Does newer always mean better?

Lensflare

Lensflare

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,156
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
I have to admit, I am a bit of a technophobe, for instance I have never even seen a photoshop, let alone used it. That is for designers to use. I just use the old Nikon Capture NX2, which I have been told they are not supporting after this year - it has some upgrades available to allow me to decipher the new RAW files from either the D4s or D5, but after these upgrades, there will be no more new ones. Instead, there is a whole new editing suite (which I don't want to have ot learn all over again having taken 10 years to get as far as I have with this one!)

Not just software though, what sparked my thought was lenses - are newer lenses better than their older counterparts. Now, BEFORE YOU COMMENT, think of the term BETTER - not just sharper, or higher contrast!
My old lenses have bomb proof, metal construction, so the engineering is as much an integral part of the lens as the glass and coatings. I have no doubt the images produced by the new 20mm will be sharper, higher contrast, greater colour fidelity and all the other things we desire in a picture, but being made of plastic, I doubt it is BETTER. Not in my book, being more fragile to me is not an improvement, despite the better pictures, so while it wins on the swings, it loses on the roundabouts....and you would probably have to put the two side by side to see the difference in the picture quality, because pictures tend to be judged on their own content, not compared against the same picture taken through a newer version of the same lens.

So, there you go. Debate to your hearts content. It will be interesting to see how many place build quality high on the list of requirements as much as image quality.
 
Personally I love the IQ of my 300 f4 PF VR but it's the portability of it that makes it a winner for me.
I could never take a 300 f2.8 walkabout but I can my f4 PF ... yes the build is quite different but so is the price ... it's a winner for me.
Now if only Nikon would produce a 600 f4 PF :)
 
I do wish people would get over "plastic."

Decades ago I used to fix some plastic industrial stuff and you could sit and hit it with a hammer all day long to no effect, try that with a metal device.... and the best modern materials are only going to be better.

So my little 2p is to get over it and to get over the idea that ps is for designers, that's the silliest thing I've read today and I've read some silly stuff today. If your software of choice wont support future files try converting them to dng or just accept that you have to move on from 1935.

But other than that look at the lenses coming out from the likes of Zeiss, Sigma and Sony, they are very possibly better than anything made before.
 
Better is subjective so there'll be no definitive answer. In terms of IQ newer is usually better but not always. Plastic build often doesn't feel as good or as high quality as metal but often can be. My biggest irk with modern lenses is the lack of distance scale, especially for landscapes. Instead I now how to use my phone to calculate the hyperfocal distance and then guesstimate how far 2.3m, or 3.7m etc is :rolleyes:
 
Lensflare said:
I have to admit, I am a bit of a technophobe, for instance I have never even seen a photoshop, let alone used it. That is for designers to use. I just use the old Nikon Capture NX2, which I have been told they are not supporting after this year - it has some upgrades available to allow me to decipher the new RAW files from either the D4s or D5, but after these upgrades, there will be no more new ones. Instead, there is a whole new editing suite (which I don't want to have ot learn all over again having taken 10 years to get as far as I have with this one!)

Not just software though, what sparked my thought was lenses - are newer lenses better than their older counterparts. Now, BEFORE YOU COMMENT, think of the term BETTER - not just sharper, or higher contrast!
My old lenses have bomb proof, metal construction, so the engineering is as much an integral part of the lens as the glass and coatings. I have no doubt the images produced by the new 20mm will be sharper, higher contrast, greater colour fidelity and all the other things we desire in a picture, but being made of plastic, I doubt it is BETTER. Not in my book, being more fragile to me is not an improvement, despite the better pictures, so while it wins on the swings, it loses on the roundabouts....and you would probably have to put the two side by side to see the difference in the picture quality, because pictures tend to be judged on their own content, not compared against the same picture taken through a newer version of the same lens.

So, there you go. Debate to your hearts content. It will be interesting to see how many place build quality high on the list of requirements as much as image quality.
Click to expand...
Think I'll start a new club ... Luddites anonymous ;)

Some will dismiss lenses etc as just tools, and whilst there are, it is always nice to use good tools ;)

Photoshop is a useful tool for graphic designers, indeed for many of them it is the tool of choice. It is also a highly competent photo editing tool, add in that the conversion part (called ACR) is also pretty good and for many it is all they need. LightRoom offers other options too. There are other software products out there that will match up to and in many cases exceed the capabilities of Capture NX2 (yes, I have used it).

Like it or not technology moves on, and with it design and manufacturing process too. If I were given the choice of using a full metal jacket or a plastic fantastic in sub zero weather I'd likely as not choose the plastic fantastic - at least it wouldn't cold weld my hand when I pick it up! :) There is little doubt that the newer coatings on lenses offer better renditions, at least in terms of contrast and in particular in more challenging light conditions. However in normal weather conditions I must admit to preferring the way the older lenses feel, there is something "tactile" about them that feels re-assuring. I keep dithering between buying an 85mm f1.4afd vs the afs for example, despite the afs producing higher iq images. Another dither for me is the 20mm you mention, no doubt it is a fine lens, but after having handled a zeiss milvus lens I'd be very happy using that ... I know BOTH would produce more than acceptable images and the limiting factor would be me, not the gear, but the pleasure from the engineering of the zeiss would add to the experience for me.

You are most likely correct that if we viewed images in isolation we would be hard pressed to tell if it was with a new lens or old one. I think in some circumstances it may be possible, but not sure it is relevant as such. As long as we get the image we want and at least for me, enjoy the process to get it, then all is well.
 
Lensflare said:
....being made of plastic, I doubt it is BETTER. Not in my book, being more fragile to me is not an improvement....
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit of a myth that things made of metal are always stronger than things made of composites (which is likely what appears to be 'plastic' is in many instances). Regardless, the right kind of plastics resist impacts better than cast or pressed metals which either crack or dent and also transmits shocks more than plastics which absorb them.

Just because something is made from 'plastic' doesn't mean it's fragile.
 
Bizarre thread lol camera equipment is designed to take photographs if newer equipment produces better images it is better regardless if it's made from metal or cardboard :)
 
I've always been convinced that when razor manufacturers release a 'better' product, all they have done is gradually degraded the previous release, so all you are doing is buying the 'best ever' product AGAIN, but packaged slightly differently.
 
I'm in the camp that couldn't give two hoots about whether a lens is constructed from metal, plastic or cream cheese - it's what it does that counts to me, and that's a function of the optics inside, not the casing.

I work in the aerospace industry, and carbon fibre (a form of plastic) has supplanted metal in many applications - if it's good enough for aircraft fuselages it's good enough for the lenses I buy, in my opinion!
 
When anything new comes out to replace something that is already there, the manufacturers will say it is better in every way. In the real world, as consumers, we each have to decide whether what they claim to be better is, and how the things may have changed in ways they didn't mention, make it a better product for us or not. If build quality is a prime concern, above image quality, size and weight, then some older lenses, and to some degree cameras, may not be better to you in your opinion. Everyone has to make the decision on how the combination of improved quality, build quality, size / weight changes and cost for a new product works for themselves. Most times manufacturers get the combination right to tempt people into buying. ;)

I have the Nikon 16-85mm lens which I think is a great lens. Nikon brought out the 16-80mm, as seemingly the replacement. It gains wider apertures, better image quality, loses 5mm in focal length, but it was almost twice the cost of the 16-85mm, and that didn't work for me. So no new lens, and no money for Nikon. Que sera, sera. :( :rolleyes: My 16-85 is made of 'plastic' and over many years is still working very well, and it has had some bangs over those years. It is obviously built well, and I wouldn't want a larger and heavier lens that delivers the same quality images.

As for the comment, Photoshop "that is for designers to use" is either meant to be provocative, or is very blinkered imho. Nikon Capture NX2 is quite old software, which because of who Nikon were in partnership with to make the software, hasn't been updated for awhile, and has been replaced with something quite different. A lot of people are of the opinion that the new software is not as good as the previous version, but that is no longer supported is just the way it is. As a technophobe it may be time to embrace the new Nikon software, or something else. You may want to start looking into other image editing programs, though that may entail taking the blinkers off. ;) And even as a non designer, give Photoshop a look, it processes images pretty well. ;) There are many options though.

Of course if all your cameras are not replaced by something better in your opinion, NX2 will continue to work with the cameras you have, and there is no need to change anything. ;) :LOL:
 
Better for what? For taking better images...maybe but not necessarily. Michael Kenna uses a holga sometimes, no? And we have all seen digital rev camera challenges. For sharper images, probably...but that might not be what everyone is looking for.
 
f/2.8 said:
Bizarre thread lol camera equipment is designed to take photographs if newer equipment produces better images it is better regardless if it's made from metal or cardboard :)
Click to expand...
But what is a 'better image'? I have sold more images taken with my 1936 Carl Zeiss Tessar lens than I have with my modern lenses. That makes it a better lens as far as I am concerned. Resolution, micro-contrast, aberrations are 'worse' with the 1936 lens but it produces something the customers like.
 
Personally I prefer the colours and rendition of older lenses, not fussed on construction material, you get good and bad build quality regardless of the materials used.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Personally I prefer the colours and rendition of older lenses, not fussed on construction material, you get good and bad build quality regardless of the materials used.
Click to expand...

With a modern camera and lens you can emulate the look of an older set up, maybe even easily with the plug ins and wotsits that are available today but you can't make a shot with old kit match the excellence of the modern kit.
 
woof woof said:
you can't make a shot with old kit match the excellence of the modern kit.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, some of the older Ai/Ais lenses are still sought after and you only have to look at some of the prices they still command: Grays Used
 
Aren't rangefinder lenses considered to have better IQ than modern lenses due to them being able to sit further back into the body as they don't have to be 'out of the way' of the mirror, and as a consequence have less distortion?
 
Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.

As said above, "better" can be very subjective. As also said above, modern plastics can be better than metal for many applications.
 
Excellent responses. Some people have forgotten that it was a general question, not a personal one - getting to grips with a new program is a non starter for me. I have been thrown off so many computer classes because I cannot remember things - what we learned yesterday, for instance, tommorrow I have already forgotten and the teachers get frustrated that I don't retain the things that are taught.

VERY interesting about the stability of plastic over metal for the engineering aspects of lenses - and to hear that the plastic does stand the test of time with constant use.

Keep going, the open discussion has remained civil so far. Let's keep it that way and just discuss the general aspects. I am not a total Luddite, as witnessed by the fact I have upgraded to D4s bodies - but I am never an early adopter and I not keen on being a first timer because so many companies use buyers of the mk1 model as test drivers......it happens all the time. After a couple of years into the model run all those niggles get ironed out. Having said that I did buy the very first D3 bodies in the country - I got mine 3 days before they were launched (and before The Telegraph got their pool bodies, which annoyed Bob Bodnam no end at the time! They have been faultless for their entire life.

Anyway, let the thought process resume.
 
Nod said:
Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.

As said above, "better" can be very subjective. As also said above, modern plastics can be better than metal for many applications.
Click to expand...

Yes modern plastic's are excellent, I bought the Canon 100L macro when it first came out it was criticised for its plastic body
Mine has been well used but it's unmarked still looks like new :)
 
Lensflare said:
Excellent responses. Some people have forgotten that it was a general question, not a personal one - getting to grips with a new program is a non starter for me.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately in this tech-age getting to grips with new software (or hardware), even after an update, is often the only option.
 
PS is one of the best things that happened to me. I had a starting session with a member of my club; I asked questions, watched a couple of presentations and then just tried to use it and now I wouldn't be without it. Still learning. Yes Lightroom has a lot to offer and I did learn to use that first again with someone just showing me how to get started. I use them in tandem.

As for better, in terms of new cameras, well I was very reluctant to go autofocus a long time ago, then a bit twitchy about digital but now - again, I could never go back. So I think change is good. New models - are they better? Well, some specs will be different evidently - whether they are different enough to make it worthwhile is a personal decision. On another thread where the cost of photography was the bugbear, one member put an image up, taken on an old model, that was remarkable. Perhaps, the hype and marketing which no doubt generate Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) are just too good and we don't really need any of it :eek::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top