A Tricky Question!

The following was posted on this forum a few years ago:

Alex

p.s. I was at the Image 2003 awards yesterday and John Bantin of Diver magazine was the MC for the ceremony. Anyway JB earlier this year gave the D100 and digital in general a really hard time in Diver - for being, well, just not good enough for serious photography. So I took great pleasure in watching him congratulate Alan James, in particular, for his awards for his best British Prints (35*45cm) taken with, you guessed it, a D100! Wish I had entered some digital prints too!

My questionis this:

If the D100 was good enough, why did you swap to a D2X?

Over to you Alex!

John....

You forgot a picture of a pot for stirring at the end of your post...

I think i would enjoy watching/listening to you as an MC.....

Hi John,

Are you referring to the DX-D100 review in April 2003 ? I’ve just re-read it after seeing your post and I had a good laugh !

JP (your neighbour in Teddington)

My point is that we keep on buying better stuff - but do we really need to? Bearing in mind that it is being taken into a hazardous environment, does it make sense? If a new 50mb camera came out tomorrow, would we all rush to buy one and throw away those old D2X and D200?

With the benefit of hindsight (which was not formerly available in the digital market) do we need BETTER quality at any price?

Bear in mind when you read my review of the D100 (http://www.divernet.com/equipment/0403divertests.htm#dx100), editors require 300dpi images, so it would not produce a 300dpi image big enough for a DPS.

...And yes Mike, you could call it stirring or you could call it raising an interesting discussion!

Sorry, I forgot... B)

Hi John,

Good question!!!

How about I come back to you with a question of my own:

Would you upgrade from a D100 to a D200 - considering that the D200 costs $400 LESS than the D100 (when released) and you get 4 more megapixels and an improved autofocus.

Hmm...that's a tough one. ;-)

Cheers

James

I think this is an interesting topic.

My response James would be...it depends. I would change if my end result needs required the extra 4 MP and I found the AF lacking in the D100. If not why would you change?

I worked in a Ski Shop a few years back and I found it humourous how many people always wanted to go right to the "best" product. ie most expensive. When in the end I was taught to question the individual to find out what their skiing skills were and how often they skied and, where they saw their future ability going. From that match the best product for them to take advantage of their personal situation. In the end the best results for the customer and a more enjoyable experience.

That all said, from Alex's posts since the D100 I would say Alex clearly saw the need for the D2X over the D100 because it was a better match to his requirements.

That and he should have bought Canon in the first place.

Todd

 

"Would you upgrade from a D100 to a D200 - considering that the D200 costs $400 LESS than the D100 (when released) and you get 4 more megapixels and an improved autofocus."

 

With film, having a camera beyond your own capabilities was not necessarily a liability, but with the resolving power we are now seeing in digital, you can very easily buy and use a camera that is so good it actually accentuates your errors or mistakes, or the mismatched capabilities of your glass or housing/port choice.

 

I think the question of having to have the biggest and best is a good one. It seems photography has in some cases, and some expressed opinions, become a matter of statistics and specifications. You see this on a pretty consistent basis when people argue about sensor size. For very, very, very, very few uw-photographers do the statistics and specification differences show up in their images.

 

People shoot some beautiful photography on film and on less than the greatest resolving sensors, and in most cases I am not certain that better and greater equipment would have improved the image(s). A beautifully composed and lighted image always trumps the hard statistics and specifications found in tests, comparisons and literature.

 

The statistics of sensor size, mp count and even the certain differences between AF capability of certain bodies do not convince me that more is better except for the few true luminaries of uw-photo.

Hi John,

 

Good question!!!

 

How about I come back to you with a question of my own: 

 

Would you upgrade from a D100 to a D200 - considering that the D200 costs $400 LESS than the D100 (when released) and you get 4 more megapixels and an improved autofocus.

 

Hmm...that's a tough one. ;-)

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely you are missing the point. If you have already spent your money on one item, the upgrade will still cost more, even if it is seen as better value. (My first Mac cost £3000 and the one I am using now cost a third of that but I still had to pay out another £1200. However, it can do things my first could not.)

Alex was arguing three years ago that the D100 was better than sliced bread. I disagreed then. I just make the point that maybe with hindsight he might have a different view! (I went over to a digital set-up as soon as I could get one that did what I wanted. It still does what I want and I have a D2X and D200 waiting in the cupboard. Should I spend out thousands on the housings and still risk flooding them? I would if I got a Christmas bonus from Merill Lynch! .... but I'm just a working class lad!)

I have had my opinions in print since around 1988. I am the first to admit it when I need to eat my words! B)

My question is this:

If the D100 was good enough, why did you swap to a D2X?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the D2x was better, I suppose (can't really speak for Alex though).

There's no logical disconnect in my mind between these two statements:

1) The d100 is good enough to compete with film equipment

(which, correct me if I am wrong, is the crux of the argument that you're now revisiting)

2) The D2x is better than the d100

Neither the d200 nor the D2x make the d100 "less better" ( ) than competitive film systems by being "better than" the d100.

I wrote an article about "when to upgrade" which can be found in the Wetpixel library.

It's just my opinion, but makes for interesting reading on the pot if nothing else :-)

Cheers

James

So, James, given that part one was posted in Jan/Feb. 2005 are we going to see part two anytime soon

Great article. I probably wouldn't have noticed the differences in cameras when I first started out, but as I get better I see things in my images that that caused me to upgrade the camera bodies and lenses . Then again, the last competition I entered was won by a point-and-shoot, so the photographer is a big part of it.

Perhaps the question should be about when do you need a larger wooden spoon........

But seriously, I haven't upgraded from Canon 1DS to 1DS MkII because ....... the 1DS is a very competent camera and already exceeds virtually all my needs in terms of quality of results. It offers (IMHO) better than 35mm quality with infinitely more versatility. But then I did upgrade from a Fuji S2Pro to the 1DS and I have to say that it was well worth doing (in my own case that is). But if a D100/70/50/etc produces the results that satisfy you there really is no need to upgrade. We live in a specification hungry world rather than a particularly logical and practical one.

So John, you traded your 'blads, huh? I'm impressed, I don't think my local dealer would want any.

Hi Craig,

The full article was published in UWP magazine - I just haven't gotten off my butt to HTMLize part II here on Wetpixel.

Cheers

James

Because the D2x was better, I suppose (can't really speak for Alex though).

 

There's no logical disconnect in my mind between these two statements:

 

1)    The d100 is good enough to compete with film equipment

 

(which, correct me if I am wrong, is the crux of the argument that you're now revisiting)

 

2)    The D2x is better than the d100

Neither the d200 nor the D2x make the d100 "less better" ( ) than competitive film systems by being "better than" the d100.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I 'm mostly in agreement with these statements. However, winning one large print contest does not constitude prove that it's competitve in all cases. Film has higher resolution and dynamic range than the D100 but it's possible to have a great large print where these differences are not important. There are cases where they are. One example is the recent Wetpixel POTW Sunball contest. The first 3 places were shot with film.

I don't see a contradiction in taking the position that the D100 is very good, good enough to be competitive in most cases, and then upgrade to something better which the D2x clearly is. It may even be critical if you're a professional in a competitive enviroment and your competitor are upgrading their gear.

Alex does seem to object to someone suggesting that the D2x can be improved upon and labels these discussions measurebating. The question I have for him is that if we didn't have measurebating discussions after the release of the D100 would he and others have the information needed to make the decision to upgrade.

Hi everyone, just thought I would touch on something that no one has mentioned. For a photographer, his camera is a tool. Sooner or later tools wear out whether it be the shutter, processor or whatever. Sometimes it's just cheaper and more realistic to upgrade. Our cameras won't live forever and people that shoot large volumes, will wear a camera out in no time.

There are alot of people that always have to have the lastest and greatest whether it's a new camera, car, video game system ect.... If they can afford it, more power to them.

Personally, I just prefer to shoot with whatever suits my needs and feels good in my hands. My 2 favorite bodies to use to this day are my D1h for digital and F4s for film. Half of the stuff on my newer digitals don't even get used.

This is just my 2 cents.

Perhaps the question should be about when do you need a larger wooden spoon........

What are forums for if they are not for stimulating discussion?

I have always seen cameras merely as tools to do a job. I am not emotionallyinvolved with them. As Benny Sutton said when he was the UK importer for Aquatica, "John takes my camera housings in the sea when all my other customers buy them to put them under their beds!"

I tried the D100 in a Sea & Sea housing in 2003 and found no reason to swap from the film set-up I was using. I said so in print. I stand by that. Since then, in 2005, I have gone over to a digital system. However, I have a balance-sheet to reckon with so these decisions are made with that in mind. I now wonder if the cameras I currently use in the dry will be superceded long before I get them wet!

I have never met Alex but I am sure he has a professional view rather than an emotional view of these matters.

As to emotional matters: Will Ronaldinho humiliate the French or do you think we might see a French/German Cup Final after all? B)

As to emotional matters: Will Ronaldino humiliate the French or do you think we might see a French/German Cup Final after all? B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you're really trying to stir things up.

So far the only place I've found to get away from football is UNDERWATER!

This seems to coincide with increasing dive durations oddly enough.

Since I haven't been doing this for ever, let me add a "newbie" question...

If you are just starting out, is it better to get the best you can afford now, or go for an intermediate setup?

My thinking is that if you know that you love doing something, and that you're not going to buy everything then use it as a really expensive bookend, then buying an intermediate is a false economy, since you end up having to spend more money on an upgrade.

For example, I KNOW I love photography in general, and underwater especially, so just got myself a D200, rather than a D70, on the basis that although I won't use all the functionality immediately, it gives me more to grow into.

Kit