Do you REALLY need a new camera?

[Richard8971]

I started digital photography with my trusty Canon A40 (2MP) back around 2001/2. I have always wanted to get into photography since I was a kid and my cousin was into Canon AE-1P's and film. Film was always "out of my reach" so I never sought it out.

After my first digital PAS (point and shoot) I upgraded to the Canon A80 (4mp) and loved it. In 2009 my wife and I decided to take the plunge and bought our first DSLR, a Canon T1i. We loved it. However, our biggest problem was we started "fighting" over who got to use it when. That is when I found a really nice, lightly used Canon Xti (for $350.00) in 2010 and started using that so my wife could use the T1i. I realized that I loved the XTi, but wanted faster FPS. The logical step up was the 40D. I bought one about a year ago and LOVED it. It ended up needing repairs and I replaced it with the 7D (long story....)

Honestly? After using the Xti for almost a year and then upgrading to the 40D and then 7D... I find myself really missing the Xti. Why???

To the point? The XTi was bullet proof in taking photos. If you were off in one way or another taking photos, one click and you always got the perfect shot! Even after taking pics with the T1i, 40D and now 7D, some of my best pics are with my XTi!!! I have found that the 40D and 7D tend to be more "touchy" with settings and I find myself having to "relearn" my camera all over again.

Am I saying that the 40D and 7D are rotten cameras? Not at all! They have "personalities" that need to be learned and mastered. What I am saying is that some of my best photos came from my "old" trusty XTi a 10mp camera that has been replaced by several camera bodies. It's a great camera.

Glass is better than camera body, hands down. If you think you need to upgrade your camera body, take a look at your lenses first. If you don't have good glass, I bet you will end up disappointed with your new camera as well. Taken from an old friend who I shoot with every now and then. "Learn the equipment you have and learn it well. You will find yourself 'out-shooting' everyone who thinks they need the 'latest and greatest' camera"

Truth is, a 10mp photo taken with a good lens is just as good as a 18mp photo taken with the same good lens. Guys, I am not taking about blowing up a photo to 40 x 30 or whatever. I am taking about good 'ole 8 x 10 and 11 x 14's. (maybe even 16 x 20) You know, REAL WORLD (non "pro") photos??? Come on, how many of us REALLY print photos over 11 x 14's???

Even so, my XTi did great photo prints (with good glass) up to 20 x 30.

Attached are a couple of photos from my XTi with good glass as an example. (BTW, they were compressed a bit (20%) for upload here. They may have lost a bit of detail in the jpeg compression!)

D

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I buy new bodies to gain capabilities that I value.  My 5D MK II has low light capabilities that let me take images in low light that my 7D can't handle, but my 7D has better autofocus that lets me lock onto fast moving subjects.

If a body comes out that is substantially better in very low light or has a lot better DR, I can use it.  I upgraded from my 30D to a 40D because I wanted to tether my camera in my studio for product photography.  The time savings paid back in short order.

If your existing camera meets your needs, there would certainly not be a reason to buy a new one, but in my case, my existing cameras do not do everything I'd like them to do, so I make do until something better comes out.  If it doesn't, I'll just wait until something does.

[bigblue1ca]

5D MK II for low light + 7D for fast AF = 1DX?  (Assuming the real life tests live up to the hype.) 

Upgrade in order?   I guess if the conditions you use each camera for are separate (low light need vs. fast AF need) , you are still good to stay with two bodies at a significant cost savings over a 1DX.

[pwp]

I buy new bodies to gain capabilities that I value. 
If your existing camera meets your needs, there would certainly not be a reason to buy a new one, but in my case, my existing cameras do not do everything I'd like them to do, so I make do until something better comes out. 

+1 Well put.
Sometimes "Upgraditis" gets hold of you and hardware becomes more important than the core business of taking great photos. If you can see a function on a new release that you can integrate into your shooting style that will give you a creative or professional edge, then definitely get the Visa card out and tick the "buy" box.

I know a cashed up amateur who seems to get his hands on every 1-series body that has ever existed before anyone else on the block. Interesting APS-C bodies are too tempting to miss out on owning. No L lens is out of his $$ reach. In 12 years I've never seen a photo of his that was anything more than a test or pixel peeping exercise.

For him it's almost valid. Cameras are his hobby, not photography. And he can afford it.

It takes all kinds...

Paul Wright

[bigblue1ca]

In 12 years I've never seen a photo of his that was anything more than a test or pixel peeping exercise.

 

[scottkinfw]

Well put.

Any new camera/technology will have a learning curve.  Sensors are excellent these days, and it is usually advisable to think glass before a new camera.

Not being rich, I buy a new camera when my old one is somehow limiting my ability to improve,or there is a feature that is a must have.  That said, it is an exciting time for new bodies and lenses.

Your photos are excellent, keep up the good work.

sek

I started digital photography with my trusty Canon A40 (2MP) back around 2001/2. I have always wanted to get into photography since I was a kid and my cousin was into Canon AE-1P's and film. Film was always "out of my reach" so I never sought it out.

After my first digital PAS (point and shoot) I upgraded to the Canon A80 (4mp) and loved it. In 2009 my wife and I decided to take the plunge and bought our first DSLR, a Canon T1i. We loved it. However, our biggest problem was we started "fighting" over who got to use it when. That is when I found a really nice, lightly used Canon Xti (for $350.00) in 2010 and started using that so my wife could use the T1i. I realized that I loved the XTi, but wanted faster FPS. The logical step up was the 40D. I bought one about a year ago and LOVED it. It ended up needing repairs and I replaced it with the 7D (long story....)

Honestly? After using the Xti for almost a year and then upgrading to the 40D and then 7D... I find myself really missing the Xti. Why???

To the point? The XTi was bullet proof in taking photos. If you were off in one way or another taking photos, one click and you always got the perfect shot! Even after taking pics with the T1i, 40D and now 7D, some of my best pics are with my XTi!!! I have found that the 40D and 7D tend to be more "touchy" with settings and I find myself having to "relearn" my camera all over again.

Am I saying that the 40D and 7D are rotten cameras? Not at all! They have "personalities" that need to be learned and mastered. What I am saying is that some of my best photos came from my "old" trusty XTi a 10mp camera that has been replaced by several camera bodies. It's a great camera.

Glass is better than camera body, hands down. If you think you need to upgrade your camera body, take a look at your lenses first. If you don't have good glass, I bet you will end up disappointed with your new camera as well. Taken from an old friend who I shoot with every now and then. "Learn the equipment you have and learn it well. You will find yourself 'out-shooting' everyone who thinks they need the 'latest and greatest' camera"

Truth is, a 10mp photo taken with a good lens is just as good as a 18mp photo taken with the same good lens. Guys, I am not taking about blowing up a photo to 40 x 30 or whatever. I am taking about good 'ole 8 x 10 and 11 x 14's. (maybe even 16 x 20) You know, REAL WORLD (non "pro") photos??? Come on, how many of us REALLY print photos over 11 x 14's???

Even so, my XTi did great photo prints (with good glass) up to 20 x 30.

Attached are a couple of photos from my XTi with good glass as an example. (BTW, they were compressed a bit (20%) for upload here. They may have lost a bit of detail in the jpeg compression!)

D

[dr croubie]

Sometimes "Upgraditis" gets hold of you and hardware becomes more important than the core business of taking great photos.

Guilty.

Although I'm still definitely more into lenses than bodies.
I started with my "do-it-all" EFs15-85 and 70-300nonL when I bought my 7D (first slr, second digital, fourth camera ever if you count back to my 124-film kodak instamatic). Together, they covered a damn-big focal-length range, probably the best you can get in a 2-lens kit without going the 100-400 or a sigma/tamron super-zoom or two.
Then came the 50/1.8ii. And the lensbaby. And then the lensbaby accessories and optics, the wide-angle and telephoto adapters. Then the Pentacon Six and Kiev 88 and tilt-adapter, and one of almost every Zeiss and Arsenal lens for them. And the skink-pinhole (which i really just don't use that much, probably should get it out more). Then the 70-300nonL wasn't good enough, so sold it and got the L-version. Next up, the samyang 35/1.4, the ef 85/1.8, the Takumar 50/1.4 for the affordable low-light-trinity, add to that the 430EX. Now it's just $2 trick-filters from china via ebay to mount on my lensbaby, as a kind of "withdrawl" from trawling ebay each day for good deals (star filters or soft-focus anyone?).

But now, I think i'm spent. There's nothing left, really (although as soon as I get a job i'm dropping my first Grand on a CF tripod, head, arca-swiss plates and L-bracket), but for lenses that are way too expensive (8-16mm, ts-e24, 200-400, 400 f/2.8, 100L macro and MP-E 65 are on the list behind 1DX and winning the lottery).

But for everything i've bought, even the ones i've dropped $10 on ebay as first bid and ended up winning, nothing overlaps (with the exception of the Takumar 50/1.4 replacing my niftyfifty).
On the bodies though, i'm set. I bought the 7D so I wouldn't need to upgrade for a while, it's only 16 months old, it's got at least that much life in it again, it's not getting replaced until it dies (although it may get a FF sister at some point). There's no other body that i'd need that wouldn't overlap the 7D except a FF, the only advantages of which are the über-shallow DOF for portraits I don't take, UWA can be covered by a new lens these days, low-light would be nice but I just don't use it that much. So no, I don't really need a new camera (although there's a Kiev 88CM calling out to me somewhere...)

[smirkypants]

This is really unfair. There are quite a few pros on this board, and let me tell you every bit of low light performance in that church or every bit of dynamic range on that cloudy day shooting the game helps the keeper rate go up.

Also, there are lenses that I never would consider using now indoors that I might consider if what they say about the 1DX's low light ability is true, or better a few years down the line when the 1DX2 comes out. Now I would never think about using a 70-300 f4-5.6 backstage at an event, but sometimes I would really like a tight candid shot from relatively far. A 300 prime at an indoor event is ridiculous, so as of right now I'm stuck because 5.6 in low light just doesn't cut it. The technology just doesn't exist to get clean shots in low indoor light from relatively far with a lens that I can run around with. A sensor that can see what I see in low light would be money to me.

You are correct, though, any digital camera can take beautiful pictures of stationary objects outside on a sunny day.

[pwp]

You are correct, though, any digital camera can take beautiful pictures of stationary objects outside on a sunny day.

You're right. We have all been touched by rapidly emerging iPhoneography.

I'm seeing plenty of exquisite little images across all sort of media shot and post-pro on iPhone.

It's a highly creative and fast growing niche a bit like Holga or Lomo art. As we approach the super crisp noise free perfection of 5DII/III and 1D4/1DX there is a totally valid creative backlash which is manifesting some truly beautiful , spontaneous work most recently from iPhone (some heavily apped work) and Holga/Lomo etc shooters.

Personally I shoot for low noise & tack sharp, but definitely tip my hat to the better iPhone/Holga/Lomo artists.

Paul Wright

[Viggo]

I'm a little like Jeremey Clarkson here. This might be a little out there. Check out 3:01 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunqcDxP3Mw&feature=relmfu
	Small | Large

This is my reason for buying the 1-series. I don't do sports all day long, I don't shoot in caves. I hate to go out in the rain. But if I see an image that needs to be taken, I need my camera to do that, no matter what. I use my camera for personal images, I hardly ever do any paid stuff, or shoot for others. I just want the best in every situation when I need to capture a moment. So do I NEED the mk4?... Yes, because although (if we look past pure IQ) I could shoot many of my images with a 5d or a 7d, but the ride just isn't the same, the feel isn't the same, and those cameras never feel like they work together with you, they are limited, and you have to argue with them. But with my mk4 it's like a butler, an extension of my brain , I ask it to so something ridicolous, like shooting my son running in very poor light, no flash please, and it says, "is that all Sir?" (in a british accent of course) and gets the job done, no fuzz, just done...

[briansquibb]

I'm a little like Jeremey Clarkson here. This might be a little out there. Check out 3:01 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunqcDxP3Mw&feature=relmfu

This is my reason for buying the 1-series. I don't do sports all day long, I don't shoot in caves. I hate to go out in the rain. But if I see an image that needs to be taken, I need my camera to do that, no matter what. I use my camera for personal images, I hardly ever do any paid stuff, or shoot for others. I just want the best in every situation when I need to capture a moment. So do I NEED the mk4?... Yes, because although (if we look past pure IQ) I could shoot many of my images with a 5d or a 7d, but the ride just isn't the same, the feel isn't the same, and those cameras never feel like they work together with you, they are limited, and you have to argue with them. But with my mk4 it's like a butler, an extension of my brain , I ask it to so something ridicolous, like shooting my son running in very poor light, no flash please, and it says, "is that all Sir?" (in a british accent of course) and gets the job done, no fuzz, just done...

+1 - the 1D4 shoots better than the 7D with better iso, af, noise, metering and gets very close on IQ to the 5DII

I love the 1D4 - as you say, it takes care of the technical bits leaving you with just the decisions about the content. Manual mode with auto iso is just awesome! The 1D4 with the 70-300L is my walkabout configuation.

[dr croubie]

I love the 1D4 - as you say, it takes care of the technical bits leaving you with just the decisions about the content. Manual mode with auto iso is just awesome! The 1D4 with the 70-300L is my walkabout configuation.

70-300L on my 7D is my most used configuration, and I love it for those reasons too. 1D4 is still my wishlist-upgrade, something tells me i'd cream myself if i ever got one...

[NotABunny]

Do I REALLY need? No, but I still haven't seen the camera that will let me do (without constant compromise) the photography that I like.

If a camera would let me do photography at ISO 25600, I could even use my 70-200 F4 and 1/200s in average lit indoor rooms to take properly exposed photos (that would not lose quality due to the necessary exposure increase in post).

Sure, my 85 F1.8 lens gives more choices about the ISO range, but it's not a zoom or L lens. (Plus, the DOF is just too slim in many cases.)

In addition, current autofocus and autoexposure, on my 40D anyway, are bad (for candids).

[samthefish]

I think some people are interested in technology for its own sake, like another poster said it's a valid hobby though it may seem strange.  One analogy I'd draw is the overclocking community on PC's.  Long ago gamer's would tweak their computers to try to get better frame rates on games.  Now there is a whole community that's constantly doing game "benchmarks" but rarely (if ever) playing the games themselves!  Constantly upgrading.  Quad SLI Rigs running 3D Mark in an endless loop...  Ask any of those guys and they'll insist they really "need" the latest video card.

I enjoy action photography so better AF and higher usable ISO are always interesting.  I've shot some Lax games at dusk and you're always making a compromise with shutter speed / ISO, even with fast lenses.

SamTheFish

[AprilForever]

Yes, I really do need a new camera! Canon told me so! Maybe that new shiny G1X... It's the newest thing, so it's got to be had! 

Seriously, though, I actually do not need a new camera... but would like a 7D mk II when it comes out, or a 1D ASP-C...