Isn't it amazing......

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
Nexu1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,754
Like?
Re: Past the butter zone
In reply to mosswings, Apr 30, 2013

mosswings wrote:

Nexu1 wrote:

I'll admit, I do not agree with Reilly very often.  But I've been putting pen to paper and have to say that if you just bite the bullet and buy the new model, and meanwhile ebay your current model, you can stay in the most current model without spending much more than upgrading every other model.  For example:

The following is for body only and both examples utilize a "buy in" with the D90.

2008 buy D90 (-$900), wait until 2013 and buy D7100 (-$1200), sell D90 (+$450) = total expense $1650

2008 buy D90 (-$900), 2010 buy D7000 (-$1100) and sell D90 (+$600), 2013 buy D7100 (-$1200) and sell D7000 (+$700) = total expense $1900

So you save about $250 over a few years by sitting on the older model?

The main way to make this financial model work in favor of the person who doesn't upgrade often would be to consider that they always want to have a backup camera and they always want their backup to be relatively new (for example, you won't sell your D7000 because you need it as a backup).  If you don't sell your old camera you're talking about a $1100 difference which is quite a bit.

I'm curious what others think of this strategy.

There are other factors one might have to consider depending on their intentions. There's the possibility of lens upgrades as well; that 5-year old 18-105 is getting a bit long in the tooth for the D7100's performance level, so a discriminating upgrader might need to consider a 16-85 or one of the f2.8 midrange zooms and to rearrange their zoom kit.  A prime shooter would be good to go.  Mind you, you'll see improvements with the older glass, just not all you've paid for with the new body.  Sort of a diminutive version of the problem FX/D800 upgraders face.

Certainly waiting 2 generations to upgrade increases the total cash outlay as that 7-8 year old body is now worth no more than $200-300.  So every other generation is about optimum if you intend to sell to recoup upgrade costs.

The other factor in the upgrade equation is support costs.  For the local shooter, additional SD card storage is a non issue; for the travel shooter, storage costs have nearly tripled.  The D90 shooter may still be working with a fairly old computer.  I had to upgrade a couple of years in to my D90 ownership to handle serious RAW editing tasks.  I'm probably still good to go with a D7100, but it will probably be time for more disk space and RAM.  Only a couple Benjamins for the desktop user with a relatively contemporary CPU, but a laptop user may need to replace their computer: another $800-$1000.

Beware the hidden costs, grasshopper.

Thanks for your opinion.  Good reasons for the non-enthusiast to not upgrade.  For the enthusiast, I struggle to agree that the reasons you gave carry much weight.  I think the best reason for the non-enthusiast to not upgrade from the D7000 to D7100 is that they feel the improvement just isn't worth $300-500.  I'm a strong believer in the diminutive return logic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow