[Racer X 69]

A couple of threads started by a malcontent about the latest Pentax offerings stimulated considerable discussion. There was an offshoot from that discussion after a post I made, in response to a post by jac, one of or great neighbours from Canada. This led to a comment from Canada_Rockies, and then some PM's between he and I.

This thread and poll are a result of these interactions.

To me, any digital camera is relatively new, and cannot really be called "old" as so many people do. As I mentioned to Canada_Rockies, an old camera would be something like a view camera. Even modern 35mm film cameras are not so old, when you consider that photography in the early days was quite complex and cumbersome. Early photographers had to lug large, heavy cameras and tripods around, and employ an assistant to carry a backpack full of heavy glass plates coated with the emulsion that was used to record the image. And they didn't have the benefit of the instant gratification that the digital cameras of today provide.

Couple this with the computer age, where every 6 months the processing power of a computer is doubled and the cost to produce it is cut in half, and you can kind of see where the mindset of "old" comes from in terms of the modern digital camera.

I entered the world of digital photography with the *istDL. I had been focused on work and another hobby of mine, amateur sports car racing, so my Ricoh XR2S had been languishing in the closet. One day I decided to get the camera out and document some changes I had made to the brakes on my race car. Since I didn't have any film I went to town to get some and found that film was on its way out, so to speak. The place where I had been taking my film for processing had closed, and actually getting fresh film had become less available

So I trotted my happy *** down to the local camera shop to see what this new digital stuff was all about.

Of course I had to learn everything all over. The terms had changed. ASA was now ISO. Shutter and aperture priority were now Tv and Av.

And there was this "Green Button" thing.

Huh?

What? Is this how the camera is ecologically friendly?

Anyway, since I already had some K-mount lenses, I opted to stick with gear that would use them. And so my entry into digital photography began with the then spankin' new *istDL. A sweet little camera that came with an 18~55 kit lens. {There's another new term I had to learn, "Kit Lens".}

I had already been fiddling with copies of my film photos on my ever changing desktop PC's {remember the continual growth of processor speed?}, so I was no stranger to the pursuit of super high resolution images. More than once I had locked up a computer while trying to manipulate a picture in Photoshop.

It was barely a year when I decided to step up to the latest from Pentax, the K10D. Wow. A giant leap from 6 megapixels to 10.

And a very nice camera.

Actually, both of my digital cameras overwhelmed me at first, with all the buttons, dials, menus, etc. So many choices! In many ways I am still learning, and it has been 8 years!

So here is a poll, to see how we really perceive the digital age, and how it relates to our hobby.

[VoiceOfReason]

To me old for a camera would be 3-5 years.

[boriscleto]

Couple this with the computer age, where every 6 months the processing power of a computer is doubled and the cost to produce it is cut in half, and you can kind of see where the mindset of "old" comes from in terms of the modern digital camera..

Two years, not 6 months. And the rate is slowing. It is expected that transistor counts & densities will only double every three years in the future.

[pxpaulx]

To me old for a camera would be 3-5 years.

That sounds about right. You really have to base the aging of digital on sensor technology (I'm strictly talking aps-c here). The 12mp sensor in the K-x was a huge step up in quality (released Oct 2009), but even that was just a step to essentially where we are now. The 16mp sensor made by Sony in the K-5 and Nikon D7000 (and subsequently many other cameras) both of which were released at the end of 2010 were the biggest jump in sensor tech IMHO, and though resolution is now increasing (24mp aps-c sensors in the market), aside from adding megapixels (which only affects very large printing) there has not been significant improvement in things like dynamic range and low light shooting (via usable high ISO). So with that in mind anything made before then is now old, anyone with a camera older than that would see a tangible improvment by moving to a newer camera - not the newest, just something newer!

[Racer X 69]

Two years, not 6 months. And the rate is slowing. It is expected that transistor counts & densities will only double every three years in the future.

I must be quoting old statistics.

Good thing the rate is slowing, I've always had trouble keeping up in the digital age!

[jatrax]

I am certainly no expert but I consider a camera "old" if it predates the M42 mount. I understand how cameras with M42 and newer work but if I see something older, a view camera for example, I don't. That's my rule and I'm sticking to it.

I have a friend who uses a 4x5 view camera, coat over his head and loupe to check focus. I admire him but it's just not my thing, I don't feel comfortable with the technology.

[boriscleto]

I must be quoting old statistics.

Good thing the rate is slowing, I've always had trouble keeping up in the digital age!

It's always been two years. Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, wrote a paper in 1965 in which he noted that transistor count had doubled every year from 1958 to 1965 and he expected it to continue for at least another 10 years. In 1975 he altered the projection to every 2 years. An Intel executive named David House predicted a doubling of chip performance every 18 months and a lot of people have confused this prediction with Moore's.

[jatrax]

A couple of threads started by a malcontent about the latest Pentax offerings stimulated considerable discussion.

I don't know about 'considerable discussion', I went to make popcorn so I could watch the 'discussion' and when I came back the thread is already closed. Sigh, just when it was starting to get exciting.

Note to moderators: the above comment is in no way a reflection on the rapid response the poster mentioned received. Personally he should receive more professional attention but that's just an opinion. It did however change my plans from watching fireworks on PF to actually taking pictures last night.............. And I still have the popcorn if anyone is interested.

[Racer X 69]

It's always been two years. Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, wrote a paper in 1965 in which he noted that transistor count had doubled every year from 1958 to 1965 and he expected it to continue for at least another 10 years. In 1975 he altered the projection to every 2 years. An Intel executive named David House predicted a doubling of chip performance every 18 months and a lot of people have confused this prediction with Moore's.

So I must have mis-quoted a mis-quote then. The internet is so full of useless information!

Still, please vote on my not-so-scientific poll!

Before it gets old.

[Racer X 69]

I don't know about 'considerable discussion', I went to make popcorn so I could watch the 'discussion' and when I came back the thread is already closed. Sigh, just when it was starting to get exciting.

The dope surely generated a rapid and strong response. And it would have continued, even degenerated into a non-productive and useless diatribe, had the m0dUlAt0rz stepped in and swiftly squashed that Bug.

Oh, well. it was short but intense fun!

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

[Racer X 69]

Oh, and can I have some of that popcorn? It goes well with beer!

[THoog]

Personally he should receive more professional attention but that's just an opinion. It did however change my plans from watching fireworks on PF to actually taking pictures last night.............. And I still have the popcorn if anyone is interested.

I was thinking that if his Saturday night consisted of posting angry rambling rants on PF and arguing with moderators, then a new camera probably wasn't going to make much difference in his life.

As to "old" cameras - I tell you, they'll never replace a decent paintbrush!

[Macario]

I think the outline off the poll is not right. As how quickly things chance now, within 2 years a camera is considered old.
I think a fairer question would be: What is considered old, as in not sufficient enough to take good photo's anymore.

[rbefly]

I'm old and my K10D is old, too. But neither of us is as old as dirt.
History will show the K10D standing atop the exalted Pentax ranks alongside the Spotmatic, LX and K-5.
Anthing older than the K10D is 'old'. LOL.
Great thread, Racer!
Ron

[causey]

According to the definition implicit in my excellent, well balanced, reasonable upgrade rule, "old" is what happens to dslr after 5 years of use.