the end of my camera-buying days

[Rene11664880918]

If we have the cash for it, we'll keep buying! We'll always find an excuse to!

 

My costumers, they spend so much money in Kois, (hundreds of thousands of Dollars). Every year they say "this is the

last fish I buy" so I reply: "Yeah! you have enough already! See you in October next year"

[jb17kx]

Forgive me for slightly straying from the topic, but Roger, I'd be more than happy to take those *awful* primes off you to use on my *horrible* FE2 until I can afford a *real* camera.

[chrisrichards]

After many years in photography, I've finally arrived at the equipment which meets my photographic needs perfectly. To do so, I had to go back in time and buy a Rolleiflex from 1969. No batteries, no focus and recompose problems, no difficult choice of supplementary lenses. Just high quality images day after day.

 

Chris

[digitmstr]

>>the focusing was too slow<<

 

Certainly faster than your manual lenses...and what's keeping you from focusing manually?

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Well,

 

Sorry chaps but I don't buy this kind of philosophy...

 

From the beginnning of what might be called "technological age", more or less from the second part of the 19th century, all technological products evolved at a faster pace when new and slowed down (but never really to a standstill until replaced by another).

 

The problem with us, photographers, is for years we get accustomed to be able to produce the very same image quality with a 40 year old camera (like my Rolleiflex F) and the latest film camera of the same format, provided the lens was of equal quality. Because the element where the image was recorded was a separate, exapandable one called film. Few people seem to realize a 40 years old film camera used now fed with the latest iteration of film technology will generally take a better image (technically speaking) it was able to register 40 years ago ! ...

 

This is the essential reason why we didn't feel complied to buy the latest film camera unless it brings something really new and useful to us. For example, I kept my F2 AS throughout the career of the F3 despite the fact it has a very simplistic (as seen today) AE mode the F2 lacked and bought a new Nikon flagship only when the F4 was issued. By today's standard between body generations it looks like an eternity.

 

Then came the dawn of digital age...

 

What is fundamentally different in this age, apart like any new technology it advances at a very fast pace, long forgotten in classic silver halide photography, is the fact the imaging system is entirely self contained in the body: memory cards are just "stocking machines". So, if you want to improve the IQ (all things equal), you need a newer, better, body... Where, in film time, you had just to change the emulsion.

 

The bottom line, is a professional can change his body more easily and consider by the way a digital body a money saver, because he takes so many pictures per year and save an equivalent amount in processing (and printing if required) which is automatically deduced from the cost of changing his tool more often. An amateur (even doing some pro work from time to time) cannot consider the things with the same eye.

 

Add to these considerations th fact - though more often existing in the amateur range - successive generations are sometimes issued without significant improvements, and I can understand the apparent lassitude of Roger S.

 

But I don't share his views... We can be more discriminating should we will... True, a 10 years old digital camera will be perfectly useless (even some years ago a three or four years old one). But the pace of progress is now slower. I'm sure the present generation of Expert-Pro Nikon DSLR's will remain a milestone and a turning point in small format camera history. Even if I continue to believe the D300 will remain the last of its species. The image quality has reached a point no film small format camera can equal and moreover surpass unless using very slow film on a tripod. At high ISO settings,at least the D3 and now the D700 open an all new era in available light photography. And FX format on cameras allowing the use of old lenses at nominal FOV is a blessing. What more could we need or expect ?

 

I am bound to buy a D700 within some months... Will I discard it for a body from the next generation even if it has improvements ? I dare to say no... But should I be a devoid of this D700 when Nikon will issue the next generation, I wouldn't buy a second hand D700, because there will be no valid reason not to get the better new camera (including economy when taking into consideration the re-sale value).

 

Will I buy the generation after the next one ? Surely, if it truly brings visible improvements...

 

For example, suppose the next generation of Nikon, say a D800, has a 16.7mpx sensor (this is a value often quoted as the necessary one to equal the best form a small format film camera with a slow film on a tripod...). As I never use a small format camera this way but for a more active kind of photography..this improvement won't be a decisive cause to exchange the D700 for this new body... But, may be a pro will need it.

 

But if Nikon really issues at a later date a camera which will equal the medium format image quality, then I will be interested again in an upgrade, should the price be affordable.

 

So to say, with a tad of discrimination we can neither deprive us of the benefits a new technology can bring nor waste money in a vain pursuit of the latest model. If the new camera brings you a true quantum leap in terms of performance from the one you own, consider buying it if you can, but if it only offers something you consider of a few importance for you, then wait for a next generation...

 

As the progess in digital photography will slow down (and it will as, on the contrary to computers the limit is the one defined by the "resolving power" of our eyes which is a definite limit) things will probably become more comparable to what it used to be in film time.

 

FPW

 

 

 

 

[bob_hamilton2]

A bit off topic but......

Agreed that technology is increasing by leaps and bounds but so are the costs. Nikon is busy adding VR to many lenses making them almost unattainable. The non-VR versions, in most, cases were good enough for me.

 

Back in my film days, I used to shoot rock concerts with a 300mm F4 Nikkor on an F or F2 at slow shutter speeds on pushed TX or HS Ektachrome and got good results. It was all in holding the camera/lens firmly and getting a stable shooting position. I see too many people with poor hand position while shooting. The longer/heavier the lens and camera combo, the more important this becomes.

 

Bob

[ronald_olsen]

I work hard and save my money. I'm riding a beat-up 27 year-old motorcycle to work because I don't need or want a new car, even though I could afford it. If I want to buy a new Nikon camera, that's my decision. I don't have to apologize for buying the latest and greatest camera body, if I want to.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Bob Hamilton :

 

>> A bit off topic but...... Agreed that technology is increasing by leaps and bounds but so are the costs. Nikon is busy adding VR to many lenses making them almost unattainable. The non-VR versions, in most, cases were good enough for me. <<

 

I'm not sure Nikon is busy adding VR to their lenses and I think VR craze is mainly an amateur marketing trap...

 

There is absolutely no way VR can compensate for subject's movements; You can only froze them using a fast enough speed... So you need either more usable ISO or a larger aperture lens. More ISO with good IQ, look for an FX camera. More speed for the same ISO setting, look for a faster lens, and look for FX primes or fast zooms. Very few of these have VR and I don't think Nikon is in a hurry to add it to them. VR is far more widespread in slow DX zoom range... which is in fact far more amateur oriented lens range than the ones covering both formats.

 

Buying for cheap (or simply using easily) high grade lenses, mainly wide angles, buy an FX camera and use manual wide angle primes from the old F (though ai'ed), Ai and Ais range second hand instead of modern wide angle zooms.

 

>> Back in my film days, I used to shoot rock concerts with a 300mm F4 Nikkor on an F or F2 at slow shutter speeds on pushed TX or HS Ektachrome and got good results. It was all in holding the camera/lens firmly and getting a stable shooting position. I see too many people with poor hand position while shooting. The longer/heavier the lens and camera combo, the more important this becomes. <<

 

100% agreed (except for the IQ with pushed up Ektachromes when compared to today's high ISO digital imaging.) ... Main culprit:AF and not digital which created the "HOLS" (hand out of lens) syndrome for reflex users. And don't forget there is a good alternative to a tripod called a monopod.

 

Now the lowest maximal aperture I can remember for a 300mm Nikon prime lens was f/4.5. Semi-pros used the f/4 Af version as soon as it appeared and Pros were using F:2.8 manual version even before. Unfortunately with the zoom-mania most people now use a 300mm f/5.6 instead. No surprise they feel compelled to ask for VR with such a lens.

 

FPW

[tri-x1]

If you choose to skimp in other areas so you can buy the latest or greatest body or lens, that's your choice. I guessing a lot of us who ware saying we don't need anything better than are current gear are nearing retirement or already retired. When people reach that age having the latest "things" sometimes isn't as much of a priority as it once was.

 

We live in an age of instant gratification. It took two years for me to save enough to buy a new Nikon F and I was still using it when they announced the F3. That's probably why the idea of a amateur spending $1,800 for a D300 and less than a year later plunking down three grand for a D700 is difficult for me to comprehend. Now it there was something wrong with the D300 it would be a different story but the D300 makes better images than any 35mm film camera I ever owned--and I've owned lots.

 

I guess it's a generational thing--or maybe it's $5 a gallon gasoline.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I suppose with film we were limited to the grain size, latitude, iso sensitivity giving good results.

 

With digital we have control over size of smallest image sensor site, much better high iso sensitivity and we are getting to the point where latitude is not going to be as much of a problem.

 

The fact is we can now exceed our lenses resolving power with the next generation sensors. To me we have a lot of resolution to produce large prints especially with up-rez software that show no indication at 2x or 3x file size enlargement of number of pixels.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Wayne :

 

>> If you choose to skimp in other areas so you can buy the latest or greatest body or lens, that's your choice.

I guessing a lot of us who ware saying we don't need anything better than are current gear are nearing retirement

or already retired. When people reach that age having the latest "things" sometimes isn't as much of a priority

as it once was. <<

 

I'm 54 Wayne, I'm not rich either, but this last geneneration of digital bodies and what they open in terms of

image quality and aavailable light photography is so amazing I can't help to be entusiastic. "Last things" are

not for recently retired or on the way to retire people, they are for dying people.

 

>> We live in an age of instant gratification. It took two years for me to save enough to buy a new Nikon F <<

 

I'd wish to have the value in constant money of a Nikon F versus the one of a D300 or even a D700... It would be

an interesting comparison...

 

>> and I was still using it when they announced the F3. <<

 

And why should you have feeled complied to buy an F3 ? In image quality both cameras could produce equally good

results... Not so in digital age.

 

>> That's probably why the idea of a amateur spending $1,800 for a D300 and less than a year later plunking down

three grand for a D700 is difficult for me to comprehend. <<

 

It is more difficult for me to comprehend someone buying a low end DSLR with the most medocre kit lens and never

another lens instead of a high end compact or "bridge" camera he could get for cheaper.

 

I can't do what you describe and finally the slow pace I was forced to adopt in getting rid of my film cameras

was a blessing, as I was ready to reluctantly buy a D300 (excellent but DX format) because I was unable to afford

the D3 and ever preferred to own a full format... Now, I will buy the D700.

 

But for people having enough money, I perfectly understand they want a D700 as FX format and related performance

at high ISO open an entirely new era. I would have been more in accordance with what you say for an eventual D400

in DX format with few significant improvements.

 

>> Now it there was something wrong with the D300 it would be a different story but the D300 makes better images

than any 35mm film camera I ever owned--and I've owned lots. <<

 

The main shortcoming of the D300 is its format, unless you take mainly ilmages with long tele-lenses. DX lenses

are mainly slow variable aperture zooms and if you want to use older manual or AF lenses designed for film

cameras, because of the excellent idea of Nikon to allow a large backward compatibility, this option is far more

interesting in FX format, both practically and economically. I'm glad with the D700 I will dispense with the

purchase of a wide angle zoom.

 

>> I guess it's a generational thing <<

 

I don't think so... You can take any generation since the technological age began and see there were always

people wealthier than others who were able to afford the latest thing out of the factory, even if it brought few

or nothing interesting. It is a question of wealth, not a question of generation. But for ordinary but passioned

people, some upgrades appear vital as the embody quantum leaps in progress and it is all too normal they accept

some sacrifice to purchase them.

 

>> --or maybe it's $5 a gallon gasoline.<<

 

If you are retired you can drive less and take more photos... In the digital age; pressing the shutter button

costs absolutely nothing...and selecting only the prictures relevant to print far easier and less costly too.

 

FPW

[RaymondC]

I doubt its the end of mine. Because I can always get accessories that I don't have now. If a camera breaks, I can get a replacement. If I want some used equipment ....

 

What I can say for sure now is that I will never buy anymore new camera bodies. For lenses it depends on what new prices are vs used - and for me its harder because for used goods I need to factor in international cost because I live in NZ and stuff here are more $$$ so I buy from the USA basically.

 

Overall all, camera bodies will now all be used. I had a D70 in 2004, not yet upgraded. Might be a D2h classic in 2yrs. For film I got a F100 used in 2005 and I got a used FM2N in 2008. In term of lenses all I want now is maybe some primes that is all ... as a zoom, all I want is maybe a used 80-400mm and a mid zoom that I have yet to commit. I look forward to getting a F/N75 for its lightness. Or maybe 2 if I like it so much, ie to travel and shoot film with 2 bodies.

 

Mid zoom, probably in FX only since DX I see that is a temporary format in the long term. I don't want to buy DX and FX for a lens that I hardly use.

 

I meant that as FX become more affordable, FX may be obtained in more cheaper cameras over time like one of the consumer models, but they I think would pop a highesh end DX format - the D300 equiv.

 

Since my first and only digital camera is a D70 from 2004. 5yrs to me is not a long time. So doubling that, in 10yrs I think FX would be more available even for the cost conscious consumer.

 

Just 1 or 2 months ago, I got DX lenses. Since 2004, I have never had a real wide lens or a real mid zoom lens. I got the 10-20 and 18-200vr.

[charles_hess2]

Ha, I thought my camera-buying days were over, owning two Contax G2s and a Nikon D300 with top glass. So, I wound up buying a 'new' Rolleiflex 3.5F TLR and you know what? I've had so much fun using it and enjoying the reasons why I like film in the first place that the D300 is slowly gathering dust. I certainly the D300 (for work), but for fun... :-)

[vrankin]

My equipment is ample for what I need to do. When it breaks I will add it to my hobby has-been camera shelf and delight in reading all

about the current offerings in my price range. To upgrade on credit now (a financial necessity) when I already have ample equipment for

my needs would simply be falling into the marketing dept's. latest grip, and my own idolatrous tendencies.

[photo5]

Charles,

 

The Rollei 3.5F is a fun camera to use. I loved looking down at the reversed image projected on the ground glass. It was a magical way to see. If I only had a darkroom I could use for free...like when I was in school...those were the days...

[nolan_ross]

If you keep shooting there will always be something else to buy. Camera's are funny. I remember when I bought my OM-1 I figured I would not need another camera. It seemed to be true and then one day while camping (1981) it vanished from my life to never return. Back to the camera store many times since that day. Now I have a D200 and other stuff and I figure I will buy a new model in a few years .

[msitaraman]

Erm, I suppose I should confess that I'm still using my D100. It takes the pics I want it to take, and when I look at them, I am able to fight off NAS.

 

Remember, a decade ago, not only were we amateurs satisified with less capable film cameras, but we considered a $1200 Nikon F5 to be an insanely high priced specialty professional tool. Now we entertain visions of upgrading our $2,000 cameras every two years or so with nonchalance. What happened?

[photo5]

What happend? The D300 happened, no more upgrading is necessary!

[pankaj purohit]

No end in near future. Have you heared Hasselblab launched their new 50 megapixel "H3DII50"...?

[sergio maretz]

""No end in near future. Have you heared Hasselblab launched their new 50 megapixel "H3DII50"...?""

 

They squeezed 50Mb on a 36 x 48 mm surface. I wonder if there is a physical barrier for the size of chips (50 x 50 mm ?)

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Mani :

 

>> Erm, I suppose I should confess that I'm still using my D100. It takes the pics I want it to take, and when I look at them, I am able to fight off NAS.<<

 

Try an A2+ enlargement without interpolation software to make things apparently viewable and compare with what a D3-D700 output allows...

 

>> Remember, a decade ago, not only were we amateurs satisified with less capable film cameras, but we considered a $1200 Nikon F5 to be an insanely high priced specialty professional tool. Now we entertain visions of upgrading our $2,000 cameras every two years or so with nonchalance. What happened? <<

 

Very simple, in film era an old and humble Nikkormat Ftn using the same film and the same lens could do the same pic with the same IQ an F5 is capable of, provided you don't require some other features peculiar to the F5... IQ potential is nowaday signficantly affected by the digital body you use as its capabilities are totally dependant of the bulit-in sensor and processing machinery. You can't "upgrade" this potential by putting a D3 or even a D300 sensor and imaging devices in it as you were able to put the latest film emulsion in an old film body.

 

Now the price... It all depends on how many pictures you take by year... Silver halide processing was and remains costly. So, people making a lot of pictures per year should deduce the cost of processing form their photographic spendings. I'm not sure the difference in body price between an F5 and a D700 is not covered by the elimination of the film processing costs within the period before the new digital wonder is not obsolete.

 

Then, as film technology was an old one, it had a very slow period of improvement and these improvements were of a less fundamental nature.

 

Digital is new and improves fast...

 

FPW

[nicholas_fiduccia1]

One must be very careful in determining if the next product out does really improve your ability to take better pictures.

Nikon's marketing machine is very good at extracting the most money from our pockets with minimal marginal benefit. The

D700 is a great example. Many people will purchase this camera thinking that it will give them better results. Will it be

better? At low ISO, the IO will be nearly the same as the D300. The real benefit is the ability to shoot at higher ISOs still get

good quality images. But how much better than the D300? Well, about 1 to 2 stops. Does that justify the $1200 price

difference? Not in my mind, unless you are a professional event photographer who needs the very best to keep up with the

competition.

 

There will come a point when the D300 dies, and at that time, you should probably look around and see what cameras will

meet your needs at the least expense. I do find it a bit sad that some amateurs, myself included, desire to change cameras

just to have the latest and greatest when they should just be enjoying what they have and taking the best pictures possible.

[phule]

[[They squeezed 50Mb on a 36 x 48 mm surface. I wonder if there is a physical barrier for the size of chips (50 x 50 mm ?)]]

 

Can't answer that but Phase One just released a 40.4 X 54.9mm sensor that's 60MP.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Nicholas :

 

>> The D700 is a great example. Many people will purchase this camera thinking that it will give them better results <<

 

Not only (and two sops more is a very important difference in means 4 times less light available become sufficient) ...

 

The FX format is one of the most important feature and this very same feature allows you (if you are not NAS infected) to spend A LOT LESS in glass to go with it without sacrificing the IQ. In the end the difference of price will be completely erased.

 

Instead of buying the last wide angle super zoom buy "old" Nikon manual wide angles second hand (anything under 35mm), buy two or three AF primes in mid-range (second hand too) this time AF (35, 50, 85 or 105) and the only important spending you will be comfronted with will concern télé-lenses. And unless you specialize un sports or wildlife photography a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 and a x 1.4 extender will cover all what you need. Do your maths...

 

By the way taking an FX format camera is an insurance for the future regarding any lens you buy...

 

IQ at high ISO is not the only advantage of a D700 vs a D300.

 

FPW

[a._valerio]

Software processing may one day be the great equalizer of image quality, just as film was.

 

Your 30MP camera might not have much advantage over your buddy's 24MP 5 years from now, due to software interpolation, noise reduction, and optical enhancement.

 

I can see the market stabilizing in the next 5 years. We're in the midst of the digital SLR boom right now, just like the SLR boom of the 1980s. Look at point and shoot digitals: growth has been slowing because people have already bought.

 

Once the pro users settle down and hang onto their cameras for 5 years or more (assuming they last) we will see amateurs keeping DSLRs for a decade or more. In professional editorial and stock photography, It would be rediculous for publishers, agencies, clients, and editors to continue to mandate that photographers must use a camera of a certain MP rating, increasing it with each newest generation of DSLRs, forcing pro users to upgrade every two years against their will. This would be crazy once we hit affordable 24MP full-frame. In fact, it's almost crazy right now, since the 12MP full-frame probably approaches, meets, or even exceeds some of what is attainable with 645 (strictly speaking about resolving power and noise.grain).

 

First they said you had to have a 6MP or higher (DX) camera. Then it was 8MP. Then Full-frame 11MP (1Ds) or greater for some agencies and publications. Now what? They cannot keep arbitrarily increasing their standards in the midst of diminishing returns now that we have reached (and exceeded) the desired MP ratings that everyone wanted since the beginning of digital SLRs.