How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?

[funkboy]

I'm already a bit ticked off, living on the East Coast of the US that light pollution seriously detracts from amateur astro-photography which I feel I would be quite interested/active in if I had access to clearer skies (Jealous of all my friends who live in NZ and Aus).

Check this out.

Sounds like you need some light pollution filters, or if you're ready to dedicate a camera to it, replace the low-pass filter to reject artificial wavelengths.

 

[unruled]

I still have camera bodies from 10 years ago that I use. I don't really upgrade, I purchase tools and equipment based on ROI.

With ROI in mind I make more careful decisions and focus on camera bodies that can be upgraded, or that are high-end enough to produce for years. My last new camera body was two years ago, I'm unlikely to buy a new one for another year. I'd be more inclined to add lights, grip (light stands, soft boxes , etc.), lenses, upgrade software, color management and spend on marketing on a regular basis. Camera bodies are upgraded every few years or if I add a new photographer.

Can I make money on this is my first question, followed by "how long before this new camera, printer, lens is turning a profit?"

If it still is earning its keep and returning income it continues to be used. When something wears out, or stops being financially productive then I sell it or donate it.

It does not matter if it's a printer, camera, light, computer or other tool, it's got to earn its keep.

I'm glad to hear your take onit. I feel weird when I hear a prof. With working 5d ii saying they will get a 1dx. You can give all sorts of beautuful rationalisations for upgrading but if you can't back it up with figures (roi), it means you sre doing it for the wrong reasons I think. A new body either needs to let you charge more for your images, or you need to be able to sell tangibly more images..otherwise its just indulgement, isn't it?

 

[dr croubie]

otherwise its just indulgement, isn't it?

That's probably the best distinction between professional and prosumer. Professionals have to justify all their expenditure for expected return (be it 550D, 1DX, or IQ180). Prosumers (even if they do sell some shots) can buy any body they like, because "fun" gets taken into the return-on-investment calculations...

 

[Jettatore]

Check this out.

Sounds like you need some light pollution filters, or if you're ready to dedicate a camera to it, replace the low-pass filter to reject artificial wavelengths.

Thanks funkboy. I'll look into it but I suspect there is no filter strong enough to cancel out the massive night-time light pollution effects from NYC and the other nearby cities combined. From what I understand, it's so bad that it now affects even large scale planetariums. Really, it's hopeless until we can get behavior changed. God I wish I could just get a filter, that would be so much fun...

 

[lol]

Thanks funkboy. I'll look into it but I suspect there is no filter strong enough to cancel out the massive night-time light pollution effects from NYC and the other nearby cities combined. From what I understand, it's so bad that it now affects even large scale planetariums. Really, it's hopeless until we can get behavior changed. God I wish I could just get a filter, that would be so much fun...

If you're willing to accept giving up on broad spectrum objects, you can go to narrowband imaging of the right kinds of deep sky objects. Light pollution might not be quite as bad for me, but it still is rather bad. I recently got my first 6nm H-alpha filter so still somewhat on the learning curve for getting the best out of the system. The 6nm bandwidth is a rather budget affair, and you can get narrower bandwidth versions are higher cost to cut out even more unwanted light. Only snag is if you want a false colour image you need two other different ones too...

 

[funkboy]

Aha, this was another French astrophotography site I was trying to find, a colleague of Christian Buil's (from the previos site)...

Thierry Legault's solar silhouettes like this one are nothing short of amazing.

 

[Otter]

2005 - Canon 20D
2012 - Canon 5d MkIII

I am probably on the extreme end of things, but I don't find it necessary, if you are not a professional photographer, or just have money to burn, to upgrade every second year. Mind you that's just me. My 20D has seen a ton of use over the last 6 or so years, but still works like it is brand new. When the MKIII comes out, I will most likely pick one up, unless it is ridiculously expensive and I will grab a MKII instead.

 

[Harry Muff]

Bought a EOS 1N in 1996, a EOS 30D in 2006 and recently bought a G12 (not as a replacement for the 30D though; needed something more portable).

I'm currently nursing a semi for the 5D MKII.

 

[jrista]

I upgrade either when I reach the limits of my current gear (i.e. I need better ISO performance or higher resolution or better AF), or my old gear breaks. Generally speaking, I keep my gear (for whatever) in good condition, and the most common reason to upgrade is when I've hit the limits of whatever I have currently. This was recently the case with my 450D...terrible noise above ISO 800, horrid AF, small & dim viewfinder, terrible LCD screen resolution that made checking photos in-camera frustrating, low battery capacity, limited features, too small physically for my hands, etc. etc.

I'm using a 7D from a friend now, and intend to pull the trigger on one of my own assuming it doesn't come as a gift for Christmas. I don't foresee needing something better than the 7D (at least from a cropped-frame perspective) for a long time, and hope it will last me for years. Its fantastic for birds and wildlife, and I have zero issues whatsoever regarding its IQ. Depending on how the rumors about the 5D III turn out, I may pick up a 5D II for its 21.1mp sensor to fulfill my landscape and macro photography needs, as it has a capability neither the 450D or 7D have: full-frame.

 

[rpt]

I change the body as soon as it stops working.

+1

Same here except I'd use the words "some time after".

 

[mariusx1]

It's fun reading through this year-old thread. As someone who's on the verge of a big upgrade, it's also fun looking back on my own history.

1990s - EOS Rebel (my dad's camera that I used throughout high school)

1996-2000 - Gave up photography during college

2001 - EOS Elan 7E (Decided to get back into it. I'd always wanted an Elan 2E. This seemed better!)

2004 - Digital Rebel (An inexpensive digital SLR...no more costly fim processing)

2007 - SD800IS P&S (Wanted something more portable)

2008 - Sold Digital Rebel (Wasn't using it much anymore)

2009 - 40D (Caught the photo bug again and chose this over the 50D.)

2012 - S100 P&S (Needed to upgrade my point & shoot)

That's how it stands today (40D + S100). But, I've recently been taking more photos than I ever have in the past, including volleyball and basketball in a dimly lit gym. And the 40D is starting to show its age. I still love a lot of things about the 40D, but the high ISO performance, AF, and lowish megapixel count are starting to matter.

It's between the 6D and the 5D3, but the 6D seems like a bit of a downgrade is some key areas (FPS, cross-type AF, build quality). Unless the 6D sensor is game-changing, I'll be getting a 5D3 before long...especially since the price keeps dropping! I'm hoping the 5D3 will give me at least 4-5 good years.

I change the body once its limitations begin to hinder my shooting ability.

 

[Marine03]

Marius I feel the same way, but I'm using a 450D and if I'm not outside or all the windows in my house are open at peak daylight times like yesterday for Halloween, it gets dark where I live early this time of year and so just to get an okay shot I'm at max iso at 1/60 but when taking pics of little kids running around its sort of a challenge to not get blur. Which tells me I've maxed out my camera's ability. I hate shooting flash.

so 6D being able to shoot ISO 6400 or so will give me more options than 1600 max.

 

[eddiemrg]

Only when the tecnological improvement is RADICAL.
i.e. from 300D to 7D.

alternatively: when the number of shutter speed meets the "limt" declared from Canon.

 

[Bob Howland]

Last Spring and Summer, I replaced a 5D with a 5D3 and 40D with a refurbished 7D. The 5D was 6-1/2 years old and the 40D 4-1/2 years old. Both still take great pictures. The 5D was given to a friend who attached her 28-200 and now has far more camera than she will ever need. The 40D was replaced because the shutter release button is becoming increasingly flaky. It will probably be used primarily as a remote camera triggered by Pocket Wizards. The 5D was replaced because I needed the better high-ISO image quality and wanted the much better focusing of the 5D3.

I'm set for another 5 years or so.

 

[dshipley]

I upgrade/buy gear based on a number of things...

1. What I'm primarily shooting
2. If the quality of my images are being limited by the item
3. If the item will improve my productivity (time=money)
4. If maintaining/repairing the item becomes more expensive than investing in a new item
5. Product update cycles/life cycles/price cycles

My Body History:

2005 - Nikon D50
2006 - Nikon D70s/Nikon D100
2007 - Nikon D70s/Nikon D100
2008 - Nikon D3/Nikon D70s
2009 - Nikon D3/Nikon D70s
2010 - Nikon D3/Nikon D70s
2011 - Canon 5D2/Nikon D3/Nikon D70s
2012 - Canon 5D3/Nikon D3/Nikon D70s

Currently I use the 5D3 (gripped) as my primary body, the D3 when I need speed, and I don't really use the D70s (emergency backup).

 

[bdunbar79]

5D Mark II was my first DSLR after having used film (i.e. EOS-3)
Shortly after got 1Ds Mark III

Started shooting sports 1 year later and got 1D Mark IV and 7D as backup
Got rid of everything above this year and then went:

5D Mark III
2 x 1DX

I don't think my photography is better due to different bodies now, but I get more shots as keepers in more challenging situations. It is advantageous to use technological improvements. I can now keep my shutter at 1/1000s and above at night sports whereas just a few months ago this was not possible.

 

[albron00]

2009 - 500D
2010 - 7D
2012 - 7D

 

[Mick]

2007 400D my first camera. Added a 5dmk1. Had the crop for distance and full frame for everything else.
2010' bought a near new 1DS3 only because its built like a tank and I'm clumsy and out in all weathers. This is my landscape camera and unless Canon do something incredible will remain so. At A3 I can't see to much of a differance to my old 5D but the autofocus is excellent and again the build is top draw. 2010 bought a 7d as I'm now into sport. Full frame was way to short as my friend with his 1DX found out recently, no trackside passes so distance is everything, and it was bought for distance frame rate and autofocus. It excels at this but isn't so hot quality wise for landscapes.2012 bought a 1D4' my fav camera. Bought for autofocus, build quality frame rate and it excels at every thing. Top image quality better than the 7 close to the 3. So now I'm covered at all sensor sizes and distances. Will I upgrade, no I personally don't need to. The x is as close to perfect all round camera but for what I do I'll miss the crop and wouldn't like to use extenders and its no better at landscapes than my 3 at the low iso and sizes i print.But for lens,s its a different story. Buy quality used, keep until the upgrades come out, sell make a profit and buy a used new gen lens. The lens is defiantly the biggest influence on image quality for me that's why I'm breaking my used rule and my new 500 arrives tomorrow.

 

[JPAZ]

Thought I'd add to the redundancy.....

Started with 35mm many years ago (even did my own B&W processing). Back then, the big dilemma was print film vs. slide film and print what you like. My first digital was a P&S and this opened up new opportunities (although the IQ was marginal and the shutter lag was awful). I got a G6 and was happy but still limited with the capabilities, although this was and is a fine little camera. Next came an XTI and this was a major step up. But soon, I felt limited by menus that were not that quick to go through while using manual modes and the low light capabilities were so-so.

I struggled for a long time with jumping to FF vs staying in crops, but the lenses I owned drove my decision. I got a 50D (almost pulled the trigger on a 40D) and was quite happy with that. As my skills improved, I felt more and more frustrated with the low light noise (I do a lot of existing light travel photos). I again began the debate with FF or not.

When the 5Dmkiii Ebay sale from Adorama happened, I made the jump. I had always thought I'd go that route when the price was right and well........it happened. I already had a 70-200 and a 50 1.8 so I took the jump and so far am glad I did. Of course, I just sold a bunch of EF-S glass and got a 17-40 and 24-105 (sold my XTI, 50D as well) and am at a financial break even. Now, I just need to work on my skills. The 5D3 is an amazing piece of equipment but there is a learning curve.

 

[K-amps]

I almost never shot Film:

1997: Kodak DC120 (Stopped working one day)
2002: Nikon Coolpix 4500 (Sensor Died one fine day in Switzerland)
2005: Rebel XT 350d (Workhorse, Sold it on ebay Apr 2012)
2010: 1D mk.ii (Had it for 12 months resold for $50 loss... )
2011: 5Dc (sold Apr 2012)
2012: 5d mk.iii

The bodies just became better and so did the IQ I could get from them. The L Lens additions took the quality to a whole new level. New features improve ease and also the % of getting a good shot. If I have the money, I will keep upgrading but hopefully next time won't get super excited about a new body and be an early adopter... :