New Gear Syndrome or a real need?

[Derrel]

The real problem with GAS, is that usually, you're projecting what you think you will be able to feel after you acquire those amazing new capabilities. In practice, most of the "new" capabilities are incremental improvements, and other than the "new gear smell", it rarely delivers on the expectations. I see the same thing about fellow bikies lusting after the newest derailer technology, or the 20-gram seat-post. I see fellow kayakers wanting the latest 30 lb. carbon-fiber/kevlar racing boat, or the 100 gm. carbon blade paddle. Same with computer gear, or smartphones, or cookware. Reality is that usually the primary limitiation is the person himself/herself - whether it be skill or technique or fitness or attitude. And that limitation, whatever it is, takes much more effort and dedication to overcome. Whenever I get GAS (almost daily, unfortunately), I think about what I can't do now that I could do with the new stuff - and usually, the feeling subsides and I can focus on more productive uses of my time. But that's me. In the end, my image-making would improve dramatically if I got up earlier than I like to, went to more pictureque places that I usually do, took more time to study the light, thought harder about what makes a particular image interesting, and in general seeked out the places and circumstances that inherently have image-making potential. Getting a full-frame, low-noise camera won't help me if I'm sleeping in.

Salesmen who sell bicycle stuff, kayaking stuff, computers, cookware, and in general, ALL RETAIL SALES ASSOCIATES, are wishing that you lived in their town, so they could full-on toilet paper AND egg the crap out of, your house at some point this year... just sayin...

 

[pgriz]

Ha! Yes, kinda funny actually, as my income depends on me selling my company's very expensive services and products. I really do know about appealing to the want/need part of most humans's psychic makeup... And I do cringe internally, when a sales associate has no finesse or interest in actually making a customer WANT to buy. Most sales associates launch into their pitch without first checking that their message will be willingly received. The first five seconds of interaction either wins you the right to continue, or causes the prospective customer to stop listening and wishing for a hole in the floor to open up and swallow the sales associate. I've been in many sales seminars and courses and one recurring theme is "sell the benefits (that are relevant to your prospect), not the product(s)". "Ask open-ended questions that allow the prospect to tell you want they want". Etc.


Case in point... we actually need some lawn care services, as both I and my wife are too often busy with work or family stuff and don't have the time to do what needs to be done. We regularly get pitches from telemarketers... who within ten seconds turn what should be a slam-dunk sales opportunity, into a "no, thank you." Almost every one of them forget to ask "what's important for you?", and tell us stuff that is really quite irrelevant for us. Those who won't listen, won't hear.

So, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Derrel]

I used to be a top camera salesman at a chain that had, at that time, 13 camera stores and a big developing and printing lab...back in the bad-old days of the earliest AF system cameras from the big makers. I've actually had many,many customer experiences when it comes to buying camera gear, from P&S, to high-end stuff. "Selling the benefits" back then was basically the then-new autofocusing and the then-new generation of gear that most of our prospective customers came in to pursure. THAT was a big transitional time--from the one-lens P&S with a single lens OR perhaps the dual wide/tele P&S with a 35/70mm switching system to the then HOT! NEW! zoom P&S like the Pentax IQ Zoom, or the Olympus or Nikon variants. But our Mr. B in this thread--he ALREADY owns current-style equipment that is pretty close to state-of-the-art in today's world.

I dunno...until the last two generations of Sony-made, Toshiba-made, and now Nikon-made (D3300 has a Nikon-made 24MP sensor with no AA filter) APS-C sensors hit the market, I was a staunch believer in the superiority of full-frame. The earlier full-frame d-slr's simply were better. Notably better. Clearly better. But since the Sony Exmoor generation hit...the advantage is not so dominant. Oh, it's still there, in some ways, but on the other hand, for narrow-field work, the 24 megapixel Nikon crop-bodies offer a LOT of pixel density on a tight frame...that can be leveraged big-time.

A good salesman could make a case for buying a D610 or a D800...or a D7100...or whatever. ALL of the new d-slrs have huge benefit upsides!

 

[D-B-J]

I can afford it - but curious whether people think I should go lens or body, and whether the D800e is the right step up from the D7100

Skip the d800e, get the d800. I am not a huge fan of 2.8 UWA lenses, i don't see the point.

There's almost no point--I rarely use mine at 2.8.




Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

You can get a low shutter count D700 for $1100-1300. I know it's not "new" but it's still a magnificent piece of hardware. I just picked up a second D700 with a shutter count of 8K for $1200. You can pick up the D700 and the Tokina for the price of the Nikon 14-24 alone.

The D700 is great. I have one. But it uses the slowly approaching obsolescence CF cards and a different battery. He'd have to step backwards card wise.

Without knowing what features and advantages he hopes to gain, it's really a case of gas.