$4,000 camera upgrades - have we drunk the juice?

Springboarding off of the discussion in Larry's post about his gear for (fire)sale....

The digital revolution has been good to photographers, but just as good - if not better - to the camera companies. Imagine buying 2 or 3 successive film bodies over the period of 3 or 4 years. Rarely would that happen. But every time there's a new digital body announced a whole bunch of saps (me included) look at our current rig and end up with feelings of inadequacy.

With film, the film itself was the limitation. F100, F5, F6... you still ended up with the same image exposed on the same piece of film. The genius of digital (from camera companies' perspective) is that the image quality is now tied to the body, and each new body obsoletes the previous one, at a cost of several thousand $$$ to anyone who has to have the latest technology.

I think many of us have drunk the juice. We've bought into the idea that a D3 is worth spending another $4k, on top of whatever we spent on our previous body. For some, that may be reasonable - depends on the gap between what you have and what you need. But I personally struggle to make sense of paying that much each time a new model hits the street, and I probably have more expendable income than the average guy.

The cure of course is to not focus so much on what's better about the latest model - there will always be some incremental improvement - but think about how or even whether the changes will have any significant impact on our images. I don't have anything against the camera companies - great products and an even more clever business model. There really is genius behind the planned, bi-annual obsolescence of a $4000 consumer product.

Short story for me is that my 3 yr-old D2X is allowing me to make much better images than when shooting 35mm film. I can be more creative and print just as large, if not larger. The greatest potential for improvement still has to do with my skill level, not my camera. A FF sensor would be nice, but - as a hobbyist - I couldn't explain how I'd benefit to the tune of $4K....

...but when I do, I'll just wait for the D4 to come out in a year or so and pick up a D3 for $1000!

For sure the paradigm shifts in photography have been coming at us fast and furious!!! Your point about the typical life span of a film camera vs digital is well made. I am certain the bean counters at the various camera manufacturers are lovin this!

But so am I. My digital workflow is a wonderful experience indeed when compared to what I suffered with film. This year I stepped up to a Canon 1D Mark III from my trusty 1D Mark II. I have no regrets. I used the 1D Mark II for the better part of 3 years and it did me very well indeed. Does the 1D Mark III make me a "better" photographer? Not in and of itself. It DOES make my image capturing efforts "easier" and more dynamic which can be seen as conflicting elements when one considers the learning curve of a new camera....

The constant race for the better camera is our new reality. Each of us as photographers will have to decide when to upgrade, or not. I advise avoiding the trend of feeling like you have to keep up with the Jone's. Make your upgrade decision based on value and available funds. Everyone's mileage on an upgrade will vary.

Never lose focus on the most important part of what we fotogs do - HAVE FUN whilst being creative!!!

I too feel taken advantage of by the camera companies... BUT, at the same time, the fact that I used to spend over $100/month on film and processing, means that my 300D paid for itself inside of a year. So in the long run, even though the camera bodies are ridiculously expensive, digital photography is actually cheaper. At least that's what I tell my wife!

Great summarization Rick (Dunn), the thinking really has changed. Thank you for posting this, because you helped solidify my decision. After buying the Maxxum 7D in 2005 (first digital of any kind) simply because it "fit my existing lenses", I sold the entire Minolta farm this past November and splurged for the Canon 5D, a 17-40mm, and 70-200mm, and that's IT. The decision for the 5D had zero to do with the features/MegaPixels/brand/FPS, etc... I got the 5D because everytime I saw a photo that made me go "ooo!" due to this certain "something" in the image quality, it was always a 5D. So, I obtained the IQ that I personally like. They can make the 5D MK 2 version and do all these other megabuck options, I have a sensor that delivers the look that I go after and couldn't be happier. Let 'em market their brains out.

Now, people who do this for their living probably want to stay current (Adamus just got the 21MP Canon, I would too if I were him), but for me as a not-full-time photographer, I need to be careful not to get caught in the gear magnetism.

So you put it in perspective which I greatly appreciate, and saved me a bunch of future dough. Thanks!

Nice topic!

You can see a similar situation/evolution in many industries. From being in the 'computer industry' I can look back and see a lot of similarities.

Our first IBM PC in the mid-80's was about $10000 and I just bought my little sister a laptop yesterday for $600. The laptop has probably 1000's of times the capability of that old PC (depending how you'd like to measure it) for less than 1/100 the cost. A lot of stuff happens to make that possible, but some notables:

Production capability improves (reducing the manufacturers cost)
Feature saturation (reducing the consumers want for something new)
Finally - Commoditization - eliminating the differences between brands, except for cost.

If the technical differentiators in the consumers mind are things they care little about, then the primary buying decision for the typical consumer is cost. I believe to some extent this already exists in the non-SLR digital cameras. It seems very difficult to differentiate in this market based on features.

But in the SLR market manufacturers have an extra hook into the consumer - lenses. There is a 'barrier to entry' for the typical SLR owner purchasing a different brand body - "now I gotta replace all my lenses too!"

So, at some point the growth of new features in DSLR's will probably saturate to where the typical consumers aren't that intersted and only the diehard gadget folks go for them (i.e. gamers in the PC world). Then we can push for an industry standard lens mount so all our lenses can work equally well on any body. This will force Canon and Nikon to really compete head-on with Sony and Samsung and a 21MP DSLR will drop to the price of a current laptop.

I can dream, can't I?

-Brett

BECAUSE I am a fricken' American, it's what I've been taught to do, it's patriotic (if you're not with us, you're against us (and all that rot)) and it WILL make me a better photographer.

( a serious response later, Peggy, Ellen and I skied today and we're off to dinner. )

Great topic Rick. That is the reason I am still shooting with my ol' faithful 10D. And you know what? It takes much better pictures than when I first bought it! I discovered that my skills needed upgrading much more than my camera body. I figure as an amatuer hobbiest I could skip several generations with little to no impact on my images. Then once I do upgrade it will be much more siginicant and noticable.

I will most likely upgrade my old 10D this year with the new 5D II or Sony FF DSLR. Either will be a pretty noticable step forward both in terms of resolution and overall performance. And then I will most likely hold on to that for another 4-5 years regardless of what the market does.

But I agree that for pros like Marc A. and others who use their gear every day to make a living these incremental upgrades are probably more worth it.

And hey for the gear collectors out there who can afford it I guess it is really no different than always having the newest car, boat, motorcycle, plasma tv, etc... to hit the market. Canon and Sony know how to market to these folks and keep their profits up.

I better toss in my 2 bits here. That's how much I paid for my first camera, a Kodak Autographic when I was 8 years old... at the dump. (Yep, that's what landfills were called way back then and they fished out the good bits and re-sold them) Film was expensive and ate up my allowance in a hurry and things only got worse with my first slr (Minolta SRT201). I used that camera for 20 years and sold it for half of new price so I guess things have gotten a bit crazy in the last 10 years with the advent of F-5 / F6 and eventually the digital models. I replaced the Minolta with a N-90 but later bought the F-4 and still believe it to be the best film slr ever built but at $100+ for a brick of velvia the finished slide cost around 25 cents each and I don't think I'm alone in tossing a lot of $$ in the trash can over the years. Digital has done more for the learning curve than anything else, other than the great advice and sharing on this board. (Kuddos to all of you folks!)
I'm guilty of drinking deeply from the digital trough but each upgrade was a monumental improvement from the previous model. The D-100 had a problem rendering anywhere close to accurate colors in many cases even though trying "curve fixes" 2 trips to the factory... they said it was OK? The D-70 was much better and I did use that camera for over 2 years before the smaller file size became an issue when it came to making a sale or not so yet another upgrade was necessary.. the D-200 was reasonably priced and resale on the D-70 was still fair so the switch was painless. Everything was fine for 2 more years until the trough was refilled and the D-3 floated to the top. Will it make me a better photographer... no! Can I see a difference between images taken with the D-200... yes, like the blind regaining sight! Will my wife kill me and sell the new rig if I don't sell any images soon... Probably!
The selling point for me was better handling of noise at higher iso until I started working images and found all the detail the previous models were incapable of capturing. Was it worth the $3000 bath... Not if I had any other hobbies to justify.

Well, my "hobby" does make me a little bit of money and quality is important to me and my art. My original digital camera, the D100 was great but 6 megapixles was not enough for larger size prints. The D2x was and is great but I'm still limited to print size (and we don't need to be talking tripod, mirror lock up, exposing to the right and Photoshop techniques. I'm up to speed on all that) and high ISO noise issues. The future, upcoming, wonderful, awesome D3x will handle my size problems and hopefully a bit of my noise problems.

I was recently running myself around about getting a D300 or a D3 because I "needed" them but when I sat down and made a list of the pros and cons, the cons won and I am now happy again with my D2x.

I'm not a gear weenie but I need good gear. My lenses are all pro lenses and my tripod is da bomb. Right now, for what I do, and for what I expect out of it, the D2x is great. Soon the D3x will certainly put out better photos and I'll buy one. After that though, things are going to have to get pretty dang awesome for me to spend money on a camera again.

Larry, You got a D3?

Yeah Mark, he does.......but he wont show us a picture.......


Come on Larry, Put the Keystone Ice down and snap some shots of that beast.....

or are you drinking Porters tonight!????

Wait a minute Darren... I thought Larry said he was drinking deeply from the digital trough tonight, not Keystone or Porters.

Guilty as charged... but it was Brigdeport IPA's tonite! The head-dunking WAS pretty deep but the day it arrived some guy named Mark Hudon posted a thread mentioning the upcoming D-3X with 20+gb file possibilities and that alone might be worth the $$ to fix my poor comp judgement since I usually have to crop 50% of my images anyway! I'm also thinking about changing my nationality without having to move out of the country since most everything I own comes from Japan anyway... 2 rigs that get the mileage to afford photo-trips... gear to die (in debt) for and not having to worry about upcoming elections! I wonder if I could still file for bankruptcy???

My brother's advice is to never buy the current camera, because a newer, better one is just around the corner (of course leading to a perpetual state of waiting ).

John,

That is kind of like buying the newest, hottest car. There is that intial rush which lasts for a while until the next bigger, better, faster model is released.

And I agree with your brother 'most' of the time. But after 5 years with the 10D I am ready for the latest technology. Of course once the 5D II, Sony a900, Nikon D3x, et. al. are released their predecessors' resale values with drop like digital donuts into the digital trough for some easy pickens.

For example the 1DS II has seen 'Huge' drops in value since the 1DS III was released. I actually considered picking up a mint one. And for those who are willing to use '1 generation old' technology this might be a good approach in playing this digital game.

I predict there will be a lot more Nikon and Canon 'garage sales' within the next 12 months. With Sony's new 24 MP chip which Nikon will probably pick up and use in their next top of the line FF DSLR who will not be at least tempted to 'drink the juice.' Not to mention the new 5D II and Sony a900 flagship.

The "new world" of digital photography has made DLSR's more of a computer than a pure camera and as such is reaching a status of commodity. Which is both exciting and sad. It's exciting because the technology has been changing/improving in leaps and bounds. It's sad because we just aren't getting the mileage from our cameras that we used to. Not to mention that the dang things are still a spendy venture!!!!

I'm with Mark Hudon in that I think this will plateau in the near future and things will settle down. Time will tell of course!!

Because DSLRs 'are' more of a computer I think Moore's Law will continue to prevail. I don't see advancements in sensor technology slowing down. I have been shooting digital for the past 7 years and if anything I think it is picking up steam more than ever. With full industry wide acceptance the writing is on the wall. Either lead, follow or get swallowed up by the revolution.

With 24MP DSLRs out this year some are predicting MF digitals will drop in price and will gain wider acceptance as the new 'standard.' Heck lets face it, if we could use a digital which would surpass LF film resolution for landscapes wouldn't we be interested?

I remember several years back when quite a few of people were questioning the need to ever go over 12 MP. Who would really need more than 12 MPs anyway?

In five years we will be looking at 30-40+ MP DSLRs as a conservative estimate IMO - All speculation of course. But I think Moore would tend to agree.

Actually, thinking of cameras as computers, like Rick mentioned, gives me a bit more insight. Right now, the D3 is really changing the way wedding and sports shooters take photographs. More and more they are using less flash and more available light. The camera has changed the way they shoot.

This winter while photographing Ellen's basketball games in poorly lit gyms, I had to crank the ISO in my D2x to Hi-2 or 6400. Let me tell ya, the photos looked like it was snowing noise! After I worked the photos to death I got some good ones but there were still a lot of action shots that I missed and, really, none would be good enough for Sports Illustrated. So I "need" better hi ISO.

I was down in Sacramento last weekend and one of my buddies had a Galen Rowell print on a wall. The print wasn't big and I did the usual photographer thing of sticking my nose right it in. Let me tell ya, if Rowell posted that shot on NPN today people would be all over him about how it looks "soft". He shot with a 35mm but I pretty much want my stuff to look like large format. I want shift/tilt lenses and I want 30x40 prints with detail up the wazoo. So I "need/want" larger files and more information.

Ya know, back when I was 16 and lusting over cars, I could get a cool Toyota for $3500 brand new! They <have> changed models and features since then and cars do more and cost a lot more now.

Mark - sounds like you need a 4x5. Now that's detail.

Regarding cars... the 2006 model isn't worth 20% of its MSRP 3 months after the 2007 model comes out. Not complaining - I'm a willing participant - just marvelling at the amout of depreciated $$$ represented by all of the obsoleted 2-yr old cameras out there.

Yes, digital, 35mm 4x5 is what I want!

The trick with cars is to buy them used (no more than 45K miles on them) and then drive them for at least ten years. You pay the car off in the first four or five and then drive it for "free" after that.

I usually stay away from these gear discussions, since I'm a dreaded (gasp!) user of consumer gear that's (double-gasp!) NOT made by... you know who! But on that point, I would make the case for hobbyists and weekenders to always calculate out how much you can afford to drop in a creek, on a dusty trail or over a cliff, because the greatest failing of the digital era is durability. The good news is that consumer dSLRs are getting less expensive, and kit lenses getting better - allowing new photographers a terrific opportunity to have a great time, and take stunning images, for well under $1,000. There's really no need to max our your credit cards for something more expensive - unless you have professional ambitions, or just like to buy cool toys.

I have much less restraint when it comes to computers, but am learning not to go for the latest and greatest on that front, either. Moore's law is, indeed, cruel. But I take issue with the Moore's law analogy to digital photography. While it's true that the components that make up a digital camera are part of Moore's curve, the function of a camera is limited by what you can do with a photograph: print it, look at it on a screen. Prints already top out at a size that is easily within the limits of current camera technology. So if making, posting and printing photos is your hobby, you won't need to keep upgrading on such a rapid pace - we're pretty much at the plateau now. The Camera manufacturers have already begun to recognize this with the consumer dSLRs, and are adding whiz-bang features as a way to make the previous models obsolete. This will undoubtedly creep into the professional tier, once the plateau has settled in there, as well.

So for the hobbyists, pick out a solid kit with an eye toward expanding your lens collection over time, and don't get too hung up on whether your camera is able to produce billboard-sized prints... unless you're planning to rent a few billboards!

My $0.02 for the casual photographers that might be reading this thread, and getting a little discouraged...

Yes,

I think there will simply be more options from the entry DSLR to the high end 30+MP DSLR & MF cameras.

So as you mentioned more hobbiest can jump in for a modest price. And most won't need 30+MP images unless they hope to sell them and make very large prints.

But once one starts to consider selling their images places like stock agencies expect certain higher levels of image size/resolution. Some of the digital shooters out here will uprez them to attain this requirement. And still many others are still using LF film for the additional resolution attainable. And the difference is noticable even in 20x25 prints when you compare the two side by side. But then again will the customer really notice the difference, maybe or maybe not. But an art gallery most likely will. So you can see how things can progress if one has an eye toward sales. Although that gap is narrowing IMO.

That said though I think you have some very valid points regarding not needing to break the bank while still enjoying photography. The sensor technology will continue to trickle down to the Canon Rebels, et al. They are already up to what 12 MPs now for well under $1000. That trend will continue possibly even into affordable full frame DSLRs.

Some of you have hinted that the pro's use top of the line Canon / Nikon pro gear. My research a year ago and again recently indicated that the Canon 5D is a top choice for many Pro Photographers. Nature photographers and lifestyle photographers love it. It's the lens the photographer, not the body that makes a bigger difference.
That being said, there are reasons I crave that IDMKIII and other reasons I know I can be very happy without it.
What amazes me more is that Rick and I can be out shooting together, like last weekend in the Pike Place Market area. Guys walk up and talk to Rick and talk photgraphy and gear. I'm invisible to them regardless of what camera body and what lense I carry. It doesn't matter --- they just talk to Rick and act like I'm not there. If it was once or twice, I'd not wonder, but this is almost EVERY time we shoot.
Sigh...........
Nance

Well.....I am in a constant state of lust for a medium format digital setup. Guess that makes me the worst of the worst wanting a $50,000 setup (39MP back, Lenses...etc) Not sure though if I would go for a horseman SW Pro II, hassy or Mamiya 645 with a phase 1 back....

Between the added detail and the huge Dynamic Range these 16bit backs have.....I would almost feel justified.

Shoot me now before I spend again...lol.

Roman

Roman,

Who 'really' needs to own a house or a car with a camera like that? You could just live from a tent somewhere photogenic. Then you could have the nicest camera a homeless person ever had. LOL...

(runs out and gets his tent) Just bought my new house....I'm ready!!!!!!

I am on my way!!!!!!!!

Now ....what will I do for internet?!?



Roman