Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

You even hear talk about folks here having made the proud decision to have traded up to the next camera, up the line … like, it's no skin of their nose. But, I'm wondering here - whether these kinds of rash decisions make any sense, at all. You all know you can NEVER EVER get back the monies you spent, originally. And, chances are - you will have had to sweeten the deal - adding some cash in to get the upgrade you want. Just seems to me, that, no matter what you're getting in exchange - just t'ain't worth it. What's your take?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It sure has always been worth it to me, it doesn't matter if I got a better camera, or a better lens, it was ALWAYS worth it and I would never go back the other way!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Not necessarily rash decisions.
If you can afford it - it doesn't really matter..

I have only done it once (for the next camera up the line).
That was going from a Pentax SV (with no metering at all as standard) to a Pentax Spotmatic with TTL metering. I owned a pair of these.

I have upgraded one body to another in the same line when the first body apeared to be failing - That was from a Canon 40D to a 70D.

I did upgrade from an entry level DSLR to a mid range DSLR (Canon 350D to Casmon 40D) becaause of the better ergenomics and better all round performance.

No regrets on any of thesse purchases.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I never really had the desire to trade in cameras. When I buy a camera, I use it for many, many years. By the time I no longer have use for a camera, it is so old that virtually no one will want it, and certainly wouldn't make much of a bargaining chip for trade in.

BebuLamar

I can't afford to trade up Chris! I buy what I think would be good for me for a long time.

1Feathercrest Loc: NEPA

I have just about every camera I ever bought except for the Leica M3 with allied equipment that I sold when I was out of work, had no savings and had a large obstetrician bill for the birth of my daughter. I regret not naming her "Leica" instead of "Erica".

Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA

Never actually traded. First camera was a Canon TL QL bought in 1970. Later acquired Canon AE1p and A1 in the 1980s, then an EOS1 in 1990. After a long fallow period, started again in digital with a Rebel T6s in 2015, added an EOS 80D in 2016 and an EOS 6DII in 2018. If technology changes continue at the rapid rates seen recently, there might be scope to add another camera or two in a few years.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Pro - you get better gear
Con - it costs money

What endeavor/hobby/pastime can you come up with that doesn't have a cost associated with it?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, but as Orson just indicated - why trade?

The money you lose, is far more than what you gain.

It's far better to just put money aside, until you can afford the better gear - don't you think, Gene?

mcmama

In 8 months, I went from a D5500 to a D7200. Absolutely no regrets. Three months later I added a D750. Again, absolutely no regrets. I use them both, and I shoot regularly.

It does help having no children to support, and having two decent retirements. No justification needed.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Do you mean upgrading or "trading in"? There's a big difference.

Trade in prices for used gear are fairly low, the dealer has to make a living too.

Selling used gear has its own perils, but you will yield a higher percentage of its value. All of my digital bodies and most of my lenses were purchased used.

In general, most people think that bodies lose value faster than glass, so I don't usually find it worthwhile to sell my last generation bodies - they either get used for backup or are given away to others who need and will use them. I've given away some kit lenses and sold one second hand when I no longer needed it.

I don't really understand the people who switch back and forth between entire systems, often for a temporary advantage in one lens or body. A couple of times back in "film days", I had to make a full system switch, and I took a financial beating each time. When we went digital, my wife and I made a decision on the system we could afford and whose ergonomics we preferred, so I don't expect to experience that kind of major change again unless I can't find any more Nikon APS bodies to use.

Andy

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I used to chase after the newest camera, until I bought my Df. I love shooting with it. Sure the technology is six years old, but it took great pictures in 2013 and it takes great pictures today.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

You're a man after my own heart, Orson … so, you still have all those, then …

See - it never made sense to me to trade up. Go ahead - get the better camera, when you can …

But don't throw the old ones out to pasture, in the process - especially, if it means, losing all the money paid

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

No need, Mac … when you get to that level - it's the same as having acquired a D5 !!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Andy … I was careful to use the phrase "Trading Up" in the title, just so there'd be NO misunderstanding. Those who've gone on to underscore their valid reasons for outright selling of their equipment to finance other endeavours, don't really fit in with this. The reference is clearly to the "switch" of a lower "caste" of camera for an upper level one - which, usually means having to add to the trade - in order to accomplish.

Camera bodies (unlike lenses) are equivalent to cars, in a sense, in that - the moment you drive it out of the showroom (or, off the lot) - you've lost about 40% of its value. And, that money - you can NEVER get back. So, yes - it makes a whole lot more sense to hand it down to the next generation, or - just to keep for prosperity (you never know when you might need a back-up) - right?