Upgrades: a potential obstacle

[Takkun]

I think the upgrade path is more about consumer electronics than photography. It feels a great deal like the cycles in computing.

I'm sure back in the 70s and 80s when SLRs were adding new features every week there was a similar sort of hype. But these days it's definitely tied to the consumer electronics/personal computer hype and trends, and I see cameras bought more as electronic gadgets and toys, whereas a decade ago the same people might have just bought a 35mm P&S and forgotten about it.
I had a friend who, before he ever picked up a DSLR, had zero interest in photography. then the 300D/Rebel came out, and that soon replaced his hobby in perpetually upgrading his computer.

Personally, I don't care. When it comes to digital, acceptable quality came with the D3, which replaced the D1x I was using for anything deadline-based. I shoot film for aesthetic reasons, but I'm just as happy enlarging and framing anything from the D3 and have no interest in a newer model.

Now, upgrading from a Bessa to a Leica? that's different...

 

[Sparrow]

I don't think it was in the Worsley programme but there was a piece on BBC4, late last year, in which they showed how this same tactic was used by the sellers of early cookers, vacuum cleaners and so on.

Middle class women would be enthused (or simply paid) and encouraged to hold parties, at which they would show off the item in question. There was even a conscious effort to "improve" the items, so that the victims, sorry, customers, would feel the pressure to upgrade to the latest version.

I don't think anything much changes.😕

... yes I heard that, but sadly it didn't fit my point of view 😉 ... however I would suggest the quantum is of a different order now

Not that it matters, we've veered off to consider model, make, and performance now.

Joe; jaded ... yes possibly

 

[rpsawin]

Takkun...the pace is part of the problem. As I remember those early days the major camera companies made introduction of new equipment no more than annually. That being said there was a far amount of "churn" but at a slower pace.

Computers/Software upgrades ramped slowly at first and then picked up momentum. I personally think a great deal of digital photography marketing comes from the personal computer/apple play books.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I was chatting to a guy at the shopping centre recently with a beautiful Peugeot 307 ... three years old and about forty thousand ks on the clock. When I asked him what he thought of it he said he loved it and rated it as the best car he's ever owned ... but was about to trade it on the latest model. I asked what the newer model offered that this one didn't and he admited his only reason for upgrading was because it was 'newer!' 🙄

No equivocation, no dodging, no bull****. I admire his forthrightness, however he came about it. Somebody picked that car up on the cheap after he had absorbed the worst of its depreciation. Perhaps he had no need to worry about money; it is just a tool after all, not an end in itself.

 

[thegman]

I think Roger is right, generally, what has been 'upgraded' is not quality, but convenience. I could have a 50 year old medium format camera, buy a top end digital FF camera and still not be able to match the technical resolution. However the convenience has been upgraded in leaps and bounds.

I don't think companies (in general) 'plot' that much, but make no mistake, a publicly traded company exists to serve it's shareholders, making quality products, or products we like, is a side effect of that. They only make products at all to serve their shareholders. I don't have an opinion either way on whether that is a good or bad thing, but I don't think for a second that very many camera companies are out there trying to make photography better, they're out there trying to make money.

Some upgrades make sense (trying running XCode on a 5 year old Mac), an upgrade there makes me able to work faster. Some 'upgrades' i.e. from 6MP on an RD-1 to 36MP on a A7 don't make much sense unless you're printing big or cropping a lot, and most of us likely are not. If it served you 10 years ago, unless your circumstances have changed or nights have got darker or whatever, it'll serve you now.

 

[michaelwj]

Its all about keeping up with the Joneses so to speak. When an individuals culture is no longer valued, the only thing to set oneself apart is to buy more crap. It becomes "I'm a valuable and successful member of society because my new (insert new product here) is better" rather than, "I'm a valued successful member of society because I have knowledge and experience".
There are some really nice books on the topic, my favourite is Affluenza (http://clivehamilton.com/books/affluenza/), another nice one is Spent (can't remember who by though).

I'm a very late adopter in some things, just got an M6, should be ready to pick up an M9 in 2030. But others, like computers mentioned previously, get upgraded more often for integration into networks etc.

I am of the view that you should buy quality, rarely, rather than by whatever junk every upgrade cycle.

Michael

Edit: I realised I didn't actually respond to the OP. I'm not sure if it is destructive to photography, I think if you can learn the new gear quickly, it shouldn't get in the way, and if it offers more convenience, it may assist. Maybe if you're constantly upgrading, the difference between models is minor, so every new camera is fluent?

 

[maitani]

i ve also been constantly trying gear, buying, selling and upgrading over the past years,
my gas went more into film cameras and out of production leica glas, which fortunately has held good value over the years.

i feel the camera industry has been holding back digital much too long, also going half baked with the smaller sensor formats which were distracting and frustrating mostly, with non future proof lens systems, and non universal lens systems. the 5d mk1 was THE gamechanger imo, it was the first commercial successful camera, which really could replace film (in some way).

"the better is the fiend of the good" it s so true, what we see right now it s an overdue step to finally get that stylus epic look back in the digital era. also bodys get smaller, and more portable and more affordable, good for all, i think,

that said for digital my D3,M8 and gxr give me all i d ever need in digital until they break. ok I wouldn t mind an FF gxr module....

to the topic, yes my pics were better when i had just an OM and a lens, but I m about to correct this and getting back in creativity mode..

 

[alan davus]

In nearly 40 years of using cameras, my upgrades have been quite far apart... Yashica TL Electro... Nikon FA...Leica M6...Hexar RF...BessaR2M (to replace the M6 and Hexar which I both destroyed hiking) to the recently purchased Leica ME which, all being well I expect to get at least 10 years use from. I virtually never sell lenses. I know not being one who continually buys/sells or upgrades to the newest/greatest thing since sliced bread could get me banned or ostracised from here but what the heck.

 

[noimmunity]

While translating an extremely interesting dialogue between Ai Weiwei and Sam Hsieh (Hsieh Tehching) in 1993, I came across this tidbit from Ai Weiwei, a great contemporary artist, that seems especially pertinent to this thread:

"The emergence of new things in every field every hour and every minute, as well as the restlessness and tension that comes from this, have combined to give people fewer and fewer opportunities to think and to find a reasonable position on a spiritual level."

Several hours before translating this passage, I had read here on RFF the comments of another member, in a thread devoted to the feeding-frenzy of the moment, expressing vengeful glee at watching people who had previously doubted his dream-product now suffer. I think the machine of resentment that breeds on upgrade-envy is becoming so clear, many people (perhaps not a majority just yet, but many many people) will reflect more deeply on what this is all about.

The incorporation of a computer-upgrade logic and mentality into the realm of photography isn't incidental, but really gets to the core of what the image is all about these days.

 

[hausen]

Well for me it is simple, getting new gear brings me pleasure. That pleasure is very short lived if I haven't researched the purchase and it doesn't add to the experience of being out and about with my cameras. It seems that it almost a crime to want something new these days here. I think with digital the advances being made are so significant that I WANT to upgrade. My film shooters, M6, Hassy Arcbody, Xpan and Linhof 612 all rely on me improving. Does one have to be right to make the other wrong? I think not. Buying the new A7r because I think it will improve my user experience will not change how I look at my film shooters, they are mutually exclusive in my mind. For me it is as much about the experience as the result.

 

[noimmunity]

I don't want to knock yours or anybody else's pleasure, and certainly don't think I'm in a position to pass judgment on other people's pleasure. But I'd just rather ask that we think about this imperative to link new experience and new pleasure. Actually, experience is around us all the time, we don't have to go off to sit in cages in shark infested waters or buy every new thing just because we can. In fact, one of the best ways I know to really begin to get the most out of experience in general is to embrace those experiences that aren't so pleasurable. Experiences like boredom and repetition can be amazing well-sources for creativity, and this one of the reasons why art, every art in which beauty means something, always has some relation to discipline.

 

[L Collins]

I've never "upgraded" any cameras.

I buy new things because they work better or pique my interest. Some of the new things work out to be better than the old things. Some do not. I keep the ones that do, I sell the ones that don't.

I ignore most advertising entirely. Waste of time and energy.

G

Agreed....

 

[hepcat]

I think the upgrade path is more about consumer electronics than photography. It feels a great deal like the cycles in computing.

And that's because they ARE computers, and just like the shorter and shorter research-to-production cycles in PCs/tablets/phones, cameras now have exactly the same cycles.

Takkun...the pace is part of the problem. As I remember those early days the major camera companies made introduction of new equipment no more than annually. That being said there was a far amount of "churn" but at a slower pace.

Computers/Software upgrades ramped slowly at first and then picked up momentum. I personally think a great deal of digital photography marketing comes from the personal computer/apple play books.

And the pace, in the "old days" was much slower as there were actual parts to be spec'd and machined on assembly lines. Now it's merely re-arranging printed circuits. For that reason in the "old days" much of the technology progress was modular... and didn't require replacement of the camera body. The Nikon F with the removable finders comes immediately to mind; there were at least three iterations of finder for the original F body, and a couple for the F2 body which was released, IIRC some ten years after the F. Leica released similar "upgrades;" the various iterations of the Meter MR and Visoflex for example, which left the core technology intact.

And in early digital, each upgrade cycle brought tangible gains in speed, image size, color rendition, and resolution. Now 15 years into the product cycles, we're seeing relatively small, incremental changes in technology rather than revolutionary changes. The technology is maturing and it's increasingly difficult to replicate the early large leaps as research labs and manufacturers are bumping into the current limits of physics.

I am not an early adopter any more, having learned from the school of hard knocks in the early PC realm. While I have done iterative upgrades in my photo equipment, those upgrades were driven by market trends from client demands rather than equipment manufacturers. The technology is now at a point where, barring some unforseen techno-breakthrough that rewrites the current understanding of physics, my '08 M8 and my '11 M9-P will remain competent image-producers well into the next decade.

I'm not a luddite, but neither do I have a need to have the latest and greatest. I buy lightly used technology so I don't have to pay the depreciation. I'm definitely NOT on the 'bleeding edge." I only recently upgraded my iphone from the 3gs to a 4s shortly after ios7 came out. I do have an ipad, but it's an ipad 2. I build my own PCs with the level of components I need to do the job I need the machine to do. I have a 32" LCD TV, but it's about 8 years old, and I bought it after the prices dropped from $4k to $900. I look at cameras the same way. I'm definitely NOT in the camera manufacturers' target advertising audience.

 

[jsrockit]

The history of photography is partly a history of technological innovation. Yet the core part of it isn't about technology, but rather about innovation. Still photography has always been about the creative use of limitations to produce interesting images.

Yes, but sometimes you don't know that they are limitations because you cannot predict the future and you don't know what will be next. Photography is always married to technology. One person's limitations is another persons no starter... it really depends on what you are photographing. Certain genres benefit from technological advancements more than others.

Now, upgrades admittedly may be necessary for certain professionals. But how much do we need upgrades? Or maybe the question is better asked as: how often do we need upgrades? Using equipment takes time to learn it and have its use become second nature. Are there upgrades that work with this apprenticeship and those that work against it? How to upgrades change the way you see images? Do upgrades make yesterday's images less interesting?

Digital cameras are in their infancy... upgrades are happening that are important and some are not. That's an individual choice as to if you require it or not. For instance we just got to the first truly pocketable APS-C camera this year (Ricoh GR). Some will say who cares I still like the GRD IV. Others will see the value in upgrading from a tiny P&S sensor to a sensor that performs better. If you value your work it's worth putting money into certain upgrades IMO. As far as learning equipment, it's not to hard... figure out how to change shutter speed, aperture, and ISO... then focus, and hit the shutter button.

My own feeling is that upgrades can easily become autonomous. Perhaps "getting hooked" is the best way to describe it. Getting hooked on upgrades potentially exercises a destructive effect on photography to the extent that it is allowed to divert attention from the principal photographic task: the creative use of limitations to produce interesting images.

If upgrading your camera is detremental to what you want to acheive with your photography, then sure, it can be destructive. However, not everyone photographs for the same reasons. Some take it very serious and some do not. I can't see how buying a camera with faster autofocus is going to be destructive to what I want to acheive with my photography.

 

[thebelbo]

While translating an extremely interesting dialogue between Ai Weiwei and Sam Hsieh (Hsieh Tehching) in 1993, I came across this tidbit from Ai Weiwei, a great contemporary artist, that seems especially pertinent to this thread:

"The emergence of new things in every field every hour and every minute, as well as the restlessness and tension that comes from this, have combined to give people fewer and fewer opportunities to think and to find a reasonable position on a spiritual level."

This is very similar to the discussion we've had in a similar thread on consumerism. Without wanting to go to really deep waters, I think the above statement nails it. New things are distractions really, a way to keep the mind busy in-order to not face more fundamental questions in life. The phrase "shopping therapy" says it all. Ofcourse, we're not talking about someone buying an item because he needs it, we're talking about compulsive "upgrading".

 

[hepcat]

If upgrading your camera is detremental to what you want to acheive with your photography, then sure, it can be destructive. However, not everyone photographs for the same reasons. Some take it very serious and some do not. I can't see how buying a camera with faster autofocus is going to be destructive to what I want to acheive with my photography.

Other than climbing the learning curve repeatedly (and some folks never master the first climb) there's nothing inherently destructive about buying new gear in and of itself. I think though that more and more of folks who are serious about photography and have bought the advertising in the past are now more circumspect after a few cycles of upgrading and not seeing the difference they expect. Fast autofocus is nice, provided it focuses on what you want it to. If it didn't do that in the slower iteration, I'm not sure that missing focus faster is really an improvement.

 

[jsrockit]

New things are distractions really, a way to keep the mind busy in-order to not face more fundamental questions in life.

While I have been there and done that... now that I'm relatively happy, I find I buy based on boredom. A boring job with access to the internet does not help. These days, I always have to ask myself what the new item will give me that the old item won't. Most of the time, it makes me forget about the new thing. Plus, selling digital gear is getting harder and harder unless you have the latest cool item or you are willing to take a massive hit.

 

[Godfrey]

I've never "upgraded" any cameras.

I buy new things because they work better or pique my interest. Some of the new things work out to be better than the old things. Some do not. I keep the ones that do, I sell the ones that don't.

I ignore most advertising entirely. Waste of time and energy.

Returning to this thread with some additional thoughts.

I ordered the new Olympus top of the line when it was announced in September, and have had it for the past month. I've worked with it almost exclusively this past month in order to learn it. I'm not done learning, but I understand enough now to make some assessments.

In short, it is terrific: a transformative camera. It's a camera that takes several ideas of recent technology trends and assembles them into a coordinated whole. Incredible range of features matched by extremely well thought out customization capabilities—you can create the camera that fits how you want to use it very effectively. Very nicely arranged controls, ergonomically. Very fast AF and very fast and accurate MF. Extremely rapid responsiveness ... none of the click-wait-click delays of lesser models. Solid, durable build.

Rather than being an obstacle, it does a great job of disappearing when I'm out shooting and just letting me concentrate on seeing. That's the advantage of "true upgrades" in technology, not obfuscation and distraction. Just like the Olympus E-1 that I still love to shoot with, and my M4-2 and M9 Leica, it does a wonderful job of melding technological capability with user advantage.

I'm more than pleased with this camera. It motivates me to do more photography again, and to sell off the half ton of other very nice equipment that simply doesn't quite make the cut. It's the notion of what I hope for whenever I see new equipment being announced ... Not just "more better faster feature feature feature" pile on of the consumer market rat race, but the subtly improved and coordinated delivery of empowerment to me as a photographer. That's what the best companies try to do with their products.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . New things are distractions really, a way to keep the mind busy in-order to not face more fundamental questions in life. The phrase "shopping therapy" says it all. Of course, we're not talking about someone buying an item because he needs it, we're talking about compulsive "upgrading".

This seems very likely to me. Also, as my dear late father-in-law used to say, "Everyone's got too much money (except me)". That someone works extremely hard, just to buy each new camera when it comes out, strikes me as an odd set of priorities.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noimmunity]

the subtly improved and coordinated delivery of empowerment to me as a photographer.

That's a wonderful turn of phrase, Godfrey.

To pursue the discussion, there are undoubtedly more 'revolutionary' technologies ahead, and I expect they will center upon sensor, view, and focus acquire. Imagine sensors that have Foveon colors (in the best sense of the word 😱) with CMOS DR and ISO, all expanded exponentially. The changes in view will probably come in two ways: one in terms of viewing systems that are more and more prosthetic (eg. EVF gain in the dark and google glasses), the other in terms of how images are viewed (leading to 3D images...). The whole 'problem' of exposure that has been central to photography until now is gradually being eliminated by the speed of computer processing, which will do away with bracketing and make every exposure HDR.

In that kind of future, select cameras with older forms of view and capture technology may well enjoy cult status for the very different kind of 'world' that they perceive.