Does anyone actually need to buy a new camera?

[David Watson]

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?

[shadowblade]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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).

[TomFrerichs]

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

[NancyP]

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.

[kers]

...
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.

[Ray]

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. 

[Paulo Bizarro]

Yes and no. It depends...

[Colorado David]

Yes and no. It depends...

My favorite answer.

[rdonson]

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.

[Alan Smallbone]

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

[jeremyrh]

"Need"? What the heck does need have to do with it ? :-)

[Rob C]

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.

[Alan Goldhammer]

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

another great quote for the LuLa prize of the year contest!!!

[Rob C]

another great quote for the LuLa prize of the year contest!!!

;-)

Rob

[hogloff]

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.

[jeremyrh]

Well said, hogloff. (And sympathy for your situation).

[NancyP]

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?   

My sympathies, Hogloff.

[TomFrerichs]

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?   

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

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My main reasons to update have been:

• Need of backup - I always try to carry somewhat redundant gear. Maybe it comes from myself working in nuclear power, always thinking about the weakest link in the chain.
• I always want as good resolution as feasible, in case I print large. My normal print size is A2 (16" x 32") and APS-C at 12 MP did a good job on that. But sometimes I print 70x100 cm and that is a little bit of stretch for 24x36 mm at 24 MP. I also have 39 MP on MFD and 42 MP on 24x36, resolution is always welcome.
• My vendor, Sony, was late on delivering live view. In my opinion, live view is essential for accurate focusing. So I bought a few cameras as live view was getting available.
• Tilt and shift options are important for some of my shooting.

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?