When will a given camera be obsolete?

[nerwin]

So you can see the individual pixels and make sure they are tack sharp.

Lol

I like what a lot of you guys have said about it being obsolete when your creativity is limited or you can no longer do what you want with it. I feel that in some ways I've hit that point with the D7k and in other ways I haven't. Low light performance sucks massive rocks, but overall the camera still offers pretty sharp shots with the right lenses. That said, it would be really nice to have that extra "wiggle room" a higher-rez sensor would provide.

I used my D7000 so much that the buttons literally started falling off. Haha.

I thought the low-light performance was really good.

 

[Derrel]

I like what a lot of you guys have said about it being obsolete when your creativity is limited or you can no longer do what you want with it. I feel that in some ways I've hit that point with the D7k and in other ways I haven't. Low light performance sucks massive rocks, but overall the camera still offers pretty sharp shots with the right lenses. That said, it would be really nice to have that extra "wiggle room" a higher-rez sensor would provide.

Agreed on this idea, that one's camera can limit creativity or potential images that can be made. And that newer, higher-resolution sensor can offer you wiggle room (and more). I've gone from the D1, to the D1h, to the D70, D2x, and D3x in Nikon branded cameras, and had Fuji S1, S2, S5 d-slrs, and Canon 20D and Canon 5D Classic. We have advanced a long, long ways in the 18 years since the Nikon D1 was released in late 1998.

The reallllllllly major breakthrough was the shift from a camera like the Canon 5D and its somewhat narrow dynamic range, and the D3x with like 13.7 EV total dynamic range, and just a MUCH,much,much better sensor, and better electronics. Moving from 10.5 total range to 13.7 was a huuuuuge difference. And the ability to recover over-exposure with the Sony-made sensor was a game-changer.

Today? The D600, D750, D810, all of the "new-generation" Sony FX sized sensors offer astounding quality in 35mm-sized cameras. And the D7200: the sensor shows almost no pattern noise in the dark areas when a 5-Stop under-exposed raw image is brightened up in software. That's the major difference that I can see between the D7100, and the D7200: the newest sensors are basically ISO invariant. This is a major,major,major shift in the new Sony, Nikon, and Pentax cameras: you can now under-expose to a huge degree, to build shutter speed, or to get more DOF, or to protect briliant highlights--and then, you can "lift the shadows" to a huuuuuge level, and not have a ruined image. This. Is.The. Biggest. Advance. Of. The . Last. Decade. Achieving wide,wide scene DR through ISO invariance due to better sensors, and better in-camera electronics, and better signal processing.

This means that the Canon 5D Mark III loses real DR to a Nikon D610 or D750, or to a Sony A7r series camera. Nikon D750 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III | DxOMark

Compare the 5D Mark III with 11.7 maximum EV to 14.5 EV to the D750. WHO wants to throw away almost three, full EV?

I dug out the Nikon D1 last year. Ugggggh. Wow. HORRIBLE dynamic range. Awful. Low-res images, 2.7 MP. Weird color response. Truly, not a camera I want to use.

 

[nerwin]

I like what a lot of you guys have said about it being obsolete when your creativity is limited or you can no longer do what you want with it. I feel that in some ways I've hit that point with the D7k and in other ways I haven't. Low light performance sucks massive rocks, but overall the camera still offers pretty sharp shots with the right lenses. That said, it would be really nice to have that extra "wiggle room" a higher-rez sensor would provide.

Agreed on this idea, that one's camera can limit creativity or potential images that can be made. And that newer, higher-resolution sensor can offer you wiggle room (and more). I've gone from the D1, to the D1h, to the D70, D2x, and D3x in Nikon branded cameras, and had Fuji S1, S2, S5 d-slrs, and Canon 20D and Canon 5D Classic. We have advanced a long, long ways in the 18 years since the Nikon D1 was released in late 1998.

The reallllllllly major breakthrough was the shift from a camera like the Canon 5D and its somewhat narrow dynamic range, and the D3x with like 13.7 EV total dynamic range, and just a MUCH,much,much better sensor, and better electronics. Moving from 10.5 total range to 13.7 was a huuuuuge difference. And the ability to recover over-exposure with the Sony-made sensor was a game-changer.

Today? The D600, D750, D810, all of the "new-generation" Sony FX sized sensors offer astounding quality in 35mm-sized cameras. And the D7200: the sensor shows almost no pattern noise in the dark areas when a 5-Stop under-exposed raw image is brightened up in software. That's the major difference that I can see between the D7100, and the D7200: the newest sensors are basically ISO invariant. This is a major,major,major shift in the new Sony, Nikon, and Pentax cameras: you can now under-expose to a huge degree, to build shutter speed, or to get more DOF, or to protect briliant highlights--and then, you can "lift the shadows" to a huuuuuge level, and not have a ruined image. This. Is.The. Biggest. Advance. Of. The . Last. Decade. Achieving wide,wide scene DR through ISO invariance due to better sensors, and better in-camera electronics, and better signal processing.

This means that the Canon 5D Mark III loses real DR to a Nikon D610 or D750, or to a Sony A7r series camera. Nikon D750 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III | DxOMark

Compare the 5D Mark III with 11.7 maximum EV to 14.5 EV to the D750. WHO wants to throw away almost three, full EV?

I dug out the Nikon D1 last year. Ugggggh. Wow. HORRIBLE dynamic range. Awful. Low-res images, 2.7 MP. Weird color response. Truly, not a camera I want to use.

Still though, there are people on Flickr actively taking and sharing photos from the D1 and some of the photos are beautiful. In some ways, the D1 still outperforms today's smartphones.

 

[Derrel]

Trust me...the D1 has the worst color and DR of any d-slr made since....2002. it's NOT good, and the color space is like TV 1953...does not conform to any recognixed color space, cannot handle reds or pinks very well at all (so lips and flowers look way off). Sure...it can use Nikon lenses, but it is an AWFUL imager compared to a D610...weak color, low DR, limited ISO, low razz, weak battery life. On Flickr, with processing? Sure! IN real life? Not so much...

iPhone 4 is better.

Compared to the D2x or the D3x, the original D1 is awful. Custom functions? 28 or 29 choices, all in Numbers, with A-B or A-B-C choices, no languages! You need to know how to set it up using a book, or a cheat sheet.

Sure, some of the photos can be beautiful, with processing. But it is a 2.7 MP camera. My 2004 Canon PowerShot G4 is better. My 2009 Nikon Coolpix S570 has 12 million pixel res, and wider DR and richer color.

Be aware: EVERY single file out of the original D1 needs processing, and if the sun is in the frame...forget it...it blows highlights like a ba***ard. VERY fast, very awfully....it is terrible on DR, and highlight handling. It's a cranky camera in actual use. It is a lot like shooting 1980's color slide film. The orignal D1 has a rather narrow, small window of operation; the new Sony-sensor cameras are ALL-window.

 

[DanOstergren]

I've been using the same 9 year old camera for portraits (a Canon 5D Classic) for about 6 years now, and have yet to find a situation in which I find my camera to be obsolete. It should be noted however that I don't plan to display my photos on a 50" 4k screen, I don't print much larger than 20", and the clients I have who expect higher resolution images from me include the cost of gear rental in my pay. I often shoot at ISO speeds above ISO 800 with my 5D Classic and noise isn't a problem for me. The dynamic range is great despite the comparisons often made with newer cameras, and I often shoot in low lighting (however since I do portrait work I'm not having to deal with some of the problems that others may face in low light conditions). Oftentimes I feel that many photographers feel that their camera is holding them back when in fact they themselves are lacking the skill in order to use their cameras to their potential, which is a lot higher than what people seem to give credit for older cameras.

 

[Solarflare]

Pfft ISO 800 is nothing to any full frame camera. Except maybe the Canon 5Ds (its resolution already collapses at ISO 800), Nikon D3x (sensor ends at ISO 1600), and the Leica M9/M-E (CCD-Sensor ends at ISO 1250).

My D750 has given me images at ISO 3200 that look like being taken at ISO 100 ... I have no clue how the camera does that.

 

[DanOstergren]

Pfft ISO 800 is nothing to any full frame camera. Except maybe the Canon 5Ds (its resolution already collapses at ISO 800), Nikon D3x (sensor ends at ISO 1600), and the Leica M9/M-E (CCD-Sensor ends at ISO 1250).

My D750 has given me images at ISO 3200 that look like being taken at ISO 100 ... I have no clue how the camera does that.

I thought I mentioned I often shoot above ISO 800, not only at...

I'm commenting from the perspective of someone who used to be afraid of going above ISO 100 and always thought this old camera was holding me back, and now I shoot well above it on that same camera that's over 10 years old now, which many find to be obsolete and I now completely disagree.

 

[Derrel]

I shot a 2005 Nikon D2x and a 1980's era 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S zoom lens today...Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR AI-S 100-300mm f/5.6 MF Telephoto Lens SN208933 *As-Is* | eBay

 

[Optimum Clarity]

If the manufacturers have their way cameras would be obsolete 10 minutes after leaving the store with them.
I often keep a camera for up to 2 or 3 years though, much more than that and you are gimping yourself by not having the state of the art electronics. I also buy new tools when they come out if it is a tool that I do not have already. I do the same with Consumer electronics and stereo and home theater equipment too though so I am not a good representation of the norm.

 

[dxqcanada]

Definition of obsolete
1a : no longer in use or no longer useful
b : of a kind or style no longer current

I find all my photographic equipment (film and digital) still useful, no matter what their age.

 

[Dave442]

Still shooting my D200, and when it dies I will just pull out the backup D200. However, the other day I did buy a new CF card for it a Best Buy and at checkout the guy said "haven't seen one of those for a long time".

By the way, a 32gb card shows 1500 RAW files on the D200 LCD (not that I plan to ever put that many on it).

 

[DanOstergren]

Still shooting my D200, and when it dies I will just pull out the backup D200. However, the other day I did buy a new CF card for it a Best Buy and at checkout the guy said "haven't seen one of those for a long time".

By the way, a 32gb card shows 1500 RAW files on the D200 LCD (not that I plan to ever put that many on it).

I love that the file size on older cameras is much smaller, significantly reducing the amount of space they take up on memory cards and computer or external drives.

 

[ashleykaryl]

I haven't read this entire thread, but as it happens I purchased a 49" 4K TV just last week and out of curiosity I checked out the website in my signature below. All of the images were prepared for retina devices at 2x resolution, but not specifically for 4K. Nevertheless they looked absolutely fine.

It's worth remembering that displays like this are typically using clever technology to make lower resolution content look better, so to that extent we have a safety buffer. Frankly I am more interested in print quality, since I would never post huge images on the internet.

I still have a 1DsII that is now an old camera in digital terms, yet I would not call it obsolete, even after 11 years. The 16.7MP files it produces are more than adequate for fine looking large prints.

 

[greybeard]

Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens? I still use my now 7 year old D7000 which shoots at a max of 4928 x 3264. Still pretty good but once you start cropping you start to dip below the resolution of some monitors. I'm wondering if there's a formula here for figuring out at which point a camera is unable to meet the "stretch" of say a 50" 4k screen.

It's also possible I'm looking at this totally wrong but I'd like to hear what you all think

When an entry level dSLR is better.