For about the last 6 months, I've been thinking about upgrading from my current camera (about 4-5 years old) to something more recent. Not because the camera I have has started taking bad photographs but because I'm starting to think it is limiting me. Or maybe the lenses I have are. But how do I know?
I seem to recall an essay here (I think, maybe elsewhere), saying that the right time to upgrade is when the equipment is limiting what you can do (lets assume funding that has already been decided.) When I think of this question, I'm left wondering, how do I know this?
If I'm shooting APS-C and wanting wider shots than what I get with the crop from a full-frame wide angle lens, does that mean my camera needs replacing or should I just get one of the wide-angle-for-APS-C lenses?
If I'm making prints, is it a case of when I want to make prints bigger than what the megapixels in the source image will do at 200 (or 300) dpi?
If I'm taking outdoor photos, is it when there's a low level of light but the ISO required to remove blur introduces too much noise? - or is that an indication that I need a faster lens? or both?
Is it looking at the pictures I'm taking, on a computer monitor (that is not capable of displaying the full colour from the captured raw image!) and thinking that there isn't enough colour depth? [Although perhaps using a computer monitor to judge this at all is flawed because there are none that can display more than 8MP, so any viewing of a picture will either be a zoomed crop or down-sampled and neither of those is a good way to really judge the quality of a complete picture.]
It is an easy thing to go out and by the next new shiny with my credit card but I'm not a fan of returning goods and nor am I a fan of making the wrong purchasing decision.
Whilst all of the above _can_ help to make better photographs, the last 4 years have taught me that:
- knowing weather patterns where you're going to be shooting (one of Reichman's trips to China comes to mind where it was timed with a full moon and he went a step further to have a fisherman be a "model")
- reading the weather and being able to be in the right place at the right time
- where you can't know what the end result of the weather will be (like what will a sunrise or sunset actually look like), it helps to be able to "go back and try again" unless you get lucky (Alan Briot's work at the Grand Canyon comes to mind of someone that had local access to a site for a period of time and was therefore able to walk out every morning to see what the "mood" of the weather was)
- a good tripod (with cable release) that doesn't have a ball-head is priceless but a light-weight tripod that does have a ball-head is better than none
- having been to the location before so that you understand what each vantage point has to offer in terms of image composition and lighting
- being able to pick the right way to compose an image for a given scene/subject, considering the light/weather
When I look at all of the above, I see numerous areas in which to improve - none of which require better equipment (except maybe the tripod.) On top of that, the cost of doing an upgrade is the cost of traveling to a new destination for a weekend/week.
I used to think that I needed an upgrade because my camera is pre-anti-dust but the addition of a pocket rocket to my kit, regular cleaning when changing lenses and inspection of a "control shot" after that has allowed me to get on top of that, so I'm not sure if I need to upgrade because of that any more.
Photography isn't my job, it's just something I do - the challenge of trying to "get the shot" pulls me in but everywhere I look and even with the people around me, "upgrade" every n years seems to be "the thing to do." Whilst some can afford the luxury of just "buying the best", I'm not in that bracket and I don't begrudge those people for it. For those whose profession is photography, there are some very basic commercial reasons to upgrade to whatever level your budget can support, as often as you can - that's not me either.
So this boils down to two questions:
To the folks here - how do I tell the difference between me or my equiupment being the limiting factor in my photographs?
For those that are amateurs like myself, what have been the signposts that you have used as the indication of when you've outgrown your equipment?
This is a question we all have to consider. Buying new gear simply because it's the latest and best, is mindless.
I've been associated with LL for many years. When I first joined, the latest review from Michael was all about the 3mp Canon D30 which could, amazingly, produce better A4 size prints than 35m film, and virtually as good at A3 size.
But the camera was very expensive. Much more expensive than the best 35mm film camera, so I held off buying it. Since I'd already started scanning 35mm film, a 3mp image seemed a bit pathetic by comparison. Maybe as good or better at A4 size, but those of us who are a bit obsessed with image quality want higher resolution and higher image quality for the higher price, not equal image quality.
When a year or so later the Canon 6mp D60 was released at the same price as the D30, I felt more comfortable jumping in and buying the D60. Michael's review claimed the D60 was on a par with 35mm film up to A3+ size. Beyond A3+ size, 35mm film still had the edge. However, that didn't worry me because the 'then' current and affordable Epson desktop printers were no larger than A3+. I still use my Epson 1290.
When upgrading a camera, you should consider the occasions when your current camera let you down because the specs were not high enough. Those instances when you found your camera was not up to the job might include; inaccurate auto-focussing; noisy shadows at high ISO; reduced resolution and reduced image quality in general at high ISO; slow frame rate which doesn't lend itself to hand-held auto-bracketing of exposure or hand-held multiple exposures for stacking purposes, and a viewfinder which doesn't lend itself to critically accurate manual focussing
As an amateur, the size of your printer is also a significant consideration. A professional might never know if his image might be required for a really huge print. If you are in the business of selling your images, it's better to have the highest resolution possible, considering future demands.
If you are an amateur, there's still a need to consider future print sizes. Do not assume because your current printer may be A3+ size or A2 size, that it will always be that size.
In choosing a camera, there are many considerations that have to be weighed and balanced. The significance of each attribute is a personal decision. Perhaps weight is an important consideration. You then have to compare the relative merits of weight (and cost) as opposed to ultimate image quality. For me, the weight and cost disadvantages of MFDB systems overshadow the image quality advantages which seems to exist only at low ISOs.
Deciding whether or not the improvements in a new model of camera are worthwhile should not be difficult. The major problem is unwittingly upgrading to a camera which is too soon superceded by an even better one.
Within 6 months of my buying a Canon 40D, the 50D was announced. 50% more mp, higher resolution LCD screen for more accurate manual focussing, and micro-adjustment of lens auto-focussing properties. I couldn't resist.
