Upgrading

[morninglight]

A recent thread about comparative costs of "film vs digital" (cringe/laugh) has got me thinking about the whole "upgrade" question.

With the increases in image quality, cēterīs paribus as the economists are wont to say, being tied to the chips/firmware in the P&S/DSLR world, there seems to be a strong tendency to upgrade the body or p&s.

Personal example.

I have been into photography for decades. I currently print no larger than 8x10ish (A4) at a resolution of no ower than 300ppi. , I really like my D200, and, being of the breed not to really be too concerned about high iso performance, am aware that there is little or no reason to even consider up-grading, absent an unfortunate accident.
Never-the-less, I find my self reading about the new d-whatever.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm D700 (guest post by Homer Simpson)

So, the question, how do you look at upgrading? What if anything, pushes you to do it?

Disclaimer: The equipment mentioned herein is in no way meant to disparage in any manner your choice of equipment. The printing parameters mentioned herein are not intended to be a claim of superiority of method, nor attack on any other practice. Its a person's personal opinion, I personally think.
--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[tjack]

A recent thread about comparative costs of "film vs digital"
(cringe/laugh) has got me thinking about the whole "upgrade" question.

With the increases in image quality, cēterīs paribus as the
economists are wont to say, being tied to the chips/firmware in the
P&S/DSLR world, there seems to be a strong tendency to upgrade the
body or p&s.

Personal example.
I have been into photography for decades. I print no larger than
8x10ish (A4) at a resolution of no ower than 300ppi. , I really like
my D200, and, being of the breed not to really be too concerned about
high iso performance, am aware that there is little or no reason to
even consider up-grading, absent an unfortunate accident.
Never-the-less, I find my self reading about the new d-whatever.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm D700 (guest post by Homer Simpson)

So, the question, how do you look at upgrading? What if anything,
pushes you to do it?

Some people upgrade because they want the biggest baddest best camera they can afford. It has absolutely nothing to do with photography. Others believe that their photographs will get better if they have the latest gadget. It has absolutely nothing to do with photography.

My desktop computer is an old P4 that works the same way it did years ago when new. My DSLR is a Canon 300D, still takes the great images it did when new. My phone is several years old and, wonder of wonders, sends and receives phone calls just as it did when new.

Wanting new all the time is an illness and compulsion, not a necessity.

 

[morninglight]

Wanting new all the time is an illness and compulsion, not a necessity.

Are you sure you live in the U.S.?

(He pauses to don his asbestos suit.....)

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

A recent thread about comparative costs of "film vs digital"
(cringe/laugh) has got me thinking about the whole "upgrade" question.

With the increases in image quality, cēterīs paribus as the
economists are wont to say, being tied to the chips/firmware in the
P&S/DSLR world, there seems to be a strong tendency to upgrade the
body or p&s.

Personal example.
I have been into photography for decades. I currently print no larger
than 8x10ish (A4) at a resolution of no ower than 300ppi. , I really
like my D200, and, being of the breed not to really be too concerned
about high iso performance, am aware that there is little or no
reason to even consider up-grading, absent an unfortunate accident.
Never-the-less, I find my self reading about the new d-whatever.

.....I rarely print larger than 8x10 with my 5D's images, 16x20 a few times but not very often. 300 ppi is the cutoff for me as well to consider using an image after cropping for an 8x10. My needs for upgrading are more about the functionality of my camera in situations where I need more consistent AF and maybe more dynamic range.

....I'm in no big hurry though and will likely take my time deciding what to get next and it may be more than a year before I finally upgrade. AF microadjustment custom settings for each lens is another feature that I really want. Hopefully, it'll be available in the next generation of Canons without having to buy into the one series bodies which are just too big and heavy and expensive to suit my needs. I've got enough tied up in Canon lenses to rule out changing brands unless there's no choice.....Thankfully, Nikon has offered what I'll want already now with the 700D if that becomes necessary.

 

[morninglight]

.....I rarely print larger than 8x10 with my 5D's images, ...

Ok, I have to ask......

I do not know if you have had opportunity to compare, but in an 8x10 print, is there a difference in IQ between your FF, and a cropped format 10mp sensor?

(Please say no,

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[Parisis]

Good Question!

I have a Nikon D50. I am considering a D80 after 3 years because I know I will use the off camera flash system and like the idea of a larger viewfinder. I am considering a used or refurbished Body.

My second reason is a techie one. I think their is a sweet spot to upgrading electronics that you rely on every day (even if only for a hobby). It has a lot to do with still being able to sell equipment for a fair price used and in turn replace it with new or almost new equipment that is at the end of it's life cycle. I do IT work and if someone brings me a more than 3 year old PC my advice is for them to replace, not repair it. It may last another 5 years but for the price of a new PC these days why take the chance with your data. (Nobody ever backs up!)

I do the same with Surround sound Equipment (Not Speakers.) Turn them over after @ 5 years or so. Last year I sold My Onkyo Receiver foe @50% of what I paid for it and replaced it with a clearance model with the lates HDMI switching Ect. Cost me maybe $100 out of pocket

Now I will admit that I am not sure about todays cameras. Something in my gut tells me that although the D50 looks and performs fine (4000 shutter actuations) It may be at it's sweet spot. Now if it was my old OM2s Film camera , I would not even be woried. The other difference is that I could make use of 2 camera bodies so I may keep it.

So to sum up my philosophy would never consider a D90 or a D700. I stay below the curve and let others take the depreciation and all.
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com/

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

.....I rarely print larger than 8x10 with my 5D's images, ...

Ok, I have to ask......
I do not know if you have had opportunity to compare, but in an 8x10
print, is there a difference in IQ between your FF, and a cropped
format 10mp sensor?

(Please say no,

.....If there is, I can't see it.

I like the FOV characteristics of FF and it was an affordable camera compared to the one series Canons. You can't find another 3 year old design cropped sensor body that will match a 5D at 1600 ISO. And I do shoot a lot at night and indoors without flash. The 5D and the EF 85/1.8 are very capable in those situations.

...I've actually made a few prints with my G7 that were comparable in IQ to what I've seen with my 5D. For me though, there are a lot more keepers with any DSLR compared to what a G7 can produce.

BTW...I've handled a friends D200 several times now and I like it a lot.

 

[GaryDeM]

my dslr is a pentax *istD. it is 4 yrs old. when it came out it was rated then as semipro quality. i am waiting for for its replacement, which supposedly is going to be announced at the september photo show. if it has the features i want and it is an obvious improvement then i will very probably get it.

i do now print to 20x30inches regular and 12x48 panorama. 8x10 and smaller i do myself. the large print are done via the internet.

i am obviously not a believer in getting the latest and greatest. i more believe in getting all the performance from what i got now. no way do i think that getting a new dslr is going to bring me better pics or anyone else. you make the photos, the camera does not. i have had a slr/dslr since 1970, this my 38th year.

as far as 8x10 prints are concerned. not only do i think a person cannot tell the difference between any of the entry level dslrs being sold by the big 5(sony, pentax, olympus, nikon, canon). if one were to make identical subject prints. but also that noone could tell the difference between those 5 prints and a FF print at the 8x10 size. this assumes that the subject as printed is identical. so that all 6 prints are visually the same except for which camera shot them.

 

[morninglight]

Ok, I have to ask......
I do not know if you have had opportunity to compare, but in an 8x10
print, is there a difference in IQ between your FF, and a cropped
format 10mp sensor?

.....If there is, I can't see it.

Oh, that was so nice to read

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[morninglight]

as far as 8x10 prints are concerned. not only do i think a person
cannot tell the difference between any of the entry level dslrs being
sold by the big 5(sony, pentax, olympus, nikon, canon). if one were
to make identical subject prints. but also that noone could tell the
difference between those 5 prints and a FF print at the 8x10 size.

Good to hear, (whew)

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[Leejay Wu]

I'm not shooting to sell anything, nor for competitions, so I'm under no competitive pressure to 'keep up'.

Switched from a rather nice Minolta DiMAGE S304 to an Olympus E-1 after eventually wanting more flexibility -- faster or longer lenses, ability to treat ISO 400 as something meant to be actually used sometimes, more resolution for decent prints, raw output, ability to shoot in spray or light rain without worrying, and so forth.

Might not have eventually bought an E-3 if it weren't whetting a taste for action and low-light, after shooting softball in the dark and so forth. The E-1's nice, but not so much for continuous AF speed or shooting by the light of streetlights and store signs.