Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on August 01, 2016, 05:08:00 am
-
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)
Rob C
-
Not quite, but its direct descendant. The K3 replaced the K7 and the better low-light performance has been wonderful. I also got to keep using all my lenses, which go back to just after all my Canon film gear was stolen: there was a brief experience with a horrid Nikon digital p&s, then I went Pentax. Since then, *ist-DS, K-10, K-7, K-3. The absudly named *ist was released early 2003, so I guess I've been upgrading every 4 years or so.
At the moment, there is nothing that even vaguely tempts me to change again, including the K1. If I dropped the K3 under a truck, I'd replace it with another one.
-
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?
Hi Rob,
I still use my EOS-1Ds Mark III from November 2007 on an almost daily basis. Because I at that time already found ways to circumvent it's limitations (HDRI, Stitching, etc.) I can still meet most of today's demands. I'm tempted by the new EOS-1D X Mark II, with better DR and more modern everything else (video as a bonus), but I'd wait anyway for the introduction prices to come down to a normal level (can save some 1-2 K EUR). I'm not in a rush.
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)
As I said, I'm not after the latest fashion in Cameras, because tomorrow there will be yet a newer model. It must meet my requirements and it is still an instrument, I take and make the pictures. Only if a camera enables me to do something I cannot do in another way, or much more efficiently/faster, then I'll consider upgrading/switching.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Rob
I too was using my EOS 1Ds mk3 - about 7 or 8 years old until very recently. I dropped it and it needs a repair - so I'm using our other cameras temporarily - but I will be back with the old camera very soon!
Jim
-
My 6 yr old Sony A850 still gets very regular use.
It is partially replaced (when I want to travel light) with an APS-C mirrorless body but when weight/size constraints are not important it's still my camera of choice.
-
I'm note sure it's 5 years but I find I use my Fuji X100 more and more and miss it when I don't take it out. It's a camera that just plain works (for me). Clearly it can't do lots of things like sport, nature and macro work but I just get along with it so well.
-
Hi Rob, My D3, which is my workhorse, is now eight years old. I've never seen a reason to replace it. I like the fact that it's a 12 mpx machine. That's plenty for what I do with it, and it eliminates a lot of storage problems.
-
Hi Rob,
I use a bunch of cameras for various needs. Some as old as ten years, while most are two to five years.
Peter
-
The Canon 60D I bought in March 2011 is still my main camera for work & play. I'll use it until it breaks & then it'll probably be replaced with the cheapest Canon DSLR I can find: I don't need anything better.
-
Happily still using my 5Dii which is six years old.
The only reason I use that rather than my ten year old 1Dsii is that the 1 doesn't have a self cleaning sensor.
More recent cameras might have slightly better resolution and dynamic range, but it's hardly noticeable in an A2 print, so I can't see any reason to spend money on upgrading. I prefer to use my money to go to interesting places to take photos instead.
It's also very nice not to have to learn a new body or system. Familiarity allows me to just concentrate on the picture.
-
I moved from Canon EOS film to Canon EOS digital in 2009.
I moved from the latter to Sony Alpha 7 system 18 months ago.
So I am always reluctant to change cameras, I will stick with I have for at least 5 years, that is for sure.
-
Thank you for your replies - Keith's post about changing genres/purpose made me think: that's a big moment in photographic life.
My usual - commercial - needs were all satisfied by 24x36 and 6x6, and for years that's all I ever thought about using, apart from the occasional notion for 4x5 (for still life) which I never followed up, knowing it would only lead to massive investment in studio lighting I didn't really need for anything else. Life went along smoothly enough without it.
Then I listened to the siren voices of stock agents and believed that I simply had to go 6x7. So that was what I did. Twice, on Bronica and then Pentax, the latter just as digital was coming out of the woodwork. And very shortly afterwards, the stock world stopped giving me anything worth shooting to get. So hey ho, all change, back to Nikon!
These desperate departures into new things have left a mark made all the deeper by retirement and the total loss of photographic income. As a result, I now own just two digital cameras, a D200 and a D700 with a selection of old and new glass. (I also have a seldom-used F3 that now can't use my latest 1.8/50 G Nikkor.) Surprisingly, I find that the old D200 gets by far the more use, along with the new af 50mm, if only because of the sorry state of my natural vision and lack of a split-image finder in either digital body. The 50mm makes a nice, light 75mm on the cropped camera. It suits my non-pro life. Chinese plastic, anyone?
Regarding Leica: I never owned one for various non-finance-related reasons during the time when I was working; today, ironically, I really do covet an M of some kind, despite the very shortcomings which kept it away during my pro days! Perverse? Damned right! I think my reason is almost historic: it feels like a missing link in any serious photographer's experience not to have or have had one.
But, I think the price is crazy. I simply don't buy into the belief that it has greatly superior build qualities - after all it's a marque that has had one helluva bad track record since its digital start, at least in the RF line-up. From shutters to sensors it's been a lot of bad news. With luck they are over that now, but then you come to lenses, too, and whilst I personally did observe differences in quality/look printing from M3 and a 21mm of some type for my very last employer in '65, it's not something I think shows in any digital reproductions I have seen. I don't have any idea if Leica is profiteering or is simply woefully inefficient in the manufacturing department; but they sure can sell dreams, even to seasoned old pros such as I!
All of which said, if I thought I could still afford to lower the bank account that much, I'd get one now. I think it's a decision not of the head but of the heart, unlike most other camera decisions.
Rob
-
My three-year-old D800 has proven so incredibly capable I just doubled down and bought another (used) one. I think I'm a classic example of Thom Hogan's "Good Enough" and "Last Camera" syndromes.
-
If you'd asked me before mid-February this year, I'd have said my trusty 5DII has been in use since January 2009, so that's 7 years. Now I have a 5Ds.
Jeremy
-
Rob,
NOPE! LOL
Part of the fun of photography for me in recent years has been what I call "chasing the technology." Although, I must say that my most recent cameras are "so good" that unless something really dramatic happens, technology wise, I suspect I'll have my current gear for at least 5 years.
Rand
-
I started my hobby of photography in 1980. Not counting P&S cameras, I have only owned five SLRs. Three film and two digital.
One of my film SLRs (Canon AE-1) I used for over 20 years. I just bought a new DSLR in 2013 and I expect to use that for many many years.
I only like to upgrade cameras when it is the camera that is holding me back. And it is rare that the camera is the weakest link in my photography. ;D
-
Still using my Canon 1Ds Mark 3!
-
Not quite, but its direct descendant. The K3 replaced the K7 and the better low-light performance has been wonderful. I also got to keep using all my lenses, which go back to just after all my Canon film gear was stolen: there was a brief experience with a horrid Nikon digital p&s, then I went Pentax. Since then, *ist-DS, K-10, K-7, K-3. The absudly named *ist was released early 2003, so I guess I've been upgrading every 4 years or so.
At the moment, there is nothing that even vaguely tempts me to change again, including the K1. If I dropped the K3 under a truck, I'd replace it with another one.
Well these were my intentions also. Had a K5 then the K3. Absolutely no intention to upgrade. Then I used a K1. Don't do it! You will have the urge to throw the K3 under that truck ;). The files are great and match the output from my 645Z. Be careful!
-
Lol! Thanks for the warning :-)
For the type of photos I take, a FF would be a liability: although I have a 50-150, I usually take the 70-200 out with me, together with the 17-50, unless there are weight constraints (eg flying). Buying a 120-300/2.8 is not an appealing idea... riding my bicycle into town with it on my back even less!
Of course I could crop, but since the pixel density is lower...
That without mentioning the tripod ;)
Funny, going through Sumo, it's striking how bad the the photos are by standard technical measures: most seem to have been under-exposed and pushed. The blacks are blocked up and there is not much in the way of smooth tonal gradation... except where he wanted it :) Newton is even worse than Sieff and Jonvelle!
But that's not why he died famous and relatively rich...
-
Lol! Thanks for the warning :-)
For the type of photos I take, a FF would be a liability: although I have a 50-150, I usually take the 70-200 out with me, together with the 17-50, unless there are weight constraints (eg flying). Buying a 120-300/2.8 is not an appealing idea... riding my bicycle into town with it on my back even less!
Of course I could crop, but since the pixel density is lower...
That without mentioning the tripod ;)
Funny, going through Sumo, it's striking how bad the the photos are by standard technical measures: most seem to have been under-exposed and pushed. The blacks are blocked up and there is not much in the way of smooth tonal gradation... except where he wanted it :) Newton is even worse than Sieff and Jonvelle!
But that's not why he died famous and relatively rich...
I put that down to hard flash.
Newton was often wont to say that he hated 'good taste' and I wonder if this was actually a method of turning poor technique into a positive. Whilst 'taste' may usually be taken to refer to the content of the images as in subject material, perhaps it also meant photographic technique. Some of the worst abuses of that show up in shots made in Monte Carlo of women in black in brilliant sunshine. Something to avoid shooting at all costs!
What he had, by the bucketful, was the ability to create access. When you can do that you can do anything.
Sumo is my only Newton book; I didn't buy any of the others because I didn't really feel they were representative, somehow, but with Sumo, I think all the different personality bases get very well covered, so expensive as it is, it is probably the complete character.
I have yet to buy a Peter Lindbergh tome; I await a similar encyclopedic issue! I bought the single Hans Feurer book, but felt strangely disapppointed on one level: he's one of my two most beloved snappers, but the book omits too much of his newer stuff - for my tastes. I think he gets better and better and is most certainly not a guy of his own past.
Rob
-
I think the most extreme case is the night shot of Anjelica Huston, looking like a vampire with bleached out eyes. To want extent was it deliberate, rather than what most of us would have called a technical failure to quickly delete?
People have talked about his undercurrent of BDSM, but it seems to have been most present in the fashion industry figures who posed in what look to me like quite cruel portraits.
Although it's not fashion, it's also funny to see that a fuss is being made about Mrs Sarkozy putting a half-nude of herself on Instagram, when there is that shot of her flashing her crotch while climbing onto her father's lap. If the family hadn't paid for that, I suspect they'd be suing.
-
If you'd asked me before mid-February this year, I'd have said my trusty 5DII has been in use since January 2009, so that's 7 years. Now I have a 5Ds.
Jeremy
Exactly the same. The 5D2 still works fine but I was in situations where I couldn't afford a malfunction so the 5D2 is now a backup. Same batteries and charger. The 5Ds cost me $3000 which is actually well less than I paid for the 5D2. I also have an H3D-II which is probably 8 years old.
-
Is the 5Ds quieter than the 5d-II?
I was shooting some concert photos, by invitation but still sensitive about the noise disturbing the paying audience. I swear my friend's 5D-II sounded louder from the other side of the room than the Pentax pressed against my face...
-
Is the 5Ds quieter than the 5d-II?
I was shooting some concert photos, by invitation but still sensitive about the noise disturbing the paying audience. I swear my friend's 5D-II sounded louder from the other side of the room than the Pentax pressed against my face...
Trust me, Graham, we never see our own failings until somebody we love points them out! Something to do with motes and beams or whatever.
;-)
Rob
-
I started with an entry level Nikon FG in the 1980s. Later a Nikon FAs, still have them. Then a Nikon N80 around 2001. First digital was a Nikon D200 around 2005. Just replaced it with a D750. All consumer level cameras but as you can see, once something works for me I use it a long time. Now, if I had the money I'd buy for all the reasons mentioned in the OP: specs, looks, feel, fashion, nostalgia, whatever. Nothing wrong with that. But as is I suspect I use a single dedicated DSLR longer than most.
-
Nope.
I have following closely the forefront, partially because I have been expanding a lot what I shoot. Going from pretty much only stitched landscape to pretty much just about anything. With various degrees of success obviously, but that has been a great excuse to buy new cameras and lenses. ;)
Is there anything that technically can't be shot at world standard level with a D810/D5 combo and the lenses line up I am fortunate to own? Probably not. Does it mean I am done with GAS? Not that sure... ;D
One of the key enablers of these upgrade tactics has been auction sites that have reduced significantly the cost.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have a Canon 5D mark II which I still use, and then I have a Linhof Techno (my main camera and where I do my serious stuff), which I got in 2012. I've upgraded the digital back once though.
Now I've reached a point where I don't feel that there is anything I want to upgrade to, which the gear junkie in me finds a bit boring, but as a photographer it's kind of relaxing that the gear doesn't change. I just got myself a brand new cyclocross bike though, so I found a way to buy expensive gear anyway.
-
If I was using now what I had 5 years ago (Oly E30), I wouldn't be able to ½ of what I can now with a D800E (now 3 or 4 years old) and a newer Sony RX10iii. Back in the film days, I kept the same gear for years, but those bodies were mature. Digital hasn't yet achieved that maturity.
-
Digital hasn't yet achieved that maturity.
I get the impression from some of the respondents here that they think it has.
What sort of compelling features do you expect/want that will make your D800 outdated any time soon ?
I genuinely think 'we're there' now with digital cameras. Sure things will improve, but I think any new features will be comparatively minor, niche and difficult to justify financially for most people.
-
I get the impression from some of the respondents here that they think it has.
What sort of compelling features do you expect/want that will make your D800 outdated any time soon ?
I genuinely think 'we're there' now with digital cameras. Sure things will improve, but I think any new features will be comparatively minor, niche and difficult to justify financially for most people.
It really depends on the application. The progress made by the D5/D500 with AF really makes a very measurable difference in success ratio on moving subjects, the ISO64 images of the D810 have a look that I have never seen in my D800 files,...
It is possible to take great images without these of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It really depends on the application.
Which is why I said niche applications will see some benefits.
The progress made .... with AF
A fine example of niche really. AF on pro bodies hasn't been poor since film days. Sports photographers were taking great photos back with the EOS 1 on film, that technology has just evolved steadily and some has trickled down to lower end bodies.
The improvements have only been minor in each iteration and rarely a 'compelling upgrade'
the ISO64 images of the D810 have a look that I have never seen in my D800 files,...
Is this really such a dramatic improvement that non-experts would notice a difference ?
There have been some serious improvements over the last 15 years.
A big jump in resolution. Even entry level cameras will now deliver files that can be printed to A2 without problems and few people can display images much bigger.
Sensor sensitivity is now fantastic and can shoot in situations that would have been regarded as impossible 20 years ago, but do we really need any more ?
Self cleaning sensors make a huge difference.
RAW capture brought huge amounts of control.
What more do people need ? What could be a universal 'MUST upgrade' ?
-
Self cleaning sensors make a huge difference.
That's the reason I upgraded from the Canon 5D to 5D Mk III. Makes a great difference!
I've recently bougth some Fujifilm X series cameras and will be sell most of my Canon gear, only keeping a Canon body and macro lenses. What sold me on Fujifilm were: aperture ring, analog-style settings, light weight, smaller size, image quality.
-
Hi,
I am a bit feature driven. Mostly, I bought cameras for fetaures I perceived as needs.
My present kit is:
- Sony Alpha 900 bought 2008, the only DSLR I plan to keep. If I need a flipping mirror camera with an OVF
- Hasselblad 555/ELD + P45+, bought in 2013. I will keep this but no updates.
- Sony A7rII (with an A7II as a backup). Short flange distance, tilt and shift options. Resolution...
The Alpha 900 has seen little use since 2013.
I also have an Alpha 77 with a 16-80/3.5-4.5 which is an almost perfect street shooters camera, but it has to go as I cannot carry a lot of different stuff.
Best regards
Erik
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)
Rob C
-
Which is why I said niche applications will see some benefits.A fine example of niche really. AF on pro bodies hasn't been poor since film days. Sports photographers were taking great photos back with the EOS 1 on film, that technology has just evolved steadily and some has trickled down to lower end bodies.
The improvements have only been minor in each iteration and rarely a 'compelling upgrade.
I happen to disagree having used high performing bodies before. In my view it is far from niche and most users shooting anything that moves, from young children, birds to soccer players will see an important increase in critically focused images.
Pro film bodies (I own what is probably the best of all, the F6) were considered good at the time, but are really very far from impressive compared to a D5/D500. Rudimentary is the word that comes to mind.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just got myself a brand new cyclocross bike though, so I found a way to buy expensive gear anyway.
;D Disc-brake upgrade? Of course if you went MTB you could have followed the wheel-size trends from 26->29->27.5... and then yesterday I say a guy in the suburbs of Montpellier on one of those fat-wheeled bikes with 120mm or so wide tyres. I thought they were meant for snow...
I just arrange for people to steal mine :-\
-
Hi,
Same here, right now… I essentially have the camera gear I want/need, at least for now.
But there is plenty of spending opportunity on 4K projection or TV if I want to show my 40 MP images at 8MP instead of 2MP.
Best regards
Erik
I have a Canon 5D mark II which I still use, and then I have a Linhof Techno (my main camera and where I do my serious stuff), which I got in 2012. I've upgraded the digital back once though.
-
Same here, right now… I essentially have the camera gear I want/need, at least for now.
The fact that it is also the latest generation of SLR is a coincidence I guess? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)
Rob C
I do. I decided to focus on creating images not on updating gear.
-
I do. I decided to focus on creating images not on updating gear.
Out of curiosity, what upgrade were you considering that you think would have conflicted with the desire to spend time on image creation?
The upgrades I have done these past years have overall resulted for me in saving time which gave me more time to create images.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Out of curiosity, what upgrade were you considering that you think would have conflicted with the desire to spend time on image creation?
The upgrades I have done these past years have overall resulted for me in saving time which gave me more time to create images.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
I have not considered any. At this point in my career I wanted to focus 100% of my energy and time on the artistic aspects of the medium, not on the gear itself. I am not against upgrading or buying stuff so I may upgrade again in the future. I just don't have any desire to do so right now. I am perfectly happy with the gear I have.
The root of this decision was the realisation that the limiting factor is me, not my gear.
Alain
-
I have not considered any. At this point in my career I wanted to focus 100% of my energy and time on the artistic aspects of the medium, not on the gear itself. I am not against upgrading or buying stuff so I may upgrade again in the future. I just don't have any desire to do so right now. I am perfectly happy with the gear I have.
The root of this decision was the realization that the limiting factor is me, not my gear.
Our understanding of the way things work differs a bit it seems. I don't see this as a linear pipe like process where the weakest link determines fully the output, to me it is a process that is both parallel and intertwined:
- parallel: all the factors affect the output, not just the one that is weaker compared to the reasonable average relative to the other ones,
- intertwined: these factor interact with each other, better or different equipment can help unlock vision and move forward out of a deadlock for example.
So to me there is a need to work on skills, vision,... and equipment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Our understanding of the way things work differs a bit it seems. I don't see this as a linear pipe like process where the weakest link determines fully the output, to me it is a process that is both parallel and intertwined:
- parallel: all the factors affect the output, not just the one that is weaker compared to the reasonable average relative to the other ones,
- intertwined: these factor interact with each other, better or different equipment can help unlock vision and move forward out of a deadlock for example.
So to me there is a need to work on skills, vision,... and equipment.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree that all the elements involved have an effect on the images we create, be it gear, skills, artistic intent, vision, etc.
In my personal situation I had just worked on gear a little too much. It was time to give it a break.
There is no right and wrong approach to this. What matters is creating the images you want to create. In my instance the images I had in my head could not be created by getting a different or a newer camera. I had tried them all. The way to create them was to find a new artistic approach.
-
Agreed Alain,
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Yes, but I have skipped over Sony E-system for quiet a number of years , until it reached the feature set I wanted. At that stage I made a complete gear change.
I wanted the following feautures:
- Be able to use tilt with a wide range of focal lengths.
- Be able to use shifts with wide angles
- Have EVF, for accurate focusing
- Have on sensor Phase Detection for fast focus acquisition
- Have electronic first shutter curtain for low vibrations
Canon and Nikon used to have TS-lenses for a long time, but Minolta/Sony never had a T&S lens. The first generation of the A7R lacked some features. Waiting on the A7rII was a long wait. I guess I would prefer a more advanced model than the A7rII. But the A7rII was good enough. I have been over spending on gear, so GAS needs to stand back for a while.
Best regards
Erik
The fact that it is also the latest generation of SLR is a coincidence I guess? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...yesterday I say a guy in the suburbs of Montpellier on one of those fat-wheeled bikes with 120mm or so wide tyres. I thought they were meant for snow...
They are also good for sand (beaches at low tide), and work well on any kind of dirt, as long as you aren't in a hurry.
-
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?
I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)
Rob C
I am using the same camera model I was using 5 years ago. The same one from 20 years ago. For all professional work. The last duplicate body (i have several) was purchased about 2008. I still focus and set all exposures manually. As a compromise to what is now considered normal time frames for delivery / media usage, and because I believe for current usage it just makes sense, I scan my originals and proceed from there.
I do not see it as faithful. I consider it pragmatic.
dw
-
I do not see it as faithful. I consider it pragmatic.
dw
Pragmatic. I find that insightful in the context of this discussion. Can you expand on that and explain what you mean by it? Thank you.
-
Pragmatic. I find that insightful in the context of this discussion. Can you expand on that and explain what you mean by it? Thank you.
In my mind- we do not share this with clients before that date lol- artistically and commercially I was hitting my stride late 1990's and by 2006 I had fully transitioned to scanning everything for consumption. I had to reinvent how I created originals knowing they would be scanned and potentially viewed at the pixel level. Since then there hasn't been a hiccup.
There was no mathematically logical formula to justify stopping what was working so effectively- for not only me but others as well- and switch to a process in its infancy and hope it plays out and I can duplicate my output within a completely digital workspace.
But if I failed in the transition mid-career wouldn't I be the schmuck? I had what I wanted and what I needed. Certainly if I was involved in a discipline such as shooting NFL Football my perspectives and the benefits of changing to a 1DxMkll or D5 would be immediate but then I would not have been shooting manual MF film in the first place.
I believe sticking with what I knew and can do- like the old dinosaur I was accused of being in 2010- was the logical move for me. As it has turned out, there has been a continuing respect for film in the right hands and I have never seen any job loss over the years due to my equipment or the time frame required to do my job.
There has been no romanticism for my equipment over those years- I just want to record what I want to record. I shot Mamiyas, 'Blads, and assorted 645's before I settled on the Pentax system because it fit in my hand and simply just worked.
For all the wonderful devices currently available, different is not always better and I do not need different for its own sake or to be energized or entertained. I do not doubt that at some point I will buy a digital rig and do what I can with it... though not till I have retired and there are no expectations.
-
Is the 5Ds quieter than the 5d-II?
I was shooting some concert photos, by invitation but still sensitive about the noise disturbing the paying audience. I swear my friend's 5D-II sounded louder from the other side of the room than the Pentax pressed against my face...
The 5Ds is MUCH quieter than the 5DII. I have frequently used them together for weddings recently and the difference is very obvious.
Jim
-
For me, the primary drive to upgrade was low light (high ISO) capability of current cameras like the D750. That, in my opinion, is a real advancement and not fluff. I love the fluff too though.