New Gear ??????????

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:52 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
When digital first appeared in the world of conventional photography, the improvement in cameras was rapid and new models appeared fairly rapidly. Megapixels went up and noise went down, other features were improved and the improvement could actually be seen in what the cameras could do and the prints they produced. But now significant improvements aren’t coming as rapidly, but new cameras are. DO MOST OF US REALLY NEED NEW CAMERAS??

At some point the answer is yes. For most working stiffs it became obvious that they would have to move from film to digital at a time when the DSLR was king just to get images to their clients. In some cases it makes sense to now switch from DSLR to mirrorless, the most extreme example being still photographers on a movie set who can trade in a bulky, difficult to operate, blimped DSLR for a mirrorless with a mode that uses a silent electronic shutter. But greater in number are those photographers traveling with equipment be they landscape, journalistic or just vacationing photographers who would really like to lighten their load.

Those are major switches and short of fantasy inspired brand shifting make sense. What baffles me are minor switches, replacing a camera because a newer model has some slightly improved feature that will probably not improve your pictures. There are purchases that make sense. Good lenses have staying power. For some folks lights, bags and backpacks, tripods, trips or just the knowledge that you have the money in the bank to buy that new camera body when the change is significant make more sense than a minor league upgrade. Besides, cameras that are worn and show signs of a long and useful life look really cool, especially if the photographer is a bit worn.

Any thoughts or examples of personal foolishness or wisdom?
 
a little of both personal foolishness and wisdom. I have the x100t, great camera but the x100f has one feature that I would love to have... ISO set via an external dial would be so convienent when shooting with ND / ND Grad filters. Foolishness to even consider that "upgrade", wisdom in that I have resisted up to now.
 
Personal foolishness: Bought brand spanking new (at the time), the Leica M-E. Convinced that I didn't need the few extra functions of the full M9.

Personal wisdom: Realizing that even the M-E had functions not used. Bought, very slightly used, for $1500 less, an M-D.

The M10? Don't need it. Don't want it.
 
I sold all of my Canon EOS gear and bought into Micro Four Thirds earlier this year. Should have done it a long time ago. The problem is i have a lot of health problems and carrying heavy gear is hard for me. I carry a camera everywhere I go and the Canon stuff was causing me pain.

I have an Olympus Pen-F, Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 Pro lens, Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens, and Panasonic 45-150mm f4-5.6 lens and even though the two Olympus Pro lenses are big by M43 standards, they're tiny and light compared to canon stuff, and the Panasonic 45-150 weighs almost nothing. I can carry that setup all day with no problems, so yes a new camera can be needed and useful.
 
DO MOST OF US REALLY NEED NEW CAMERAS??
Click to expand...

No.

Most people should attend more workshops, take more classes on the creative aspects of photography. And I would also recommend each of us find someone who would be willing to be your coach and mentor and help each of us with our photography journey.
 
Maggie Osterberg, she doesn't post much about gear, but does pictures. I see her pictures on Flickr and they are very well done indoor pictures with M8 first and then with M9. And no Snobolux attached.
What it tells me? And what my family pictures tells me?
Gear doesn't improves IQ dramatically after Canon 5D and Leica M9 to me.
Gear stopped wrestling me after purchase of consumer DSLR in 2008.
No gear wrestling after it. Just something slightly better.
Inside creativity is the main challenge.
And somehow, personally, M4-2 and M-E are up to date for me, as we speak. :)
 
When I was taking photography classes the Instructor wanted me to try medium format. Later in life I purchased a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex. Still have them but I never took a liking to them. I tried a Nikon D1. It was heavy and the images were not to my liking. I gave it to my son. I tried an Olympus Ep1, which was not bad but the lens died. I never found the improvements, other than a light meter in the camera and motor drive, to be of any use. I imagine the new Leica to be excellent but the I can not justify the cost for my needs.
 
Do most of us really need new cameras? I mostly buy used cameras. That's mainly because I can't afford the most up to date models. But it's also because, for my purposes, there's little to differentiate the newest from the previous models. A few megapixels, a few features, a new menu and placement of buttons...not really important for a guy who still shoots pictures like he did in 1975 using beat-up Nikon F bodies and Tri-X film.

I just bought a used Fuji X-Pro2 after using X-Pro1 cameras for the last couple of years. It handles better, has better utility and a much improved viewfinder. But I still use my X-Pro1 bodies and I will continue using them. Image quality is about the same and, honestly, I'm used to the handling of the XP1. Even though it's a little inferior to the XP2, I'm comfortable with it and it performs as well as I need a camera to perform. I'll probably keep using the old cameras until they stop working properly and they have to be replaced.
 
There is something about a "new to me" camera that I find exciting, but most of mine are someone else's first.

My latest & greatest is from 2013. Don't have a camera newer than that. Am a bit short-pixeled with my D4 and Df at only 16MP, but I try to make the most of those MP's.

Mostly interested in older and really old gear these days. Most of my fantasy cameras were made before I was born in 1957.

Best,
-Tim
 
For the most part, I don't need new gear. I'm very happy with buying used stuff. But only if it fits the specifications I'm looking for.


PF
 
Marketing demands that you need to keep changing a product constantly and convincing your customers of the perpetual need to upgrade to keep pace with the onslaught of so called improvements ... which as you say pretty much don't exist these days.

We are but sheep if we follow!
 
Over the years, I've bought more cameras than is reasonable for the average person. But here at RFF, we're not average. We're exceptional. ;) And each camera has had a feature, or been of a type, that I didn't have before. Either it's a faster camera with better autofocus, a camera with much better video quality or high ISO performance, full frame vs aps-c, a rangefinder vs a DSLR, weathersealed vs not, everything has been bought because it has something my other gear didn't have, or didn't do.

After a few years of the Panasonic LX7 and GM1 as my everyday cameras, I've just moved to the LX10 and GX85. The LX10 has a 1" sensor, superb 4K video and great stabilization, things which the LX7 lacked. The GX85 has a slightly bigger battery, excellent internal stabilization, a tilting screen, 4K video, and an EVF, none of which the GM1 had.

Did I 'need' these new cameras? No. But do they allow me to do things that I couldn't do before? Definitely.

I won't replace my M9, although I'm likely to get the tiny Sony RX0 to mount to the hotshoe, giving the M9 a video mode of sorts. Cheaper than buying a M240, that's for sure, and much more convenient than switching to a different camera when I'm using the M9 and need video.
 
My parade of equipment decisions in the digital age (2006- for me) have tracked almost exactly with Bill's [and also the prevailing] wisdom that the changes in imaging quality just aren't coming at the speed they once did.
First: Nikon D200(2006), sold because I discovered it had a plastic finder ocular, which is too easily damaged.
Second: Nikon D2Xs: The best they had in spring 2007, until one year later I could buy a...
Third: Nikon D3...full frame, really good in low light
Fourth: By 2010, it was obvious that more than 12MP was needed for nice 17x22 prints, but all Nikon had was the grotesquely overpriced 24MP model at $7000
Finally in late 2012, Nikon D800 had enough pixels and better low light than the D3. Too bad the finder is lousy(in comparison to the D3) and it's fragile(which the D3 wasn't).
Since 2012: Nothing has been enough of an improvement over the D800 to warrant more than a passing thought.
HOWEVER: If was making $5000 a week, I'd buy every new Nikon and Leica just out of curiosity...playtime for the rich, etc.
 
I started photography with digital, not film - my first digital camera was the 1.5 MP Fujifilm MX-1700 in 1999! I was upgrading cameras yearly at first, which increased to 2 yearly.

As the technology matured, by the end of the decade my upgrade cycle was about 4 years. A decade after starting photography I was using a 13 MP Canon 5D (I also owned digital rangefinders from Epson and Leica - but I’m excluding them here for simplicity).

I then upgraded to a 36 MP Nikon D800E (in 2012) 5 years after the Canon 5D. This year, 6 years later, I bought a 42 MP Sony A7R II to replace the Nikon.

What can I say about my camera buying over these 20 years?

  • I upgrade because either advances or now-affordable existing features will make significant differences to my photography - to improved image quality (e.g. resolution, dynamic range) or improved camera usability (e.g. LCD quality, image stabilisation, electronic viewfinder (EVF) matching optical viewfinder (OVF) quality).
  • I never upgrade simply to have new technology for its own sake. There must be a practical reason.
  • As advances in digital camera technology and reductions in its cost were rapid 20 years ago, I upgraded frequently at first - buying a brand-new camera yearly, then every 2 years.
  • After 20 years of using digital cameras, my upgrade cycle has slowed to 6 years.
  • Also - significantly - my current camera is second hand and not a current model. The first time I’ve not bought a brand-new current model. Digital camera technology has matured, and advances are now mostly evolutionary not revolutionary.
  • For the past 5 years, digital cameras have met all my requirements* for image quality. I cannot ever see myself buying another camera solely because of improved image quality.
  • I will continue to upgrade for improved camera usability**. For example, I prefer EVFs to OVFs now that the former resemble real life, plus EVF cameras are now full frame and smaller than dSLRs - the main reasons I upgraded from my Nikon D800E (image quality is identical to the Sony).
  • I expect my upgrade cycle to remain 5-6 years.
  • And buying only second hand in future - advances are likely to be minor, and the massively reduced second-hand cost means I can treat cameras as essentially disposable and don’t need to mollycoddle them.

* My requirements for image quality: all met 5 years ago with Sony’s 36 MP widely used sensor for parameters of importance to me - resolution, dynamic range and ISO. I am not interested in video at all, only still images.
**My requirements for cameras: largely met, and future improvements will be incremental, so most will be non-essential for me albeit some may be “nice to have”. For example, the Sony A7R III compared with my Sony A7R II has faster start-up, a better EVF and LCD, and longer battery life; but the A7R III costs about £3000 ($4000) whereas I paid £1000 ($1500) for a used A7R II (still a current model available new!) - the improvements are not worth £2000 ($3000) to me!

POSTSCRIPT
A couple of observations to finish:
  • Image quality is now so high that “better image quality” cannot be a reason for a new camera!
  • So, rather than a new camera, your money would probably be better spent on learning - courses, books, going to exhibitions and talks...
 
Last edited:
There's only four cameras I ever bought new in over 20 years.

  • The Nikon D300, a huge improvement over the Fuji S3 Pro in low light.
  • The Leica M8, a huge step back from the D300 in terms of low light and ease of use.
  • The Nikon D600, a killer camera for shooting AF lenses, excellent Nikon creative lighting system, and very capable for filming.
  • The Sony A7 Original, the camera I got when lugging the D600 kit around became too taxing.

The Nikons were used (semi)professionally and got the job done real fine, I've never believed in shooting the high-end models, my customers couldn't care less about the camera model I brought to the occasion.

The A7 remains to be the best of the newly-bought cameras. I'm pretty sure I could handle my former PJ-style work with just the A7 for years to come. I use it with manual focus fast lenses and an old Olympus flash that goes to really low output, and I know how to (flash) expose manually quickly. A battery grip would get me enough battery life to carry on for a while. There's really no need to buy into newer gear for me now.


Aside from all that, my most used camera nowadays is the Mamiya RB67. Digital, rangefinders or small format altogether don't do much for me anymore, nor does working professionally as a photographer.
 
Started my digital journey with the Nikon D70.
Then upgraded to the D300 when it came out. Big improvement.
Next upgrade was the D7100 (discounted because the D7200 had come out)
Also purchased a Fuji XE-1 and a few lenses for travel and personal work. Bought that camera after the XE-2 came out when they were practically giving them away.

The next time I'll upgrade is when one of them craps out. I'm satisfied with the features and IQ.
 
I don't think that I need any new cameras added to what I have. I would rather consider occasionally getting a new (used) lens maybe but not a camera. I am still using the "very old" M8 and M9, and as long as they work well, I will be fine with what I have available to me for use. If the M8 and M9 fail, I am not really sure whether I return to my film cameras or whether I save up to get a used M10 or some other camera. Life is too short for wasting time on dwelling on camera types.
 
I buy new cameras when and if I want to, for whatever reason piques my interest and motivates me sufficiently.

Need has only very rarely been an issue, I think there was literally one instance, despite all the cameras I have bought and sold, where I needed to upgrade my camera because it lacked a specific capability.

If you're implying that there's something wrong with that, I disagree. I do agree that the vast majority of folks, including me, should work on making photographs much more than on examining specifications, features, and other drivel about cameras—but it really does seem that there are an awful lot more "camera enthusiasts" around than there are "photographers".

Nothing wrong with that; I accept this reality. I try to stay in the camp of photographers and let the camera enthusiasts do whatever makes them happy, although I do occasionally join the latter ... because it's fun. :D

G
 
When I was doing commercial interiors photography I would upgrade whenever there was a significant improvement in sensor dynamic range and shadow region IQ (S/N). At least half of the time I was behind the camera, dynamic range was insufficient. Almost 100% of the time pushing shadow regions in post-production was essential.

I used three different Nikon DSLR bodies and the FUJIFILM X-T1 over eight years. Every body upgrade saved me time on-site and during post-production. Upgrading made economic sense.

Right now I am only working on personal projects. I think almost any digital, non-micro 4/3 camera (I do not enjoy using the 4:3 aspect ratio) released in the past two years can deliver the dynamic range and S/N I need for this work. While technical IQ will continue to improve, I suggest we have reached a plateau which eliminates one motivation to upgrade.

In my case:
  • I enjoy using an optical OVF.
  • Prime lens performance and build quality is important.
  • I prefer to use a brand I trust

So, at this time enjoying operating the camera was my prime motivation to upgrade. This is a highly subjective decision.

I can use the X-Pro 2 and X100T as I used my Zeiss Ikon M and Cannot QL-17. I could afford to upgrade the X100T for a X100F. But I won't. The increment in IQ performance is not worth the money.

I would never say "I'm done". But I will say I have not spent one minute thinking about buying a new camera since the X-Pro 2 arrived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom