Too many digitals too fast

[david_kaye]

Even at the semi-pro level, the half life of digital SLRs seems to be 18-24 months. Consider the Nikon single digit top of the line film

cameras. The Nikon F was introduced in 1959. Coming forward 54 years to 2013, there has been just 6 Nikon pro film cameras during

that span.

 

In just a 3 year span (2005-2008), the D200, 300, and 700 received rave reviews. What has changed? Has our eyesight improved? not

mine. Are we all printing at billboard size? I max out at 12x18 inches, and have seen excellent prints at that size made from 5 megapixel

cameras.

 

I feel like I am missing out on something. Is this all driven by manufacturers, or are real needs being met? I am an engineer, and not a

Luddite. Is this just fallout from the digital age where we all battered by over-stimulation? I still enjoy a good book, at about the same

reading pace that I had 60 years ago.

[kohanmike]

<p>I had two F2 Photomics for 33 years, traded them in for two D70s bodies in 2006 when I knew that digital was where I wanted to be. I traded in those for two D300s bodies in 2011 because my photo jobs changed at that time. I don't see myself making another change for a long time, the D300s is more than enough for my level of professional work. I print 13 x 19, and 12.4 megapixels sure does look good. So I seem to fit your observation of the difference in longevity between film and digital cameras.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>You asked "What has changed?". I have to think that if you're not a Luddite, you need to get some newer books.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's not just hype or planned obsolescence or any of the other familiar citations from the skeptic's guide to consumer goods.</p>

<p>Camera manufacturers are trying to meet specific demands in an extremely competitive and demanding market. Sports, wildlife and action photographers demand quicker AF, faster framerates, higher resolution and better low light performance because they can actually use it. Sports and wildlife photographs are better than ever - the quality now is phenomenal. Same with dim available light photography by photojournalists, documentary and candid photographers of all sorts, whether amateurs working for pleasure or pros working concerts, nightclubs and theaters. These photographers make good use of every significant improvement in the available equipment.</p>

<p>Photographers have access to more information than ever before about how equipment is developed. By the time the Next Big Thing in cameras, lenses, flash or other equipment is available to purchase, savvy photographers are already aware of the plans for the Next-Next Big Thing. </p>

<p>The photography press checks frequently for patent filings. They use web tools that automatically screencap new pages on manufacturers' websites, knowing that occasionally an update is published prematurely and then retracted. That fuels the volatile rumors mill and consumer product addicts.</p>

<p>But it also drives practical applications, such as the R&D and market timing of third party lenses and aftermarket accessories that can take advantage of whatever new capabilities Canikolymponytax build into their upcoming cameras.</p>

<p>And manufacturers try to anticipate demands that haven't even been expressed yet, or which aren't quite gelled in the market. The Nikon 1 System is a perfect example. There was a niche market for a compact mirrorless camera with one inch sensor. But Sony identified the market better and introduced more appealing products, at a reasonable pace: the RX100 and its sequel; and the new RX10.</p>

<p>Meanwhile Nikon scrambled to compensate for miscues with the J1 and V1, and hastily introduced slightly revised J-series and an S1, and a significantly revised V2, all within a surprisingly short period by conservative Nikon standards. And Nikon still hasn't quite grasped the market for the one inch sensor. But it's there and Sony will own it, unless Nikon reacts soon with a competitive product.</p>

<p>If you're satisfied with your existing equipment, that's fine too. Use it. I do. I upgrade equipment very infrequently, mostly due to budget limitations. But if I could afford it I'd certainly upgrade every 2-3 years. If my budget could manage it I'd definitely be interested in one of the new relatively affordable and reasonably compact, high resolution "full frame" models, mostly for the low light and crop advantages.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>I bought two D3's in 2008; I used them happily for 4.5 years; By the third year or so, I was not satisfied with 12 MP on a 13x19 print, let alone a 17x22 print. If any significant cropping was involved, 12MP was not acceptable.<br>

In late 2012, I replaced the D3's with the current 36MP model. Now, I have enough pixels with, regrettably, a slightly junkier build, and I'll not need another digital still camera for a long time. I now have what T. Hogan has called the "Last Camera Syndrome".</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Instead of comparing how many different camera bodies have been released in the film vs digital era, take a look at how many different emulsions and chemicals we've seen since the F was released. We're seeing rapid development because digital cameras are still a comparatively immature technology.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>There are something like 25 current Coolpix models at present. <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/</a></p>

 

However, there are 17 DSLRs listed as current models..<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/</a> but even the D90 and the D3000 are still on that list!

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fortunately, you do not need to buy all those digitals. Determine your needs, wants and budget and find the camera that fits that. Enjoy, and enjoy until the newer models either fulfill your needs significantly better, or your camera stops working.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon sells a lot more DSLRs now than they ever did film SLRs and they supply a broader market. The market for cameras has also grown a lot because of the popularity of digital cameras vs. film cameras. Because the per frame cost is low, many photographers shoot a lot more frames than they used to, especially action photographers, and thus the cameras wear more quickly and may need to be replaced. During the last 10-15 years the development of digital cameras has been very rapid and the early products were immature at many levels. Nevertheless they were made into products and people bought them despite their shortcomings because people wanted to take advantage of digital capture. Now things are settling down, since the D3s all Nikon DSLRs have had pretty similar overall SNR per sensor area characteristics, with subtle differences (D800/D7100 type cameras have high dynamic range at low ISO, D4 has (relatively) high dynamic range at high ISO). So it's fairly safe now to buy a camera with the expectation of using it for a longer time (5-8 years) if that is what you want to do.</p>

<p><em>What has changed? Has our eyesight improved? not mine.</em></p>

<p>No, but expectations for high quality from small format cameras has increased; basically FX is expected to give past 645 film image quality and DX is expected to give past 35mm image quality (or slightly better). Young people tend to see better and be more particular about the detail and noise of their prints. Actually optical correction in eyeglasses has improved somewhat; I have more cylinder in my right eye than could be previously corrected so now I see a bit better than I did 15 years ago, in that sense, but it's not a big deal and soon my eyesight will start to deteriorate gradually.</p>

<p>But with film I projected slides and it was a nightmare to try to get them printed well. With negative film prints were better but they lacked the impact of slides so that was a disappointment too. So I rarely had large custom prints made from film before the advent of desktop scanners and printers. With digital I make tons of prints every year, typically A5 of events, A4 for my own use and up to A2 for large prints to be put on a wall. The quality of A2 prints from a D800 is perhaps slightly worse than 6x7 film scanned using an LS-9000 in terms of detail, but more color accurate. You can make A2 prints of 5MP files for sure, but they won't be as detailed. For some subjects it doesn't matter, and for others it matters a great deal.</p>

<p>A major issue with film was that for color I practically had to have someone else do the prints (black and white could be easily done in the darkroom, though I didn't have that much skill with that); now with digital I have a calibrated monitor and printer and can control very precisely how the print looks. So the quality of prints has dramatically improved in terms of color and personal control. Of course, there were people who could do color prints in the darkroom, but few people bothered with it as it was significantly more difficult than black and white.</p>

<p><em>Are we all printing at billboard size? </em></p>

<p>That's not really the main improvement although accessibility of affordable large format printing and control over the prints has improved a lot. With film, high quality color images could be shot on ISO 400 material, maybe a bit faster for black and white (especially if medium or large format). Now there are professional photographers shooting wildlife on a D4 who basically treat ISO 3200 as their "base ISO" that they start the day at. That much the world has changed. But such dramatic improvement is unlikely to follow in the future as the physical limits of photon capture are drawing near.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Actually, 35mm film has never been really sharp, unless for very small sized prints. Personally, to have really sharp photos one have to use at least a good medium format system. Ilkka`s comment makes me think that with the latest DSLRs, looks like we are gradually getting closer to that level of sharpness.<br /> <br />I feel I`m now out of business with digital (still shooting film for fun), I can say my D700 with top glass is more than enough for my needs (just a substitute for my old chromes). Adapt or die... I`m worried I think nothing have changed on me.</p>

[elliot1]

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

<em> </em><br>

Each time I get a new body, I have that. Until I buy the next new body.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>Is this all driven by manufacturers, or are real needs being met? I am an engineer, and not a Luddite.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A simplistic answer is the digital technology's breakneck evolution speed.</p>

<p>As an engineer, you must know of Moore's law. As digital technology changes rapidly, new products are manufactured accordingly. Microprocessors, cell phones, and digital cameras. Film technology's evolution speed was snail paced by comparison. So were the manufacturing of film photography equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel like I am missing out on something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only you can answer that question. I still use my film bodies purchased almost two decades ago. My D200 purchased five years ago is still fine for my work. My car, washer/dryer, stove, etc. are all over ten years old. IOW, I'm not caught up with the consumerism culture. But sometimes I do feel guilty about not contributing to our economic growth.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_1172872]

<blockquote>are real needs being met?</blockquote>

<p>Economics 101: there is no such thing as needs. There are only wants.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon F was introduced in 1959. Coming forward 54 years to 2013, there has been just 6 Nikon pro film cameras during that span.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You forgot the SP, S3, and S4, not to mention the 3 versions of the Nikonos!</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>In just a 3 year span (2005-2008), the D200, 300, and 700 received rave reviews.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure these are the best examples to make your case. 5-6 years later, many D300 and D700 owners are still waiting for proper replacements (the D300s doesn't count, and the D800 sacrifices speed for pixels).</p>

 

[pge]

<p>I think the hype is driven by forums like this. We are not the norm. Yes many people on this forum must have the latest and greatest. I am not trying to stand apart from this group, I own far more Nikon than I will ever need. I am just saying that we are not normal. Its not like all these older models are being thrown out. I attend an annual Polish festival in my neighbourhood, the largest one outside of Poland in the world, and this year there were far more D200's on the street than D800's.</p>

[Two23]

<p>There is another aspect that no one has yet mentioned. I think a lot of demand for new cameras is driven by internet message boards. I sort of think of it as "camera-mania." Really, there isn't that much perceptible difference between cameras any more (if there ever was.) Very few people on the street will be able to tell the difference between images made with a D4 and a D3200, yet the price differential is huge. On message boards people will go on & on about what are in reality very small differences in cameras. There is pressure on manufacturers to constantly come up with something new for us on the message boards to endlessly discuss. And that's what I think is really new--internet message boards. The other factor was already mentioned--the technology is still changing fairly quickly. This was also happening about 100 years ago with cameras (film vs. plates,) lenses (anastigmats,) and shutter technology (Compur, focal planes.) It was an exciting time then, and very similar to now. One thing I'll point out from that period is that "small & convenient" beat out "large with best image quality" every time. I think the same will happen now.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You are right. Most of us do not need these cameras at all, but "need" is not relevant. I don't think eyesight has improved (ingenious Ilkka!), nor has our appreciation of images changed, but the sheer number of images are now overpowering us all - this makes people like us want to match or better them. We (particularly males) feel a need to keep up, stoked by developments in technology, marketing, and by the instant updates from sites such as this one. This is indeed economics 101 - <em>Homo economicus</em>. It is a strong person who can resist! I actually see the mass profusion of fantastically-capable cameras such as we are seeing today as unsustainable because we will indeed, quite soon, find a camera that is as much as we could possibly ever need. It will be like Hi-Fi was in the 80s when CD essentially replaced vinyl and audio quality is now pretty well a non-issue for those with disposable income. In fact, we are probably at this stage already as cellphones are the current objects of lust for most. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Robin--</p>

<p>You make a great point. ALL of this seems to be driven by guys. My wife likes to take photos too. I gave her a Pentax IQ zoom digital for Christmas in 2008 (she was still using her Minolta SRT102 from 1978). She loved the camera! She is still using it and seems very indifferent to suggestions of getting a new one.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I can understand Nikon wanting to upgrade the D600 because of all the fuss it caused, but the D5200 has been on the market for less than a year. It's kind of ridiculous. It's sort of like the way we used to buy computers. You thought you bought the fastest machine on the market, but a couple of months later, boom, there you go. I used to be sucked into the vortex, but I've learned. I used my iBook for six years and the only reason I gave it up is because PPC architecture was no longer supported. It still works great. I had an Olympus E-500 for five years before I upgraded to the D5100, but I only had the D5100 for a year before I upped to the D7100. But that was because the camera became clunky dealing with the menu system all the time. I thought I could get used to it, I couldn't. I'm sure the D7100 will last a long, long time for me.<br>

On the other hand, I do large graphics for a living. Minimum prints are 3x4 feet up to an 80 foot mural we do every year that people can walk up to. Having all those pixels does help.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>David,<br>

Maybe try to unglue yourself from TV and Internet for a while (if you can, not easy to do). Things are moving at much slower pace in real life. "The machine" makes us run like hamsters in spinning wheel - step outside.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Moore's Law.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Until the end of last year, I was driving a 1994 Honda Accord and my wife was driving a year 2000 one. We bought a new car with GPS and backup camera. She drives the new car and I took over the 2000 Accord. You may think automobiles are old, mature technology, but with those new features, it is so much easier to drive the new car. The GPS is really helpful when you are in an unfamiliar neighborhood.</p>

<p>The same for cameras. I am capturing a lot of things that were not possible 10 years ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure these are the best examples to make your case. 5-6 years later, many D300 and D700 owners are still waiting for proper replacements (the D300s doesn't count, and the D800 sacrifices speed for pixels).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, don't count on a true replacement for the D700 and D300. Consider yourself lucky that back in 2008, Nikon gave us the D700, which was perhaps 90% of the D3 at below 60% of the D3's price ($5000 -> $3000 and then discounts). I am sure that the D700 hurt D3 sales big time, but Nikon had no choice since they desperately needed an "affordable" FX body. Back then, people were complaining the D3 and D700 were only 12MP. So now you have 36MP and 24MP at fairly affordable prices. When Nikon introduced the D3X at the end of 2008, 24MP used to cost $8000.</p>

<p>You typically don't get everything you want in life. Now, I consider we are lucky that Nikon gives us their best AF system on the $1200 D7100. That was unheard of prior to 2013.</p>

[bryce_l.]

<p>Suspect Ken Staubus has hit the nail on the head (or the hand on the duck {his alter ego is duckgrabber}). The world has changed, and keeps changing pushed by technology moving at a faster rate than any of us could have imagined. Once there was glass plates, then a material to replace those glass plates and then the film negative became smaller as technology improved the method of capture and now, we're down to something that physically does not resemble film or a glass plate and in smaller and smaller physical dimensions. And in with a far better quality of image capture than seen in the past. <br>

Myself have realized after spending far too much money on far too many digital capture cameras for me am too set in my ways, too old in terms of what once made photography viable for me, and yet feel digital is the future, for now. At some point digital shall be the immediate past, similar to film of today. I still use slide film, Provia 400, perhaps the last. Twenty rolls still here, however a period of six or eight weeks can pass before I grap the Nikon F100 and capture an image on film. My last roll of slide film went for processing two weeks ago; it shall be another week and perhaps C$22.00 before i have the mounted slides returned.<br>

Have been reviewing what have photographed in the last 18 months. All digital images with a small Canon point and shoot six megapixels; still don't understand this megapixel terminology as to compared to a piece of 135mm film meant to be projected. The camera uses AA batteries, as does the F100 so for that alone am staying with the cameras. The digital camera though is not the F100 which has "for the era" basic controls; the digital camera is a computer on steroids which also happens to capture images in an electronic form. The device is with me most of the time. I do not own a mobile phone, besides what modible phone that you know of, makes ice cubes for your beverage in a glass? The mobile phones of today can do everything else it seems. <br>

Thus the mad leeming/technology race of photo gear for me, is not my journey. What for me was<br /> is now no more. Photography of railways not, my past is in slides and simialr, my future is of people I know without being obtrusive, and of things that interest me even if it is months between image caputure.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The reason is simple. There are advancement in technologies over time and it's relatively fast. There are people who would buy new camera when the new models are introduced. So there are great opportunities to make money and so there are new models coming out fast.<br>

It is necessary? No I don't think so but many people do and they do spend money. Money talks. </p>