What's your upgrade?

[acoba]

<p>I'm an amateur and only own an entry level DSLR. I have not leaped into a better one because there's so much more I feel I need to master before I spend my money on a pro or semi pro. For those of you that are more advanced, what was your first camera and what do you own now?</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>My first camera was a Pentax ME Super, replaced by a Canon 1000 (film camera). My uncle gave me a Leica R5 with assorted lenses and that is when I realised how important it is to have good glass over a good body (not applicable to wine and women!). I then decided to go digital and got a Canon 30D in 2006.<br>

The 30D still serves most of my needs and I have concentrated on upgrading glass (17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4LIS). One site I visit is of a wildlife photographer who shot his early stuff using the Canon Rebel XT (350D in European parlance) with a 600mm L lens - it may sound a mismatch but the photos say different! Only later did he upgrade the body to a 1D series, but most people would be tempted to do it the other way round.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm not sure I'm more advanced. :-)<br />

<br />

First camera: Polaroid.<br />

First camera when I got into photography: Agfa ePhoto 1680 (and an Ixus L).<br />

Upgrade when I got more serious: Canon Eos 300D. Later, Eos 500 (film) and Eos 620 (film) for lightweight/backup/full frame/infrared.<br />

Upgrade when I got even more serious: Nikon D700, and an F5 as back-up. These are current, although I still have the rest and occasionally use the Canons. (I might have stayed with Canon, but I needed a better camera for a holiday timed between the launch of the D700 and 5D2, I was about to start buying expensive glass, and the Nikon-only lenses that tempted me outweighed the Canon-only lenses in which I had less interested. I don't regret switching systems, but it was only because of a perfect storm of reasons - for most people, or at any other time in my life, it would have been a bad idea.)<br />

I've also got a Pentax 645 (not D!) and a Bessa R, which I use in their place. I might get my hands on a 5x4 field camera at some point. I've been known to borrow a friend's Rolleiflex, but wouldn't use it enough to own one; I doubt she'd lend me her Mamiya 7, and I can't justify owning one. My other half is considering a micro-4/3 camera, and I might get a lens adaptor so I can borrow it<br />

Oh, and my most recent camera purchase: a £40 compact from a supermarket, because I want something I can leave in my rucksack and not be distraught if it dies or gets stolen. I can't take my SLR everywhere, and my phone is awful at taking photos.<br />

<br />

Funny how I don't spend enough time shooting...</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>By the look of some your photos, you are ready to step up to a semi-pro camera. Not sure what camera you own, but allot of the starter cameras are nothing but expensive point-and-shoots. A semi pro camera will have more features that will keep you going up the learning curve ladder, because allot of those features were requested by semi pro and pro photographers. My first digital Camera(DSLR) was a canon 30D. </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>My first camera was a Kodak Brownie, . . . well actually it was my parent's camera but I was allowed to use it with supervision. Then still using my parent's stuff, I remember my Dad getting one of the first Polaroid's when they hit the market in the 60's. On rare occasion, my Dad would let me get my hands on his 35mm Argus, but not often.<br>

Then in the mid 70's while in the U.S. Navy, stationed on Guam, I got into SCUBA Diving. The underwater world was so wonderful, I felt I just had to share the experiences. My first Underwater was some Kodak in the 110 format with an Ikelite UW housing. The housing was 10X the cost of the Kodak 110.<br>

My first very own 35mm was a Nikono's II. Then I got "hooked," and within a very short time the Nikono's III came out and I sold the II. But neither of these were "through the lens" viewfinders and required basically "measuring sticks" to obtain accurate focusing underwater, in addition, a separate "Light meter" in UW housing was required.<br>

Eventually, (although within a short time) I progressed to a Canon AT-1. Although an all manual camera, it was my first true SLR with TTL (Through the lens) metering and focusing. And still the Underwater housings were quite expensive and remain so today, but the UW housing could be used with all the Canon A series Cameras. I still have the UW housing, though the Canon AT-1, AE-1 & A-1 are long gone. Once I left the Tropics, and after a couple of Dives in the U.S. (very dissapointing!) I moved on to wanting to do more Wildlife type shooting. I built up a fairly decent collection of Canon's FD glass, although nothing spectaclar, and acquired a Canon F-1 along the way.<br>

My photography took a hiatus until about 2003, and when I went to upgrade some of my lenses, I learned that the Canon FD had become obsolete on the current market and replaced with the EOS systems. A real dissapointment! My near 30 year collection of Canon gear (and Me) now becoming Dinosaurs!<br>

Still hooked, . . . sometime in 2001 I think, I sold all my Canon FD stuff as a package deal at a local Photo Shop (of course, at a loss!) and started over from "scratch," still wanting to do Wildlife photography.</p>

<p>My first EOS body was an Elan 7e and the EF 50mm f/1.8. What a learning curve initially since my hiatus. The Elan 7e was being replaced on the Retailer's shelves with the Elan 7N/7Ne and I got a decent discount. Now AF & ECF (Eye Control Focus), lenses that could not be manually focused etc., etc., and "all the while" learning and realizing that digital was the upcoming and greatest thing. By the time I had made the Elan 7e purchase I had began to learn and feel comfortable that the EF lenses would be around for awhile, so I started acquiring some better glass and got my first Canon "L" lens, the EF100-400, and the 1.4X TC. Well, the combination had some "downsides" with the Elan 7e and I got a chance at a very nice used EOS3 and acquired some additional EF lenses, and stayed with those with FTMF (Full Time Manual Focus) capability.<br>

After the purchase of the EOS 3, I started reading the review's here and learning as much as I could on the digital bodies. I watched the progression of the "Prosumer" 10, 20, 30 & 40D's. The EOS 1D's were certainly out of my price range!<br>

When I had saved enough, I had decided on the 40D. However, the retailer had the 50D on the shelf, and after checking out it's features, I purchased the 50D and remain happy with it today, though now longing for a full frame digital.<br>

I still keep acquiring "better" glass and a few other accessories along the way as I budget, research and save for the full frame. "Geez, I hope Canon does not change their lens mount again! (EF or EF-S) I'm now too old for another <em>start from scratch</em>!"</p>

[SCL]

<p>First camera came as a promotional prize along within a box of breakfast cereal...everything was fixed, shutter speed, focus, aperture....sort of like the early Kodak Brownies. First one I bought was a 35mm viewfinder - no rangefinder, used guesstimate adjustable focusing (turned out to be a great learning tool), no meter, adjustable shutter speed and aperture - it was made in Europe, that's all I remember. I moved from there to a 1958 Ricoh 500 rangefinder (great camera), then to an Olympus Pen FT (my first SLR), then to a Leica M4. Also used a Canon A1 for about 10 years, a Bronica ETRSi for medium format, an Exakta, a Nikon D100, a Leica R3 and Leicaflex (all of which I have since sold). Today I still use the Leica M4 but also have and use an R8 and a Leicaflex SL2, a Nikon D300 as well as an F3HP and EM, and a Canon T90. I probably should get rid of a few, but honestly I do use them all. I do subscribe to the thesis that a good camera helps, but the key to producing terrific photos is the vision and technical capabilities of the photographer.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Not sure what camera you own, but a lot of the starter cameras are nothing but expensive point-and-shoots.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The Eos 300D was crippled in certain ways, probably to stop it mugging 10D sales - for example, you can't (without hacking the BIOS) choose autofocus mode in the creative modes - but my impression is that most modern DSLRs are pretty flexible, even at the low end. Money gets you a better sensor, better autofocus, better metering, faster shooting, robustness and - most importantly - better handling, but it mostly makes it easier to do things which the cheap bodies can still do, just less conveniently (with a lot of menu fiddling) or at slightly lower quality. Exceptions are video (my D700 can't; don't care) and live view (one reason I got the D700, because of tilt-shift lenses), but they're now common even on the low end.<br />

<br />

I'd not upgrade unless there was a specific feature I wanted - in my case, it was full frame and live view (although the better autofocus and auto-ISO make a big difference, in retrospect). Using the 300D now is a bit painful because I'm used to the extra knobs of the D700, but there aren't that many photos that the D700 can take that the 300D couldn't, if I had the lenses. That said, not having to spend all you time in menus is a "feature".<br />

<br />

Also, I agree - nice pictures, Ann. :-)</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I think the 'feature' that has always led me away from the least expensive digital SLR models has been the viewfinder--I have always wanted the bigger & brighter pentaprism viewfinders. My first DSLR was Pentax *ist DS2. This model was nearly identical to the *ist DL which was competitive with Canon's Rebel of similar vintage. The only significant difference was that DS2 had a brighter pentaprism viewfinder. (the only other differences were less important--11 vs. 3 autofocus points, and compatibility with older film-era TTL flashes). I have since owned many of the better Pentax models--K10D, K20D, and now K-7. Mostly I've been rewarded with speedier operation and more dedicated controls for better handling...but for the most part the pictures I took with *ist DS2 were nearly as good, and I liked its small size which is why I kept using it until I got the K-7 last year-- which I consider a good compromise, about halfway between the *ist DS2 and K20D in bulk.</p>

<p>I don't see any particular need to 'master' everything an entry-level model has to offer before getting a better body--this is all for fun and for me, it's more fun to have fewer annoyances and a better camera-using experience. The entry level cameras have most of the same features as the better ones, they're just a little slower/less convenient to use. That said, most of us don't <em>need</em> the top 'pro level' bodies. For me, not only are they too expensive, they're just too big for more casual use.</p>

<p>One of the latest 'features' I like a lot is the higher-resolution (typically '~920K') review LCDs--I now feel like I can much better judge critical focus when zoomed all the way in during review and when using live view--the older lower-res 320K didn't work as well for this. Not a <em>necessity </em>but I would not really want to go back to a DSLR model without this.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>My personal opinion is your first big upgrade is when you have your first exhibit of work. That will change everything for you. Then you will see a lot more about what you've done and where you need to go. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and have too many systems to list here.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>My first real above simple lever push box camera, maybe it was a Hawkeye, was a very nice Kodak Instamatic 500, cost me around $60.00 on closeout special at a large drug chain store. Bright finder, sharp four element lens, and a selenium match needle meter. The old days.... I used it for years and have a ton of slides from that period so I guess the urge to go higher was slow for me. My upgrade was a big one, to a system camera, a Canon F-1 packaged with a 50mm lens. There is no turning back when you get into lenses for them. And the lenses, my point being, are always the key components for me. So think lens upgrade(s) first, and you will think smart. Good luck.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>here's how my cameras came and went:</p>

<p>2004 - age 18 - Canon AE-1 Program w/ 50mm lens<br>

2006 - Canon 20D<br>

2007 - Canon 30D<br>

2008 - Canon 40D<br>

2010 - age 24 - Canon 1D II (this wasn't really an upgrade from the 40D, more of a sidegrade. I gave up 10MP, live view, large LCD, and self cleaning sensor for 8MP, larger sensor, pro AF system, faster frame rate, vertical shutter button, and more customizable options) I'm telling you this because a newer camera isn't always better. Don't be content with just an "upgrade." Make sure you are getting the camera that is molded to your style of photoraphy and that will allow you to get the most out of your photographic abilities.</p>

 

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>By the look of some your photos, you are ready to step up to a semi-pro camera. Not sure what camera you own, but allot of the starter cameras are nothing but expensive point-and-shoots. A semi pro camera will have more features that will keep you going up the learning curve ladder, because allot of those features were requested by semi pro and pro photographers. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Ann has some nice images. She uses a Nikon D40x, which is perfectly adequate for her or me or you. It is not a point and shoot, although P&S can take some amazing pictures. What is a 'semi-pro' camera, and more to the point, how will its features keep Ann going up the ladder? Her camera has a fully manual mode, so she can experiment with exposure to her heart's content. She doesn't need super-fast AF, from what I see, nor high-ISO capability.</p>

<p>Ann, don't worry about 'upgrading' until you have a strong, specific purpose to do so. Keep going the way you are, and try new subjects and points of view. Somewhere along the line, you may feel a real need for something your D40x can't do. Then is the time to ask this question. Meanwhile, good work!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I agree about the not upgrading without reason, but I'd qualify that by saying that you should upgrade when, to you, it's worth the cost to have a camera that makes it easier to do something - you're paying to make an inconvenience go away. The inconvenience may be that you really can't take a certain type of picture (it's rarely <i>more</i> than "inconvenient" that you can't take a photo you want); it may be that you're prepared to pay for the convenience of a larger viewfinder or buttons under your hands; it may be that you'll pay to have the camera do some additional automation for you. There's not much a D40x flat out <i>can't</i> do, and there's not a camera on the market, for any price, that does everything (or, indeed, most things) perfectly. An upgrade may make a problem less severe or - if you're lucky - solve it; only you can justify whether it's time to spend money solving that problem (remembering that newer, better cameras get launched all the time) and whether you're ready to put up with the compromises of a new system.<br />

<br />

I'll say that using my D700 showed me a lot of handling issues and limitations with the 300D that I wasn't really aware of - it's much harder to go back. Whether some time with a better camera, and becoming disenchanted with my 300D before I owned a replacement, would have made me upgrade sooner, I can't say. Maybe my life would have been made easier earlier, or maybe I would have been happier remaining ignorant.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Looking back, my biggest upgrades in term of photography improvements were leica m6, nikon d70 and ricoh gx100. They allow me to shoot more, mainly. I had a couple nikon slrs before my leica M6. I had a couple leica Ms before my d70. Lastly, I had a couple d70s before my ricoh gx100 and grd. </p>

<p>Having said all that, I feel my biggest upgrade over all were not equipment related. It is travel. Traveling, in short, keeps my fire alive. My desire to see new places, things and photograph them...My most used camera these days is my LX3. I'm warming up to my recent sony, however. Yeah...sure, my medium format, leica Ms and Nikon dslrs would probably give better IQ but they are either sold or in the closet somewhere. I'm the type that think I would have better photos traveling the world with a LX3 than to have a D3X or, say, a leica S2 sittin' at home. BTW, my first camera was either a pentax p&s or a polaroid sx70. And now, I mostly use a LX3 and a sony Nex 5...</p>

[rossb]

<p>My first camera was a brownie box camera that I won at a carnival in 1957. It had a roll of film in it and I snapped it off taking pictures of my dog. I still have a few of the shots. Fast forward to 1967 and I bought a Yashica rangefinder while in the Army. Many camera's and years later I have a F100 and a D200. I am a lifelong hobbyist. No interest in anything else.</p>

[acoba]

<p>My first camera was an Olympus C-740. Got used with the zoom lens and wanted more pixels and a faster camera so I jumped to get my first DSLR, Nikon D40X. It has served me well so far but I have taken pictures in a few events with low lighting so I do feel a need for better ISO capabilities. I don't know if it's a silly comment but I also feel a little embarrassed when I'm shooting an event that I'm getting paid for and a guest has a D90 or better. I have a few lenses already so I'm sticking to Nikon and looking at the D700, D7000 or D300s as the next step. Loved to read everybody's reasons for choosing a specific system and the reasons for moving on. Wish I could get lucky and win a D700 with a cereal box!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ann: If it makes you feel better, I'm a bit embarrassed to be a guest wandering around a wedding with an SLR; I usually try to be surreptitious and I definitely stay well out of the professional's way, but people notice a big lens - even if I'm only using it for a few unique keepsakes (but, because I want the keepsakes, the embarrassment isn't enough to make me leave the camera at home). Hopefully any guest who's doing their expensive camera any kind of justice will know that equipment comes far behind technique, preparation and talent in deciding the results you get; I'm under no delusion I'd produce anything but snapshots myself.<br />

<br />

I wouldn't assume a pro was going to produce poor results no matter what they used - although if I was convinced the equipment was clearly not going to produce anything usable (I can't imagine this from a D40x, but if Uncle Bob is doing the official shots in the dark with his point-and-shoot...) then I'd probably try to record any unique moment in a way that didn't duplicate the pro's image if I was wrong. It's part of the pro's job not to ruin the wedding for the guests, but it's part of a guest's job not to ruin the photos for the happy couple - not intimidating the photographer is part of that.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I wouldn't upgrade the camera until there was something that it couldn't do that you wanted to do. If the D40x is meeting your needs, you may be better off putting the money into lenses and/or a better flash. What lenses and flash do you have now?</p>

<p>My first camera was a Canon FX in 1967. It was a 35mm SLR with the meter on the outside of the body. I now use a D90 and a D3100. I actually find myself using the D3100 more than the D90 because the image quailty is as good or better and it is noticeably smaller and lighter which is important to me. The D3100 may be an entry level camera, but to me, it's an upgrade over the D90. Don't let entry level fool you. Most entry level cameras are capable of outstanding results in most circumstances. More advanced cameras have features that help them do better under certain conditions, but if you don't shoot under those conditions, most entry level cameras will do just fine. For example, if you shoot sports, a pro camera will have a higher burst rate and faster focusing that make it much easier to get a higher percentage of winners. This will come at a big cost in terms of price and weight. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. I've gotten very good baseball pictures with both entry level and mid level cameras. Remember, people were getting great sports pictures in the days of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As Mark says, higher-end isn't always better. I'm very happy with my D700, but at some point I'll probably get an F75 and a field camera. Both are, in many ways, inferior to the D700 - but have specific benefits for which I'd choose them over my high-end DSLR (sometimes, and depending on the job). The same will be true if my other half gets a micro 4/3 body and I end up borrowing it. For me, a D3, while clearly higher-end than my D700, would probably be less useful.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>The common wisdom here at photo.net regarding upgrading camera gear has been discussed above. I agree with the common wisdom: A) Don't upgrade unless there is something definable that you can't accomplish with your current system. B) you are usually better served by buying additional lenses C) Camera bodies are not an investment; camera bodies are a depreciating asset.</p>

<p>Going FX: Take a long, deep breath. This is a huge $$$$ jump just for the D700, let alone the lenses.</p>

<p>There is one thing that the Nikon D40x and D3100 won't do: autofocus with lenses that are not equipped with an autofocus motor. That one fact limits your lens selections with these types of DX camera bodies.</p>

<p>In the current Nikon DSLR DX line-up, the most affordable camera body that will autofocus with lenses that are not equipped with an autofocus motor, is the D90.The D90 also has a brighter pentaprism viewfinder, whereas the D40x and the D3100 have a pentamirror viewfinder. The D90 is nearing the end of its product life cycle, and should be available for a good deal. The D7000 additionally supports metering functions with non-CPU (manual focus) lenses.</p>

<p>As an lens example, the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D lens is a full frame lens. It performs wonderfully on a Nikon AF film body, or on a D700, or on a D90 (effective focal length = 127mm).</p>

<p>I would like to suggest that you go to the Nikon USA website, and under Digital SLR cameras, use the compare function. Read the tech specs, and pay attention to the compatible lenses category.</p>

<p>Cognitive Dissonance: a theory often incorporated in an analysis of consumer behavior and the decision making process. More succinctly, as a consideration in buyer remorse: "I'm really bummed. I think I made the wrong decision." You probably find yourself in conflict as you consider DX and FX. I suggest that you slow down, take another deep breath, and let go of the FX idea.</p>

<p>http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm</p>

<p>I suggest that you visit the website of professional photographer Bob Krist. Bob travels widely, is a Nikon spokesperson, and has made thorough use of the Nikon D90.</p>

<p>http://www.bobkrist.com/index.php</p>

<p>I began my photography passion "back in the day", taking the University course Photography 101, Principles of Photography. All black & white, and working in the wet darkroom. My camera was an odd duck, a 35mm all-manual slr that my father brought back from Germany following WWII. The oddness: 35mm square format. Well over 36 frames on a 36 exposure roll. One prime lens of normal perspective. Learned a lot. I dreamed of owning the real thing: a Nikon SLR, but later settled on a new Argus/Cosina all-manual 35mm that was priced right. One 50mm prime, and later a long zoom lens. I used that system for years until the meter finally failed. Later picked up a Nikon FG. Used it until the electronics failed.</p>

<p>Fast way forward: Now shooting with a Pentax 67 and four prime lenses, a Nikon F4s and mostly prime lenses, and a Nikon D80 w/ Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_ritz]

<p>I started with a Minolta SRT-102. 15-20 years later, I picked up a AF Minolta (Maxxim 4 something) because MF Minoltas were very hard to find. 4 years later I jumped ship to a Nikon N80 because I wanted to segue to a DSLR. Then a D50 2ish years later. Then I bought a Mamiya M645 and a Toyo/Omega View 45D in the last 15 months.<br>

I went with the M645 for a bigger negative yet light weight and basically free. I love using it, today it's my favourite camera.<br>

I went with the 45D for a huge negative, movements and even less expense vs. the M645.<br>

There are only a couple things I wish the D50 did better: hold a charge longer, meter AI lenses (even though my N80 doesn't either), faster and slower ISO.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Somewhat similar to cognitive dissonance is what's called paralysis by analysis. This happens when someone gathers so much information they become overwhelmed by it and cannot make a decision.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>If only it were so simple that upgrading a camera resulted in better pictures at the same time. If possibly true, my Hasselblad must have been defective.<br>

I'm actually much more in awe of people who do the most with the least. I'd say downgrade to a classic camera and one lens.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>If you have money to spend on an upgrade use it to upgrade your photographic education by buying books, attending seminars and master classes to improve your skills and knowledge before considering any other improvement, I learned by bitter experience a long time ago that excellence in photography isn't a problem that can be solved by throwing money at, and that acquiring more and more expensive equipment isn't a magic bullet, because what do when you have the best gear that money can buy and your pictures are still crap ?.Many of the Worlds best photographers do use expensive equipment but they could take great pictures with entry level equipment because of their training, ability, talent and vision.</p>