Dont buy new stuff?

[Mickw]

As from my previous post, i have a question. Why buy the new stuff? We all hear the advertising blurb about this lens is better than the old one etc, but in the real world......is it? Whilst we study the various charts on this site and others, zoom in to %100 look for this bit of sharpness over others we can see that technology moves on. But does it? We miss one massive variable. Who zooms in to %100. No one. The issue is, will you notice any differance on what you print. The answer is....no. Unless you print big.

I therefore make a challenge.

I will donate £100 to charity to anyone who can make a shot with Canons latest lens, 200, 300 500 do the same shot with the old lens, on the same camera,paper etc print at A3 on the same printer and can notice any differance.

Mick

[Dr Croubie]

Deal.
(But you supply the lens)

[Sean Setters]

I typically buy new things for several reasons. Like...

1) Convenience
2) Better durability
3) Desired additional features I can get nowhere else
4) Security (backup supplies)
5) Superior image quality

That's why I buy new stuff. "Superior image quality" is probably the most subjective part of that list, but it's no less valid for it.

[Kombi]

I think it'd be a hard challenge for most to notice the difference on an a4 size piece of paper.
This is my fourth month of not just leaving my camera on full auto. So for me I don't think it would make much difference.

I took a photography seminar/classes to better get to know my camera from a photographer who is regularly published in backpacker, men's journal, national geographic among others.

As a professional photographer his editor requires 'billboard size pictures' for submission. So I suspect that for the average consumer there is little need to buy top end latest and greatest, but for the professional... it could mean the difference of getting the shot that gets picked and published or loosing it to someone else.


Me personally - I'm happy buying used gear from someone that has upgraded to the latest.

[cls]

Hi, you’re right that there will likely be no noticeable difference in such prints. However, I believe they managed to reduce weight significantly for some of the new telephoto lenses and for some people that difference alone could be a good reason to upgrade.

Although the image quality of a 100% crop is usually not essential for the typical viewing conditions (medium sized print, web-sized image etc), it can be really useful for cropping. E.g. I don’t own any lens longer than 200 mm, but my 70-200 zoom is really great and it’s no problem to make a decent print that simulates 400 mm (provided small/medium size is enough).

I think you might want to point out the fact that many of us spend far too much time and money on the technical aspects of photography gear. I.e. it’s not uncommon that all of the latest really advanced professional gear is used for taking average holiday snapshots. I believe this tool overkill is rather common, not only in photography but in many hobbies. For example I have a friend who absolutely can’t understand why I spend that much money on cameras (he prefers to think of any piece of gear as “camera” regardless if it’s a camera, a lens, a flash…). On the other hand he buys a new car every year, he talks about nothing but cars, he only reads car magazines, and he uses those very expensive cars with big motors only for transportation from point A to point B - really meaningless . (Actually I’ve used this fact in “purchasing negotiations” with my wife: “Compared to being a car nerd, being a photo nerd is quite cheap - one doesn’t get much car for 1000 bucks, but you can get a great lens.”)

At least I’m aware that my gear isn’t what limits the quality of my photos - I have lots to learn about the “artistic” aspects of photography and I’m working on it. I’m also aware that I’ve been infected with the gear collecting disease, though my case may not be too severe (so far). I’m actually very happy to have the opportunity of using good gear while trying to learn photography, and I believe there are many other hobby photographers in about the same situation out there.

[Busted Knuckles]

I have to agree w/ CLS and Fast Glass.

Recently returning to what was a modest profession 30 years ago, and is now a hobby, there are some things that are bicycle like and come back pretty quick..... Then there is the whole technology thing, LOL thud - laughed at myself so hard I fell from my chair. I can remember lots of people coming into the store and expressing "professional" status just because they had a SLR and PERHAPS 2-3 lens while I was standing in front of 8x10 linhoff w/ a giant schneider on it. It still goes on.... to quote Fast Glass "I just take pictures."

While I am really impressed with what the modern camera can do, I think I have read where the positive film (slides) still has a dynamic range the electronic sensors are several steps away from. I can believe this looking at shadow detail, etc. Dave Dugdale did a nice piece on the 5d3 v d800 that highlighted the dynamic range issues pretty well. Notwithstanding the stupid destruction (think donate to a worthy cause!?!?!) the review of the ISO/Sensor performance of the 5d3/ v d800 of usable iso vs. noise in ever declining light for the video side - which hee hee is so amazing to what was around 30 years ago.

If one is going to go all the way artsy, certainly a DSLR paired to medium format or 4x5 shooting positive film with similar effective focal lengths would seem to be the upper end - the resolution and dynamic range of 4x5. (there is always the Leica medium format if you want to spend big bucks chasing better, but how much, image quality).

On the other end of this is now the cell phone camera (used to be the P&S but even that has been eclipsed). I guess all of this is to say "pick a point" that you believe is your level of interest and simply enjoy the images you make. There will always be limitations, always that next step.

Happy clicks.

[FastGass]

You could probably see the difference but it would be really small, you would have to stay very close and pixel peep in a A3 print. But the thing that you miss is many of us still print bigger than that and the difference will be larger in a 13x19 for example. And pros frequently print much larger than that, which probably is the largest market for the lenses.

And I just take pictures!
John.

[Sean Setters]

I'll go back to my original post and demonstrate why I buy new things. The Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo I recently purchased allows me to control DOF (during the brightest of days) while also allowing me to use a circular polarizer at the same time. It certainly wasn't cheap, but in my mind, well worth the investment.

To be honest, the polarizer didn't do much for me today when I was test shooting (the time of day and angle to the sun was less than optimal), but considering I was shooting at f/1.8 at 1/160 second in broad daylight is phenomenal to me.


Noelle in Summer by budrowilson, on Flickr

[jrw]

i realize that you were talking about sharpness in the beginning, but that is only one part of the image quality difference and quite frequently one of the smallest areas of difference. One of the easiest areas to see differences between versions of lenses in ANY size or resolution of image is flare followed by CA. Given the number of lenses that show substantial improvements in these areas with each successive version I can see the initial challenge could get rather costly at a $100 a pop. Covering a lot of outdoor sports events myself I can really appreciate the improvements in the coatings when at the start/finish line in the early mornings and late in the day.

[Mickw]

True i didnt specify it had to be a naked lens as i thought anyone who wanted top quality would never use a x2 converter but use the lens appropriate for the job. Sorry, for any confusion. As for cost etc, i never mentioned cost. I never mentioned converters. I'm trying to point out that the new lens to all but the most highly critical pro in a very limited photo op isnt worth the upgrade. Just like the last post, yes it has some advantages to a very small segment of the market, highly critical pros shooting in very poor light conditions. For us mere mortals we will never tell the differance. I know my friend who covers the most watched pro soccer in the world English Premier League isnt upgrading. What does that say? Hes never experienced a problem with flare and you always shoot on a monopod/tripod with a 500 due to its length and weight. 1.5 lbs will make very little differance. If im wrong then when i watch the upcoming Olympics i expect the pros to be shooting hand held with the new 500.