Most hobbyists waste a lot of money. I have spent thousands on equipment for my cameras. I don't use it that much but when I use it, it makes me happy. Most people waste a lot of money on their cars. They could achieve the same results with a cheaper car but somehow it's worth it. Add to that watches, phones, clothing and many other things.

▲

jrowen a day ago | parent | next [-]

In a blind test, could you tell the difference between photos taken with that equipment and photos taken with less expensive equipment?

Most audiophiles can't do measurably better than 50% on an ABX test. That test is more about audio compression than cable quality, but there is a lot of superstition in audio.

▲

72deluxe a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes. I have Nikons and Lumix cameras and I can tell you the difference between the outputs from small sensors to larger sensors and full frame, and iPhone and phone camera output.

For audio it is more difficult. I used to work at a signal processor manufacturer (high end audio gear, clever chaps, I was merely a software man) where the guy was convinced he could hear the difference between 24bit WAVs and 320kbps MP3s. He was deluding himself. He was partly deaf and sitting 5 metres away from him in an office I could hear his earbuds blasting music all day long.

I can hear when clipping and resonances are introduced, and also hear terrible guitar cabinets and bad tubes in guitar amps, but that's because I have been playing bass and guitar for 30+ years and have very sensitive hearing. I detest heavy compression. You can feel your ears shutting down.

	▲	jrowen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah there's definitely a lot of things that can go wrong, especially in a live hardware chain. But with the software, what a lot of even pro DJs and sound guys don't seem to realize is that modern compression codecs are damn good. They represent the cumulative efforts of so many of the smartest audio nerds obsessing over it for decades.

▲

jlarocco a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> In a blind test, could you tell the difference between photos taken with that equipment and photos taken with less expensive equipment?

I can't speak for the OP, but I can certainly tell the difference between photos taken with my different camera gear. I have an iPhone, a Fuji T3, and a Nikon D810 to compare against.

The Nikon is 10 years old and still a lot sharper than the other ones, despite them all being years newer than the Nikon. In challenging conditions (wet, low light, etc.) the difference is even more noticeable.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Snowy-Davidson-Mesa-Ride/i-wGFDt5...

For example, a picture like that one would be difficult to take on a phone because of the snow. First of all wet fingers would make using the phone nearly impossible. Even if it didn't, there's a good chance the focus would be off due to the snow in the foreground. And the sharpness of the Nikon blows the other cameras away. In the linked photo, do a 1:1 zoom of the fire department logo above/leftleft of the front wheel and you can read the text, including the small "EMS", "Colorado", etc. around the border. Phones just won't get that detail. And that's an old camera.

Besides the image quality, the DSLR is just easier and more comfortable to use once I learned the controls. There are no dumb menus and touch screens and I can adjust settings and take pictures with big mittens on even when it's wet/snowy/raining. Meanwhile, my iPhone is completely unusable with wet fingers.

I use my phone to take pictures most of the time, but if I'm going out intentionally to take pictures, I always take a real camera.

▲

spockz a day ago | parent [-]

Here you are comparing a decent bluetooth speaker to a pretty good wireless active speaker to a hifi setup. I think the original comment about audiophiles is them wasting money on upgrading the hifi setup with all kinds of audio cabling, bi-wiring, etc.

That would be similar to upgrading to that one tiny bit sharper lens which otherwise has the same aperture etc.

	▲	jrowen a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes that's more accurate. And it's about measurability. Even with that tiny bit sharper lens, you can probably point to an actual measurable difference in the photos. Whether that makes them "better" remains subjective. Audio is a weird world where everyone lives in their own experience and the externally measurable things often don't really translate to the visceral experience. So everyone kinda comes up with their own tribal knowledge that's often more superstition than science, and a lot of people just tend to assume they need "the best" in lossless files and analog whatever and gold-plated this and that.

▲

leephillips a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a critical difference with audiophiles: they suffer from a superstitious belief that their expensive cables and so forth actually make their systems sound better.

▲

segmondy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was going to post the exact first sentence you posted word for word and talk about my wasteful hobbies ... I do have project car hobbies and latest addiction is "gpu collection"

▲

spockz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it a waste if it makes you happy?

▲

SpicyLemonZest a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I've spent thousands on my PC, including a number of components that are overkill for any actual need I have. It would still be noteworthy (and I'd personally feel aggrieved) if comparative testing showed my overpriced fans are just as loud as any or my overpriced cooling system has indistinguishable thermal performance from the stock cooler.