A new camera?

21 April 2012

I think that I have mentioned that I really do fancy one of the new Sony Alpha 77 cameras - and I still do.  But I've been getting a bit jaded right now and I'm not sure that if I could afford a new 77, that it would make all that difference to my images anyway.  Here's one I got while away for a few days earlier this week ...

It's not all that good is it?  I'm not sure that I would have got any better with a 77.   

Now both Nikon and Canon have released new models costs mega-bucks.  But does the average snapper really need cameras like these two, or in fact a 77 either?  I bought an AP yesterday and guess what?  Ogden Chesnutt asks the same or similar questions but his view point is that the very best camera in the world is the one you have with you at the time.  That is why we should all carry a camera at all times.  But most of do don't we?

Most mobile phones these days have a camera within them.  My Blackberry does but I'm not all that impressed with the images it produces.  One of the letter writers in AP says that he loved his Nikon FM3A and what he would really like is for Nikon to take that camera and update it and make it a digital camera without any of the fancy trimmings that seem to go with the new DSLRs that being are thrust onto the cash paying public.  I agree with him but in my view it would the Minolta XD7 that would be updated. 

Think about it, do we really need ISO setting up to inter-seller figures?  Do we really the ability to use burst rates of 10, 11 or 12 frames per second?  Do we really need lenses like Sigma's 200-500mm tele-zoom at £12,999?  I remember seeing one ad for a Canon 1200mm lens going for £72,000!  Come on!  As a mate says, "There's a difference between farting and ripping your arse!" 

Look, one of the reason's I went for Alpha 350 in the first place was its weight.  I bought a copy of What Digital Camera and I used the tables in the rear of the mag to work out which was the lightest to carry around.  Next came price and  lastly came the range of kit that could be bought with it.  The overall winner for weight was the Olympus E510 but it was much more expensive and there were fewer lenses to go with it within the range I thought I would need.  The Alpha 350 came out on top in the price and kit range. 

Now look at the new kids on the block.  That new Canon weighs in at 950grams without batteries and cards.  The new Nikon weighs in a 1 kilo, and without a lens too.  I would argue that the famous 'man in street' doesn't need all that weight; doesn't need such high burst rates or high ISO speeds; doesn't need 200-500mm lenses - let alone a 12,000mm lens.  Even now I don't use my Alpha 350 to its maximum abilities, not because I can't do so but because I haven't come across the need to in what I shoot. 

Here's the type of image I like to get ... 

Today is market day but the weather forecast isn't so good so I'm staying.  I don't do landscapes cos I can't actually 'see' them (if you know what I mean), I rarely try portraits apart from the sort seen above. 

So do I really need the new Alpha 77?  Nope, I don't ... but when I can afford, I will be getting one ;-)))