Posted by GRAGGPHOTO on October 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
I don't know how many of you feel like I do, but I can't help but feel a little disallusioned about the endless upgrade path of digital cameras.
Currently I own Nikon equipment in the form of a D200 and D70. It appears, much like the computer industry, that newer, more powerful cameras are introduced on a 12, 18 or 24 month cycle for the higher-end pro-sumer equipment (i.e., first the D200, then the D300 and now the D700).
I've been very happy with my D200 at 10.1 megapixel. I'm hesitant to spring for the D700 at 12.1 megapixel (even if it does have a full-frame CMOS sensor). My jump from the D70 at 6 mpx to 10.1 was for a factor of 4. I feel like I should wait until Nikon introduces a 14 megapixel sensor before I get interested.
Y'know, I've been a beholdant Nikon photographer for a long time. When I started out back in the 70s I used a Nikon Ftn, FM and motor drives (along with medium-format and 4x5 view camera). This equipment I relied on for many years of dependable usage. The only thing I was enthusiastic about purchasing back then was various Nikon lenses to fill my camera bag.
I've also recently read that there is a theoretical limit to the size of digital sensors (a'la higher megapixels). This debate reminds me of the discussion several years ago of the upper limits of computer processors in terms of speed. You can only squeeze so much stuff on such a small area.
Matt, if the output from the D200 meets your needs, forget about the hype and stick with it. There will always be something "better" around the corner. Like other businesses, camera manufacturers exist to maximize their shareholders' value and they'll try to convince you to buy more and more. Unless there's something lacking in your current setup, there's no reason not to keep it around longer.
Matt, I agree with Guy. I have watched the march of "better than last year" cameras go by and finally last year I decided it was time to buy without worrying about what comes along next year. I have a Nikon D80 with two very sharp prime lenses, 35mm and 50mm which I am very satisfied with. I have yet to decide on my next lens. So long as the lenses remain compatible with the D80 I see no reason to get a new camera in the near future. My only concern is when the time comes along, years from now, to buy a new camera, I hope my lenses will be compatible.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM
What does your camera do that requires an upgrade? Probably not much.
More megapixels are nice, but once you hit 10-12, you are already better than film. (Forget the theoretical arguments about needing 24-30 and make some prints instead). Noise? Film was already so-so at ISO 400 and every digital body worth buying in the last 2-3 years produce better ISO 400 images. High speed autfocus? Pro bodies. Even in the film days , that was the case. Full frame? Well, you got me there!
Just shoot and don't worry about it.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 27, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I too have been hesitant to jump on the camera bandwagon. I've been putting a ton of money into the very best lenses and also a very capable high powered lighting system instead. However, I find I am attempting increasingly more massive photo subjects (night shots) and am at a decision point. To get one more f-stop of light I would have to double the number of monolights/batteries/stands/triggers I now have. These things are about $1,000 apiece, meaning I would have to spend ANOTHER $4,000 on lights to double my capacity! I typically shoot the D80 at ISO 800 and get very good results. However, a D300 can shoot very cleanly at ISO 1600 and possibly ISO 3200. That means I can buy one more stop for $1,000 buying a used D300 rather than for $4,000 buying more lights etc. That also is making the quick obsolesence work for me, too. Earlier this year you couldn't touch a D300 for much less than $1,500. They can now be bagged for $1,000 (used) on eBay if you are patient. The D300 will do what I want with night photography. I have also eyed the D700, but if I bought one of those I would also want the very best FX lenses (Nikons 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8) to support it. That's a ton of money. So, I will look for a $1,000 used D300, watch prices continue to slide on D700, and think hard when those start hitting $1,500 (and they will.) If I didn't do so much night/flash photography, I would not be considering replacing the D80. I'd be buying a Nikon 24mm f2.8 PCE tilt/shift lens instead. First class lenses hold their value much better than cameras, and pro quality lighting gear seems to actually increase in value!
Kent in SD
Posted by Richard Hahn on October 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Matt,
Good evening. I look at it this way, as with computers the day you buy it, it is outdated. But that is okay for me. Unless you are the type that has to keep up with the Jones and have to have the most current, be happy with what you have if it meets you needs.
I bought my self a Cannon Xti in Dec. 2006 (my first digital) and still love it. As a matter of fact I want to pick up a second one to have because I know they will probably stop, if they have not already, making it.
When they came out with the Cannon 40 D I said wow that it nice, then the XSi, which I had no interest in. Now the 50 D, which is very nice too, but unless some one wishes to give me one (please see note at bottom) or I hit the lotto I will stay happy with my XTi.
There will always be bigger & better, better then what I do not know. As far as megapixels I think it would be how many do you need to meet your requirements. The XTi has 10.1 (I think) which can produce a big enough picture for me.
Now lenses are another story!!!!!! Bigger is better in most cases, but bigger is also a lot more money and yes will it fit the new age of cameras in the future?
Note - If someone would like to send me a 50D or an XTi I will be happy to provide my address and I will even pay the shipping cost.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on October 27, 2008 at 3:00 AM
I don't know how many of you feel like I do, but I can't help but feel a little disallusioned about the endless upgrade path of digital cameras.
Matt, I certainly don't share your disallusion. The new releases, with better performance at lower prices are GREAT for those needing a new camera. However, like, you, I am perfectly happy with my almost 4 year old system, and feel no need to upgrade, at this time. The improvements are incremental, and at this point in the development of DSLR technology, it is very easy for me to skip 2, 3, or more camera body upgrade cycles.
Posted by Joe O'Hara on October 27, 2008 at 7:04 AM
Matt,
You can always step off the merry-go-round and shoot film instead. I bought my 4x5 camera,
five lenses, and a digital spotmeter for less than a D300 costs. Twenty years from now when
people are trying to find the software that can read the camera raw format for today's latest digital
SLR, my films will still be there.
It's all about the vision, not the tools.
Posted by Robert Fisher on October 27, 2008 at 8:32 AM
The only reason to be disillusioned, Matt is if you buy into the manufacturers' hype. If you believe the hype that says a current camera is obsolescent when a successor model comes out then sure, you're going to be spending a boatload of money trying to keep up. And the camera makers are happy as pigs in poop that a lot of people do believe that.
Both my cameras (a 5D and 40D) are now a generation old. I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. I didn't even buy my first DSLR until September '07 and was quite happy to shoot film up to that point. Both my cameras meet my needs as they are currently and neither have simply stopped working the instant a successor camera was released.
If your D200 and D70 are doing what you need them to do then why be unhappy?
Posted by Richard Ditch on October 27, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I agree with everyone else on this - if your current bodies are producing images that suit your current needs then keep using them.
I have a D200 as my primary camera, and the older D70 as backup/second lens body. If I had the money I'd pick up a D300 for its better AF performance for birds in flight, but that's not important enough to me for the expense.
Like you I've been a Nikon user since the early 70's. I went through Nikkormat Ftn's, EL's and ELW's, FE and FE2 with MD11/12 drives, 8008's, and N90S's in my film days. Each upgrade was to get features that made my shooting easier (auto exposure, motor drive, auto focus, AF-S compatibility). Through this I was able to keep using older lenses - I still use my 200/4 manual focus Nikkor macro lens from 1983 on my D200.
Posted by Greg Barteluk on October 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Matt: Someone has to rock this loveboat of agreement. What everyone says is mostly true and often we upgrade or just spend more than our skills or needs require. However, I'm a techno junkie and love to try out the next generation of technology. Do I need all of this stuff? Of course not. It's just fun. On the positive side, whenever I upgrade another aspiring photographer gets a great deal on a near new, one-generation old camera.
Posted by Richard Hahn on October 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Greg,
Good evening. There is nothing wrong with being a "techno junkie" if you can afford it. But obviously there is a big difference between wanting and needing. I think it is great you get to check out the newest stuf and even better that someone gets your old stuff at a good price. Do you shoot Cannon & if so keep me in mind when you upgrade?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I guess I'm the flip side of this argument. I moved up the traditional path from film SLR to digital SLR thinking I'd found something better. I bought the Rebel XT and a few nice lenses to go along with it (I had switched from Pentax when I went digital). Now I'm shooting a 4X5 as my first choice. I've bought a couple CHEAP canon Rebel 2000/EOS 300 bodies and I'm shooting film first and digital if I need what digital provides. When I shoot film, I'll often have the lab provide development and sleeves only (no mounts for slides and no prints for negatives). In my mind, digital provides the ability to switch ISO quickly with lighting changes and provides the ability to shoot under mixed lighting with more flexibility to deal with it later. Digital provides the ability to shoot color at much higher speeds and it gets rid of the time consuming scanning steps. I'll probably buy a 50D next year, but I'm not in a hurry. I'm three generations behind on the XT and the paint is mostly worn off, but I'm not worried about it.
The thread may have gone beyond this reply but here is my $.02 worth. I was slow moving into digital since I wanted decent MPs. When the D80 came out I bought it and was (and still am) quite happy with it. Shortly after the D300 was announced I thought it was enough better than the D80 in certain areas that I planned to buy one next month (this was last February). As luck would have it I saw a more immediate need for the D300 features-better low light performance and faster motor drive among others and bought a D300 last March. I have been quite happy with it but also still use the D80. At the moment I feel no need for another body. I could be tempted with a 24+MP full frame that would also allow a DX crop but what I have now meets my needs so I'll be slow to add another body. Bottom line if it meets or exceeds your needs why buy another body.
RP
Discussion
13 repliesCurrently I own Nikon equipment in the form of a D200 and D70. It appears, much like the computer industry, that newer, more powerful cameras are introduced on a 12, 18 or 24 month cycle for the higher-end pro-sumer equipment (i.e., first the D200, then the D300 and now the D700).
I've been very happy with my D200 at 10.1 megapixel. I'm hesitant to spring for the D700 at 12.1 megapixel (even if it does have a full-frame CMOS sensor). My jump from the D70 at 6 mpx to 10.1 was for a factor of 4. I feel like I should wait until Nikon introduces a 14 megapixel sensor before I get interested.
Y'know, I've been a beholdant Nikon photographer for a long time. When I started out back in the 70s I used a Nikon Ftn, FM and motor drives (along with medium-format and 4x5 view camera). This equipment I relied on for many years of dependable usage. The only thing I was enthusiastic about purchasing back then was various Nikon lenses to fill my camera bag.
I've also recently read that there is a theoretical limit to the size of digital sensors (a'la higher megapixels). This debate reminds me of the discussion several years ago of the upper limits of computer processors in terms of speed. You can only squeeze so much stuff on such a small area.
Matt
Guy
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
More megapixels are nice, but once you hit 10-12, you are already better than film. (Forget the theoretical arguments about needing 24-30 and make some prints instead). Noise? Film was already so-so at ISO 400 and every digital body worth buying in the last 2-3 years produce better ISO 400 images. High speed autfocus? Pro bodies. Even in the film days , that was the case. Full frame? Well, you got me there!
Just shoot and don't worry about it.
Kent in SD
Good evening. I look at it this way, as with computers the day you buy it, it is outdated. But that is okay for me. Unless you are the type that has to keep up with the Jones and have to have the most current, be happy with what you have if it meets you needs.
I bought my self a Cannon Xti in Dec. 2006 (my first digital) and still love it. As a matter of fact I want to pick up a second one to have because I know they will probably stop, if they have not already, making it.
When they came out with the Cannon 40 D I said wow that it nice, then the XSi, which I had no interest in. Now the 50 D, which is very nice too, but unless some one wishes to give me one (please see note at bottom) or I hit the lotto I will stay happy with my XTi.
There will always be bigger & better, better then what I do not know. As far as megapixels I think it would be how many do you need to meet your requirements. The XTi has 10.1 (I think) which can produce a big enough picture for me.
Now lenses are another story!!!!!! Bigger is better in most cases, but bigger is also a lot more money and yes will it fit the new age of cameras in the future?
Note - If someone would like to send me a 50D or an XTi I will be happy to provide my address and I will even pay the shipping cost.
Matt, I certainly don't share your disallusion. The new releases, with better performance at lower prices are GREAT for those needing a new camera. However, like, you, I am perfectly happy with my almost 4 year old system, and feel no need to upgrade, at this time. The improvements are incremental, and at this point in the development of DSLR technology, it is very easy for me to skip 2, 3, or more camera body upgrade cycles.
You can always step off the merry-go-round and shoot film instead. I bought my 4x5 camera,
five lenses, and a digital spotmeter for less than a D300 costs. Twenty years from now when
people are trying to find the software that can read the camera raw format for today's latest digital
SLR, my films will still be there.
It's all about the vision, not the tools.
Both my cameras (a 5D and 40D) are now a generation old. I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. I didn't even buy my first DSLR until September '07 and was quite happy to shoot film up to that point. Both my cameras meet my needs as they are currently and neither have simply stopped working the instant a successor camera was released.
If your D200 and D70 are doing what you need them to do then why be unhappy?
I have a D200 as my primary camera, and the older D70 as backup/second lens body. If I had the money I'd pick up a D300 for its better AF performance for birds in flight, but that's not important enough to me for the expense.
Like you I've been a Nikon user since the early 70's. I went through Nikkormat Ftn's, EL's and ELW's, FE and FE2 with MD11/12 drives, 8008's, and N90S's in my film days. Each upgrade was to get features that made my shooting easier (auto exposure, motor drive, auto focus, AF-S compatibility). Through this I was able to keep using older lenses - I still use my 200/4 manual focus Nikkor macro lens from 1983 on my D200.
Good evening. There is nothing wrong with being a "techno junkie" if you can afford it. But obviously there is a big difference between wanting and needing. I think it is great you get to check out the newest stuf and even better that someone gets your old stuff at a good price. Do you shoot Cannon & if so keep me in mind when you upgrade?
RP