Reading mode: Light Dark

Is it really necessary?

Go to last post
P

Patty88

Senior Member
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Today I had a discussion with my BF.

I shot 29.609 photos with my D40X. I really want to upgrade, because I feel like I need a faster camera.

We don't have the money now for the D300S, maybe in a year we will, but maybe we won't. We bought a house this month, so we don't know how our financial situation will be next year.

I could afford the D90 in about 2 months.

Is is 'necessary' to trade in my D40X with almost 30.000 clicks or do you think it will still work for a long time?

Is it better to wait for a year or my BF said 2 years (!!! Is he crazy??!! :P), use the D40X untill MAYBE we can afford the D300S? Or would you choose for the D90 now and then upgrade in about 3 to 4 years to another camera?

I really want a new body NOW, but I know that when I want something, I want it now, but most of the time it's not the 'best' thing I could do.
But I really want to make the 'best' decision.

Just want to know what you should do in this situation?
 
I think you have 2 very good options:

1) If you actually feel that the D40 is holding you back from getting shots that you want and know what other specific features would help you out, then perhaps consider buying a used, higher end body like a D80 or D200

2) If you just want a new toy, save your money and buy a camera in a couple years that will probably be better than the D300/D90 is now

There's nothing wrong with wanting new toys IF you can afford them, which it sounds like you can't right now.

Good luck
 
Patty88 said:
I could afford the D90 in about 2 months.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they will still be available. If the replacement is anounced soon you could look at the features to see if an additional newer body will help with your style of photography.
Patty88 said:
Is is 'necessary' to trade in my D40X with almost 30.000 clicks or do you think it will still work for a long time?
Click to expand...
I would keep it for backup and/or to avoid changing lenses. Also I don't recall Nikon giving an estimate on the D40X's shutter life, it could last a few more frames or keep going to 200K clicks..... no one knows. At least all the new stuff seems to have a tested shutter life of at least 100k shots.
Patty88 said:
Is it better to wait for a year or my BF said 2 years (!!! Is he crazy??!! :P), use the D40X untill MAYBE we can afford the D300S? Or would you choose for the D90 now and then upgrade in about 3 to 4 years to another camera?
Click to expand...
Depends on your needs from the camera, if you don't need the build quality, weather sealing, 51pt AF, AF Fine Tune and super high iso performance then perhaps the d90 or replacement will work out better for you.
--
Jeff
http://www.jeffcole.smugmug.com
 
Patty88 said:
I really want to upgrade, because I feel like I need a faster camera.
Click to expand...
Patty, this is the crux of your situation -- exactly what do you mean by "faster":

Faster continuous shooting? You can do 3fps; the D90 gets you 4.5fps; if you wait for the update, you might get something like 5-7fps; the D300s does 7fps. In a burst situation, those numbers are proportional to the likelihood of catching the exact shot you want.

Faster response time? The delay that affects most day-to-day snapshooters is autofocus. This depends 80% on the lens choice, and 20% on the camera body. And of that 20%, the difference among the 'enthusiast' cameras (below the D300) is very small. The other delay which affects all shots, even MF, is the shutter lag, which is measured in milliseconds. Again, virtually no difference until you step up to the D300. With all of the affordable cameras, if you want to catch a shot of the ball hitting the bat, you have to pull the trigger when the pitch is half-way to the batter.

Faster shutter speed? As in, ability to shoot indoors without blurring the picture? Traditionally people called wide-aperture lenses "fast" because they enable faster shutter speeds. Cameras now can be described the same way, because of the high-ISO capabilities that get better with each new generation. The D90 (or D300s) would be a huge upgrade from the D40x in this regard -- about 4 times "faster". And then the next version might be twice as "fast" as the D90.

Faster to control? Most of us agree that the D90's extra buttons & knobs make it quicker to mess around with settings & get on to the next shot. But this is really subjective & depends on how & what you like to do while shooting. The D300 takes this another step up, with even more physical switches.
Patty88 said:
Is is 'necessary' to trade in my D40X with almost 30.000 clicks or do you think it will still work for a long time?
Click to expand...
It should work to something on the order of 100,000 clicks. Half or twice that wouldn't be surprising.
Patty88 said:
Is it better to wait for a year or my BF said 2 years (!!! Is he crazy??!! :P), use the D40X untill MAYBE we can afford the D300S? Or would you choose for the D90 now and then upgrade in about 3 to 4 years to another camera?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, unless you respond clearly & definitively to one (or more) of those "faster" descriptions above, then you really should wait at least for the D90's replacement.

--
http://www.benseese.com
 
Patty88 said:
Today I had a discussion with my BF.

I shot 29.609 photos with my D40X. I really want to upgrade, because I feel like I need a faster camera.
Click to expand...
Faster how? Framerate? AF?

The D90, in my opinion, is fast enough for pros. 4.5fps, AF (using the center AF sensor at least when I used it) is just about as fast as the AF on my D2h. If you cannot track everything you want to track with a D90, then you cannot blame the camera. Coz it's fast!
Patty88 said:
We don't have the money now for the D300S, maybe in a year we will, but maybe we won't. We bought a house this month, so we don't know how our financial situation will be next year.

I could afford the D90 in about 2 months.

Is is 'necessary' to trade in my D40X with almost 30.000 clicks or do you think it will still work for a long time?
Click to expand...
It's not necessary, but at the same time there's not much point to owning multiple bodies. Cameras are machines and they'll continue operating as long as you're willing to keep fixing them. I don't know what the expected shutter life of the D40x is but it's probably at least 50,000 shutter cycles and possibly more than that.
Patty88 said:
Is it better to wait for a year or my BF said 2 years (!!! Is he crazy??!! :P), use the D40X untill MAYBE we can afford the D300S? Or would you choose for the D90 now and then upgrade in about 3 to 4 years to another camera?
Click to expand...
Nikon's supposedly got a D95 coming out next month. You should wait until then at least. Perhaps to decide if you'd rather have the D95, or to wait and see if there are some D90 bodies going at fire sale prices at that time.
 
What does 'necessary' mean? Is your livelihood dependent on photography? If not, then no, you don't "need" to buy anything. This stuff is a lot of fun. Not being able to pay for necessities is not fun. Use your resources wisely, and buy a new camera when you can actually afford it.

If this is a big enough deal that waiting makes you unhappy with photography, find a less expensive pursuit as a diversion for the time being. Life is too short to be unhappy over just things.
 
WilsonEPhillips said:
If you upgrade to boyfriend 2.0, you may be able to get a package deal with a D700.
Click to expand...
Woman seeks fun man for friendship and more. Must have D700 camera. Include photo of D700. ;)
 
Coming out next month?
But those are just rumors? Aren't they?

And coming out next month in America, but I live in Holland. I probably have to wait longer?

And i saw that the "D8000" or "D95" will be $1199!?
For 200-300 more I'll have the D300s.

Thanks for your comment!!! :)
--
I just love animals. Animals are my life...
http://stabyhoun.nl/fotos
 
Hmmz... nice ad!

Think I'll use it :P

No, just kidding. He's OK with everything, but he just thinks everything more through than I do. ;)
 
The shutter in your D40X, like the shutter in every Nikon DSLR, has a number of mechanical moving parts and what that means is that no one can predict with any certainty how long your shutter will last. The D90 shutter has been tested to 100,000 cycles, the D300 to 150,000 cycles, and the D3 to 300,000 cycles, but any individual camera’s shutter could out in the first 10 frames, or it could last many tens of thousands of cycles past the tested threshold. I’m a racing fan, and I have seen many a racing car that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars drop out of a race because some small part that cost $10 broke. Nobody can predict when a mechanical part will fail.

One of the things I disliked most about my D50 was the number adjustments that had to be made through the menus. Menu diving is time consuming and all too frequently the shot is missed. As Ben pointed out the D90 is much better and I rarely have to go into a menu. I can change the AF-area mode, Metering mode, Shutter release mode, AF mode, WB, Quality (Raw, JPG, etc), ISO, and EV quickly and without going into a menu on the D90; that is very important to me.

I like the additional 1.5 frames per second too. Doesn’t sound like a whole lot but it is very noticeable. I’m not a professional Sports photographer and while I do use the continuous shutter for photographing birds I can’t say with any certainty that it has been a huge help. It’s a nice feature but I personally wouldn’t base my choice of cameras to heavily on the speed of the continuous shutter.

I love my D90 and I highly recommend it. I could not justify the cost of the D300 when I bought my D90. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to have the D300, just that the D300 doesn’t fit into my financial situation without giving up some necessities.

It is pretty much a given that the D90 will be replaced soon. Whether that means in August or September, or next January nobody who knows is saying. It is also a pretty safe bet that the replacement D90 won’t be the only new camera announced. I doubt that the D90 replacement will sell for any more than the D90 did when it was introduced, $999. That has been the price for all of the models (D70, D80, and D90) in that segment of the lineup.

Bottom line: If I had a working camera and there wasn’t an extremely compelling reason to purchase a new camera right now, I would certainly hold off until I saw what the new models had to offer. I would not want to be the new owner of a month old D90 wishing I had waited because the new replacement model has features that make my heart beat faster.

--

While amateurs change the camera’s settings; many Pro’s prefer to change the light.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/
 
Are you planning on getting married? You made a big decision on buying a home with your boy friend. I wouldn't worry too much on buying a $1000 camera. You need to decide on working out a budget that suits you both. Good Luck.
 
Grow up, use your D40 until it dies unless it doesn't work for what you need now.
 
A professional photographer has definite needs when it comes to equipment; for most of us here on the forum photography is a hobby, a hobby that we gain pleasure from. Hobbies are not driven by needs so much as wants. If the OP wants a D300s, and she is going to enjoy and reap pleasure from it, and the family is not going to go wanting by said acquisition then there is absolutely no reason why she shouldn’t buy the D300s. All this talk about needs and wants is a bunch of bull-bleep.

Drive by any used-car lot and look at all the used-cars that are in near mint condition; many haven’t been driven for even 10% of their usable life expectancy. People get bored with the things they have and they want something new. In today’s world that is a good thing, it keeps a very large segment of the World’s population employed manufacturing things that are not considered necessities and they, and their families, existence depends on people becoming bored with the things they currently own.

Many people like using a camera with the capabilities far beyond their needs or even their capibilities just for the joy of owning and using such a fine piece of equipment. Let’s face it, people buy things they don’t really need, nobody needs a Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborgini, Porsche, or even a Mercedes Benz or BMW, to mention just a few. People buy those cars because they enjoy driving those cars, not because they need them. Who needs a Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, or a Girard-Perregaux watch, well the answer is that nobody needs a $200,000 watch.

Why does a camera have to be justified? Why can’t I, or anyone else, own a D300s, D3s, or even a $42,000 Hasselblad H4D-60 if that is what brings us enjoyment? If everyone who bought their first Nikon DSLR felt that it was perfect and they didn’t need, or simply want, a new camera, Nikon’s sales would plummet and they would soon go out of business.

I have a friend who owns a Corvette Z06 that he drives about six-blocks to work and to the airport on some weekends so he can go flying in his private aircraft. He has always owned a corvette since his college days, and he is nearing retirement age. He readily admits that it is a very expensive car since he drives so little, but he enjoys owning the Corvette, owning the Corvette gives him pleasure. The Corvette is small potatoes compared to the $700,000 Beechcraft Bonanza that he also owns and flies for pleasure. If your economic situation is such that buying whatever doesn’t adversely impact you financial status, go buy the darn thing and start having a ball. Life is short, find all the pleasure you can, while you can.

--

While amateurs change the camera’s settings; many Pro’s prefer to change the light.

Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/
 
Brooks P said:
Let’s face it, people buy things they don’t really need, nobody needs a Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborgini, Porsche, or even a Mercedes Benz or BMW, to mention just a few. People buy those cars because they enjoy driving those cars, not because they need them. Who needs a Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, or a Girard-Perregaux watch, well the answer is that nobody needs a $200,000 watch.
Click to expand...
Yeah to understand the people who live in that world, watch the film "Born Rich."

On youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKKb7_7qBrk
 
capanikon said:
Yeah to understand the people who live in that world, watch the film "Born Rich."
Click to expand...
Class warfare propaganda ought to be recognized for what it is, off topic--an attempt to change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top