Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: David Watson on September 25, 2017, 04:02:04 pm

Title: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: David Watson on September 25, 2017, 04:02:04 pm
I read with interest the various reviews, blogs and comments on the Nikon D850 and prior to that all the excitement regarding the X1D and prior to that.......

We have a very talented photographer who comes over every two weeks to take  a series of documentary photos for a client's twitter feed.  Every two weeks she brings a fresh eye and many usable pix.  This asme person spends three months in India every year leading specialist tour groups.  She invariably shoots with a Nikon D700 and a 50mm lens (an oldish one).  The images are great, her prints look great and it all works.  It has never crossed her mind that she would buy another camera unless and until the D700 inevitable fails.

I have a D810 for travel photography and it consistently exceeds my abilities.  I have a Hasselblad H6D-100C which by a larger margin exceeds my abilities.  These two cameras are so well made and so good I cannot envisage the need to buy another camera until, as for my friend, something irretrievably fails.

Quite frankly even the D700 is still a great camera that meets 99% of photographic needs for most people.

Like modern cars these things are so good and so well made why do we think we need to keep changing?
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: shadowblade on September 25, 2017, 05:05:45 pm
Depends what you shoot and how large you print.

The D700 is a general-purpose, action-capable camera with the same AF system as the D3 and almost the same frame rate. It is, in effect, a predecessor to the D850. If you don't need to print large and don't have any particular high dynamic range requirement, it can do almost anything.

If the camera in question was a 5D2 (same vintage, much slower and minimal autofocus) the benefits of upgrading would be very different. I've had to manual focus a 5D2 onto wild animals when the right lens happened to be on that camera, because it was faster and more accurate than autofocus. Same thing if she was producing 20x30" or larger prints.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on September 25, 2017, 05:54:24 pm
I upgraded from a D300 to a D810 18 months ago.  Nikon was having an end of the year sale on both the body and the 24-120 f4 zoom lens so the pair of them were almost $1K below list price IIRC.  I wanted to have the ability to print a little larger without stitching and take advantages of the new developments Nikon had made in the 5+ years I had the D300.  Right now, I can't see changing things as the D810 does everything I need it to and the limited amount of sales I get are from doctors' offices that want wall art.  The only thing that is possibly changing my mind would be a lighter weight camera for international travel (would be mirrorless).
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: TomFrerichs on September 25, 2017, 06:58:15 pm
I upgraded from a D300 to a D810 18 months ago.  Nikon was having an end of the year sale on both the body and the 24-120 f4 zoom lens so the pair of them were almost $1K below list price IIRC.  I wanted to have the ability to print a little larger without stitching and take advantages of the new developments Nikon had made in the 5+ years I had the D300.  Right now, I can't see changing things as the D810 does everything I need it to and the limited amount of sales I get are from doctors' offices that want wall art.  The only thing that is possibly changing my mind would be a lighter weight camera for international travel (would be mirrorless).

I purchased a D850, even though I had a D810, but I did it because of the higher fps (with the grip), better AF, and higher resolution.

I do a lot of rodeo photography, and I need to frame rather loosely. A bull and rider across the arena fits nicely in a full frame with a 500mm f/4, but unfortunately they don't stay there. I was having to use two cameras (zooming is not an ideal option, mostly because of the fairly high f/stop available on zooms), and Murphy being involved, the peak action would take place as I was switching cameras. I should now be able to use a single D850 with a 300mm f/2.8 or even a 200mm instead of a D4s/500mm and still have enough pixels left to crop.  Other than that use case, there was no reason to upgrade as far as I could tell.

Tom
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: NancyP on September 25, 2017, 07:41:43 pm
Well, yes, if you have your camera stolen or it takes a 5 meter tumble onto a rock or into salt water, you might need to buy another camera (not necessarily new).  :'(

I admit that my GAS has me thinking about a tilt-shift lens and not a camera. And I am using the not-exactly-earth-shattering Canon 6D for my non-action, non-focal-length-limited shooting (Canon 7D2 for those situations, though I still use center point only AF for birds). One thing I like about the NEES 6D is that I can use a OEM (metering-neutral), user-exchangeable fine matte focusing screen for manual focus. Another thing is - it is lightweight and fits my hand.

I do not print large. I do not live in a large enough space to have a 3' x 4' image.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: kers on September 25, 2017, 07:57:44 pm
...
I have a D810 for travel photography and it consistently exceeds my abilities.  I have a Hasselblad H6D-100C which by a larger margin exceeds my abilities.  These two cameras are so well made and so good I cannot envisage the need to buy another camera until, as for my friend, something irretrievably fails.

Quite frankly even the D700 is still a great camera that meets 99% of photographic needs for most people.

Like modern cars these things are so good and so well made why do we think we need to keep changing?

I am not at all interested in cars...( i think of cars as a way to move 70 kg and because of that you move 2000KG of steel)

But i am interested in a camera that does something i always wanted- like being silent- that has a very good OVF, a shutter that does not upset my VR, AF that works better in dark situations, video that is 4K and full screen and i can use with all my lenses. Yes i need a new camera and will uses the new features for my photography..
(I made 220.000 and more with my d810 so it has done a great job)
Yes i can use that all.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Ray on September 25, 2017, 10:54:27 pm
That's an interesting question, why do we feel the need to continually upgrade our cameras?

No doubt there are different reasons for different people. If one can always easily afford it, then having the 'latest and greatest' might simply be ego-boosting, like 'keeping up with the Jones's'. Any practical advantage might be secondary.

Speaking for myself, my main motivation for any upgrade is based mainly on image quality improvement, weight and ease of use.
Since I always shoot in RAW mode and process my images in both ACR and Photoshop on a high resolution monitor, I easily become aware of any technical deficiencies in my images.

It is as a result of such awareness that one might question how such deficiencies could have been avoided, if one had used a more sophisticated camera.

Perhaps the ruined (or less than ideal) shot was due to misfocusing. An upgraded camera with more accurate focusing might have avoided the problem.

Perhaps the dissatisfaction with a particular image, is due to noisy shadows which contain interesting detail which one doesn't want to blacken. An upgraded camera with better DR might have avoided the problem.

Perhaps the dissatisfaction is due to the inadequate resolution because one didn't have the ideal focal length at the time of the shot, and one has to crop the image heavily. An upgraded camera with a sensor of significantly higher megapixel count, might have enabled one to make a sharp A4 size print of the heavily cropped image.

These are the sorts of considerations that influence me when I make a decision to upgrade.
One should also bear in mind that the basic resolution of an image is dependent on both the lens quality and the sensor megapixel count. Increasing or improving either one will improve image quality. A Nikon D850 image downsized to the same 12 mp size of the D700 will always be sharper than the D700 image, when using the same lens with both cameras, and appropriate shutter speed and focusing accuracy.

An upgraded, higher megapixel count sensor, effectively upgrades all of one's lens. That could be a real bargain.  ;)
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on September 26, 2017, 03:50:58 am
Yes and no. It depends...
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Colorado David on September 26, 2017, 08:49:10 am
Yes and no. It depends...

My favorite answer.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: rdonson on September 26, 2017, 09:36:01 am
If you are bumping into camera limitations that affect your photography then yes, a new camera may be the answer in the same way that a new lens may open up opportunities.

The desire for new and shiny is just great marketing.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Alan Smallbone on September 26, 2017, 10:33:47 am
Yes there are always reasons if it actually will improve your photography or if it meets the desired resolution that is required to put food on the table. However there is a large part of human nature involved. People often think newer is better, bigger is better, mostly due to advertising. I know some people that will move to a new house because it was newer. Which to me was silly, newer houses are often built more shoddily than older houses and have more issues, same with cameras. Bugs, issues, etc. In the end it is all mostly personal, at least that is my belief. I used to think that the newest and latest Canon camera was what I needed, and maybe in some cases in the early days of dslr's that was true. But I have been real happy with my Fuji, while I have upgraded the body a couple of times, I sure do not have the GAS attacks I used to have. I am happy with the lenses I have.

In the end I think it has improved my photography by not changing and upgrading all the time. The camera is very familiar to me, the controls, all of that is mostly muscle memory, so with the camera out of the way, the photography is more about the image and less about the gear and fumbling. It is easier to go and shoot and to also shoot a moment that pops up, I don't need to think about how to set the capture, just think about the image.

Alan
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: jeremyrh on September 26, 2017, 11:54:55 am
"Need"? What the heck does need have to do with it ? :-)
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Rob C on September 26, 2017, 02:35:46 pm
If your old one isn't working poperly it may be better/cheaper to buy another than repair what you have; if your camera is working properly and you think buying a new one makes you a new photographer, dream on.

If you already have a flourishing print sales business, then yes, buy into the best you can buy to make those ever bigger prints you may one day be asked to produce. If that's you, then consider yourself fortunate. If you sell nothing, then who are you kidding?

If you are a well-established pro, then it's highly unlikely you are asking anybody on a predominantly amateur forum - or anywhere else, for that matter - for such advice.

Photography can be a gigantic waste of money - just like boats.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on September 26, 2017, 05:09:11 pm
Photography can be a gigantic waste of money - just like boats.
another great quote for the LuLa prize of the year contest!!!
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Rob C on September 26, 2017, 05:25:30 pm
another great quote for the LuLa prize of the year contest!!!

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: hogloff on September 26, 2017, 09:32:32 pm

Photography can be a gigantic waste of money - just like boats.

If one gets satisifaction out of their hobby whether that's taking photos with old archaic equipment or purchasing the latest greatest equipment...then I feel it's not a waste of money. What's a real waste is hurding your money for that raining day without realizing it's already raining.

My wife and I always dreamt about retiring early and spending our time traveling the world. Well 5 years ago my wife was diagnosed with Parkinson's and her travel days are over.

No one ever knows what's around the next corner. I never feel anything is a waste of money if it brings pleasure.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: jeremyrh on September 27, 2017, 01:28:12 am
Well said, hogloff. (And sympathy for your situation).
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: NancyP on September 27, 2017, 09:39:53 am
I keep hoping for some time to fiddle with film again. I have a nice little field 4 x 5 view camera and small lens and accessories (meter, filters, focusing loupe). Backwards GAS!

I used to do 135 film, the one part that irritated me was rolling the film onto the wire reels and very occasionally getting it wrong so film buckled and touched other film (no development in that area) - even after I got to 50 rolls without a mishap, I worried. I liked the darkroom work though. Could it be because I didn't have to answer the phone for an hour or two?????????????   ;D

My sympathies, Hogloff.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: TomFrerichs on September 27, 2017, 02:50:16 pm
I keep hoping for some time to fiddle with film again. I have a nice little field 4 x 5 view camera and small lens and accessories (meter, filters, focusing loupe). Backwards GAS!

I used to do 135 film, the one part that irritated me was rolling the film onto the wire reels and very occasionally getting it wrong so film buckled and touched other film (no development in that area) - even after I got to 50 rolls without a mishap, I worried. I liked the darkroom work though. Could it be because I didn't have to answer the phone for an hour or two?????????????   ;D

My sympathies, Hogloff.

I still have a KoniOmegaflex (which most of you have never heard of), but I quit doing darkroom work years ago. The film itch, though, doesn't disappear. I recently purchased a Nikon F5, primarily because I could use my current lenses.

What I found was this: it is a lot harder to take photographs. I may have 36 exposures in the camera, but is that particular shot before me worth pressing the shutter? Shouldn't I save my limited resources for something better? Sure, I can afford the film and processing, but somehow I think of the cost of an exposure far more with film than with all those free electrons. (I am talking of cost, not of ionization.)

Maybe my photography is more considered, which is probably a good thing. Maybe it's less spontaneous, which might lead to missed opportunities. But I guarantee that it's different.

I did not go all analog though. I gave away my enlarger, trays, print dryer, and other impedimenta, but I kept the film developing tanks, thermometers, and bottles. I've may be shooting a little film, but I've been digitizing the negatives and importing them into LightRoom. A little nostalgia is a welcome thing, so long as I can do away with the uncomfortable bits that we all conveniently forget.

Tom
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on September 27, 2017, 04:05:46 pm
Hi,

My main reasons to update have been:

At this time I am quite happy with the gear I have. Usability also matters. A camera that is more convenient to use matters a lot.

For now, I would prioritize travel over gear. I would rather spend on going places than spend on gear.

It may be better to learn to make best use of existing gear than buying new stuff. On the other hand, a new camera may improve all our lenses.

I have been shooting with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and a Sony A99 in parallell for 3-4 years. I found that although the Hasselblad delivered higher resolution than the A99 I was not so happy with the pictures coming from it. Very few images from the Hasselblad made it to the wall. After I got my Sony A7rII, my MFD usage dwindled to near zero. That said, it is fun to shoot with the Hasselblad, I guess it will see some more usage in the next year as I plan for a lot of travel by car.

I would probably not upgrade for more megapixels, but convenience may matter.

Best regards
Erik


I read with interest the various reviews, blogs and comments on the Nikon D850 and prior to that all the excitement regarding the X1D and prior to that.......

We have a very talented photographer who comes over every two weeks to take  a series of documentary photos for a client's twitter feed.  Every two weeks she brings a fresh eye and many usable pix.  This asme person spends three months in India every year leading specialist tour groups.  She invariably shoots with a Nikon D700 and a 50mm lens (an oldish one).  The images are great, her prints look great and it all works.  It has never crossed her mind that she would buy another camera unless and until the D700 inevitable fails.

I have a D810 for travel photography and it consistently exceeds my abilities.  I have a Hasselblad H6D-100C which by a larger margin exceeds my abilities.  These two cameras are so well made and so good I cannot envisage the need to buy another camera until, as for my friend, something irretrievably fails.

Quite frankly even the D700 is still a great camera that meets 99% of photographic needs for most people.

Like modern cars these things are so good and so well made why do we think we need to keep changing?
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Bo_Dez on October 04, 2017, 04:57:34 am
I never feel the need to buy anything that I don't need. It's about buying specific tools, and its largely based on what the gear makes the image look like. If what it does contributes to my work, then I buy it.

I've never "upgraded" just for the sake of it. Truth be told, there is very little new equipment out there right now that inspires me or gives me something I don't find in what I already own (perhaps just a bit better IQ).

I have more interest in large format film again. I would be more interested in some technological advanced home film development equipment, a sort of nespresso coffee machine of film development, a new drum scanner. Some sort of innovation that makes film more accessible and easier to work with ( but concede that maybe digital ;D ).

Of course the other thing I'm interested in is lenses - Medium Format lens development stalled. We need a modern 80mm f2 or even 1.8. I would buy a whole new system if that were available. I find almost all modern medium format lenses quite boring.
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: CeeVee on October 04, 2017, 09:34:53 am
My 850 is supposed to arrive early November. My life has gone Nikon film cameras to D100, D300, D7000 now the 850. As a professional photo technician (a dying breed) I value every single Pixel _iff_ properly positioned and recorded. Personally I will only be satified when a sensor is capable in the hundreds of megapixel range and the supporting circuitry/firmware makes sense. A rather large ask.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 04, 2017, 09:39:55 am
My 850 is supposed to arrive early November. My life has gone Nikon film cameras to D100, D300, D7000 now the 850. As a professional photo technician (a dying breed) I value every single Pixel _iff_ properly positioned and recorded. Personally I will only be satified when a sensor is capable in the hundreds of megapixel range and the supporting circuitry/firmware makes sense. A rather large ask.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Hard not to make a humorous comment on the different uses of the word 'Pixel.'  I also have a Pixel phone and like lots of Pixels in my camera. :D
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: CeeVee on October 04, 2017, 10:44:27 am
Take your point, "pixel" got capped by the spelling nanny my Google Pixel XL phone but ... I should have caught that


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2017, 11:26:12 am
If one gets satisifaction out of their hobby whether that's taking photos with old archaic equipment or purchasing the latest greatest equipment...then I feel it's not a waste of money. What's a real waste is hurding your money for that raining day without realizing it's already raining.

My wife and I always dreamt about retiring early and spending our time traveling the world. Well 5 years ago my wife was diagnosed with Parkinson's and her travel days are over.

No one ever knows what's around the next corner. I never feel anything is a waste of money if it brings pleasure.

Well, there's always pleasure in that glass too many, as well. Had a few of those in happier days when I could take alcohol without killing myself, but now I can't.

Once one winter, when my wife was in hospětal having yet another cancer operation, she sat out on the room's terrace overlooking the Bay of Palma. It was winter, but when the sun shone it was hot. The oncologist came in as she was there, and I asked him whether it was a good idea for her to soak up the sunshine like that, considering the way we now know it damages the skin and causes cancers of its own. He smiled and said well, it's not that strong during winter... she may as well enjoy it. I never suspected that he knew more about her condition than he'd told us. Ironically, he was quite young, but when he vanished and another took his place, we discovered that he, too, had cancer and had gone back to spend his remaining time in his village in mainland Spain.

So yeah, it took out the oncologist as well as my wife. If you watched the ending of House you get a good idea of how illness affects the way we view this life, the ending of life decisions we decide to make.

But then it's not always raining already. For the greater portion of our lives, life was a walking miracle and I suspect that we actually knew that: I had the job I wanted and she the home and family.

Waste? Well, perhaps one should have specified resources available. If there's enough to throw away, then perhaps any old expenditure is fine; if not, then buying stuff you can live perfectly well without is putting at risk for yourself survival of the day that it actually pours. And it inevitable does for us all. And you don't have to be old to feel the wet.

Rob
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: BrownBear on October 04, 2017, 11:37:28 am
I read with interest the various reviews, blogs and comments on the Nikon D850 and prior to that all the excitement regarding the X1D and prior to that.......

We have a very talented photographer who comes over every two weeks to take  a series of documentary photos for a client's twitter feed.  Every two weeks she brings a fresh eye and many usable pix.  This asme person spends three months in India every year leading specialist tour groups.  She invariably shoots with a Nikon D700 and a 50mm lens (an oldish one).  The images are great, her prints look great and it all works.  It has never crossed her mind that she would buy another camera unless and until the D700 inevitable fails.

I have a D810 for travel photography and it consistently exceeds my abilities.  I have a Hasselblad H6D-100C which by a larger margin exceeds my abilities.  These two cameras are so well made and so good I cannot envisage the need to buy another camera until, as for my friend, something irretrievably fails.

Quite frankly even the D700 is still a great camera that meets 99% of photographic needs for most people.

Like modern cars these things are so good and so well made why do we think we need to keep changing?

You've pretty accurately described the life and world of a pro shooter.  You can fritter away your income on keeping up with the Joneses, or you can put your money into more useful stuff with a direct bearing on your long term financial well being.  If a new piece of gear allows you entree into a new market, so be it. If not, compare the cost of the gear with other things the money can do for you. Like pad your retirement accounts.

My wife and I had an interesting relationship in making business decisions. I was (am) a gearhead, while she's a flinty-eyed, no-nonsense business manager. I'd approach her for approval to purchase new gear and she'd sit me down with questions like "What's the pay-off schedule?" and "Show me the new business it's going to generate."

Among the working pro's I know there's kind of a mantra:  How do you spot the pro shooters in a crowd? They're the ones driving 20-year old cars and shooting scruffy out-of-date gear. 

I can't complain about my wife, and in fact owe a large measure of our current happiness to her flinty eyes and leaden heart. We retired well, and in fact I've bought more new gear since retiring than I was ever "allowed" to buy while in business. 
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: NancyP on October 05, 2017, 02:47:56 pm
And then there are those who like using vintage lenses. People are all ga-ga over the recent Nikon 105mm f/1.4, but the now-humble AI-S 105 f/2.5 is a sweet lens to use. Nikon was good at designing lenses whose aberrations gave the image a pleasing look. You can have a lot of fun and fond memories with (the better) old lenses and newer digital cameras.

I'd rather have a cosmetically unaltered head and shoulders portrait shot from the 105 f/2.5 than the equivalent from a super-sharp, "no" aberrations lens.  ;)
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: Two23 on November 29, 2017, 08:35:42 pm
And then there are those who like using vintage lenses. People are all ga-ga over the recent Nikon 105mm f/1.4, but the now-humble AI-S 105 f/2.5 is a sweet lens to use. Nikon was good at designing lenses whose aberrations gave the image a pleasing look. You can have a lot of fun and fond memories with (the better) old lenses and newer digital cameras.



I'm very much into historical lenses as well.  I too own the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS, which I use on a Nikon F3T.  It pairs well with the 28m f2 & 50mm f1.2.  However, I go much "deeper" into historical lenses than modern multicoated lenses.  I've had SK Grimes put the following lenses into Nikon mount as well:  1895 Darlot achromatic doublet, 1880s rapid rectilinear, 1870 Darlot Petzval, and an 1851 CC Harrision Petzval.  These 19th C. lenses give a very unique look to landscapes and portraits alike!  I also have a couple of lenses from the 1840s, but only use those on 4x5.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: CeeVee on November 29, 2017, 08:38:46 pm

I'm very much into historical lenses as well.  I too own the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS, which I use on a Nikon F3T.  It pairs well with the 28m f2 & 50mm f1.2.  However, I go much "deeper" into historical lenses than modern multicoated lenses.  I've had SK Grimes put the following lenses into Nikon mount as well:  1895 Darlot achromatic doublet, 1880s rapid rectilinear, 1870 Darlot Petzval, and an 1851 CC Harrision Petzval.  These 19th C. lenses give a very unique look to landscapes and portraits alike!  I also have a couple of lenses from the 1840s, but only use those on 4x5.


Kent in SD
A Steam Punk Nikon. Now who'd-a thunk it!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?
Post by: HywelPhillips on November 30, 2017, 05:17:02 am
For a while I upgraded my dSLR body every 18 months to 2 years.  Then I invested in a Hasselblad H3DII. This is still giving excellent results well suited to my main business, 8 years on. It cost a not so small fortune, but by now has paid for itself at least 50 times over.

I bought an A7RII because it covers the two shooting scenarios that the Hasselblad really didn't - available light shooting in low light levels, and portability for lugging up mountains. It's paid for itself, expensive lenses included, in the couple of years I've had it.

But yes, stills cameras are a pretty mature technology at this point. There's room for a shakeup of how we control them in my opinion (we're still controlling them like they are film cameras, rather than fully embracing the digital aspects) but I don't see anything massively revolutionary coming along now we have 50-ish megapixels, on a stabilised platform, with a plethora of lens options from ultra-sharp f/1.4 mega modern lenses through to crappy old Russian flare monsters on the front.

I will be buying an A7RIII because I need a backup body for the Sony system and because it addresses the biggest issues I've had with the A7RII (autofocus, especially controlling focus points and eye focus, and crappy battery life).

In the same time I've gone through iteration after iteration of cameras primarily for video, because that's not such a mature technology. I've got phones and stabilisers and GoPros and Pansonics and Canons and all manner of kit, but I'm finally just about settled with a RED Scarlet for "big" work mostly on static heavy tripod and the A7RII on a Zhiyun Crane for anything more nimble. The touchscreen of the A7RIII will hopefully make this use case a lot easier, and I'll be down to just four cameras in day to day use. I'm planning on a mass sell-off of second hand kit if all goes well, actually, along with a bunch of lighting now LED tech has settled down. Usable ISO 1600 + Arri Skypanels = my video lighting needs sorted.

So I think it is all down to your use cases, and whether the tech has quite caught up yet. I mostly sell pics online, just moving into print sales but those are only up to 24" x 36" so 42 megapixels is plenty for me.

But I'm sure there are plenty of use cases where the tech isn't all it could be just yet, and so you might still be in the replace bodies every 2 years cycle.

Cheers, Hywel