Digital SLR upgrading thoughts

[alexmst]

I went to the bi-annual Henry's Photo Expo on Airport Rd this weekend. Basically a trade show of camera manufacturers showing off their latest products.

I was impressed with the Nikon D3 - I played around with it for a few minutes, taking pictures with various lenses. Listened to the Nikon rep say how it was the Ferrari of cameras, etc. It did have really clean images at high ISO speeds - 6,400 was as clear as 800 on my current circa 2004 digital SLR. So I ask how much is the MSRP... $5.4k Hmmm. that is a lot of cash for a digital camera I am thinking to myself.

When the 35mm film Nikon F4 came out in 1988, I bought it and I think it was $2.2k...BUT it was built like a tank and when I want to shoot film I still use it 20 years later and it is one of the best film cameras ever made. Which brings me to issue I have with these high end high priced digital cameras...they are only current for a couple of years, and are totally outdated technologically in about 5 years. If I drop over 2k on a camera, I want to get a decade or two of use out of it, without thinking the technical quality of my pics will be so much better if I upgrade. I don't mind paying for superior build quality if the item will last and not produce less than optimal images. Problem is, there is no point in the thing being built to last 20+ years if it will be obsolete in 5.

I can still shoot with my 1972 Nikkormat EL and outdoor pics will be as good technically as those from my 1988 F4 (or a 1996 F5 if I had bothered to upgrade my F4 to it, or a current F6 if I had bothered to upgrade my F4 to it). What changed in quality in the days of film cameras was the film, and any film camera can make use of the technical improvements of the film made by Kodak and Fuji. Ease of use and handling improved with new cameras, and bells and whistles came and went, but the technical quality of my images could be as good using a camera made in 1972 as one made 25 years later - not upgrading cameras had nothing to do with the quality of the prints. Now, digital cameras are changing and improving so fast I always seem to want to put off buying an upgrade for another year as they'll probably be significantly better if not cheaper next year.

Then another thought occured to me...5.4k is a lot of SP appointments, and which will put a bigger smile on my face

 

[landscaper]

I still ahve and use a Ricoh KR5 that I bought when in the army. It takes excellent film shots and the lens collection is massive.

I want to upgrade to a digital SLR but am looking at 6-10K to replace my current collection.

The outdated problem is only a problem if you have to be the most up to date on the block. I specifically waited for the show so that I can go to Henries and pick up a used DSLR at an after show price.

 

[tboy]

A couple of things to consider when buying into the latest and greatest:
1) Will it make you a better photographer?
2) Will it take better pictures?
3) Are you blowing your pictures up to billboard size?
4) Are you shooting for magazines and or print ads?
5) Are you making a living off the camera and can you write it off?

If you answered no to any of the above, don't join the lemmings who insist on having the latest and possibly (not probably) greatest......

You don't know HOW many people say they are going out to buy the next gen of everything because they "need" it. Once you sit them down and talk to them, they don't NEED it, they WANT it which is what the manufacturers want you to believe.

 

[sailorsix]

There's that old adage about "the best picture is the one that you never got to take because you didn't have your camera".

After years of carrying my SLR's I now keep a Canon G9 in my briefcase or knapsack. It gives me the flexibility of almost being SLR equipped while not carrying aorund a tank like SLR. And I now take a ton of pics on the fly that I never would have before.

I bought my 1st SLR (AE-1) in 1979. It is interesting that Henry's still sells a used AE1 body only for the same price that I paid for the body and lens in '79. Damn I took some great pics with that camera.

 

[tboy]

There's that old adage about "the best picture is the one that you never got to take because you didn't have your camera".

After years of carrying my SLR's I now keep a Canon G9 in my briefcase or knapsack. It gives me the flexibility of almost being SLR equipped while not carrying aorund a tank like SLR. And I now take a ton of pics on the fly that I never would have before.

I bought my 1st SLR (AE-1) in 1979. It is interesting that Henry's still sells a used AE1 body only for the same price that I paid for the body and lens in '79. Damn I took some great pics with that camera.

They do? You can get them for $30.00 on Ebay......I have an AE-1 and A-1 with about 7 lens' and henry's quoted me $100.00 for the complete kit which cost over $4000.00 when new....

 

[Damondean]

The points made above by t-boy should help you make a decision. The D3 is the Ferrari until Canon comes out with something better . . .Digital stuff gets outdated pretty quickly. I asked the Nikon rep at the same show about software to tether the camera to my laptop. I have a D70s. They don't distribute it any more, he said. But I can buy a version compatible with later models for 200 bucks . . well, I found the 70 dollar version at a New York dealer's.

The point made about the Canon G9 is also excellent. It is a superb camera. I still have my G2 that I used for years and still occasionally do.

Many people rush out to buy DSLRs yet they never change lenses and find it too havy to carry around so no pix or they do it with a point and shoot.

The points about what use you planning to make of it are excellent advice.

 

[tboy]

...

Many people rush out to buy DSLRs yet they never change lenses and find it too havy to carry around so no pix or they do it with a point and shoot.

Truer words have never been spoken my friend.......you see, that's the difference between a photographer, and someone who takes pictures......I lugged my canon kit (complete with aluminum case) up mountains, through rivers, through frozen forests, across swamps etc to get "that" shot.....now the wannabes with their dslrs who think they're all pro and everything, lol, that's a joke. Most of them put it on auto the second they put the battery in and never take it off.......

For the record: when I took photography at Ryerson one of our lessons was on a 8 x 10 view camera. Those things were HUGE. Everyone was bitching about having to haul em around...I loved the thing. The resolution, the clarity, the tilt and shift capabilities, they are awesome. THAT is another difference between a photographer and someone who takes pictures!!!

 

[tboy]

LOL what he said!!! ^^^^

As long as a camera works within specs, it will never be obsolete!! Heck, I think the very first camera ever made still works fine....(it was a pinhole camera so there were no moving parts hehehe).

 

[alexmst]

Truer words have never been spoken my friend.......you see, that's the difference between a photographer, and someone who takes pictures......I lugged my canon kit (complete with aluminum case) up mountains, through rivers, through frozen forests, across swamps etc to get "that" shot.....now the wannabes with their dslrs who think they're all pro and everything, lol, that's a joke. Most of them put it on auto the second they put the battery in and never take it off.......

For the record: when I took photography at Ryerson one of our lessons was on a 8 x 10 view camera. Those things were HUGE. Everyone was bitching about having to haul em around...I loved the thing. The resolution, the clarity, the tilt and shift capabilities, they are awesome. THAT is another difference between a photographer and someone who takes pictures!!!

I hear you. Looking through my albums the best outdoor pics I took over the past 10 years were with my (brought used) 1963 Rolliflex 3.5 TLR loaded with Fuji Velvia 50 film on a tripod using a handheld light meter. I never got into large format, but the medium fomat blew my 35mm stuff away.

However, for sponataneous shots of people of wildlife, the Rollei is too slow to set up and I'd miss the shot (although I did get some great pics of stationary pelicans in Florida with it once). So I accept less great pics with the speed of 35mm.

I am not a professional photographer, rather a hobbyist who enjoys photography and has since I was 12 years old and iso 400 was considered a high speed film (and looked like crap - only 25, 50 or 100 speed for me back then haha).

The best time I had in the field was when I paid my cousin's b/f (military guy built like an ox) to carry my gear one weekend in the Blue Ridge mountains. I'm hiking along, stop and say, hand me the camera and tripod, and then fuss around with it, take a shot, hand it back, then move on. He said it was the easiest money he ever made - carrying 60 lbs of camera gear, lunch, drinks, tripods, lenses, etc for a few miles was no sweat to him...since I gave him lunch and let him take some snaps himself, he said he'd have come for free.

I use a pocket Olympus 770 SW (the waterproof/crushproof model) that I carry everywhere for snaps that I'd miss when I don't have one of the 'big' cameras with me. Before digital I used to carry a pocket Contax T3 for this purpose. The carrying a tiny camera everywhere is great for not missing those funny day to day life shots.

 

[alexmst]

Why would a digital camera become "obsolete"?

Doesn't it take photos now?...why could it not take the same photos 10 years from now? You have the cords, cards, neccesary plug ins needed now, no?

doesn't a 55 Chevy still get you to the supermarket today, even if it isn't with Fuel injection, 6 airbags, and CRT transmission??

A camera only becomes obsolete when the "photographer" thinks it's the "Gun" and not the "Gunner" that takes good photos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as if am expensive camera would make you a better photographer...ROTFLMFAO

OK, I'm not argueing with the "A Kodak Brownie is all a good photographer really needs" idea per se. I don't buy the newest thing every time. I bought the F4 in '88, but didn't upgrade film cameras since. The only digital I have is a Nikon D70 (2004) which was given to me as a gift.

As far as obsolete or not - true, most cameras still will take pictures (unless they are poorly made and break and no parts are stocked by the manufacturer), My point about digital is more to do with best quality of print. The D3 takes smooth, good looking high ISO shots at ISO 6400. My D70 takes average to poor shots at ISO 1600 max. So, for high ISO situations, my D70 is in a way obsolete comapred to the D3. It can get a shot handheld without flash that I cannot do handheld without flasg with my D70. Is that ability worth 5.4k to me as a non-professional? Probably not, but it is a nice feature. I would now set my D70 to the highest acceptable ISO it has (800) and use a Tripod to get the shot (or use something handy sunch as a floor lamp, table, etc if I didn't have a tripod). Like David Hamilton (no, I don't shoot his subject matter haha), I hate flash photography and don't use a flash unless I really have to. So, ISO 6400 handheld has some appeal.

It was easier when all the improvements were in the manufacture of the film. Yes, my Rolliflex TLR takes better, more appealing colour pictures with modern Fuji Velvia film than it would have taken with the colour film available and in use circa 1963 when it was manufactured. Colour film sort of sucked then - no wonder most photographs taken then were B&W.

 

[tboy]

That's just it, most people would do fine with a mid priced P & S. For that matter, fuji makes some damn fine cameras with clip on lens' for wide or tele shots. That's why I laugh when I hear (on other boards) about people buying DSLRs and then taking them back because they are too complicated.

I know futureshop had 4 or 5 "open box" on the discount shelf a week after christmas.....

Ah medium 2 1/4 and large format....man, the quality you can get with them.....lol I remember 25......shot one roll, and if you don't have a bright sunny day? forgetaboutit lol.....I remember when 1000 first came out it was all the rage, but man, it was grainy....like shooting through a sandbox. They've come a long way since then....

One of the things I was thinking of the other day: at least with film, you can dodge and burn during the printing process. Now with digital, you can't bring up items in shadows like you used to because with digital, it is either there, or it isn't.

That was one series of lesson at Ryerson. We grabbed a whole bunch of our old negs with lots of shadows (and large areas) and played with dodging to see what was hidden in the shadows. You'd be amazed what turns up......

 

[alexmst]

The points made above by t-boy should help you make a decision. The D3 is the Ferrari until Canon comes out with something better . . .Digital stuff gets outdated pretty quickly. I asked the Nikon rep at the same show about software to tether the camera to my laptop. I have a D70s. They don't distribute it any more, he said. But I can buy a version compatible with later models for 200 bucks . . well, I found the 70 dollar version at a New York dealer's.

The point made about the Canon G9 is also excellent. It is a superb camera. I still have my G2 that I used for years and still occasionally do.

Many people rush out to buy DSLRs yet they never change lenses and find it too havy to carry around so no pix or they do it with a point and shoot.

The points about what use you planning to make of it are excellent advice.

Yes, I also shoot with the D70 (not the 'S' but I have the version 2 software update that essentially gives me most of the 'S' features). I brought it to the show to try new lenses on it (so I could get prints made of my test shots later) and the Nikon rep was saying for an older camera the D70 was okay, but cameras have changed and improved a lot since then (lol - the D70 only came out in 2003 and it's been discontinued for years and is refered to as 'old' by Nikon reps...this is what I mean about digital SLRs...the same rep said using a 1980 F3 was still the best Nikon camera for extreme shooting conditions TODAY -tougher than the D3- but he says the 2003 D70 is old/obsolete).

I aldo thought of the Canon G9 for a take everywhere pocket camera, but opted for the Olympus 770SW as I can abuse it and take it in the water when I go surfing and at one year on it still works perfectly. Hauling around a 2.7 lb SLR and 2.5 lb lens is not soemthing I want to do every day in the city, good point there.

 

[tboy]

Ahhhh. memories.

The shots I took with the medium format Hasselblad with Kodachrome 25 printed on Cibachrome!

Wow...

Yet, today I carry around an old 2 megapixel Casio Exilim because I can carry it around!

LOL@rub, ahhh a hassy, I only got to use one once and it didn't have the pentaprism viewfinder. The overhead upside down and backwards made me nauseous lol.....yeah ciba, man, you could get some COLOUR on that......it would POP.

 

[HafDun]

IMHO..

While Nikon is certainly my camera of choice for over 25 years, anything more than a D200 or D300 is overkill for even the most avid of hobbyists. At this level you are getting a semi pro body with exceptional durability and functionality.

Once you get beyond that, the quality of the lense, lighting technique and skill are the only factors that will significantly improve the result.

Digital cameras will never have the longevity of their film ancestors, not only due to technology change, but also because the the digital sensors wear out and are not cost effective to replace. Most mfg's only suggest about 100,000 images, which sounds like a lot, but for an avid hobbyist, that can add up quickly. I find that I take 3 to 4 times as many shots simply because processing cost is no longer an issue.

 

[tboy]

I had a 500 ELM with the pentaprism. When I found it too big I went to a Nikon SLR and never got the same sharpness and lost enthusiasm quickly.

Oh man, you shoulda known: going for 2 1/4 to 35mm? that's a no brainer....that's like going from a shelby cobra mustang to an LX......

 

[KinDar]

Nikon D300

I purchased the D200 at the beginning of last year. Used it extensively in Trinidad during their carnival in 2007. I decided on the 18-200mm VR lens as it allowed a very good range.

Pictures from TT were fantastic including some photos I took at night of a show in a stadium. The 5 frames per second allowed me to capture still that I was able to stream together to make a small movie.

I have been very happy with the D200, although I did buy the 300mm VR zoom for photographing air shows after the fact.

However yes I keep thinking the 4,000.00 I invested could have provided a great two week vacation visiting my ToDo list....

Dak

 

[Master Baiter]

However yes I keep thinking the 4,000.00 I invested could have provided a great two week vacation visiting my ToDo list....

Dak

I know how you feel. I bought the Canon 1D MarkIII last August!

 

[tboy]

Hey, as to the cost: I always weigh the pros and cons. Sure you could have hobbied for a couple of weeks, but the camera will last you for years......

 

[tboy]

Again, that's all well and good but if you're not doing anything with the shots after you take them, then it isn't an issue.

For example: if you trek over the frozen tundra to get a shot of a yeti, get the shot, save it to your hard drive when you get home, and never look at it again other than via your screen saver, who the hell cares if there is a little noise or distortion in it?

To me that's like buying a Veyron and then never taking it out of the garage. Like Chip Foose says about his masterpieces of automotive engineering: his cars are meant to be driven and would be offended if someone bought one of his cars and left it on jacks in the garage.

 

[fuji]

It is a PITA.

The thing is, that $5k digital SLR will take pictures that are as good or better as what your 20 year old film camera would take. Good enough quality to blow up to a huge poster if you wanted to do that.

I suspect it'll still be a good enough camera in 10 years, the only thing is it'll cost you a lot less if you buy it two years from now. It's not a quality issue, it's the rapidly declining price that will cause you to regret your purchase.

In terms of ISO's, what are you doing using an SLR in low light? Unless you're a photojournalist you are probably better served buying better lighting equipment or a more portable camera.

If you buy a good external slave flash that will improve your picture quality enormously more than a better camera or even a better lens. If you're carrying it around to snap tourist shots the smaller compacts are good enough and easier to carry.