sqarehole wrote:Is newer always better? Or just newer?
Consumerism v Contentment: discuss.
Well, My 580 does a much better job at higher ISO settings than the 350 or 700 did. And I do like it's sweep panorama. The reason I didn't buy one when it was new was because it didn't have the built in GPS that the 55 had, and that was the one feature I truly wanted. Being as it's the last OVF Alpha, that's why I now have it.
My a350's can still produce fine photos when held to ISOs under 800, and acceptable ones a bit above. And I'm the kind of guy who runs a car until the wheels are square, so you need to give me a good reason to update.
We're now in a fairly mature state of digital photography. My early digicams couldn't hold a candle to 35mm film, and were only used for convenience. If I still wanted a really finely detailed photo I'd have to break out my 4x5 and some film, but that's because I don't have a top of the line FF DSLR or MF camera, nor could I afford one! (However, anyone wanting to give me a Leaf of Phase One may rest assured I'll cherish it forever!)
There is surely a need for us to throw off old tech from the early days for serious work. That being said, how may photos are serious work, and how many are selfies/that's so cute I gotta post it to Facebook/etc.? I wouldn't shoot weddings with an A100 or similar, I'd rather go back to MF film. But my 350s did fine for that job, and the even better cameras of today do finer still.
As I've said before, in the old days, it was good glass, good film, and good technique that got good photos. I could do as well with my XGM as the guy with a Nikon F1-6, using the same film and the best lenses for both. Today that doesn't hold true as our film is fixed, in the form of the sensor we buy in the camera. If only we could interchange sensor module like we could film packs, we'd hardly ever buy a new body!
Just my 2 cents worth.
A couple of a350's, an a700 and now an a580, plus even more lenses.