|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Feb 1, 2023 21:14:54 GMT
No
But then again I haven’t bought ANY magazine for almost 20yrs. I think they are terrible value for money and wasteful too.
All my browsing is done via screens these days.
With regards to photo mags in general, as stated above I haven’t bought one since 1995. I shudder when I think back to how they were, basically smut mags for pervs. The Glamour, B/W Nude, Sensual front covers back then…
Geez!!, Absolutely hated it. I’ll never forget the embarrassment when the young girl at the newsagents counter quipped “Why don’t you just pick one off the top shelf” ?
The tragedy is back then I really wanted to read up on photography tips and hints as there was no internet like today. But the seedy covers made buying photo mags humiliating and so I stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Feb 1, 2023 22:11:29 GMT
Don't forget the software and the demands it might make of a graphics card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Feb 1, 2023 22:11:44 GMT
When I was at secondary school in the early 1970s the magazine was one of those purchased for the school library, so I read most copies from 1970-74. Later I would buy occasional copies, but probably only half a dozen in the period 1982-2007 (so I missed out completely on the autofocus and 'auto-everything' evolution). When I had to get a digital SLR after the death of Kodachrome, I purchased copies more often, looking for advice. When this got to 2 copies a month (plus the cost of travel to the newsagent in a rural area), a subscription looked good value. I currently pay £25.50 every 3 months, which I calculate to be exactly £2.00 per issue for 51 issues a year. At this price I can accept that some issues have some items of no interest - mobile phone reviews, this month's new Sony full frame camera body that costs more than I have spent on camera bodies and lenses in the last 40 years (a £4,000 body in a recent issue), etc,. However, I also accept that items like this are exactly what attracts other readers. I've also been a subscriber long enough to understand that the same articles are regularly recycled, or adapted to appear new, but that is inevitable in a magazine that has to appeal to somebody like me as well as somebody who has just got their first real camera and can't be bothered to look at the user manual, or does not understand it because the camera they have been told they need is far too complex for their level of knowledge.
I believe that the biggest improvement the magazine in recent years has been the increased space devoted to buying second hand, presumably as a result of reader surveys and the greatly increased use by reputable retailers of websites to list and sell stuff. Of course, other opinions are available and some people (those with deep pockets?) may have no interest in such articles.
Interestingly, the latest issue offers some recommendations about about older cameras to look for when buying second hand. One of these is a Pentax K5 (which I have), and a 50 mm lens to use with it. I suspect that the writer confused this APS-C camera body with a full frame one, since many people would find a 50 mm lens too 'long' as their 'first' lens to use with this body, unless they wanted to concentrate of portrait work. I would have advised a 28 or 35 mm, or an old model Sigma 17-70 instead which would probably still have fallen within the budget (I also have one of these, purchased second hand of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by mark101 on Feb 1, 2023 22:20:54 GMT
I only every buy if there is something of interest to me, newsagent magazine are getting really expensive: My Wife bought a copy of New Scientist this week, I nearly blew a fuse what seeing the price for so few pages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Feb 1, 2023 22:22:34 GMT
No But then again I haven’t bought ANY magazine for almost 20yrs. I think they are terrible value for money and wasteful too. All my browsing is done via screens these days. With regards to photo mags in general, as stated above I haven’t bought one since 1995. I shudder when I think back to how they were, basically smut mags for pervs. The Glamour, B/W Nude, Sensual front covers back then… Geez!!, Absolutely hated it. I’ll never forget the embarrassment when the young girl at the newsagents counter quipped “Why don’t you just pick one off the top shelf” ? The tragedy is back then I really wanted to read up on photography tips and hints as there was no internet like today. But the seedy covers made buying photo mags humiliating and so I stopped. I once encountered confusion like this about the magazine's contents, so invited the sales assistant to open the magazine and look at the 'centre spread', which in that issue was a lovely landscape shot. I got a grudging apology, but your comment about the covers is valid: did the publishers really believe their target readership were teenage boys with too many hormones? I also commented that the shooting magazines were on a lower shelf... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2023 22:31:32 GMT
I’ve subscribed for ages. Used to buy it for ages before that but distribution got patchy and it was often sold out. There are less interesting editions sometimes. This week so so. The thesis that photography need not be expensive while equating photography with owning a camera and one lens is poor. Really need to add the digital darkroom I agree with that, a suitable computer is likely to cost more than the camera and lens. Additionally, the article doesn’t mention the cost of a new battery, memory cards etc. Despite the error, you can get a Nikon D300 and lens for under £200 but a couple of batteries and a couple of decent sized CF cards will add another £100 or so. I always want a second battery with a camera and with a D300 I doubt the original will be in a very good condition. The camera only takes CF cards, it is the D300s that can also use SD cards. A ready to use digital camera and computer, one can’t assume that the reader has a suitable computer, is likely to come out a bit over£1,000. I have looked at laptops with 16GB of memory, mainly because I don’t have any with less, but if Windows can perform with less the total will be a bit less. Still not my idea of cheap. Good points but I wonder how many households that would consider a DSLR do not have a computer. A tablet or a smartphone may be good enough. However, like most hobbies photography is not cheap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2023 22:37:08 GMT
Don't forget the software and the demands it might make of a graphics card. Not all the software needs a graphics card eg Lightroom. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 1, 2023 22:48:12 GMT
I agree with that, a suitable computer is likely to cost more than the camera and lens. Additionally, the article doesn’t mention the cost of a new battery, memory cards etc. Despite the error, you can get a Nikon D300 and lens for under £200 but a couple of batteries and a couple of decent sized CF cards will add another £100 or so. I always want a second battery with a camera and with a D300 I doubt the original will be in a very good condition. The camera only takes CF cards, it is the D300s that can also use SD cards. A ready to use digital camera and computer, one can’t assume that the reader has a suitable computer, is likely to come out a bit over£1,000. I have looked at laptops with 16GB of memory, mainly because I don’t have any with less, but if Windows can perform with less the total will be a bit less. Still not my idea of cheap. Good points but I wonder how many households that would consider a DSLR do not have a computer. A tablet or a smartphone may be good enough. However, like most hobbies photography is not cheap. A tablet may be enough, if it is fairly large, but a smartphone? Sounds a bit futile to shoot a 24MP image and then view it on a screen not much bigger than the one on the camera. I once heard a salesman suggest to a potential customer that he needed no more resolution from a camera than his monitor could display. In those days XGA was considered good! A 4K TV is around 9MP and higher resolution devices are available. I suspect many of those households have a high definition TV, or better so the HDMI output from the camera might be the answer rather than a computer. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Feb 1, 2023 22:49:02 GMT
Don't forget the software and the demands it might make of a graphics card. Not all the software needs a graphics card eg Lightroom. True but many of us our drawn to applications that do benefit from powerful graphics. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 1, 2023 22:52:16 GMT
Don't forget the software and the demands it might make of a graphics card. Not all the software needs a graphics card eg Lightroom. You don’t “need” Photoshop or Lightroom, the camera manufacturer’s editing software is usually free and may well be perfectly adequate, especially to start with. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Feb 1, 2023 23:26:07 GMT
Good points but I wonder how many households that would consider a DSLR do not have a computer. A tablet or a smartphone may be good enough. However, like most hobbies photography is not cheap. A tablet may be enough, if it is fairly large, but a smartphone? Sounds a bit futile to shoot a 24MP image and then view it on a screen not much bigger than the one on the camera. I once heard a salesman suggest to a potential customer that he needed no more resolution from a camera than his monitor could display. In those days XGA was considered good! A 4K TV is around 9MP and higher resolution devices are available. I suspect many of those households have a high definition TV, or better so the HDMI output from the camera might be the answer rather than a computer. 24MP? My phone has a 64MP camera apparently! |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Feb 2, 2023 6:44:56 GMT
Don't forget the software and the demands it might make of a graphics card. Not all the software needs a graphics card eg Lightroom. Ligtroom classic makes terrific demands of the graphics card my computer won’t support the latest [?3?] revisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Feb 2, 2023 10:26:23 GMT
I subscribed at one point but stopped because I really didn't feel it offered value for money. I would buy from the local newsagents when something on a front cover caught my eye. I stopped buying magazines of any description when my husband lost his job as they seemed such a luxury when faced withnot being able to pay the mortgage! Recently I've been buying it more often because I find some of the content works quite well as a jumping off point for my two photography groups, but even then I think I've only bought one this year, perhaps four or five last year? I never did manage to get a copy of the one with my photos in though
|
|
|
|
Post by davem399 on Feb 2, 2023 11:17:54 GMT
I’ve only bought it occasionally in recent years, usually if there is a topic that is of interest to me. Late 70’s and into the 80’s, i would buy it most weeks. I’m sure it’s the internet that is slowly squeezing the life out of hard copy magazines.
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Feb 2, 2023 12:47:44 GMT
I subscribed at one point but stopped because I really didn't feel it offered value for money. I would buy from the local newsagents when something on a front cover caught my eye. I stopped buying magazines of any description when my husband lost his job as they seemed such a luxury when faced withnot being able to pay the mortgage! Recently I've been buying it more often because I find some of the content works quite well as a jumping off point for my two photography groups, but even then I think I've only bought one this year, perhaps four or five last year? I never did manage to get a copy of the one with my photos in though If it was in the last few months, I might still have it, sorry, can't remember when it was. |
|
