Great photos. I jumped back in to photography as a hobby in 2004 after setting film aside for 25 years. I still have first Nikon D40 which I gave my wife when I "upgraded." Coincidentally, I took it out for spin recently (the battery actually charged up) and it worked great with its whopping 6mp.

I have since owned a D7100 (my first "serious" camera) but traded for a D7200 for better low light and deeper buffer. Then came the D500 with 10fps and a perfect buffer and everything I needed for sports/wildlife and astro with my new backup, a used D750. I could still be using that combo for life, but have now gone mirrorless and chose Nikon Z9 over Sony A1. And I'm fully ready to trade the Z9 fo a Z6iii orZ90 that's smaller and less bulky with a 33-45mp sensor, 20-30 fps and the continually improving AF.

I mention all this because photograhy is my hobby . I don't buy because of need, mainly because every other aspect of my life is based on need. I have a modest afforable home but could buy bigger. I drive a used truck, not a BMW. We have a used camper that I paid cash for. I haven't needed to buy dress shoes for 20 years and business attire is only replaced when threads are bare or the waistline demands a bigger size.

So do I go a little crazy buying the latest and greatest cameras and new lenses... sure. It's my treat to myself. I will probably quit buying when I fully retire in 2 years. But make no mistake, UHH has nothing to do with my purchase decisions. I was doing this before I knew UHH existed. Of course, my "hobby" then was golf and I could never resist a new driver!

P.S. I've only bought new twice in 19 years. The D40 and the Z9 + lenses. Thanks to MPB, ebay and Robert's Camera.

There was a post about the EOS XTi recently, a camera that was my first DSLR. I purchased that 10MP Rebel body in Dec 2006, so I'm approaching 20 years in digital overall. To create this retrospective post, I reached into the LR catalog looking for similar images to ask the question: can you see the difference?

Wrigley Building by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Wrigley Building


I'm unsure if I have UHH to thank for the impetus to change from an XTi to an EOS 7D, before then changing again to the current EOS 5DIII. The following series of image pairs will tend to be at least 10 years apart. The two bees compare a 100mm macro with a 180mm macro.

Bee and flower


Coneflower visitor


The exposure details and lenses of all the images are available from Flickr, using the URL links that are the image titles. I couldn't find any images that used the same lens on both cameras, for similar images. The best I could find was similar subjects and views, in a landscape format.

Buckingham Fountain


Buckingham Fountain


If you "need" a new camera, there's always a question of: why? Maybe you need more resolution. Maybe you need more frames per second. Maybe you need more external controls. Maybe better noise performance? Maybe better Auto Focus performance? But, what if it's really just that you need a better lens? And therefore, maybe, you don't really need more pixels or more controls or more frames or NR or AF performance?

Chicago


Chicago Skyline - Willis Tower


I wanted to just compare a 10MP cropped sensor to a 22MP full-frame, but the sequence of agave, below, adds the wrinkle of a circa 1987 f/1.8 prime against a nearly as old film-era zoom and the newest IS enabled zoom. Even though all these images are down-sized to 2048-pixels on the wide side (and linked as 1600px), I think for most of the images, one can see the resolution differences of the two / three cameras.

United States Botanic Garden


DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun


Wesley Bolin Memorial Park


Of these final two images, I think the Rebel actually wins the 1 to 1. All the images in this post were processed in LR6. The XTi images are a mixture of JPEG files and RAW against the RAW files of the EOS 7D and 5DIII. The bottom image suffers a bit from the 2x extender added to the 500mm L prime. It looks good, but I think there's more details in the upclose of the XTi at 52mm than the more distant shot from the effective 700mm of the prime.

United States Botanic Garden


Swamp Rose Mallow


Hopefully, these examples cause some serious questions about: Is it the camera, the software, the photographer or the lens?

Remember, the longer you read UHH, the more expensive it gets. Try not to get caught up in the hype.

There was a post about the EOS XTi recently, a camera that was my first DSLR. I purchased that 10MP Rebel body in Dec 2006, so I'm approaching 20 years in digital overall. To create this retrospective post, I reached into the LR catalog looking for similar images to ask the question: can you see the difference?

Wrigley Building by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Wrigley Building


I'm unsure if I have UHH to thank for the impetus to change from an XTi to an EOS 7D, before then changing again to the current EOS 5DIII. The following series of image pairs will tend to be at least 10 years apart. The two bees compare a 100mm macro with a 180mm macro.

Bee and flower


Coneflower visitor


The exposure details and lenses of all the images are available from Flickr, using the URL links that are the image titles. I couldn't find any images that used the same lens on both cameras, for similar images. The best I could find was similar subjects and views, in a landscape format.

Buckingham Fountain


Buckingham Fountain


If you "need" a new camera, there's always a question of: why? Maybe you need more resolution. Maybe you need more frames per second. Maybe you need more external controls. Maybe better noise performance? Maybe better Auto Focus performance? But, what if it's really just that you need a better lens? And therefore, maybe, you don't really need more pixels or more controls or more frames or NR or AF performance?

Chicago


Chicago Skyline - Willis Tower


I wanted to just compare a 10MP cropped sensor to a 22MP full-frame, but the sequence of agave, below, adds the wrinkle of a circa 1987 f/1.8 prime against a nearly as old film-era zoom and the newest IS enabled zoom. Even though all these images are down-sized to 2048-pixels on the wide side (and linked as 1600px), I think for most of the images, one can see the resolution differences of the two / three cameras.

United States Botanic Garden


DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun


Wesley Bolin Memorial Park


Of these final two images, I think the Rebel actually wins the 1 to 1. All the images in this post were processed in LR6. The XTi images are a mixture of JPEG files and RAW against the RAW files of the EOS 7D and 5DIII. The bottom image suffers a bit from the 2x extender added to the 500mm L prime. It looks good, but I think there's more details in the upclose of the XTi at 52mm than the more distant shot from the effective 700mm of the prime.

United States Botanic Garden


Swamp Rose Mallow


Hopefully, these examples cause some serious questions about: Is it the camera, the software, the photographer or the lens?

Remember, the longer you read UHH, the more expensive it gets. Try not to get caught up in the hype.

There was a post about the EOS XTi recently, a camera that was my first DSLR. I purchased that 10MP Rebel body in Dec 2006, so I'm approaching 20 years in digital overall. To create this retrospective post, I reached into the LR catalog looking for similar images to ask the question: can you see the difference?

Wrigley Building by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Wrigley Building


I'm unsure if I have UHH to thank for the impetus to change from an XTi to an EOS 7D, before then changing again to the current EOS 5DIII. The following series of image pairs will tend to be at least 10 years apart. The two bees compare a 100mm macro with a 180mm macro.

Bee and flower


Coneflower visitor


The exposure details and lenses of all the images are available from Flickr, using the URL links that are the image titles. I couldn't find any images that used the same lens on both cameras, for similar images. The best I could find was similar subjects and views, in a landscape format.

Buckingham Fountain


Buckingham Fountain


If you "need" a new camera, there's always a question of: why? Maybe you need more resolution. Maybe you need more frames per second. Maybe you need more external controls. Maybe better noise performance? Maybe better Auto Focus performance? But, what if it's really just that you need a better lens? And therefore, maybe, you don't really need more pixels or more controls or more frames or NR or AF performance?

Chicago


Chicago Skyline - Willis Tower


I wanted to just compare a 10MP cropped sensor to a 22MP full-frame, but the sequence of agave, below, adds the wrinkle of a circa 1987 f/1.8 prime against a nearly as old film-era zoom and the newest IS enabled zoom. Even though all these images are down-sized to 2048-pixels on the wide side (and linked as 1600px), I think for most of the images, one can see the resolution differences of the two / three cameras.

United States Botanic Garden


DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun


Wesley Bolin Memorial Park


Of these final two images, I think the Rebel actually wins the 1 to 1. All the images in this post were processed in LR6. The XTi images are a mixture of JPEG files and RAW against the RAW files of the EOS 7D and 5DIII. The bottom image suffers a bit from the 2x extender added to the 500mm L prime. It looks good, but I think there's more details in the upclose of the XTi at 52mm than the more distant shot from the effective 700mm of the prime.

United States Botanic Garden


Swamp Rose Mallow


Hopefully, these examples cause some serious questions about: Is it the camera, the software, the photographer or the lens?

Remember, the longer you read UHH, the more expensive it gets. Try not to get caught up in the hype.

I've read this entire thread. The XSi was also my first DSLR, but not my first digital. Can I tell which camera took which photo in your examples? No. Do I care? Not really.

What I did notice was the light. Especially on the "same" three plants. I've been noticing the effects of light more and more, especially when studying Cany143's posted work. From what I can tell, it's not the camera body nor the lens that is responsible for capturing the "magic" light, even though that is what a camera and lens do. The magic light that truly makes an image is seen, recognized, and presented to the camera by the person standing behind the viewfinder.

When I bought my 12.2MP XSi I told myself I would upgrade at 24.4MP. Well a 20MP SX710HS came along to carry around Disney. Then I found it would do the close photography I desired. Then I bought a 24-105L lens. Wow. Yes, I finally bought a full frame mirrorless RP. The XSi focus problems are gone. But am I a better photographer? Hahahahahaha! No. My composition is still lacking, but improving. My ability to see a great photograph in front of me..... The ability to read ambient light is improving as well as knowing what time of day and weather conditions help to improve the light.

I like a lot of the new features of the RP. They sometimes make taking images easier and quicker. But they don't improve my skills.

And some of your other comments have made me understand your sarcasm that I busted you for earlier that I did not understand. Sometimes that lack of live voice inflection or facial expression is the difference between understanding and miss-understanding. I apologize.