The Upgrader's Tale

[david_jones16]

The 5D is a welcome addition, which I?m sure many who are after a high-re FF DSLR will be

glad to see on the shelves. But to all those who are considering upgrading (especially from

a <8mp camera) a kind word of advice: Unless you have serious CPU and HD capacity on

your current computer, then you'd best factor in an upgrade in your budget otherwise

you'll probably be disappointed when it comes to workflow with your new 5D purchase. I

thought I?d share my recent experience following an upgrade from a 10D. It might serve to

illustrate that getting a (relatively) low priced FF DSLR is not all clear blue sky?..

 

The ?Upgrader?s Tale :

 

Buy new camera. Go home with a huge smile and take some photos on the way.

Print off photos and admire the extra clarity. Smile some more.

 

A weeks later?.

 

Damn! this computer is slow. Visit apple store and hammer the VISA

Edit images ? damn! They?re not as sharp as I would expect given more MP? maybe it?s

the lens? That Tamron 28-70 which was great on the 10D is not quite up to the job me

thinks.

Back to the camera store ? order some ?L? (the drug of choice) ? that should do the trick.

Whilst I?m there, better get me some more CF cards. Those ig files just chew up space.

Visa now starting to groan.

Take some new photos and go home to edit RAW files on shiny new computer.

 

A month later?.

 

Look back at prints made from 10D output and think. I can?t really tell the difference

between new and old camera output at A4, so why exactly did I upgrade? To get better

viewfinder? (yes). To get better build quality? (yes)? although I dropped my 10D onto a

hard tile floor from 6 feet and it?s still working fine 18 months later. So maybe not a real

justification. To get faster FPS? (maybe, but not that important ? to me at least). Ah yes,

so I could make larger prints? that was it. So I figure I better myself a larger printer. Let?s

go A3+?. Hammer that Visa again. Interest rates are low after all.

Get new printer and stare at A3+ prints in amazement (from technical quality, if not the

images themselves !

 

Two Months later?

 

Receive message from new Apple G5 saying I?m low on disk space. Damn, what do I do

now.

Back to apple store to get some more disk space. My Visa is now dying a slow death!

Now then, I?m starting to run out of wall space. Where exactly am I going to put all these

large prints?

 

Three Months later?.

 

0% on VISA runs out and I get a nice red bill.

Oh and I?m going to Barcelona on a trip. Great! All that nice architecture to snap at.

But do I want to risk being robbed of my new camera? No ? so back to the trust 10D. I love

that camera! I think it actually cried with joy when I took it out of the camera box after

three months of neglect .

 

The moral of the story?

 

True cost of upgrading to FF high res. More like 12K Damn!

Did it make me a better photographer? ? Marginally. But hopefully I?ll get better with

practice

Having the MP and high FPS on the latest and greatest is nice but not the be all and end

all. If anything I think my photography would have improved more if I?d invested the extra

money in buying more time (from work so I could focus more on taking photos in the

good summer light).

 

 

Final Thought

 

As far as what the future will hold: Will Canon be able to go much beyond this MP capacity

without introducing higher quality glass? - Is markedly higher quality glass even

achievable at 35mm frame size? So maybe we?re already very near the pinnacle of DSLR in

terms of overall quality (though not maybe performance), as far as the current system is

concerned?

 

Until Canon come up with a button which can remove clouds which block out good natural

light, I won?t be upgrading again for a long, long time. So the build quality better be as

good as they say.

 

Am I happy ? You bet :-)

 

Relards,

 

D.

[les]

Exactly ;)

[grinder]

David, Thank you for an informative article alot of what we see is just someone trolling you clearly are helping educate potential buyers. Good job.

[roger___3]

Great post! Good things to consider as I'd like to retire early with some money in the bank so I can travel and take photos and the digital evolution can be counter to that. I think I'll get out my slide collection and smile a few a bit in the same time my computer boots up. Troll or not you've got me to thinking.

[jbq]

On the other hand, if you have a machine beefy enough to currently handle decent film scans, there's essentially no concern. And you're all doing religiously careful backups anyway, so you don't even need all those files on that hard drive.

 

A scan out of my Dual IV weighs about 80MB raw, and 80MB in photoshop. An raw file out of the 5D weighs less than 20MB, and 75MB in photoshop.

 

I have a dual G4, 2GB of RAM and 320GB of drive, with a DVD burner, and I'm not worried about the filesize for the 5D. I ordered mine today.

[mark u]

Digital rules of thumb: take cost of camera body - double it to cover accessories and computer upgrades. Add the same again if it's your first DSLR. Reckon to write off 50% of the spend within 2 years and 90% within 5. Budget to spend half camera cost on additional computer upgrades, printer supplies etc. per year. Wonder where the money for that nice lens disappeared to. Repeat every 2-3 years as whim dictates. Avoid firing up Excel to calculate what it would have cost to carry on shooting Velvia and FP4. Try to convince yourself that hours spent using Photoshop don't mean you've lost your social life entirely. Look at Canon and Adobe stock prices on the internet wistfully and ask why you didn't invest in them...

[edgreene]

I recently <i>upgraded</i> my bag. Stuck my F1, f/1.4 50, my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.6-f/4 (62mm) "cult" lens and loaded some medium contrast PORTRA 800 in it. (One time cost) $78.<p> Shot the film, pulled a few 16 x 20 prints. Price $16 for lab time, $11 for 9 16 x 20(!) sheets of paper. Total cost: $27 (and three hours in the lab).<br>

Patted the dog and rubbed the wife while looking at all those perfect prints: cost?<br> Priceless.

[PuppyDigs]

"Digital rules of thumb: take cost of camera body - double it to cover accessories and

computer upgrades. Add the same again if it's your first DSLR."

 

Unless you haven't upgraded your computer and accessories since 1998, this isn't so. I

have a 2004 G4 Dual (OS 103.5, 2 GB RAM) and it handles 65MB scans just fine in PS, even

with 2 or 3 layers. Files out of a 12 or 13MP camera are much smaller and will rip in any

decent late model desktop. Plus it will take a long time to fill up a 200GB drive with even

20MB RAW files. A 200GB external Firewire drive is only about $175.

 

I bought a 10D in May 2003 and only bought one lens since then, the EF 17-40 4L USM (I

had 18 already!).

[zacker]

and to think, I have seen awsome pictures shot with a 4 or 5 MP point and shoot. It aint the camera, computer, diskspace, memory, software folks..... Its whos behind the camera pressing the shutter release!

-zacker-

[jonglass]

Actually, backing up is most certainly a consideration.

 

Personally, I don't trust CDs nor DVDs. I have personally lost some CDs that will no longer mount on my computer, and have heard tales of woe from my friends who have had the same problem with DVDs. Worse, as our hard drives get bigger, it will become more difficult to back them up!

 

I recently bought a half-a-terabyte drive (500 gig) and was happy, but suddenly I realized that I have no way to back up a drive that big! The only option is another 500g drive! (ok, or larger) I paid a paltry $88 for that drive, and another drive will cost me about four times that. At the moment, that's out of the question. I sure hope that nothing happens to either that drive or my internal drive in my PowerBook or I'm sunk. As our capacities get larger, I fear it will become more and more difficult to find a manageable solution for backing up. Maybe off-site multi-tb network solutions? but that could take forever! I know my 200mb space on my iDisk takes forever to backup, and I could imagine even 1 gig!

 

These thoughts all make me rather glad I chose to get an ancient D30. Much smaller files, and much easier to back up. ;-)

 

-Jon

[digitmstr]

A 300gb SATA drive sells for about $120.00 USD, RAM sells for less than $100.00 per gb. You can buy a great PC with less than $1,000.00, etc... Talking about computer costs is nonsense because, the way things are, you are basically FORCED to upgrade ANy computers even to just to surf the net.

 

Plugins and other windows and Mac (especially Mac) applications continue to grow in requirements with each upgrade. Apple is notorious for this. I have some apps that won't even work with different versions of OSX, for example. IMO, it's a scam to make you spend more cash or be left out (which is why I won't use Macs anymore...).

 

But, for photography, a good PC of today will last you 10 years.

[PuppyDigs]

"I have some apps that won't even work with different versions of OSX, for example. IMO,

it's a scam to make you spend more cash or be left out (which is why I won't use Macs

anymore...)."

 

I've used Macs since 1984 and it's been pretty smooth sailing. My 1997 PowerMac 9600

stills works fine and will boot OS 7.6, 8, 8.6, 9.22 and 10.28. I actually have all these

systems on different drives or drive partitions. There's isn't a single Mac app since 1996 I

can't run on that machine with a reboot. Most of them will run under several or all those

systems. My G4 Dual started with OS 10.28 and all my apps still run fine under OS 10.3x.

Even Acrobat 5, Toast 5.2 and PS 7--3 three old apps rip right along. Other than Quicken

2005, TurboTax and Sliverfast, I haven't bought any new OS 10 apps for 1.5 years. No

need, everything keeps working even after multiple system upgrades.

 

Now, plenty of old Windows apps won't run under the latest MS system. It really depends

on the developer's software writing skill.

[digitmstr]

>>There's isn't a single Mac app since 1996 I can't run on that machine with a reboot.<<

 

Right, with a reboot. I have been using Macs and PC for about 20 years now. I can still use some VERY useful, Professional Audio PC software I had since 1997 on my XP machine. I can't do the same on my Macs under OS-X (or OS9). I could, if I wanted to install OS8 but, I don't want to do that.

 

Apple purchased the company that made my most important piece of software and ever since, they stopped supporting OS9. And, earlier OSX version of this software do NOT run on the latest OSX therefore forcing you to continually dish out cash for what it amount to be BETA versions of a never ending revision. I prefer to spend my cash elsewhere.

 

This is causing a problem with developers as well who can't keep up with the ever changing zoo (pun intended) which is OSX.

 

I don't care who makes what but, what I do care is how my time is spent. I prefer to spend it creating rather than up-grading and I can say without reservation that a PC platform is the safest from that point of view. Now that Apple switched to Intel we may see a different story but, not anytime soon.

[PuppyDigs]

I also said most will run under all the different OS versions without a boot into another OS

version. Why do you have to only underline the negative? Get over it. You merely choose

the wrong software and that choice doesn't make everything else bogus. Apple

computers have the highest level of consumer satisfaction in the industry. Unfortunately

music

software tends to be flaky due to low RD budgets. There are many

more wonderful things about the Mac than negative in my experience (life is that way as

well).

For example, Word 5.1 actually works under OS 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (classic mode). Quicken 4

(1992!) works perfectly under every OS from 7 to 10! My Appleworks 6 works under OS 9

and 10x

perfectly. Heck MOTU Composer's Mosaic 1.44 (1997) works perfectly under OS 8, 9 and

10x via Classic mode. Unfortunately, my 1997 MOTU Digital Performer 2.23 uses a copy

protection that disables it in OS 10X Classic mode, but it works fine under OS 7.6, 8, 8.5

and 9. I've since switched to ProTools and prefer the interface.

[carl_weller]

Just bringing things back to the upgraders tale :)

 

Yup, totally agree. That is the natural consequence of photography merging with

consumer electronics, cameras have almost become 'disposable'.

 

Most people posting seem to plan for a new DSLR at least every 3-5 years. Sad thing is

they will happily pay twice as much for a digital elan than you do for an eos 3, and the

damn thing aint good enough for them practically from the day they buy it.

 

OK, I'll re-phrase that. I get the feeling that new DLSRs have the same 'new and shiney

warm glow period' as a new PC - about a week or so. After that the honeymoon is over.

 

It does start to look like most of the real useful stuff is there now [MP count, FF, etc] and

its just a matter of prices getting lower before the madness has an end and we'll get back

to the state where your camera is your best friend again instead of just your casual fcuk.

 

Nice too see there are people out there who think about the whole cost of digital too.

Apart from weenies who don't do math too well, on a per picture basis DSLRs generally

only pay for pros. What you get for your wonga at a lower level is fun and convenience.

 

I've managed to avoid just about all of that, happily building a huge lense collection.

Puppy, Mr '18 lense' man, you are my hero :)

 

thats my rant,

[PuppyDigs]

Well, it took me 15 years to buy all those. I really should sell off the 4 or 5 I almost never

use, but I'm too lazy.

[mark u]

"But, for photography a good computer of today will last you 10 years."

 

You don't think that Adobe CS-X won't require a minimum of 4 or 8GB, multi core 64 bit processors, fail to run on Win XP or current MAC OS, another $800 license fee - all to get the latest Canon RAW decoder? I think that's naive.

[mike kelly]

"Apart from weenies who don't do math too well, on a per picture basis DSLRs generally only pay for pros."

 

Maybe. For me the big payback of going digital wasn't financial but speed of learning. I now take WAY more pictures than I ever did with film, over the course of two delightful years with a 10D. I'm also learning new skills and techniques all of the time, with practically extra zero cost.

 

Looking back through my old film pics recently there has clearly been a massive improvement in my ability to take the picture I want to take(albeit still a long long way to go!), and for me that is the major digital payback.

[digitmstr]

>>You don't think that Adobe CS-X won't require a minimum of 4 or 8GB, multi core 64 bit processors<<

 

THe question is: does the AVG user *need* such software? Does the AVG user really, really NEED to edit pix in 64 bit? No.

 

A great number of pictures in my folders were converted and edited with a PII-350 machine with 384mb of RAM. Which I still use for single pix editing...and from which I am typing this very message. And which I use with PS CS...

 

Yes, i do have to wait a bit longer than on my dual G4s or any of my P4 machines but, it's in a location which is more inducive to photo editing so, I use it more for that purpose. Obviously, when I do large projects and/or large batch work I use a faster one. But, it works perfectly with PS Cs, Phase One, etc...and that machine was purchased in 1997. So, it's very close to 10 years old.

 

Is my 10D taking as good as picture as it was taking the day I bought it? Yes.

 

Will I buy the 5D? Yes, because it's FF and I have been waiting for that.

 

But, I agree: there is a scam going on which forces some people to continually upgrade software, even if they don't need to. For, if they don't, by the time they finally get around to do it the license will cost them almost as much as a buying new software.

 

I say it's a scam with a bit of sarcasm of course. It's just part of the system which needs people to continually spend money. Software developers have found a cornucopia of revenue and so have hardware and computer manufacturers. But, the same is true for a great many electronics and even household appliances.

 

We have become a society of throw-aways. Cars are carefully manufactured to have a certain life span and no more. etc... so, it's not just an "updater's tale" it's more like a capitalism out of control tale, eh?

[jonglass]

Just a couple thoughts in response to previous posts:

 

1. "Upgrading digital vs. film" I think that one element of shooting digital is that I shoot _tons_ more with digital than I ever did with film. The other day I went to watch the Blue Angels practice. It was my first time trying this kind of shooting with this camera, so I considered it a practice session for myself also. I shot well over 100 photos in about 45 minutes. I know I would never have gotten close with film! If one shoots 10 times more with a digital camera than with film, wouldn't it stand to reason that the camera will last 1/10 the time? I'm thinking shutter actuations here. Of course, all those photos fill up your hard drive. I find it too dangerous to throw out photos I don't like, so I tend to keep everything!

 

2. regarding computers: I always thought that the reason people upgrade hardware is because they need it to keep up with their software upgrades, not the other way around--upgrading their software to keep up with their hardware upgrades. If you keep using the software that basically came with your computer, you won't have any problems, and if you only go one or two generations past your hardware with your software, you shouldn't have too many problems. But if you start upgrading, whether using Macs or Windows, you are going to run into problems. Granted, the Mac has been less kind to upgraders, but this is due, not to some sinister plot, but Apple's willingness to totally toss old tech, and go to the new. Some of us view this as a good thing.

 

Plus, just to counter one person's complaint, I'm still running my 2000 model of Apple PowerBook G3, and I will be upgrading to the latest version of the OS here soon. Until the past year or so, I was running the absolute latest of all the software. I have decided not to upgrade my PS and Office for a couple reasons. While I like some of PS's features, I don't think I need them--yet, but I fully expect it to run, albeit it a bit slow, on my G3, and Office 2004 just seems to take away things I want and need, or it is too buggy in areas I need, so I am keeping what I have. I may go to PS Elements, and I've tried it. It runs fine. If I decide to get a processor upgrade for my PowerBook, even that point will be moot...

 

So.... computers can have a longer life than you might expect, but you can't go willy-nilly upgrading everything. Of course, not everybody's needs are the same. And I agree with the original poster, there are a lot of hidden expenses with upgrading your digital cameras. ;-) I went from a Nikon Coolpix 990 to the D30 because I thought the file sizes would be the same. Ha! That's why the 500gig drive! ;-)

[dave henri]

Keeping this string alive....

 

I am heading to upper Michigan for a photo weekend in two weeks, and am bringing all of my lenses, tripod, etc. And the camera that will accompany me? Not the 10d but the 1V. Old reliable. I use both, but the true cost of digital must include the processing and time.

 

Just the other day I was in my favorite camera store. A customer, who was recently retired was inquiring about photography as a hobby, and the salesperson was pushing a digital camrea, stating that the costs were only the camera and the flash card. I was very upset. He never mentioned the cost of the computer (neither did he inquire if the customer was computer literate as the customer was over 65), nor the printer, ink and time spent with photoshop (or equal).

 

I like my digital camera. I use it every day. But the costs in processing and time need to be considered in any purchase decision.

[patricks]

sorry, cannot relate to the story. i use Amex and Windows ;-)

 

Mac users: have fun in 12-18 months when Apple starts delivering their new machines with an Intel chip instead and all new/cool/useful apps and updates will come out only for that platform...

[david_jones16]

My original post was intended only to illustrate the TCO of a FF DSLR (or any higher MP

count DSLR for that matter) in terms of general CPU requirements, storage, (larger scale)

printing (to get the benefit from the larger files) as well as possible lens upgrades to take

full advantage of what the CMOS can do etc, etc.

 

The general principles hold true whatever the choice of OS/CPU platform. I didn't imagine

that it would turn into an Wintel vs. PPCMacOS Vs Macintel debate (though I should have

known better as just the merest mention of Apple seems to bring Windows PC users out in

a hissy fit - maybe an inferiority complex ;-) LOL.

 

However I'm glad that the post seems to have been of value to a few who replied. Whatever

DSLR or computer you use, in the end they are just tools. Enjoy!

 

Regards. D

[jim_larson1]

Hear hear!

 

This tale is so true.

 

My 3 year old dSLR is driving me broke!

 

My computer was only months old. . .but was not purchased with dSLR imaging in mind. Color calibrator. Hard drive. DVD burner. Backup external drive. RAM. Upgrades out the ying-yang. Let's not discuss software.

 

Lenses. Yeah. Lenses. I had three EOS lenses when I bought my dSLR. Now I have two new L zooms, three new primes and a new teleconverter. Guess what? the only lens I use from my original film kit is my $70 50/1.8. heh.

 

Flash units. Take more pictures. Learn. Learn that I need an EX flash unit. Because exposures are cheap. . .learned how to use slave flash units. Rut roh. Had to buy a slave flash unit. Had to buy a ST-E2.

 

Yup. Broke I tell you.

 

Now. . . yes. .. I take pictures.

 

Lots of pictures. Post processing time: Average 1.8 minutes per photo. So if I take 1200 photos on vacation. . . .YIKES! I disappear off the face of the earth for a month after I return!

 

Now as to results. . . .hey! I get results! Of 1200 photos. . .I trashed less than 50. Showed my 1150 travel photos to my travel companions. I said I needed to prune down to 200 before sending out. They said NO! We want them all!

 

Yes. . .you can see the difference in the photos. I see the lack of contrast from the p&S's. I see what a 35/2 will light up a dark church. No P&S will match the bokeh of a 50/1.8 at sunset. I see my flash unit properly expose two people in St Mark's square. . .while background detail is clearly visible.

 

Sigh. Where will it end? Well. . .I can see how Puppy got 18 lenses. I have 8. 3 more are on the wish list. I do plan to get another dSLR. I ain't really broke. . yet.

 

Where will it end? Hmmm. The latest 5 new lenses from Canon are all 50% overpriced. But the dSLR bodies are coming down in price. . .hmmm.

 

My better judgement says I already have more than enough gear to get good pics. . . maybe it ends now.