" models just because they want a nice camera, even if they don't use it to its full potential. Maybe not you, but we both know there are such people. That doesn't really invalidate my analogy or validate it. If you feel around to the edges of any metaphor, it breaks. But the question is whether the basic idea is right. I think it's right enough, you don't. Ok.

asdkhadsj 7y ago

I think those counterpoints to the example are being a bit literal. I too have a "fancy" DSLR and I definitely consider the sportscar analogy accurate. I think the heart of the analogy is different from what you're giving as examples though. To me it means that there are places where you do want to use the sportscar, and places you don't. I rarely use my DSLR - why? Because I'm usually "commuting" and it's just too bulky for a daily driver. My commuter car fits in my pocket, and is always with me. Talking about how special places are designed for the sports cars and inferring that it can/should only be used there seems to me incorrect inference of the analogy. At that point we may as well talk about expensive tire repair and maintenance, but I don't think that was intended either haha.

CleaveIt2Beaver 7y ago

I don't see how the supercar analogy is any different than the standard use case of a phone camera vs a standalone. Sure, a standalone gets you higher resolution, optical zoom, etc, but consider where those photos are most likely to be viewed - you can't get the most from them without going to a special place (printer). You can't make people view them on a PC. Realistically, most people are going to be viewing their photos on their phone, whether they originated there or not, after they've been mushed through facebook or insta's compression anyway. People who own cameras try to rationalize this away but it's true.

kube-system 7y ago

You're being silly. All you have established is that cars and cameras are very different things governed by different laws. The point others were making is much more simple: neither DSLRs or purpose-built sports cars are particularly convenient for casual utilitarian use. People who buy both of these things lean more towards the 'hobbyist' side of things. You are absolutely right that there are many people who lug their DSLR everywhere. But I think you might be underestimating just how many people actually do go to racetracks. Of course, some people own fancy things as status symbols. But also, hobbyists don't have to continually "exploit the capabilities" of their hobby to be legitimate hobbyists either.