ggiaphotos Loc: Iowa

It gets to be an obsession.... good thoughts! :thumbup:

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I'm still making money with my D200. I keep a D70 as my back up. As soon as one or the other dies, I'll upgrade. I was also a musician until I got my hand mangled in a table saw.... wouldn't reccomend it for anyone wondering if it would be fun. I found out a long time ago, buying more and more guitars, doesn't make one any better. I've seen stunning photos made with D40s on up. The differenece was good composition, good technique, knowing how to read light, and quality glass.

I'll let the younger crowd figure out what I did the hard way, so there are pleanty of slightly used higher end cameras when I'm ready to buy......that just didn't take as good of pictures as the "kid who had to have the newest of everything" thought it should.

rfazzi Loc: San Jose, California

I have the D7000 (currently being repaired in Denver by Rick) and at 16.2 MP is fantastic resolution in my opinion for most photographers. As long as you have total control over exposure values, as most modern cameras do, it's really the glass that makes the bigger difference. I am realizing this more and more as the 70-300mm zoom I purchased with my D70 is just not cutting it for me any more. I'm happy with the 18-105 VR kits lens that came with my D7000 for the time being.

I upgraded from a D70 so I won't be upgrading for awhile.

Rich

shieldsadvert

I've been waiting for over 2 years to decide on a camera system because it seems every time I find something I like, something better comes out. Finally ordered a Sony NEX-6 and will probably keep it for years. The learning curve on today's cameras is steep and it seems the incremental "bells and whistles" that will inevitably come may not be worth reinvesting in a newer system. My 2 cents.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I think this comment (as well as those by CaptainC and Elliot) is right on the mark. In the digital age, computer and camera technology changes at a very rapid rate. True, many of the improvements are wonderful, but from our perspective as consumers we need to temper our buying behavior by realistically accessing our true needs. Do we really need the newest, fancy technology if the older technology is not imposing any limitations on our ability to express ourselves through our photography? We need to keep in mind that the major camera producers are marketing to us by following that old adage, "CREATE a need in the mind of the consumer, then fill it". We don't need to join the marketing rat race; we need only buy when the limitations of our equipment prevents us from meeting our goals as photographic artists.

As a side, I remember a story told to me by another photographer. A fine art photographer is at a dinner party. The hostess is talking to him about his art and makes the comment, "Your work is absolutely stunning. You must have a great camera". At the end of the evening, the photographer is saying his goodbyes at the door. He says to the hostess, "Thank you for a simply wonderful meal. It was one of the best I've ever had. You must have a great stove".

Its not the equipment, its the photographer behind the equipment that really matters.

shieldsadvert

Well put and I couldn't agree more. I have a friend who has all the best Canon equipment and is looking to upgrade again even though he doesn't know how to properly use the equipment he has now nor does he really know how to see what he's looking at. It's the man behind the camera, not the camera in front of the man.

MtnMan Loc: ID

The comments above suggest you should to consider DSLRs as similar to computers. Computers follow "Moore's law"...a doubling of capacity and halving of price every couple of years. Similar for digital cameras...at least the sensor and electronic portions of them.

As with computers you have to decide on your philosophy for dealing with that. I plan on a new computer (and now DSLR) every two or three years and assume the old one will be worth nothing by then. I keep the old one around for a generation as a back-up, and then junk it.

With DSLRs it is still probably far less expensive than what you'd have had to pay for film and developing for those thousands of pictures you can take with it over a couple or three years.

The good news is that lenses are mostly mechanical devices and not subject to Moore's law. Money you put there is better invested.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

I find it quite amusing that some folks on here must spend much of their time in line to get every new thing that hits the market. I guess if I was filthy rich I might and I do mean might be in the same catagory. I sit and listen to people say how great their new camera is only to listen to them 8 months down the line getting a new one just for the fact it has come out. If you know your camera like the back of your hand and it's not giving you what you need then step up otherwise keep what you have and look for better glass.........

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It's all a matter of "planned obsolescence" on the part of the camera makers. It's their way of staying in business

Doug B Loc: Edmonton Alberta

I also agree and am not trying to keep up with the latest trend. It does seem though that Nikon changes it's models more than most in the SLR bracket and that they discontinue the models that they have out quicker than others. Just when you think you have nailed the one you want, it is discontinued for a newer one at a large price hike. I guess if you have a company to write these purchases off against the the need is there. For most amateurs it will take them the rest of their life to figure out the one they have:-) We all know it is all about the glass.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Yes, and it is also up to us what kind of life we want to have. It all depends where you want to be on the spectrum of life. As it happens I do not perceive myself to have any artistic abilities with anything. I'm intrigued as much by the mechanism and what it can allow me to do as anything else. While I have learned a little bit about composition and lighting, most of my interests in shooting is with subjects where those things are not a consideration, things that move and not always when the light is good. I am not at all sure I fully understand the whole concept of art as it is associated with a camera. I therefore question a lot of the talk about photography being art. I just don't get that.

I am as interested in the tech aspects about cameras, and computers, as I am about what comes out of them. I am also, at 75, not wishing to be hung up at a particular point in my life, am not still listening to Elvis, driving a '50 Mercury with a Minolta Hi-Matic fixed 45mm lens rangefinder on the seat beside me while trying to pull out into today's freeway traffic on the way to shoot a football game and then a wedding.

Just go to sleep with your 5D3 or D800 and wake up in a few years and you'll be disoriented and may not be able to overcome it. Oh yow, you'll still get you some really good pictures but will you really when everyone else is shooting holograms and projecting them onto the sides of 100 story buildings made of some material we have yet to discover. You snooze, you lose. You lock yourself into a particular place and refuse to budge, somebody'll move soon enough, maybe in a front loader, you and your 5D3, your Mercury, your Minolta, and all. How artistic will you look then?

Not many of us will make a mark in the art world with a camera. And as much as I bristle every time I hear the name and the analogy of the camera and the stove, look where Ansel Adams is - yep, he made his mark and with regard to the whole idea of the world of art, his most magnificent work is relegated to a few obscure back alley galleries around the country and they are mostly shabby affairs not fit to be associated with the art world. No amount of semantics will elevate a photograph to the level of a Mona Lisa or a Starry Nights. I don't even say the word 'art' when talking about photography but I'm still not going to be talked into freezing up at some point in my life and staying there for the rest of it. So, that's where I am on the spectrum. Not interested, you say. It goes both ways.

How's that for a new can of worms? :-)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nikon has been criticized quite a bit online because of their upgrade policies. First, they introduce the $3,000 D800, then the $2,100 D600, and later, the D400. Writers have complained that they do not understand their customer base, but sales are good, so they do as they please.

Doug B Loc: Edmonton Alberta

That was a mouthful. Ever consider being a writer:-)

Ps. It was on the mark though.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

My sentiments exactly (sort of). I like the mechanical aspect of cameras and computers, and I enjoy getting rid of the old and bringing in the new.

It was my wife who decided in 1979 that we had to keep up with technology and get an Apple lle. We've been following that trail ever since.

Dave S Loc: SW Iowa

Wow! Had I a dollar for every time I've heard that (....said that), I could afford my next newest latest and greatest. :roll:

An addiction is an addiction, no matter how you slice it!