When Upgrading Cameras ...

[K-Laa]

While trying to stay a few steps ahead, I’ve already been looking into my next camera purchase. However, amidst of furthering my knowledge and doing my due diligence, I’ve seem to have stumble across two distinct buying patterns: 1) an individual will upgrade one camera at a time, multiple bodies, until he/she reaches the “cream of the crop”, so to speak, for his/her specific needs, and 2) an individual will go from whatever his/her starting camera is, to the “cream of the crop”, without the additional buys in between.

I’m curious …. What approach did you use? Do you think there is any particular significance to one or the other, or is it just a personal preference?

 

[Gary A.]

Yes, those are the two, mainstream, buying patterns. Assuming that monies isn't an issue then the photog needs to determine their passion. If they are truly passionate about photography, if they truly know that photography will be an integral element of their lives for at least the next half decade ... Then spend the bucks now cause you're gonna spend it anyway. If you're not sure ... then go incrementally. It is a more costly path, but in many ways safer as it is stretched over a lot of time. One can offset much of the additional expense by a vigorous selling of old equipment.

PS- As a former pro, my approach to photography is different from the mainstream.

 

[bratkinson]

After 25 years or so with a pair of 35mm Canon SLR cameras, I took a 'nibble' of the digital age about 2002 with a Canon G3. That evolved to a G5 2-3 years later, but I knew one day I'd bite the bullet on a DSLR. I started with a used 30D and EF-S 18-135 lens. From then on, it was one piece at a time as my photo skills improved.

Unlike Johnny Cash that built his car one piece at a time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws-_syszg84


and ended up with a wild conglomeration, I slowly figured out what I needed that the 30D + 18-135 couldn't supply. First was more lighting. So I bought the high end Canon flash at the time, a 550EX. I figured I could always dial back the flash, but couldn't dial up the flash if it was too small to start with. To get better ISO speeds and more pixels to handle significant cropping I'd sometimes did (rethinking the framing, cutting out extraneous stuff), I upgraded to a 60D.

As I evolved to mostly indoor church events other than weddings and realized that low light no flash shooting (to avoid startling anyone at important times), I knew I needed faster glass (f2.8, etc). So, I replaced my two EF-S lenses (I had bought a 55-250 along the way) with faster Canon EF lenses that covered 99 percent of the focal ranges I normal shot at. I had a couple of mis-steps and bought and later sold 2 primes and a zoom along the way before I finally settled into my 'fantastic four' - 3 fixed aperture zooms and the EF 135 f2L. I was still struggling to keep fast enough shutter speeds to stop subject motion, get sufficient DOF, and minimal easy to clean up in post noise levels. The 5D mark iii hit the streets about the same time and between its high ISO capabilities and super accurate focusing, I knew I had to have it. After saving up a while and denting my credit card a bit, I made the leap.

Like most amateur photographers or any other hobbiests with expensive hobbies, my financial limits restricted how fast I was upgrading and adding to my camera bag. I quickly realized I had to sell the lenses I just didn't 'work' for me to pay for something else...and throw in more $$$. Part of the reason for selling off the lenses was because of a case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). Fortunately, from lenses to flash brackets and a couple of other doo-dads I didn't need, I was able to recoup a good percentage of the cost of those items when I sold them.

In short, a slow pace and figuring out what I needed to get the results I wanted is the best path, in my estimation. The slow pace allowed me to keep up with my bills and not get too far in the hole with my credit cards.

 

[robbins.photo]

My own story is pretty similar, when I decided to take up photography again after a very, very long hiatus I started with a used D5100. After a while I ran across a good deal on a used 5200, then eventually got a refurbished 7100. Shot that for quite a while before I ran across a deal on a d600 I couldn't pass up. Been very happy with each upgrade and glad I had the chance to work with each camera. I've managed to sell off the old stuff without taking much of a hit because I bought it all used. Pretty much same with the lenses, I've tried quite a few, always bought used, kept the ones I use a lot and resold the ones I didn't.

As my skills improved I got a better feel for what I liked to shoot and the sort of equipment that would give me the best "bang" for my buck.



Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[zombiesniper]

Guess I'm on the other trend.

My first SLR was back a few decades ago with film. Just shot for fun then fell out of love with it. Picked up my first DSLR to shoot family pics then upgraded about 8 yrs later to get better family pics. Fast fwd to last year when I discovered I liked taking bird pics and I went from a the T5I to the 7Dmk2 because I knew I wouldn't be happy with anything else.

 

[Overread]

Another fact to consider is that when one is getting started there's a lot more than just the camera body to get and often times good research will show that a new camera body might not actually give that big of an increase in capacity/quality/options to the photography potential of the whole kit.

Thus many might well find that their finances are spread thin because they want good glass; good filters; good tripod; good flashes lighting diffusers remote releases mechanised star tracking attachments etc......

All this adds to the cost and thus many people will often creep up the scale of body upgrades slower in smaller price jumps because they want to improve what they've got; but at the same time can't afford to jump all the way to the top because there are so many other things they need first.


Budget limits are always a factor; plus you've also got the mental barrier as well. Going from £500 to £4000 in upgrading from one body to the next is a vast jump for most people. They need justification and confidence to spend that much money - to put what is a serious and major investment - into something that might only be a hobby for them. There's also a perception aspect - this is a camera not a car or a boat or a horse or a plane - so peoples pereception of value and woth has to adjust a bit as well.


For me I went from the entry level 400D to the mid-range 7D which has fast become the top range for crop sensor as Canon dropped their 1.3 crop at the flagship end. For me that's as high as I'm going body and market wise for a while. A 7DMIII would likely be on the cards as as much as I'd spend on a camera body (When it appears) because I'd rather spend more thousands on big supertelephotos than upon camera bodies.

 

[fmw]

Neither one. I only "upgrade" when a camera breaks or when it will no longer do what I want it to do. My last purchase was to replace a camera that broke. If I thought the "cream of the crop" would improve my photography I would get one. But I don't think that. Good photography is in the photographer not the equipment.

 

[john.margetts]

I upgrade when my existing kit will not do what I want it to. I still use my 1980s Pentax MX on a regular basis because it does what I want it to. I am on my third digital camera - Minolta Dimage, EOS 350D, EOS 650D - over 13 years. I shall be buying an EOS 80D next week as I am struggling with dark church interiors, something that has only been an issue for a year or so.

 

[Gary A.]

Neither one. I only "upgrade" when a camera breaks or when it will no longer do what I want it to do. My last purchase was to replace a camera that broke. If I thought the "cream of the crop" would improve my photography I would get one. But I don't think that. Good photography is in the photographer not the equipment.

That is not necessarily true. I think that your skill level dictates how much improvement, (if any), newer, better equipment delivers to the photog.

The greater the skill level the more goodness and consistency the photog can leverage/squeeze out of new better equipment.

 

[fmw]

Neither one. I only "upgrade" when a camera breaks or when it will no longer do what I want it to do. My last purchase was to replace a camera that broke. If I thought the "cream of the crop" would improve my photography I would get one. But I don't think that. Good photography is in the photographer not the equipment.

That is not necessarily true. I think that your skill level dictates how much improvement, (if any), newer, better equipment delivers to the photog.

The greater the skill level the more goodness and consistency the photog can leverage/squeeze out of new better equipment.

I don't argue that. Your point is the same as mine. It isn't so much the equipment as it is the person operating it. A good photographer can make good images with a novice camera system. A novice can't make good images with the best equipment money can buy. No doubt a better photographer can make use of better equipment. But equipment isn't the path to better photographs. The eye, brain and skills of the photographer are.

 

[Gary A.]

Maybe we're parsing words here ... But for the skilled photographer, better equipment is a path to better images and greater consistency.

 

[fmw]

I upgrade when my existing kit will not do what I want it to. I still use my 1980s Pentax MX on a regular basis because it does what I want it to. I am on my third digital camera - Minolta Dimage, EOS 350D, EOS 650D - over 13 years. I shall be buying an EOS 80D next week as I am struggling with dark church interiors, something that has only been an issue for a year or so.

Sounds like what you need is a tripod, not a new camera body.

 

[dennybeall]

My feeling is that once a photographer has the skills then the equipment controls the circumstances where you can get great photos. Consider some shots that absolutely require FAST GLASS, you have to have it. If I've got an f4 lens, I'm not going to get great band shots in a nightclub no matter how skilled I am.
Great sun, outdoors and heck the old D3100 can get great shots with a kit lens.

 

[john.margetts]

I upgrade when my existing kit will not do what I want it to. I still use my 1980s Pentax MX on a regular basis because it does what I want it to. I am on my third digital camera - Minolta Dimage, EOS 350D, EOS 650D - over 13 years. I shall be buying an EOS 80D next week as I am struggling with dark church interiors, something that has only been an issue for a year or so.

Sounds like what you need is a tripod, not a new camera body.

It is the high levels of noise that is the problem - I almost always use a tripod.

 

[fmw]

I upgrade when my existing kit will not do what I want it to. I still use my 1980s Pentax MX on a regular basis because it does what I want it to. I am on my third digital camera - Minolta Dimage, EOS 350D, EOS 650D - over 13 years. I shall be buying an EOS 80D next week as I am struggling with dark church interiors, something that has only been an issue for a year or so.

Sounds like what you need is a tripod, not a new camera body.

It is the high levels of noise that is the problem - I almost always use a tripod.

Shoot at 100 ISO and do what you can to reduce the noise in post process. Dark environments do have their challenges. In the film days we had reciprocity failure and today we have noise. I think reciprocity failure was easier to manage.