RaymondC Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>We said it back when the D700 came out. Now we have the D800/810 and the more affordable D600/610 even the crop sensor bodies are quite nicer than than the past. Granted many people don't photograph action and or low light when you are pushing the limits of the cameras but cameras nowadays can provide very nice photo's at ISO 3200. I heard a wedding professional he shoots ISO 3200 to get A3 sized prints for his clients. </p> <p>The D600/800 has been with us for least 3yrs. 2 or 5yr down the road manufacturers ought to release new equipment so they can make a buck. What is that you think many people out there would be able to get?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>There is never a need to upgrade equipment. There is a great urge to upgrade.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>There is never a need to upgrade equipment. There is a great urge to upgrade. However, if you are a pro you always have the need to upgrade if your clients want image that can be capture/create with newer equipment. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>Agree. My D800 still provides all the performance I need in the studio. My Df is still great for everything else. No actual need to upgrade. Although, I will buy the Df. 2 whenever it comes out, just because I want to.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>"Need to upgrade equipment" Pretty simple I think. When you have maximized the equipment you have and believe that some new equipment will improve your image making.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 The new Nikon DSLRs I bought in 2016 have improved my results tremendously, mainly due to improved AF and higher frame rate, but I shoot a lot of wildlife action and tend to push my cameras to the limit. I certainly wouldn't mind having 20, 30fps at 20MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>Ray my cranky old self is still cruising along just fine the a pair of D200s along with a D100 and a D1X. I've used many of the newer bodies and they are generally very good but there is nothing I want to do at this point that I can't do with what I have. $2000 for a D500 simply makes no sense to me and the D800 and so on are more than I have a need for. I'd still like a full frame body but I am honestly going backwards and shooting more film. Old school I know but I enjoy darkrooms and my old Nikons and shot more film last year than in the last five. So no, I don't think we need to upgrade until we just want to.<br /><br />Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <blockquote> <p>There is never a need to upgrade equipment.</p> </blockquote> <p>Like so many sweeping statements, this one isn't true for everyone either. If it was, then the even more sweeping statement that no one actually needs a DSLR could also be made.</p> <p>There definitely had been a need for me to upgrade from the D70 to the D200 as the D70 simply was too limiting when shooting action. The upgrade from the D200 to the D300 wasn't really necessary from an image quality point of view (incremental improvement) but certainly was justified for the better AF alone. It took a long 8 years (for me) and Nikon's surprise release of the D500 to get something that's clearly better in every aspect than the D300 was. Had it not been for Nikon's reluctance to release a D400, I would never have given the compromised D7x00 bodies a second look.</p> <p>In some aspects, upgrading from the D300 to the D700 was not a major step up (DR at base ISO comes to mind), in others, it was clearly a major step forward (noise at anything above 800 ISO). It took a D810 to make another significant step forward, certainly worthy of upgrading to (the D600/D610/D750 certainly did not instill the need to upgrade in me). The need for FX at all simply arose out of Nikon's refusal to provide a decent set of DX lenses.</p> <p>Whatever comes next from Nikon in terms of camera bodies will quite likely not be compelling enough to ignite the urge to upgrade and even less so fill a need on my part.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>"Ray my cranky old self is still cruising along just fine the a pair of D200s along with a D100 and a D1X."<br /><br />I'm still shooting with a D200 and D7000 and my clients couldn't care less. All they care about is the final product.<br /><br />As for film, I shot with my M3 the other day. It's older than me and it's still going and going and going.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p> Well I am shooting an FM2n currently and I need another 20 years to bond with it. So I will wait until then before I go shopping. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>This year I upgraded from 4x5 to 5x7. :-)</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuhin Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Greetings to all ,</p> <p>Interesting thread , there are two things 1) advancement of technology which I doubt would ever fall off and 2) requirement of the pro and non-pro photographers .</p> <p>Would the technological requirement of a wildlife photographer change 10 years ahead ? How much of more fps and better low light performance ?</p> <p>On the other hand , I would love to get pro quality lenses at a much cheaper price . May be the scientists find some cheaper and better alternative to glass lenses .</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>I have upgraded my photo equipment since the '60s, but only when the old gear was wearing out and replacing was cheaper than repairing. I just did it again -- I replaced my D7000 with a D500. The shutter on the D7000 was long in the tooth and living past its design life.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 "On the other hand , I would love to get pro quality lenses at a much cheaper price . May be the scientists find some cheaper and better alternative to glass lenses ." - That's already happened. Aspheric elements are now common, even in mid-priced lenses. Most of them are moulded resin or plastic/glass composites, which have brought costs tumbling down. That's relative to what you would have paid for an aspheric design 25 years ago. Ray, I'm far more likely to upgrade or supplement my lens collection than buy a new camera body. With modern DSLRs surpassing film quality and speed by a mile, I'm more than happy with the output of my D800 and D7200. AF accuracy could be better, but LiveView takes care of that for stationary subjects. However I suspect that Nikon's mirror-down AF system is fundamentally flawed and incapable of 100% accuracy at all zoom, distance and aperture settings. AF fine tune is just a bodge and sop to cover up poor factory adjustment of camera and/or lens manufacturing tolerances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <blockquote> <p>What is that you think many people out there would be able to get?</p> </blockquote> <p>120MP in a full frame sensor: <a href="http://petapixel.com/2016/05/20/canon-120mp-dslr-shows-off-stuff-canon-expo/">http://petapixel.com/2016/05/20/canon-120mp-dslr-shows-off-stuff-canon-expo/</a>; only 241MB per image. Wonder how many lenses can still cope though. May also need a more powerful computer as well as plenty of hard discs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_bowring Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>I recently upgraded from a F2 to a F3. I don't think my pictures are any better but the F3 is a really sweet camera to use. I did not need to upgrade but the F3 was such a good deal that I could not pass it up. I am glad I did.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <blockquote> <p> the F3 is a really sweet camera to use.<br> <br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Nice camera</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_tran14 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>The bodies are better than before but people still want more. Many of us do use ISO 3200 a lot now, but the difference are still clear between ISO 100 and 3200. ISO higher than 3200 would be useful too. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_galleries Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>I recently asked my 4-year-old nephew if he wanted a K2SO action figure for his birthday.<br /> His response? <em><strong>"I need it!"</strong></em></p> <p>Same goes for camera gear for a lot of people.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Need is obviously relative. I'm not a professional photographer, for sure, so one could readily say I don't NEED a camera at all. Not like shoes and food and firewood. But at some point if what you're using does not provide you with the results you want where an upgrade can, then I think some sense of the word "need" applies. On a recent trip to the Amazon, my otherwise pretty versatile D3200 missed many good shots owing to its noisy ISO and sloppy auto focus. I'm sure my technique fell short too, but if I pretend that I needed to take the trip, ad needed to get those monkeys and sloths and little birds at all, then I can easily say I needed better machinery to do it. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbright Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>There's always been a dance between Photographers and camera manufactures over the confusion that Photographers have over their wants and needs. What has changed in the last 10 years? Camera Manufactures have always listened to Photographers and the companies themselves have Photographers on board to cut a path to real solutions. I'm impressed that what has changed in the last 10 years is that Camera companies have an ear to these very threads in forum and the changes for the needs of Photographers have been heeded to. For example, smaller, lighter, faster, more nimble cameras featuring flexibility for a variety of Photographic endeavors, in the studio, the street and in the field, we now have camera's that provide versatility once thought improbable. How long ago did we think camera prowess peaked? Some of us thought 3 or so years ago according to our very conversations. I don't know I'm thinking that theres a lot left in the tank to surprise us all, but as knowledgable as some are here, we're all still spectators to whats to come.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Image quality is great. Gear size is insane. Upgrades should be more based on simplification and confort instead of complexity and bulk. I think we all want e. g., a D810 + 24-120/4 image quality, but we do not want to carry with such bulk and load. Am I wrong?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Right on Jose. A female acquaintance recently expressed an interest in photography and I showed her the D800 with 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. Her jaw dropped and she commented she doubted she could even pick it up, let alone carry it around to take pictures. And that was with the comparatively compact and light Tamron VC zoom and no battery grip. It made me realise the average person's expectation of a reasonable camera size and weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Jose: I like bulk. Mass enables slower shutter speeds simply because of the inertia. I have added a battery grip to every one of my SLRs from the days of the first motor drives -- primarily because of the mass and that it typically gave me a one-two stop advantage with slower shutter speeds. If you can't tote a 3-5 lb. camera/lens combination the solution is to go to the gym, not get lighter gear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Cameras sold by the pounds. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now