To keep up with technology, or keep your wallet happy...

[K8-90]

I'm interested to know what you think about this...

Hopefully, I will soon be purchasing my first DSLR. I have a choice between a cheaper, entry type camera (Canon XSi) and a more advanced one (Canon 40D). However. Technology is changing so much, and fast. I know I will want to upgrade to the newer technology, even if my current camera is still good/working.

My question is - how often do you guys upgrade your cameras? Are you careful with your money, and only buy when you *need* (ie. your camera is toast)? Or do you keep up with ever changing technology?

Thanks!

 

[Rachelsne]

the 40d was out and the xsi was about to be released but i opted for the 30d, because I wanted a camera that would last me and teach me, eventually I hope that the 30d will become my backup camera when I start shooting proffesionally.

 

[Big Mike]

I'm still shooting with a couple of 20D cameras. They are a bit behind in terms of 'modern' technology but they get the job done just fine. Remember, it's the photographer, not the gear, that counts.

When the 30D came out, I had very little inclination to upgrade as the differences were minor...however, the 40D was more of a complete redesign and I would buy one of those today (if I could).

Technology is always moving pretty fast...and I don't think that it's necessary to always be on the cutting edge. Some of the upgrades are more useful than others...and if a newer model has something newer/better that will make your life/job easier...then it's probably worth the upgrade (or at least easier to make the justification).

As for the XSi vs the 40D...that is a matter of different levels. The 40D is a step above in many aspects...but image quality is probably pretty close.

 

[Overread]

Well the camera body I say is the low point on the budget marker. The best place to spend your hard earned money is on better lenses - stick canon L lenses on low end bodies and you can take shots that will stand up to those captured on top end bodies:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-geese_and_ducks_of_racconigi.htm
examples there (the 350D being the first of the digital rebel series of cameras)
However the skill of the photographer in charge of the equipment is the most important part, but I would say save on the body and spend on the lenses.
However I understand that that top end rebel at the moment is almost the same as the 40D in cost - with that choice now I would say go for the 40D over the rebel

 

[Big Mike]

examples there (the 350D being the first of the digital rebel series of cameras)

The 300D was the first

 

[saltface]

Remember, it's the photographer, not the gear, that counts.

My Rebel Ti just got all warm and fuzzy (Ti, not XTi).

 

[Overread]

QUICK take out the battery you have a short circuit in there somewhere

 

[saltface]

QUICK take out the battery you have a short circuit in there somewhere

That took me a moment. I thought you were talking about a known defect. LOL

 

[skieur]

Most pros buy a new camera every 2 to 3 years.

skieur

 

[Sarah23]

I bought the XTi, but next year after tax season, I am going to upgrade. The lenses and skill are more important then the body, IMO.

 

[K8-90]

I know it's the photographer that makes the picture - I have an quaintance with a 40D that is just hopeless... But having the right gear is nonetheless a large part of it.

I am I right in saying that most of you do not upgrade too often, but would if you could? So changing technology doesn't phase you?

I am trying to make a good, well informed decision on my purchase. I have researched the life out of it, even giving the sales people a run for their money. I just don't want to regret my choice...

Thanks for the input!

 

[Garbz]

Actually technology doesn't change that quickly. I have a D200 and plenty of spare capital at the moment, but no desire at all to go out and grab the D300.

Incremental changes in bodies are often small at the lower-mid range of the spectrum. Maybe in 2 years I'll get a D400 or one of those rumoured D10s.

It won't make me a better photographer but by then my D200 is likely broken and not obsolete.

 

[K8-90]

Actually technology doesn't change that quickly

Uh, haha. I would have to agree to disagree on that point! But I don't really want to argue it...

Incremental changes in bodies are often small at the lower-mid range of the spectrum

That's true, though. I understand what you are saying here.

 

[Garbz]

Ok I won't argue, I will just expand on what I meant since technology itself changes quite rapidly.

In the context of my post I meant what have we really got now that we didn't have a few years ago. Sure the D3 is a drool worthy piece that causes all of us to go green with one of the 7 deadly sins, but aside from the high ISO performance and a few more megapixels it really is no more of a camera than the D2 of yesteryear. It has some cool features to make taking photos easier, but that didn't mean that people couldn't take sporting photos with a D2 because it didn't have 52 AF points and the firing rate of a Kalashnikov, just like people still took photos at sporting events before VR and AF-S came out.

Basically the D200 is more than 2 years old now, but so far the D300 is only a minor step up in quality (again ISO1600+ not withstanding) and fully loaded with lovely gimmiks like live view, Active-D lighting, colour tracking AF and the likes. But I'm a bit of a biased classic guy who is perfectly happy using a fully manual film camera too, so I am sure many people will disagree

 

[K8-90]

drool worthy piece that causes all of us to go green with one of the 7 deadly sins

I get it and all... But people lived fine without electricity, for centuries, too. And I think I'll stick to electricity, even though camping is fun on occasion

If I had the XTi (or even the XT) I wouldn't be looking to upgrade to the XSi. However, if they introduced the next in line to the 40D, I would be thinking about it, hard.