Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
The Value of your camera in the rat race.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Oct 3, 2012 07:18:36   #
rfazzi Loc: San Jose, California
 
JoeDesertrat wrote:
Instead of thinking about upgrading the camera every few years, look at lenses instead. I find I'm limited more by what my lens can't do than by what my camera can't do. I'm slowly adding to my collection and as I learn to use each one I learn where I still have things I can't do, or could do better if I had a lens better suited. Face it, no matter how much research you do before you buy your camera, as soon as you buy it they will release a better model. When you do finally decide you have to upgrade your camera, if you stay in the same family your lenses will still work with the new camera.
Instead of thinking about upgrading the camera eve... (show quote)


Completely agree. Your lens will have a huge impact on what your camera is able to do. Glass is the way to go as Old Timer, Macbadger and JoeDesertrat all pointed out.

Once Rick returns my D7000, I will look to improve my collection of lenses. I need one fast enough for shooting hockey as the lighting in most arenas is not that good and the speed of the game makes it challenging.

Nice shot by the way zneb240!

Rich

Reply
Oct 3, 2012 07:51:18   #
Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)
 
In my opinion, buyers of bridge cameras are the most likely to upgrade on a yearly basis. Those buying throwaway point and shoots care the least about either photography or gadgets and will keep them until they break. Those buying Pro level DSLRs have too much invested in them already, and will keep them until they become totally obsolete or break. Knowing this, the camera manufacturers put enough upgrades in their bridge models to entice enthusiasts to buy the "latest and greatest" every year or two. I am living proof of that. I have had the SX40 for less than a year and am thinking of buying the SX50. That extra 360mm zoom on the long end is just too good to pass up

Reply
Oct 3, 2012 19:28:15   #
G.Feduccia Loc: Paradise in Florida Panhandle
 
Yeah! If you REALLY think more pixels or zoom cpability; new body, or lenses, new PP software, or all the bells and whistles are gonna make you an "artist" with the photos, then go back to the basics!

Seriously, wondermous photos are and can be taken with the crudest equipment! One does not need all those bangs and whistles, and ESPECIALLY stuff you do not understand and ain't willin' to take the time to thumb through the 2 inch thick manual that comes with it!!!

What comes with more pixels is a longer processing time and uploading time. Of course one can enlarge more pixels beyond an 8 X 10, but who of us does that? Heck, an 8 X 10 is all I can afford anyway.

Yesterday, I was in the local WalMart, checking out, when I noticed a Kodak HD camera with 36 exposures. I picked it up and found that it was a re-cycleable (sp?) camera loaded with 800 ISO FILM! Heck yes, most film is still HD, since it consists of most tiny grains instead of electronic pixel dots!

Oh well, I'm an old fool with cameras, dating from before the Canon AE, then the AE-1, darkrooms for B&W processing, and then aquiring a new Nikon N8008S, that had features on the camera that I NEVER completely mastered. Damn nice film cameras, and they still are pristine!

I quickly found out with some trips to DisneyWorld and other places that I did not want to take the huge camera bag, with the SLR's and lenses while I wanted to experience some rides or other activities.

So what did I do? Geese, I bought a Sony DSC-H9 with a 15X zoom bridge camera and have used it for the past several years with great photos. It has done everything I wanted it to do with a digital camera and more.

Then, I read that Nikon had a 42X zoom in a compact bridge camera, and I read all the reviews. It was a toss-up between the Nikon and new Canon bridge cameras, and I opted for the P-510. I am well pleased with the Nikon and still use my Sony. I have the choice of each of the cameras and I still think I made a correct decision in dumping my huge camera bags and equipment for the smaller and lighter weight bridge cameras.

Of course, tommorrow, they may announce a multi-terabite pixel camera and lens with a 1.0 aperture and a zoom ratio of .01mm - 2,000,000mm equivalent.

Damn, I guess that I will be the first in line . . . .

Gary

Reply
 
 
Oct 4, 2012 20:55:50   #
zneb240 Loc: New South Wales - Australia
 
dragonfist wrote:
gessman wrote:
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? :-)
Yes, and it is also up to us what kind of life we ... (show quote)


To each his own. I can understand your point of view as well as I can that of the person to whom the end result means more than the equipment used to get it. I can admire a person that can really make a photo better with a good editing program as well as the person that can make a good daguerrotype or ambrotype. We are all in this for a reason and for most of us it isn't to make money but to have fun. I don't think there is a right or wrong, just different ways of finding satisfaction.
quote=gessman Yes, and it is also up to us what k... (show quote)


IMHO both very valid comments. Some folks want the very latest and most powerful or prettiest automobile/computer/airplane/wife/husband/house/dog/AV system/iPhone/Ipad/baseball bat/clothing. Did I say camera? Not because they anticipate using all the available features or see themselves as the world champion whatever, but because they simply appreciate and desire the latest technology/engineering/looks. Nothing wrong with that.

Other folks prefer to move perhaps a little more slowly as they achieve satisfaction from fully mastering their toys before moving on. Nothing wrong with that either.

Most importantly - we can agree to disagree as we are all entitled to a different point of view. Thankfully humans will never all be the same and want exactly the same thing (think Chev/Ford, BMW/Mercedes Benz, Nikon/Cannon, this/that, blah/blah, blah/blah......

Sorry :oops: a bit off subject.

Go well. :-D

Reply
Oct 4, 2012 21:33:27   #
RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas
 
You know I don't worry about what’s a fair price for cameras I use them tell they just don't work anymore. But I must say for the last 40 years or so I have had no real problems with any of my Canon cameras I still have everyone I have bought they are rock solid products if you treat them with care and respect.




Doug B wrote:
It seem like a rat race if you want to keep up with the latest camera. As a Nikon user I find it frustating how many new models they are bringing out at the present time. I personally have given up trying to keep up. It also knocks the hell out of getting a fair price for your camera when you go to sell when in a few months you find yourself back 2 or 3 models. What do you think?

Reply
Oct 4, 2012 21:39:24   #
tramsey Loc: Texas
 
CaptainC wrote:
It is the way it is . Since these things are really microprocessors with some glass attached, they follow the same power for dollar curve as computers. I find it unnecessary to "keep up," although I understand the urge to do so. I will probably get the D800 next year when Apple comes out with a desktop machine with the next generation processor, but I have to tell you my D3 (12MP) and D7000 produce fantastic images. In fact, the D3 can do things the D800 cannot do. If your camera made great images when you bought it and it still makes those images today, it is hardly obsolete. When it can no longer produce the images you need, THEN a new unit might be needed.
It is the way it is . Since these things are real... (show quote)


CaptainC
I have the utmost respect for you and your advice. I have sent many people your way to ask questions and you always have the answers. I am truly amazed at your knowledge. That leads me to my question. Your D3 and D7000 still give your fantastic images. Your D3 can do things the D800 can not. So why would you want to get a D800? You are able to produce fantastic photos with both. The D800 is unable to do things that your D3 is capable of so it seems more like a downgrade to me than an upgrade. Going from the D7000 to a D800 I understand. One has a crop sensor and the other a full sensor, easy to see why to upgrade. But still that's a lot of money. Just thinking out loud. As you can tell I am fairly new and sometimes my questions get into the stupid zone. I was just wondering why your reasoning seems to conflict.

Reply
Oct 6, 2012 06:04:46   #
Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky
 
Danilo wrote:
Take a look at the flip-side of the coin:
A 1958 Volkswagen "Bug" looks identical to a 1977. So you buy the 1977 brand new, and it looks 19yrs. old before you drive it off the lot! Plenty of people were totally turned off by that!


I had three bugs. I would love to have the 1958 and the 1977 today. You would hear no complaints from me. :)

Reply
 
 
Oct 6, 2012 17:09:13   #
Doug B Loc: Edmonton Alberta
 
Fstop12 wrote:
Danilo wrote:
Take a look at the flip-side of the coin:
A 1958 Volkswagen "Bug" looks identical to a 1977. So you buy the 1977 brand new, and it looks 19yrs. old before you drive it off the lot! Plenty of people were totally turned off by that!


I had three bugs. I would love to have the 1958 and the 1977 today. You would hear no complaints from me. :)


Shot this on my country travels a few years ago:-)



Reply
Oct 6, 2012 18:37:25   #
Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip
 
new technology is wonderful, consider what bells and whistles you need. There aint a whole hell of a lot of improvement in resolution from 10-12 mp to 15-18 mp.
In order to double your resolution you need to quaddruple the mp of the sensor, ie 24mp is twice the resolution of a 6 mp sensor.
Personally I use ancient 35mm manual cameras as well as digital. From Minolta SRT 35mm gear to Canon 50D 60D and 1 D Mk2. I won t be looking for a new body for quite some time ( or unless powerball sends me to B&H for Hasselblad gear,
To maintain on the edge of the state of the art is a huge waste of time and resources. Nat Geo shooters might need and get the newest, latest, bestest doo dads widgits and gizmos. But the most serious hobby shooters will do fine with 1 or 2 good quality boidies and superb glass.
"you go to war with the army you have" or in civilian jargon, you go to shoot with the gear you are packing. Make the most of tghe gear you have, work with ion the limits of your gear ( Ferraris do not make good commuter cars) and you will be a magnificent shooter

Reply
Oct 6, 2012 18:40:12   #
Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip
 
G.Feduccia wrote:
Yeah! If you REALLY think more pixels or zoom cpability; new body, or lenses, new PP software, or all the bells and whistles are gonna make you an "artist" with the photos, then go back to the basics!

Seriously, wondermous photos are and can be taken with the crudest equipment! One does not need all those bangs and whistles, and ESPECIALLY stuff you do not understand and ain't willin' to take the time to thumb through the 2 inch thick manual that comes with it!!!

What comes with more pixels is a longer processing time and uploading time. Of course one can enlarge more pixels beyond an 8 X 10, but who of us does that? Heck, an 8 X 10 is all I can afford anyway.

Yesterday, I was in the local WalMart, checking out, when I noticed a Kodak HD camera with 36 exposures. I picked it up and found that it was a re-cycleable (sp?) camera loaded with 800 ISO FILM! Heck yes, most film is still HD, since it consists of most tiny grains instead of electronic pixel dots!

Oh well, I'm an old fool with cameras, dating from before the Canon AE, then the AE-1, darkrooms for B&W processing, and then aquiring a new Nikon N8008S, that had features on the camera that I NEVER completely mastered. Damn nice film cameras, and they still are pristine!

I quickly found out with some trips to DisneyWorld and other places that I did not want to take the huge camera bag, with the SLR's and lenses while I wanted to experience some rides or other activities.

So what did I do? Geese, I bought a Sony DSC-H9 with a 15X zoom bridge camera and have used it for the past several years with great photos. It has done everything I wanted it to do with a digital camera and more.

Then, I read that Nikon had a 42X zoom in a compact bridge camera, and I read all the reviews. It was a toss-up between the Nikon and new Canon bridge cameras, and I opted for the P-510. I am well pleased with the Nikon and still use my Sony. I have the choice of each of the cameras and I still think I made a correct decision in dumping my huge camera bags and equipment for the smaller and lighter weight bridge cameras.

Of course, tommorrow, they may announce a multi-terabite pixel camera and lens with a 1.0 aperture and a zoom ratio of .01mm - 2,000,000mm equivalent.

Damn, I guess that I will be the first in line . . . .

Gary
Yeah! If you REALLY think more pixels or zoom cpa... (show quote)



Kuddos on the P510, I bought one for a "quick grab kit"
and it rarely leaves my side. flexible, gorgeous shots and one hell of a long reach, it is a killer bridge camera.

Reply
Oct 6, 2012 18:40:41   #
bhfranklin Loc: Boston Area / Cape Cod
 
CaptainC wrote:
It is the way it is . Since these things are really microprocessors with some glass attached, they follow the same power for dollar curve as computers. I find it unnecessary to "keep up," although I understand the urge to do so. I will probably get the D800 next year when Apple comes out with a desktop machine with the next generation processor, but I have to tell you my D3 (12MP) and D7000 produce fantastic images. In fact, the D3 can do things the D800 cannot do. If your camera made great images when you bought it and it still makes those images today, it is hardly obsolete. When it can no longer produce the images you need, THEN a new unit might be needed.
It is the way it is . Since these things are real... (show quote)


Well said Captain

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2012 19:59:31   #
linuxfanatik Loc: Northumberland, England.
 
Doug B has a point. I guess its the same on the other side of the Atlantic pond too if I tried to sell my Nikon D3000 (since I've just got my Nikon D3200 body) on Ebay. The lenses I'm keeping for my new camera which has a few gizmo's that weren't on the D3000 - apart from the 24 megapixel upgrade and live mode which wasn't on the D3000.

Reply
Nov 14, 2012 20:03:47   #
linuxfanatik Loc: Northumberland, England.
 
I would like to own the Nikon D800e but I'm going to have to save hard (as I am on my pension - and it ain't much). My credit cards don't extend to a nice round £3000.00 pounds just yet...:-)!

Reply
Nov 14, 2012 20:18:37   #
Ambrose Loc: North America
 
I've gone from D70 to D80 to D90 and have always been a few years behind, in effect saving hundreds with each used purchase. Cameras plummet in value within a year of release, so I wait. The latest bells, whistles and new camera smell are rarely worth the extra $$...to me anyway.
The D90 is still a solid amazing camera that will keep me happy for a while longer. I might be buying a D600....in a few years. :)

Reply
Nov 14, 2012 20:28:19   #
linuxfanatik Loc: Northumberland, England.
 
I wanted to stalk animals at night but my previous camera (a D3000) only allowed me to use Infra-red in front of the camera in direct line of sight - which is not conducive to keeping a low profile when Fox's, Stags and some escaped Timber Wolves in my region are stalking me...! :-D

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.