Too many digitals too fast

<blockquote>

<p>I now have what T. Hogan has called the "Last Camera Syndrome".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had that syndrome now since 2009, when I bought my 5D II. </p>

<p>"This is the last camera I'll ever need!" I said confidently.</p>

<p>Six or seven cameras later, I still have the same chronic condition.</p>

<p>It's terminal.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The main difference is this: while there were 6 Nikon pro film cameras between 1956 and 2013, how many improvments in film were there? In the past to get better images (higher contrast, higher color saturation, better low light sensitivity, whatever your definition of better is) you didn't have to replace your camera, you only needed to replace your film.<br>

I'll bet if a vendor ever comes up with a way to replace the sensor without having to replace the entire camera (i.e. the same way you used to be able to just change film when a better one came out) you would see a lot of people changing cameras a lot less frequently.</p>

<p><em>I'll bet if a vendor ever comes up with a way to replace the sensor without having to replace the entire camera (i.e. the same way you used to be able to just change film when a better one came out) you would see a lot of people changing cameras a lot less frequently.</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>Still, our DSLR's are small, specialized computers. Consider this comparison: your three-year-old desktop computer could benefit from a power boost, so you upgrade the micro-processor and add some RAM, and even add a new cooling fan. Six months later the motherboard fails. Dang -- you should have just waited a little longer and bought a new desktop. This didn't actually happen to me -- it's just a scenario I made up for comparison.</p>

<p> Personally, reading and thinking about optics is ultimately more interesting. Therefore, when NAS begins to creep into your photographic thoughts, consider what a new lens will do for you, and skip one or two camera upgrade cycles. Then when you do upgrade your DSLR, all of your new camera's electronics will be new, making the most of your new sensor, and your carefully considered lens collection. Of course lens acquisition takes extra forethought for DX shooters who are considering FX in their near future. So it goes. </p>

<p>Ah, someone complains about too many digital cameras too fast while some of us are/were waiting far too long for that one certain Nikon.... (D<cough>400<cough>)</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Old Saying :<br>

The availability creates the need..</p>

<p>Thats also what made windows PC's with al sizes of colours pictures and graphics sell.<br>

Nobody needed this at the office before it was available, but now everybody does need that.<br>

Manufacturers use this principle to their advantage by releasing technology they already have sitting on the shelf in small portions instead of all at once, so they can keepon selling their "newest Model"over a streched period of time</p>

<p>I think that the rapid change in digital cameras is driven by manufacturers trying to gain market at the expense of their competitors (including camera phones) than by the desires of their existing customers.<br>

<br />Sure, we all ask for more from "our" manufacturer, but being realistic how many D5x00 owners will upgrade to the new D5200? How many D600 owners will upgrade to the D610? I am confident that the answer is not very many. </p>

<p>So, why do they come out with new models at ever decreasing intervals? The answer is one advertisers have taken to heart -- the word NEW attracts the attention of prospective buyers and he who has the newest sells the most.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ah, someone complains about too many digital cameras too fast while some of us are/were waiting far too long for that one certain Nikon.... (D<cough>400<cough>)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To those who are still waiting for this so called D400, as an update to the D300/D300S, I wish them luck. :-)</p>

<p>I replaced my D300 with the D7000 a long time ago, like three years ago.</p>

<p>Moore's Law is no longer true, but the law of capitalism still holds sway. We don't have to pay for film and processing these days, so some other cost must take its place. Ridiculously overpriced printer ink and 'having' to replace your camera frequently are the new running costs of photography.</p>

<p>A $2K camera every three years or so is still probably cheaper than the cost per frame we used to pay for film. The only difference is that film was payed for at a slow, hardly noticeable rate; while buying a new camera demands a bigger one-off payment that seemingly hurts a bit more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main difference is this: while there were 6 Nikon pro film cameras between 1956 and 2013, how many improvments in film were there?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. But we are dealing with two different animals here.<br>

Today's digital camera's are great, but recent developments have been nothing short of amazing, IMO. I bought my first digital cam, an compact Olympus, in 2001 wit 2.1 MP. This was 100% more than my wife's 1+ MP Sony bought around the same time. A decade later we see affordable 20 MP compact cameras that make the old Oly seem like horse carriage compared to race car.</p>

<p>While MP seems to have (temporarily) stabilized ~ 16 to 20 MP for most cameras, they have become faster, smaller and better at high ISO. Do we need all these new features? Probably not in 99% of cases... most of my favorite images now come from my 'low tech' Leica, which is now really dated .... however, while I have almost cured my GAS and sold much of the stuff I don't need, when a new camera comes out, sometimes the hype gets the better of me. It's only human.<br>

Ironically, while I printed many photos in 2001, I now mostly post them online. So one could make the argument I do not need much more then 2 MP (I realize there have been more important advances than MP, too).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not so sure that Moore's Law is defunct. I haven't put a stopwatch on it, but processors and sensors have been moving ahead in leaps and bounds ever since I got involved in digital photography.</p>

<p>Lots of us would NOT be buying a new camera body every two or three years if the high-ISO performance, resolution, AF tracking, were improving significantly.</p>

<p>Like many photographers today, I have an ascending hierarchy of digital cameras: smart phone, compact, DX SLR, FX SLR. My D700 is four years old and will get much older before I replace it. I've had four DX cameras in eight years and may upgrade from my current D3200 next year. Compacts are my "latest & greatest" category, being replaced every 9-12 months as new features are introduced and performance is enhanced. As others have said, we can go as fast as we want on the digital merry-go-round, or we can get off and sit out as many generations of cameras as we want.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To those who are still waiting for this so called D400, as an update to the D300/D300S, I wish them luck. :-)<br>

I replaced my D300 with the D7000 a long time ago, like three years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! I held out a while longer and settled for the D7100. :)</p>

<p>I recently "upgraded" to the D800 and plan to sell my D700. I was perfectly satisfied with the image quality of the D700. But I always wanted more resolution. I don't see the image quality of the D800 as "better" than the D700. There are just more pixels, so slightly more fine detail. I do like the 100% viewfinder, and the ability to shoot a photo with the mirror remaining up while using Live View. But I know that in another 5 years I will again "upgrade" to a newer body. I think 5 years is a pretty good increment. But with the D800 having so much resolution, it makes me wonder if I will ever shoot film again. But I felt the same way with the D700. And so on.</p>

<p>I am with Kent. </p>

<p>I used to print the PDF brochures off when new products are announced and store them in folders but not anymore. I do a regular finance analysis of my spending every month, broken down into diff types like daily, telecommunications, gifts, diff hobbies I have etc. like travel, photog. I also have a target in mind that I adhere too. Probably good because I don't do sports, street photography and all that stuff. </p>

<p>My D70 lasted me 9.5yrs until my D600 but in hindsight maybe I should have delayed it for 3-5yrs and picked up a used one or a used D3 or D700. I haven't really used the D600 much, I did one overseas trip with it a week had 300 images while I shot film as well. For now casual use I just grab my D70. If I was heading to a national park I would take my F100 and Velvia. There is a 2nd wedding event in this town of us, so will use the D600 for that but nothing planned after. It's actually in my wardrobe now in its original box. </p>

<p>Maybe I am too specific. To me I want the outputs and that is printed photographs for other people as a favour or to my camera club as personal submissions. And I enjoy reading the older camera books in my library, using manual modes, manual focus film bodies, medium formats, slide film all that so I don't really get attracted by the latest and greatest all that fizz bang. </p>

<p>I got a D2h used, 40k frames done. Good price. Had it for 2yrs, didn't do sports, was grabbed by the awesome 8fps. Sold it for the about the same I bought. Got sick of the size / weight and never used the 8fps or even away from the centre AF point.</p>

<p>Going from the D70 to D600 for me it was just the better color out of camera for portraiture esp under mix lighting like shopping malls, at the airport terminal but I don't mind the bad points with the D70 if I was shooting just scenic shots or casual daytime / daylight of friends and family. I wasn't that concerned with the pixel, grain or what. But I only print consumer 8x12 or 16x12s but few of them. </p>

<p>After close to 20yrs of driving, I got my first, after 1yr didn't really use it for daily stuff, after another yr I put it on hold so I didn't have to pay the local govt stuff and I could cancel the insurance. I just borrow a family member's car to whizz to the supermarket in the weekend or when they are heading out we can car pool etc. If I am going outside I would just time myself with a family member, do my stuff and I would catch the bus home. When I travel sure you get the many tourists who go to fancy hotels and restaurants etc .. cafes, drinking wine / beers as they do along the waterfronts all the hip places. I just prefer to head to the places locals use. That maybe local chcken curry $3 with fresh orange juice in Brunei. Yeah .. I did travel business class home once b/c I had to change the dates, wasn't that expensive. But I felt - they were all nice and stuff but I thought like all fancy consumer goods so what. The staff members proably won't use those goods or service themselves anyway they are just there to sell a product that their employer wants. It was fake, I would be happy with a glass of water, some museli and yoghurt, land and let me out .... And like a nice hotel - you sleep, wakeup and then you head out by yourself and yeah like you head to Asia - you head to hawker centres that's the local thing, all hot and perspirig with the local weather and having a nice but ordinary meal after a fancy hotel sleep. But then again do you have some that goes to nice hotels but they still head to McDonalds and Starbucks. Like camera's to me so what. I end a end product that's what I care about. I get a good camera and get a bad shot, it's a bad shot. That's my end product. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even at the semi-pro level, the half life of digital SLRs seems to be 18-24 months.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm sorry, is this a problem?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, 35mm film has never been really sharp, unless for very small sized prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that statement is a bit hyperbolic. I have very sharp prints at 12 x 18 made with rangefinders. And yes, sharpness is in the eye of the beholder, but these are quite sharp. That's not a huge picture, but I wouldn't consider it small either.</p>

<p>I may be one of the old guys here. My photography has changed over the years. I have been taking photographs for well over 60 years. For a number of those years I made a pretty good living at it until an accident brought it to an end. Now it is a hobby and in many ways more enjoyable. I made the transition from film to digital pretty much as it happened and stayed in both worlds for a while. I loved my D-1 and kept it until it could no longer be repaired. My current digital is a D7000 and I find it more than adequate for everything I want and more. What has changed for me and pushes me to new cameras is new capabilities to play with. Expanded EV and better low light capabilities. VR and the ability to hand hold shots at lower shutter speeds -- that is a very nice feature for an old guy. I like that I can shoot a thousand frames in a day and not have to change a roll of film. I do like more pixels and what that means for cropping on the screen and the flexibility that brings to composition and may consider a D7100 for that potential. More megapixels may mean not getting a longer lens if my current glass can perform with greater pixel density.<br>

New technology has expanded my photographic horizons, as has new software and digital hardware. It has enabled my imagination to go where no man has gone before... sort of. There are capabilities in some of the newer platforms that I will never use -- video for example. But some of them present interesting possibilities and open doors that keep photography challenging and delightful. I guess that is why I look at each new camera model that comes out and every now and then buy one. Though I think I'll keep the D7000 for quite a while.</p>

<p>I think a lot has to do with the fact that with film cameras, it is the GLASS you put on the camera itself which determines to a great extent the quality of the image. All things being equal, Kodak Tri-X in an F2 and and F6 will produce the same IQ with the same lens. Since digital cameras rely on their sensor <em>and</em> glass for IQ, there have been many more improvements over the years.</p>

<p>I do agree that the number of digital cameras is somewhat dizzying. Technology moves at a very high rate and I honestly think that far too many photographers fall into the trap that they <em><strong>NEED</strong></em> to upgrade their cameras every couple of years or they are behind the times. And the camera manufacturers do a very good job of exploiting this falsehood. Of course, quite the opposite is true, since it is and <em>always will be</em> the person <em>behind</em> that camera that will have a much greater influence on the quality of the final image than the camera itself.</p>

<p>Scott is absolutely right about what is behind the camera. Photographs are made between the ears, not in the camera. The camera can only start to capture what the mind conceives.</p>

<p>Keeping up with digital camera releases is absurd. I'm still using my F3HP, FA, FM3a, Pentax 67II, and there's nothing infringing on my vision, other than my own lapses of creativity. I think of all of the technical advantages of the digital era, camera's are the exception to the later is greater presumption that rules good sense. I can't tell you how grateful I am that I haven't fallen victim to these horror stories attached to D-Cam malfunctions. While these camera's are en-route to fixes, I'm shooting with impunity with the greatest films ever produced. There will be a D-Cam in my future, but I haven't seen the right note struck yet, and now that D-Cams are so susceptible to production anomalies, this consumer is reluctant. It is totally unacceptable that model after model, year, after year the consumer of these camera's are faced with disappointment. Who is happy with their new camera? A camera should be a non-issue within the creative process if its doing its job by merely working as it was intended to work. This constant model revisionism, upgrade, later is greater, oh you got to have this, $2000 here, $2000 there, is a joke. A bad joke.</p>

I read every comment, and we seem to have a broad spectrum of views here. I am 77 years old, really only got into

photography about 12 years ago, and I am probably more collector than user. As a user, I am a good engineer, and the

focus and exposure are nearly always on the mark for my boring photos. I just don't have a good eye for photography.

When I see what the pros can do here photographing pealing paint and rusty gates, I know I will never have that skill. I

know the rule of thirds, understand depth of field, etc., but I firmly believe you are born with the talent or you are not. I am

mainly a recorder of family events and travels. When I produce a pleasing photo, it is because of the scene. I think you

have try pretty hard to NOTget a good photo of Niagara Falls, for instance.

 

All of my Nikon DSLRs were bought used, except for the first, the D70. I trust B&H for used equipment, plus Kenmore

Camera is North Seattle is the largest camera store on the west coast, with a sizable used inventory and they offer 10

buyers remorse period, no questions ask. KEH is also a good source. I had given up on eBay, until recently. I stuck my

toe in the water, with some very cheap offerings and I was pleased. I still received some false advertising clinkers, but

just a few.

 

I went with Nikon because I can use Nikon lenses that are over 50 years old. I have virtually every Nikon film SLR that

any one would want. I have top flight Canon FD cameras and would love to have some "L" lenses.

 

My Nikon D200 was converted to infrared. My D90 will go to some relative. I will hold on to the D300, D7000, and D700,

and Don't envision going beyond these. My Canon ELPH 330HS is my shirt pocket take everywhere, and does a fine job

24-240mm.

 

I will still shoot my Leica screw mounts and Ms, plus various Retinas, Voightlanders and Zeiss. I will still read the camera

reviews. I am going to try to stay away from new stuff, because there are no until led niches in my inventory, among

things that interest me. My Nikon F5 and F100 are two of the best 35mm cameras ever.

 

Thank you for all the responses.

<p>For my $.02... The camera makers have to keep updating their equipment because they can - or more importantly, because their competitors can. At any given point in time, I'd rather have the best the camera maker could release at that point than have them sitting on technology until there's a market need to release it; I speak as someone who waited more than a year for a 5D2 before giving up and getting a D700. I'm glad technology is out there and in the hands of photographers. Similarly, I'd rather pick a better camera or lens than an inferior one (for my needs) even if the difference is only 1% (however you measure that) - so I value discussing the merits of different bits of kit.<br />

<br />

Does that mean I have to upgrade my "good" camera to a "slightly better one" every time Nikon releases the upgrade? No, that would make sense only if the upgrade was big enough that it justified the cost to me. I assume that almost nobody does this - if you could afford to update your D5000 to a D5100 and then a D5200, you could have got a D7000 for the money. (I appreciate that exceptions exist.) Sure, if you can justify owning a D3, then a D3s, then a D4, you may be the exception. I updated my D700 to a D800, but that was a big update in areas where the D700 was actively limiting me, and it was only after four years! As with my lenses, I only got the new equipment when I needed it for some shots.<br />

<br />

So: Rate of change of the industry, good thing. Just like computers. Personal need to update that frequently? Not so much. I'm not sure about the designed-in obsolescence theory.<br />

<br />

Of course, the other argument is that cameras made very little difference to image quality before the digital era - an F takes images that are just as good as an F6. Before autofocus and metering updates, there was very little reason to switch between an F2 and an F3, hence the lifetime of the former. I got my F5 for compatibility reasons, not because it took images that were any better than an EF.<br />

<br />

And yes, the quality of 35mm film can be greatly over-stated except under very exceptional circumstances. Getting a decent 6MP out of a 35MP slide is hard enough if you're not just wanting to magnify grain. Doing enough to keep a D700's 12MPs honest is harder. I have a Pentax 645 that I used for better image resolution, but I doubt it'll trouble my D800e most of the time. A 6x7 maybe, and I'm looking at a 5x4 at some point, but - while I still sometimes shoot film - DSLRs have dealt with most of their weaknesses now. But that's an older (and very repetitive) thread.</p>

<p>David, pardon me if I am too obvious, but camera’s today are considered electronic devices and this market is driven by upgrades. Take a look at the lifespan of a computer, flat-screen TV or Smartphone. Manufacturers purposely build in technological obsolescence where a product is scheduled to be discontinued, no longer supported and replaced with an upgrade. Whether an upgrade is beneficial is of course a matter of opinion. But, those manufactures that do not have a new product under development at the same time an upgraded product is released, could possibly find themselves falling short of the competition. While I’m sure film camera manufacturers operated under a similar principle, the electronics industry is a somewhat different beast and our economy is directly affected by consumer appeal.<br>

So, what are we to do about it? We do have a choice. We can keep what we have and not remain current with new technology releases, which is fine, or, we can remain current (i.e. informed) and make a decision whether an upgrade is appealing/relevant to us. I have to admit that the latter can be challenging, but some might argue the benefits are worth it. So, to answer your question about whether you are missing out on something, I can tell you that for me upgrading from a previous Nikon DSLR to a newer one, has improved my images (e.g. better autofocus for cleaner shots of moving subjects, tighter crops through higher megapixels, faster shutter speed through higher, cleaner ISO) and this is enough of a motivator for me to keep a watchful eye on what might be coming down the pike. And while I am keeping a watchful eye, I will continue to read good books at the same pace that I did when I was a kid.</p>