Has the quality of photography equipment gone down over the years?

>>2811674
Whatever you shot this picture of an A6300 with obviously isn't that great.

The A6300 and 90mm FE itself? I have no idea what better camera you might have had in the past. The image quality of that combination is great.

>>2811674
Or maybe it's just that you don't know what you're doing. And by maybe, I mean "absolutely" because no, the quality of cameras is not going down.

Why do you keep buying entry level stuff?

In what way is the A6300 entry level? £1100 is certainly not an entry level price tag.

>>2811712
It is a semi-pro pricetag on an entry level camera. It's the sony way, designed for the average Sony consumer.
>if it costs more it must be better
...disgusting.

>>2811716
Except there is a generally accepted correlation between price and quality. That's why you can't buy a professional grade DSLR and lens combo for £250
In addition I've heard nothing but praise for the image and video quality of the A6300, so price aside, what makes it entry level?

>>2811674
stop shooting jpeg.
sony jpegs are shit.

>>2811716
It is more accurately described as a semi-pro camera anyhow, given that it wrecks most of its DSLR body competition up to ~$1.5-2k, which usually is considered enthusiast / semi-pro.

>>2811727
> sony jpegs are shit
You must be confusing brands. Perhaps Canon? They have ridiculous red tinted JPEG by default.

Sony doesn't. It's just what you'd expect - basically neutral JPEG processing with very little compression.

>>2811674
No, your skill level has gone down over the years.

>>2811734
It's difficult to "wreck" it's DSLR competition without a lens lineup.
Even Pentax has better first party lens support, not to mention the third party and adapted M42 lens lineup.
It won't wreck anything besides itself and its users unless it has better and actually accessible lens lineup. I mean the new Sony nifty 50mm has the lowest image quality of all the standard primes of all the camera brands, approaching Holga quality level and still costs $400? Just see what Pentax does for an affordable lineup, DA 35, DA 50 both can be had for $200 together! And the premium Limited primes are still affordable. And there's Canon and Nikon, both bringing a huge lens lineup from affordable to pro quality with keeping a full set in the affordable segment.
And you dare to still defend Sony for this shit?
I don't think you even have a camera not to mention using one Mr. Paid Sony Shill.
Here are the cold hard facts: Sony has no lens. Like it or not this is the reality.

>>2811748
> It's difficult to "wreck" it's DSLR competition without a lens lineup.
> Sony has no lens.
108 lenses on B&H alone. Some are probably color variants, but then again, B&H also doesn't have all lenses.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Mount_Sony+E-mount+%28APS-C%29&ci=17912&&N=4196380428+4099560915+3999800997

> I don't think you even have a camera not to mention using one Mr. Paid Sony Shill.
I have an A6000, not an A6300, but I do have the 90mm FE.

No, I am not paid, where is this fucking retardation coming from? Should I suppose you are paid to bitch and complain...?
It seems natural for you to assume paid work for some fucking reason, and you seem to oddly care about a system you clearly don't even have a basic clue about.

The answer is no. The quality is not going down, and you are most likely a shit photographer.
There are things that are unfortunately getting dragged down and ruined, like the art of manual focus. AF will never be as accurate as a good eye and yet modern-day viewfinders and shitty manual focus rings make it increasingly hard to focus by yourself.
There is hardly anything else that has truly gone down in quality.

I worry about the heavy use of in-lens auto focus motors the most. Those lenses just aren't going to work forever like the older screw driven lenses. AF motors have an alarming habit of burning out. If I'm putting down a thousand or two for a lens i want to know that that lens isn't going to eventually lose a key function just from standard wear and tear.

Things like that. I dunno maybe I'm being a luddite on this.

>>2811755
This is another part of my concern with lens motors. Less effort is being put in to making sure the manual focus rings are decently precise on the new lenses.

>>2811755
> AF will never be as accurate as a good eye
AF is more accurate than a good eye for any moving subject in all those (increasingly darker) situations where a modern AF works okay.

No photographer I've ever seen was equal or better than a modern AF system.

Of course, if you artistically want to defocus something or not select the area under focus, MF will be easier.

> shitty manual focus rings make it increasingly hard to focus by yourself
Some lenses are pretty bad in that regard, but I see fairly little to complain about with something like a 90mm FE or other great E-mount lenses, and they actually are FBW. It is a very long way from "hard to focus by yourself".

>>2811758
> AF motors have an alarming habit of burning out.
Really? Got any numbers on how many somewhat recent (USM / modern linear motors) are burning out?

>>2811754
>carefully avoiding the topic of lens prices
All my keks

>>2811758
actually with focus-by-wire it'll lose all function, since the manual-focus ring is just an encoder telling the AF motor what to do. If the AF motor dies, whatever the focus setting was when it did is all you'll get. Hopefully that was infinity.

>>2811769
Yep, it'd no longer work. Ditto for your aperture control, that also could die.

And I'm not sure you could work around the issue so easily if some kind of error made the electronics on the lens report the wrong aperture and FL or whatever, you might simply get wrong corrections applied on the body for lenses that get corrected?

Now, that's just stuff I can imagine that might go wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like it often happens in reality.

>>2811777
it can happen though. Some Pentax lenses are famous for the SDM motor dying (16-50/2.8, 50-135/2.8)

>>2811754
>32 of which are Sony lenses
>of which 15 are FE lenses, necessitating extra weight and size
>of the good zooms, all are nearly $1000 or more
>of the primes, the pancakes aren't sharp, and the 35 is $400
>of the telephotos, only superzooms and the mediocre 55-210
>43 of which are third party manual focus

Sony
has
no
lens

>>2811780
Add the DA* 300/4 and DA* 60-250, so nearly all the SDM lenses.
Pentax never officially announced but word has it that the replacement SDM drives are more stronger so it could be that Pentax fixed the issue. However the screwdrive motor issues are far less in number and most of the DC motor drives are good too, comparable to the Canikon focus drive failure percentage. It takes balls to accept a fuckup and actually fix the issue, more so after Nikon keeping quiet with the D600 and D800 problems or Sony accusing every user reporting failures on forums and covering their ass saying it was user error. Also taking a month or more for servicing a camera/lens.
Shame on you, Sony.

>>2811787
Don't think Canikon ring motors are off the hook either. Early USM and AF-S motors would burn out easily. First generation AF-S motors in the 80-200 and 28-70 are known to squeak then die. The screw drive motors, of course, lasted forever.

Recently, I've not heard of ring motors dying out though.

also
>nikon
>customer service

>>2811784
Still 108+ for the most part good to great lenses and market typical price-performance ratio (that is good to great as judged by reviews - both buyers' and more comprehensive ones bythe press - not by your selectively applied, dismissive criteria).

For anyone not randomly dismissing 108+ lenses: Go check how many most other camera systems have more on B&H or such. Filters make it pretty easy.

If you really want to put the bar higher than Sony for currently manufactured & sold new lenses, you're left with basically just CaNikon as the only brands that have lenses. That is quite ridiculous.

>>2811674
Nice bait thread OP. You rused /p/ pretty good with this shit.

>>2811787
> Shame on you, Sony.
You mean for the customer support customer blaming? Yea, but which manufacturer didn't falsely do that?

If Sony did it more often, do you have numbers to show it?

> Also taking a month or more for servicing a camera/lens.
Sony again is not alone in the industry typical shameful plot of only offering rapid service to professionals as premium thing.

Is anyone contractually (by warranty or by repair service contract) promising faster than one month service times to regular customers?

>>2811813
Here it doesn't take more than two weeks from sending in the lens or body to receiving it, either with Canon, Nikon or Pentax. Only exception is with serious damage when you have to wait for a replacement part to arrive.

>>2811819
They do it in 3 business days for the "pro" customers.

Well, that is the Sony situation - for Canon, it is 2 to 7 business days depending on the service tier you're in, and for Nikon I think it's 72 hours or something like that.

Either way, I consider it a shameful plot.

>>2811813
>>Is anyone contractually (by warranty or by repair service contract) promising faster than one month service times to regular customers?

Tamron does.
>Now, all lenses received in our system by noon EST are estimated the same day and moved onto the next stage. Lenses under warranty (Tamron USA offers a 6-year limited warranty on its photographic lenses) are repaired and shipped back to the customer within three business days. Out of warranty lenses are repaired and shipped back within three business days of the customer's approval of the repair estimate.
http://www.tamron-usa.com/news/corp/3day_repair_2013.php

I believe that part of that is a system where if they think it'll take longer than three days, they'll send you back a refurbished lens of the same model.

>>2811851
Is the warranty the same or similar in the EU for Tamron lenses?

File: afraca.png (3MB, 1794x1196px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1794x1196px

I dunno, the pics just don't come out that good. It's like the perspective or depth is always off. Other than that I am not too upset with the pixel quality

>>2811912
>didn't clean the watch before photographing
You filthy pig

>>2811912
So you're blaming gear because you have no idea how to post-process...

>>2811912
Oh ok, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>2811912
>the perspective or depth is always off
It's impossible for that to be related to your camera unless you have movements.

>>2811811
It 50 natives according to camera decision (which may not be accurate). Fuji has something like 25, Nikon 250. 50 Is not a lot compared to the old guard, but it's not terrible either. I can't say I have trouble finding lenses.

>>2811764
>if you artistically want to defocus something or not select the area under focus, MF will be easier
DMF is really good for that. Just autofocus on an object and adjust from there.

>>2811912
>perspective or depth
That's not the camera. It could be the lenses, but definitely no the camera. Probably you.

File: 1423642630696.jpg (10KB, 247x247px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x247px

>that giant lens attached to that shit tier tiny body

goddamn.

>>2811811
I spelled it out for you, keep hiding your head in the sand if you like. 32 E/FE mount lenses, including colour variations (50, 55-210, a couple others I think).

Fuji has 26, but at least Fuji knows which lenses to spend its time and effort making. Primes and zooms, telephotos and wide angles, prosumer to consumer tiers and prices. Most of which are pretty good lenses too.

I've never tried playing guitar until I spent $6000 on a Gibson Les Paul....

why does it sound like shit???

>>2811912
that says you suck at several things
1. choosing what angle to be at
2. choosing what distance to be at
3. manipulating the DoF with aperture
4. adding extra depth with positional lighting

None of it is your camera technology lacking, you are simply lacking as a photographer.

>>2811736
>Sony doesn't. It's just what you'd expect - basically neutral JPEG processing with very little compression.
Is that the case?
I heard that their white's were too blue, or everything was just slightly too cold or some shit.
No idea, never shot sony, just what I've heard here and ther.

>>2812223
>>2811736
These people don't know what white balance is and that you can adjust it in post or even in-camera.
These people are also the ones telling you your photos are shit and give you advice on what gear to buy for what uses.
I bet they don't even shoot RAW.

>>2811784
What about the 28mm f2, which is pretty much the cheapest, fastest, sharpest 28mm available and clearly forms the basis of sonys no frills FE lenses, the new nifty fifty looks in a different league to canons offering too.

Why would you be upset that they're focused on ff lenses, theres plenty of rumours going around that they plan to release a super cheap ff model and a model set higher than the a7rii. That means they would have 5 ff models and 2 crop bodies - of course theyre making ff lenses.

Also, admire how many lenses any other manufacturer has released in the last 5 years compared to sony.

Face it, sonys are not only destroying the competition with the image quality of their new lenses, but they have steamrolled everyone with their bodies and the consistency of their new releases makes other companies look like they're run by geriatric bumblefucks.

>>2812236
Other 30 and 35mm lenses are sharper, has much less color fringing and are cheaper.

>the new nifty fifty looks in a different league to canons offering too
Yes, they want to make everything look purple.

>Also, admire how many lenses any other manufacturer has released in the last 5 years compared to sony
Meanwhile you can admire how other manufacturers don't need to rush out so many lenses because their system already has lots of excellent lenses that were properly tested instead of rushing out bad quality at high price.

>>2811716
>a6300
>entry-level

Boi, that shit ain't a Nex3, fo fuccs sake

>>2812242
It has seriously gimped workflow and horrible UI. While it has a good sensor it is lacking too much to be in the intermediate level.

>>2812240
You got any references for that purple 50?

>>2812253
see >>2809418
watch the railing closely, I've never seen that much prominent color fringing, not even on my shitty old M42 zoom lens.
On a good screen and especially in print it just screams at your face.

File: 1458724638111.png (34KB, 957x558px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 957x558px

Just when I thought bait threads can't get more obvious. I'd usually say something like "never change, /p/", but this thread is just pathetic.

>>2812276
Poes Law man.