Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blade Canyon" data-source="post: 501364" data-attributes="member: 15302">It's funny how, in the digital age, we are so hung up on the camera bodies themselves.&nbsp; In the film days, if you could meter the scene then set the f stop and shutter speed correctly on your body, then the body itself wasn't the big deal.&nbsp; (I know, I know, active photographers needed rugged weather proof bodies).&nbsp; My point is that if you used the same glass and the same settings and the same film, you would not be able to tell the difference between something shot on a cheap old body or an expensive new body.&nbsp; You always wanted new and better and faster glass, but there was no huge pressure to upgrade the film bodies (until AF came out).Now, however, the digital sensor and the processor and the software in the camera body itself is what makes a lot of the difference, so we are constantly thinking about body upgrades to use with our more static glass collection.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blade Canyon, post: 501364, member: 15302"] It's funny how, in the digital age, we are so hung up on the camera bodies themselves. In the film days, if you could meter the scene then set the f stop and shutter speed correctly on your body, then the body itself wasn't the big deal. (I know, I know, active photographers needed rugged weather proof bodies). My point is that if you used the same glass and the same settings and the same film, you would not be able to tell the difference between something shot on a cheap old body or an expensive new body. You always wanted new and better and faster glass, but there was no huge pressure to upgrade the film bodies (until AF came out). Now, however, the digital sensor and the processor and the software in the camera body itself is what makes a lot of the difference, so we are constantly thinking about body upgrades to use with our more static glass collection. [/QUOTE]

Verification