Is it an upgrade?

lemonart · Jun 21, 2012

Had a friend ask... And I've always wondered myself how certain camera upgrades are generally viewed as new models and technology progress.

Ive seen a few of these threads on here, but I'd like to re-ask for some general opinions. Specifically we were having the good ol D700 vs D7000 debate.

In a nutshell we concluded that at this point in the game it may actually be more of a side-grade between the two... IOW, you gain stuff in one area and lose in another (whereas a d7k to d800 youd gain in virtually all areas). The other interesting thing is that resale values on a d7k is more of the original price than a D700 basically aligning the two in price within a couple hundred. Obviously the 700 would be used and the 7k would be new for the price range (indicating the 700 is an upgrade), but I'm not so sure. There are clear pluses and minuses to both and a lot depends on the end user (ie. can you deal with the limitations of one over the other?)

That's just an example. I'm kinda looking for general insight regarding your ideology on what constitutes an "upgrade". What are the features you need? What would you pay for those features? Why do camera companies keep older tech at high price points? Would you ever "side grade"? Reasoning?

I realize this is a rather broad and subjective topic, but I'm very interested as to why you purchase what you purchase... Your upgrade chain as you bought cameras and glass through the years, etc. I think it might make for some good conversation.

Cheers,

Lem

Mach0 · Jun 21, 2012

D7000 would be an upgrade in video. That's all. Everything else, the d700 smokes it.

lemonart · Jun 22, 2012

That wasn't really the question lol. But I appreciate the input.

lemonart · Jun 22, 2012

Here's the cliff notes version of what I'm looking for. Reading back I suppose it could be misleading. The d7k vs d700 was just an exemple:

I'm looking for general insight regarding your ideology on what constitutes an "upgrade". What are the features you need? What would you pay for those features? Why do camera companies keep older tech at high price points? Would you ever "side grade"? Reasoning? Features that would make you jump ship or jump on board.

I realize this is a rather broad and subjective topic, but I'm very interested as to why you purchase what you purchase... Your upgrade chain as you bought cameras and glass through the years, etc. I think it might make for some good conversation.

Terenas1986 · Jun 22, 2012

Oh.. that... there is no rule whatsoever.. in this, I'm sure. Check Snapsort if you wish to compare cameras.. it's great for deciding what to spend on and what not.

Netskimmer · Jun 22, 2012

I guess I would consider any camera that does what I want/need it to do better than the one I have to technically be an upgrade. The questions then becomes whether the improved performance is worth the price.

orb9220 · Jun 22, 2012

"I'm looking for general insight regarding your ideology on what constitutes an "upgrade". What are the features you need? What would you pay for those features? Why do camera companies keep older tech at high price points? Would you ever "side grade"? Reasoning? Features that would make you jump ship or jump on board."

Generally the improved sensor performance is an important consideration. But for me added controls and features are just as important. I see way too many fixated on sensor performance. Like 80% weight and only 20% other consideration.

And even seen some give up a most capable workhorse to downgrade to less capable and less features camera body. Even beginners starting see them pass on older more capable for flashy new. And then finding the first year a need to upgrade due to missing in body motor,more dedicated controls,Flash commander,etc...

So for me an upgrade a couple of considerations. Like low light performance and dynamic range. Yes but only if I'm going to be doing a lot of shooting in those type of situations and actually use to fill that need. As mentioned I see many obsess about it. Then all their images are shot at 200 iso.

And for me an upgrade is added controls that allow me change settings without my eye leaving the viewfinder to go menu digging. Built in motor for additional lens choices. Flash commander mode for operating flashes off shoe. Top lcd for tripod and night work. More AF points and speed in getting the shot.

The D90 satisfies that need for the most part. Only thing I miss is the build of my D200 and would love to have metering of Ai and Ais lenses. And fine tune lenses for lens variations to the body. Would be happy with a D300 or hell even my ole' D200 fit the bill. And loved that something-something the CCD sensor gave in results as CMOS seems to be a bit less warm and tad more artificial. And rarely found for me a need to shoot above 800 and still got great results at 1250 when the need arises.

Too many times have seen upgrade meaning latest and greatest. And for me anyways that need hasn't arisen for my style and needs in real world situations. And for some going from a D3200 or D5100 to older tech D300 or D90 IS an Upgrade.

lemonart · Jun 22, 2012

Great insights, Orb. I, for one, am a huge gear nerd. It started with audio (my career), then computers (building), and now photography (because I obviously can't enjoy money in my pocket for any length of time

...)

I'm the kind that will try get the latest and greatest. Psychologically for me if I don't have it I feel myself asking "what if". I'm a compulsive upgraded and am trying to slow down! Lol

It's gotten better in recent years, but I still find myself caught up in the hype of something new and shiny. Or even just the perception that it's new and shiny. Hence why I want deep insights from people regarding their upgrade process and thoughts. Their "psychology" if you will.

Is the D90 your first camera? Have you had a string of others before you settled on your D90?

Has anyone ever DOWNgraded??

Lem

fjrabon · Jun 22, 2012

I think that a lot of the issue goes to your level and what is holding you back. I am someone who has considered upgrading from my 'starter' camera, the D3100, several times. However, every time I almost pulled the trigger, I looked at the benefits of the change and realized that I still probably have a lot I can get out of the D3100 and would probably be spending enough time still learning things that would just as easily be done on the D3100 if I changed that it's not worth it anyway. Unless you're a pro, and need the best of the best results money can buy at all times, I generally think you probably shouldn't upgrade unless the new camera will somehow qualitatively change your photography. If you're really into night street photography, then yeah, the latest and greatest new sensors may well qualitatively change your photography. If you're into portraits? Probably not. You probably would be better off upgrading your lighting first in that case.

Basically my issue at this point is deciding if I want to go full frame or not. I'll probably wait until the D600 comes out to make that call. If I decide to stay on DX (crop frame), I'll most likely continue building my glass collection with the occasional add on to my lighting, and then when the D3100 is no longer really viable, upgrade that when I absolutely have to.

There are some I've seen on here (not going to name names, but I can think of at least one really egregious recent example) that believe that upgrading a body is going to make for some magical transformation in their photography, and are inevitably disappointed when their pictures don't look any better (and in some cases actually look worse because they don't fully know how to use their new equipment to the best of its ability).

In a lot of cases I believe that 'upgrading' can even be counter productive, because there will inevitably be a 'getting to know you' period where you are still getting your ability on the new equipment up to where it was with your previous equipment. I know that every day I use my D3100, I get a little bit better at putting everything it has to offer to use, as efficiently as possible. I've tried out D7000s a few times, and while they're fantastic cameras, and inarguably vastly superior to my camera, at the end of the day, I could take just as good of pictures with my camera as the D7000, if not better, just because I know my camera inside and out, where I was sort of just fumbling around in the dark with the D7000. If you constantly upgrade, its like you're never leaving that 'fumbling int he dark' stage.

While Jim Marshall and Cartier-Bresson would have likely been great photographers no matter what, they both mentioned many times, part of their skill came from using the same camera for years, to the point of knowing the thing intuitively, inside and out, from experience. They had honed their use of their Leicas to the point of instinctively knowing exactly what to do, in micro seconds, to get the image they wanted.

orb9220 · Jun 22, 2012

lemonart said:
Great insights, Orb. I, for one, am a huge gear nerd. It started with audio (my career), then computers (building), and now photography (because I obviously can't enjoy money in my pocket for any length of time ...)

I'm the kind that will try get the latest and greatest. Psychologically for me if I don't have it I feel myself asking "what if". I'm a compulsive upgraded and am trying to slow down! Lol

It's gotten better in recent years, but I still find myself caught up in the hype of something new and shiny. Or even just the perception that it's new and shiny. Hence why I want deep insights from people regarding their upgrade process and thoughts. Their "psychology" if you will.

Is the D90 your first camera? Have you had a string of others before you settled on your D90?

Has anyone ever DOWNgraded??

Lem

Nope started with the D40 and withing 9 months was becoming frustrated with lack of controls,menu digging and smaller viewfinder. So went to a D80 and good camera put the finicky metering in certain lighting situations and extra work for above 800 iso had me go ahead and pull the trigger on the D90.

Nothing wrong with going new and shiny and funds aren't a concern. As body is only a part of the total package as needing great glass,flash and tripod to round out the kit. Personally would never blow the majority of my budget on body and kit lens. When going with an older capable body with better glass,flash and tripod would give me a better kit to learn with.

To those asking if they should upgrade? I always ask why? and what is your Need that the present kit isn't delivering? As too many Want and really don't need.

I have seen upgraditis Newer Body every year with again Kit lens. When upgrading their glass would breath new life in their present kit.
.

coastalconn · Jun 22, 2012

I agree with Orb 1000%

I posted this in a different thread...

"I think you are getting very good advice. Unless there is something that the D90 is really holding you back from, upgrade your glass. I have a D90 and really loved it. About 4 months ago I got hooked on birds. I have gotten some great results, but I really started to feel I was missing too many shots because of the AF system and I needed a higher frame rate. I've always been happy with the IQ of the 12 mp d90 sensor. My case is somewhat rare, because a body upgrade made more sense to me because my camera just wasn't capable of what I needed it to do. My answer was pretty simple I found a used D300 at KEH really cheap. The d7000 has a better sensor for sure, but I have always favored the dxxx line for feel and features and sometimes it can be little things like the masp knob. I kept knocking it to different settings. For me the sum of all parts made the d300 the perfect upgrade. If I hadn't gotten so hooked on the birds I would be perfectly happy with the D90 for years..."

I actually would be one generation behind with a better build and better controls then the newest greatest shiniest camera. I started with a D5000 when the d5100 was introduced because I had no idea I would get so hooked on photography. I used it for 6 months and grew frustrated with not having a focus motor and I just couldn't afford af-s lenses. I sold it for the same price I bought it for $400 and put that towards my refurbished D90 $600. (same sensor, but incredible camera=huge upgrade imho) I thought I had won the lottery when I started shooting the D90. The bird craze hit me so I recently picked up the D300 for $600 (ironically same sensor but even better camera) and I will probably sell my D90 for maybe a slight loss, but I consider the slight loss to be offset by my knowledge learned.

I guess what I'm trying to say for me it is the sum of the package not just the sensor. These online photo forums tend to lead to GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) when many times people don't really need new gear. People argue about 1/3 or 2/3 stop in improved iso when for many people that 1/3 stop advantage might not even be noticed especially when people don't understand photography.

lemonart · Jun 23, 2012

Hahaha Coastal... I would definitely have bad GAS

. But it's gotten a little better. At least I'm doing my DX to FX transition in steps and not all at once. I STARTED with the glass so when I do pop for an FX body I'll be well set with my 24-70 as a first FX lens. And it still looks great on my d7k until then.

My problem (well a blessing, but a problem when it comes to money) is that I learn quickly. I started with a D90 only 1.5 years ago, upgraded to a d7k 6 months after and now looking at full frame. Again I could blame my GAS, but I also feel I'm ready to grow into the camera if I'm honest.

A_Charles_E · Jun 23, 2012

I recently sold my D200 and all of my Nikkors except my 50mm f/1.2 ai-s thinking that I would stick with m4/3 and my X100 only. After awhile I missed having an SLR, so I picked up a Kodak DCS-Pro 14n at the local used camera shop. They don't show up often locally (I've never seen one before) so I jumped on the opportunity to have $600 full-frame body for my lonely 50mm, despite the ancient sensor technology and F80 build quality. And what do you know, now I've gone and bought a 20mm f/3.5 ai-s, a 28mm f/2.8 ai-s, and a 105mm f/2.5 ai-s. I'm not sure what sort of a "grade-change" this was, but it's certainly a change. The viewfinder is an upgrade, but metering is a downgrade, as the 14n won't meter at all with manual focus lenses. Loss of metering, though, only forced me to be a better judge of lighting and exposure. Sometimes less capable equipment can make you a more capable photographer.