# Why I've been absent



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 29, 2019)

I used to be a regular participant in the Canon Rumors forums. I really enjoyed adding to my lens collection and anticipating the improvements coming in the next Canon camera. I admit I suffered from Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I quit buying over a year ago.

I'm currently using a 5D4 for my work with models and a 77D for travel photography. I have a huge collection of lenses for the EF mount and a few for the EF-S mount.

My problem is that I have no reason to buy any new gear other than occasionally a filter or a new lighting toy. I suspect I'm partly responsible for any downturn in Canon sales. I've been watching the development of full frame mirrorless bodies by Canon and Sony. I'm not impressed. They don't really offer anything I need. Sure the Sony sensors are great, but I'd have to learn a new menu system and buy expensive new lenses. The Canon mirrorless bodies don't get a lot of good reviews and I'd have to use an adapter with my existing lenses or upgrade to extremely expensive glass in the new mount. 

I have no need for more megapixels. I even use the M-RAW setting sometimes on my 5D4 to reduce the file size and speed up processing of a batch of 500 images.

I'm pretty much stuck, but I'm stuck in a good place.

It looks like I may keep using my current gear for many years. I know how to use it and it does the job I need it to do without ever breaking down. I miss reading this forum regularly, but just can't seem to get interested in the current offerings.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 29, 2019)

Hi Mike. 
It is good to hear from you and know that you are well and over your serious GAS illness. 
I’m sure somebody with your experience has lots to offer, how about participating in the model thread, or try your hand in the landscape forum? Just don’t read the gear threads! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> My problem is that I have no reason to buy any new gear other than occasionally a filter or a new lighting toy.



Around here, license plates identify the car, rather than the owner, so when one sells a car, he has to transfer ownership - let the government know the license plate now belongs to someone else. Back in the eighties, the government had the car's year of original sale encoded in the license plate. Result was lots of people bought a new car every year for showoff - so other people would know they're rich enough to buy a new car every year. After a decade the government realized this is insane, and changed the scheme.

Nowadays only people who own cars for a living, e.g. taxi drivers, buy a new one on a regular basis.

You have a similar problem, this time induced by photography gear manufacturers - you think you should contribute to their bottom line on a regular basis by continuously buying new gear. The regular expense should be fixing mechanical parts, e.g. shutters and apertures.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2019)

If your gear fully satisfies your needs and is not reaching the end of its life, then it is sensible not to buy new models for the sake of it. If there is a newer or alternative model that has features you want, then it is quite sensible to upgrade. If you enjoy owning the latest gear, then it is your prerogative so to do. And no one should should be judgemental about peoples choices in these matters.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2019)

I have never been one to upgrade every model. To me, it makes more sense to wait until there is a significant increase in capability.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2019)

Free riders like you disgust me. Don't you understand that by not giving a fair share of your income to Canon each month, you are only forcing the rest of us to spend more. You need to step up and allocate a fair share of your monthly income to Canon -- 25% is reasonable. 

Seriously, this is actually one of the reasons why I remain a loyal Canon customer. Both Canon and Nikon have weathered downturns in the industry many times before. I like knowing that they are in it for the long run and no doubt knew that the bubble was eventually going to burst and planned for it.

As for the perspective of individuals, I agree that the current state of the technology is so good that there is little reason for most people to upgrade. Really, when the major arguments on this forum are over the number of card slots a camera has, the video frame rates of stills cameras, who has the biggest megapixels and other goofy, insignificant details, it's a pretty good sign that the technology has matured to the point where most improvements in the foreseeable future will have little impact on the vast majority of buyers. Your perspective is also one reason why I'm pretty sure that DSLRs are going to be around for quite awhile. 

As a side note, I've always enjoyed your work. I think it's a fascinating, non-judgmental niche you've carved out. I'm always curious how you got started and imagine you probably have some great stories to tell.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 29, 2019)

There is indeed, little incentive to buy a new camera or a new phone either. There have been few real improvements, just minor evolution. My EOS R is better for some uses, worse for others, but not a big difference maker. Its the same for most models of cameras. Some will see a feature they want, but overall, fewer are willing to spend big bucks just to upgrade a camera that is fine now.

I bought a new phone this year to upgrade my ageing iphone 6, but I would not have replaced a newer one.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Free riders like you disgust me. Don't you understand that by not giving a fair share of your income to Canon each month, you are only forcing the rest of us to spend more. You need to step up and allocate a fair share of your monthly income to Canon -- 25% is reasonable.
> 
> Seriously, this is actually one of the reasons why I remain a loyal Canon customer. Both Canon and Nikon have weathered downturns in the industry many times before. I like knowing that they are in it for the long run and no doubt knew that the bubble was eventually going to burst and planned for it.
> 
> ...


Describing features that some people want, like more pixels, as being goofy insignificant details is being judgemental.


----------



## OneSnark (Sep 29, 2019)

drmikeinpdx said:


> <<snip>>
> My problem is that I have no reason to buy any new gear other than occasionally a filter or a new lighting toy. I suspect I'm partly responsible for any downturn in Canon sales. I've been watching the development of full frame mirrorless bodies by Canon and Sony. I'm not impressed. They don't really offer anything I need. <<snip>> The Canon mirrorless bodies don't get a lot of good reviews and I'd have to use an adapter with my existing lenses or upgrade to extremely expensive glass in the new mount.
> 
> <<snip>>



Yeah - - I am in the same place.

I have gear.
Want to buy more. 
But I am told that dSLRs are "dead". "Mirrorless is the future". OK. . . .maybe I can buy a mirrorless body.

Oh wait. . . .all my *lenses* are obsolete as well? 
For the "RF" - - - -The advantage of the new lens. . . is a "control ring"? . . .and the new lenses are Full Escalated Price "L" glass? (Have you noticed the "L" glass premium increase in the last five years?). 
This smells of Marketing. Not smart marketing. . .marketing over reach. 
I get it . . .the bodies can be an inch less deep (44mm - 20mm = 1 inch less focus distance). But if you are carrying these F2.8 monsters. . . are you really going for "small"?

For the "M". . .the advantage is: Small and slooooow? Tell me how again how these slow, cheap lenses will improve my images. 

. . . and none of this works on my existing bodies?
. . . or I could just go with that adapter life. . . . .(yuk)


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 29, 2019)

Digital stills cameras as a continuation/extension of 20th century SLR's are probably about as good as they are likely to get. Mirrorless is pushing the ball a little further along but that'll run out of steam pretty soon as well.

But, that just means we are getting closer to seeing what the "Next Big Thing" is going to be. I don't expect that the "cameras" of the future are going to have much in common with what we use today. Once Arrays, AI and related tech gets up to speed they are going to fly by traditional optics/sensor systems like they're standing still.

I've lived through several extinction level events during my imaging career and anybody that doesn't think a few more are just over the horizon is kidding themselves.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Describing features that some people want, like more pixels, as being goofy insignificant details is being judgemental.


Actually, what I was referencing was the obsession with ranking camera manufacturers based on small differences in resolution: _"who has the biggest megapixels."_ Specifically, the hand-wringing that accompanied Sony's latest high megapixel camera by many on this forum. The idea that one camera company is a "winner" because it offers more megapixels than competitors is goofy, especially since companies routinely leapfrog one another in resolution.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Digital stills cameras as a continuation/extension of 20th century SLR's are probably about as good as they are likely to get. Mirrorless is pushing the ball a little further along but that'll run out of steam pretty soon as well.
> 
> But, that just means we are getting closer to seeing what the "Next Big Thing" is going to be. I don't expect that the "cameras" of the future are going to have much in common with what we use today. Once Arrays, AI and related tech gets up to speed they are going to fly by traditional optics/sensor systems like they're standing still.
> 
> I've lived through several extinction level events during my imaging career and anybody that doesn't think a few more are just over the horizon is kidding themselves.


True, but I seriously cringe at the direction things seem to be headed in terms of aesthetics. There is a rush to the bottom, where we are conditioning people to think of good pictures as overly romantic, highly processed, unnatural images. "Fake Pictures" is an apt term. As we fast approach the perfection of digital imaging to the point where it is impossible to tell the real from the manufactured, we all may be ******* to endure a world where no one is satisfied with authentic images when they can saturate their digital life with visual porn.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> True, but I seriously cringe at the direction things seem to be headed in terms of aesthetics. There is a rush to the bottom, where we are conditioning people to think of good pictures as overly romantic, highly processed, unnatural images. "Fake Pictures" is an apt term. As we fast approach the perfection of digital imaging to the point where it is impossible to tell the real from the manufactured, we all may be ******* to endure a world where no one is satisfied with authentic images when they can saturate their digital life with visual porn.


I understand your sentiment but that's just the way things have always been. Many people thought color film was aesthetically inferior to Black and White when it first appeared and in many instances it was. But that sorted itself out and I think the new tech, despite it's current aesthetic challenges, will sort itself out as well. As far as real vs fake goes I'm not sure what that even means. As an examle: Focal planes and depth of field are artificial artifacts of contemporary lens designs. You could make the argument that depth of field is fake and that cameras of the future should have infinite fields of focus. Aesthetics are defined by human choices not tools. Superior tools improve aesthetic opportunities they don't diminish them. Of course the world is full of people with terrible taste that abuse every advancement in human culture but that's just the way things work. We shouldn't use that as an excuse not to advance. At least that is the way I see it.


----------

