Comment by ashtonkem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashtonkem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Lenses absolutely get cheaper if you look at the lenses that are actually bought and sold in any number. The number of people using a 500mm f/4 is vanishingly small, and wondering about their price is a bit like asking why Ferraris still cost a lot.

For comparison, let's look at the most popular lens in the world, the 50mm. I'll focus on Canon's f/1.8 series of the nifty-fifty, just to keep consistent.

1975: $79.95 ($386.95 today)

1978: $67.95 ($271.37 today)

1986: $102 ($242.33 today)

1992: $44.95 ($83.42 today)

2014: $125 ($137.49 today)

Today: $94.00 (discontinued) or $125 (new model)

While the list price of the 50mm tends to sit in the $50-125 range, the inflation adjusted cost of this lens has dropped fairly consistently over the years. And remember that this is covering a pretty massive range of lens technology; a modern 50mm f/1.8 is lighter, focuses closer (0.35m vs 0.6m), has an extra diaphram blade in it (7 vs 6), contains several multi-coated glass elements, and has an auto focus motor built into the body of the lens. The value per dollar of a modern photo lens is genuinely massive compared to what was available in the past.

Well, the low point seems to be 1992 at $88. Which sort of matches my experience.

I think it's misleading to just look at Canon SLRs. SLRs are dying. Looking at the most modern mounts from all companies:

* Canon 50mm f/1.8 R-mount: $200

* Fuji 35mm f/2: $200

* Nikon 50mm $-mount f/1.8: on sale for $500 (normally $600)

* Olympus 25mm f/1.8: $300

* Panasonic 25mm f/1.8 MFT: On sale for $150 (normally $250)

* Panasonic 50mm f/1.4 L-mount: $2300 (although Sigma makes one for just $430).

* Sony 50mm f/1.8 E-mount: $250

I've adjusted to 50mm for crop factor.

I think the Canon f/1.8 50mm is sort of an outlier for low-cost in 2020. On the whole, prices have been creeping up (as has sharpness, AF speed, flare control, etc.). I feel like lenses are as expensive as they've been in decades.

These are also all new mounts, while the SLR mounts are decades old. If there's anything we would expect to reset the cost of equipment, it's a new and incompatible mount which saps the used market of its entire supply and lets manufacturers to charge higher rates for new and shiny gear. Also, inflation adjusted a lot of those are still cheaper than the original 1971 lens, despite having more features.

By the by, I really don't get the rush to mirrorless. I hate electronic viewfinders, the really small bodies are hard to handle with bigger lenses, and the prices are outrageous. I'll probably keep using SLRs for the next 20-30 years.

Not to nitpick too much, but the first two examples of lens prices are (presumably) for FD mount. The third most likely as well because the EOS mount was introduced in 1987 (per a quick wikipedia). The early versions would have been breach mount, while the 1986 would have been the later bayonet style (introduced in 1981).

Anyway, my on-the-spectrum reaction aside, I started exploring mirrorless because it facilitated making different types of pictures. Part of that facilitation was it's low cost. A used NEX-3, a fotodiox shift adapter (for K mount), and some old manual focus primes was all in for about $300. I got a camera with front shift that fit in a (largish) pocket. 14mp will about cover 10"x15" printed at 300dpi and is overkill for anything online.

I find manual focus with focus peaking satisfying. It's slower but when it misses it misses because of my technique not the way the camera interprets the scene. I don't get as many mis-focused pictures. I learn from those I get. The fixes are obvious. I don't feel I need to make more "just to be safe."

That's the biggest thing for me with mirrorless. My workflow has become much simpler. I don't take extra pictures just to be sure. I can see how the shadows and highlights will render in the viewfinder. I can adjust the contrast and saturation and color profile and white balance in camera while looking at the scene.

But, it's made me heretical. I no longer shoot RAW...though there are situations where I would...just JPG. My workflow is simpler because I don't spend time trying to fix pictures. Color, shadow, and highlights were either pretty close in camera or I didn't take it.

Even better for my workflow, JPG's are tiny. Memory cards don't fill up. Disks don't fill up. Downloads are faster. Backups are faster. And there are fewer files because I know that I got it when I made it.

But...I don't shoot sports anymore. I don't shoot wildlife anymore either. I'm not chasing birds in flight. My pictures were shifting as my gear was. Both still are. Mirrorless changed the way I was making pictures. The more a piece of gear does that, the more interested in it I am. YMMV.

I recommend RAW+JPEG.

I hate editing RAW files, but in 30 years, I'll still have them and might have a use for them. In 300 years, my ancestors will have them. Seems like image processing algorithms might advance by then.

I once reran my photos from the early '00s through a modern raw processor, and the difference was night-and-day. No tweaking, no nothing. Just modern versus ancient noise reduction, color algorithms, etc.

Disk space is cheap enough.

I use the same non-destructive editor, Darktable, on my JPG originals as for RAW. Make non-destructive edits and export. My workflow is the same though JPG requires a less pixel pipeline during post processing.

To put it another way the only difference is that my “archived negative” is a JPG rather than a RAW. But in 300 years I would only bet, and not very much, on physical prints. I’d give JPG a reasonable chance thirty years from now. Proprietary RAW files will probably be readily accessible in fifteen years for the most part.

Most of what JPG does is free me from a “raw+jpg just in case.” I don’t think defensively like that anymore...I don’t burden myself with a lot of “a serious photographer would.” What I am making is a picture. There are tradeoffs and the actual pictures I make (not the ones I might possibly make) are how I think about cost and benefit.

Disk space is cheap and so I use it write only. The time I spend on file management is expensive, so again write only. RAW + JPG requires much more file management than either alone. Should the JPG and RAW receive the same number of stars? The same tags? Always? I don’t want to spend time thinking about that.

For me, RAW represents an obligation to future work. The picture is never done when it is made. Not ready upon download.

JPG frees up energy for making more pictures. YMMV.

For the past few years, an older OM-D mirrorless was by far the best, cheapest camera on the market. New-old-stock or used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com