I have had the opportunity to be on several photographers forums and one of themes that captures the imagination, visceral reactions and high end emotion is “Which Brand is the Best!”
Back when film was king and in most cases, any 35mm SLR could provide a professional photographer the tools required for doing the job. Motor drive speed was the one of the most important factors in making a decision and most of the brands offered relatively fast speeds for most applications.
Today the requirements are similar with quite a other considerations thrown in to the works. How many pixels, sensor quality, speed, in camera editing, synch speed, video provision, noise levels, color rendition etc. etc. etc.
Now if we were having this discussion five or six years ago, the playing field would be quite small and the choices would be quite limited. Today, every major brand from Sony to Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. have some very good tools for those of us looking for a reasonably priced “Disposable Camera!”
Yes I said “Disposable Camera”. These high technology tools give us quality that we could only have dreamed of a few years ago, out classing most 6×4.5 and 6×6 Medium Format film cameras and easily out classing high iso film.
When we consider that most digital bodies are recycled every 18 months or so, we have to ask ourself, “when should we upgrade or why should we upgrade?” In the past a 35 mm film body could be used for a minimum of 5 years and the only concern would be would the camera last over 200,000 activations and which lens do I want to add to my arsenal.
Today it is very much the opposite and the element of the the greatest importance in my opinion is the quality of lenses you have in your arsenal. These lenses will be used on every future upgrade of body, unless the camera manufacturer changes the mount system. In that case you are shit hot out of luck.
What am I trying to say here is that I would not go out and spend a fortune on the top of the line camera, unless it is very reasonably priced. Every single mid market camera today can produce excellent professional results. Determine the maximum output required for what ever medium you are working in and based on those requirements, you can make your purchase.
Spend the money you saved on your kids, your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or mistress.
If the technology that is out there today is insufficient in your estimate to produce a fine image, I strongly suggest that you find another hobby or become a professional pixel peeper!
I agree but I'm also guilty of upgrading my cameras as soon as something new gets out. I think most photographers like to have the latest and greatest, as long as they can pay for it. But yes, any 500 dollars SLR with good lenses can produce amazing pictures. Is up to the photographer to take advantage of the great tools we have today.
Yeah, and that article is just a little funky too. He's basically saying that film SLRs had a 5 year "keep-span" and that DSLRs are turn over on average, every 18 months. I guess he's too young to have been into cameras back in the film days then. It would be a rare photographer indeed who wasn't upgrading their 35mm bodies with every new company release - and that was about the same as it is now I think - every 18 months or so. He also neglects to mention all the improvements to every new film body that were introduced. There was shutter technology and speeds, metering went from single simple weighted light sensors to multi-sensor multi-type computer controlled and averaged systems. There were also body features introduced like auto lacing, auto rewinding, auto focus lens control, and etc. It's almost as if he missed the entire 50 year period from about 1950 to 2000 when 35mm film SLRs were the most common tools.
Oops, I just noticed that the OP here is the same guy as the writer of that blog link. No offense intended.
Anyway, camera buyers haven't changed and won't be changing in the near future. There were those of us back in the day, who were perfectly satisfied with a Kodak Instamatic and also those who realized and wanted what the better equipment could do for them (us). It hasn't changed and no one can truly say that the quality of a Canon Pen is up to that of a D3 or other full frame sensor. What chip designers and camera manufacturers have in store for the future will as it did in the past, spawn a new round of chatter and buying frenzies.
PS: if we were having this discussion 7 years ago as you suggest, then we would also still have to include film cameras in the conversation making it probably the most complex discussion photographers have ever had to consider. As indeed the archives from any forum will show to be the case.
And BTW, the technology that is out there today has very little to do with producing "a fine image". It's still the photographer who is responsible for that.
Bifurcator wrote:
...It would be a rare photographer indeed who wasn't upgrading their 35mm bodies with every new company release - and that was about the same as it is now I think - every 18 months or so....
Actually, no. Camera manufacturers would typically introduce a new pro body about once every decade in the days of film. And many photographers would skip a generation before upgrading. In the case of Nikon, many jumped from the F2 to the F4, bypassing the F3 series machines altogether (it's very difficult to kill an F2).
With digital we've gone through a period of rapid technological advancement. Not really in camera design and function (as far as handling is concerned, a Nikon D3 is very much like an F5 and a Canon 1D mkIV is rather similar to a 1V), but with respect to sensor technology. Now that we're reaching a plateau of sorts in regards to the image quality available from the camera, a shooter can, as Ben proposes, pick up a "cheap" body and produce images of a quality that you would be hard-pressed to eek out of a 6x6 or 6x4.5 camera.
It is entirely feasible for someone who is of a determined mind to create stellar work for years and years with little more than $400-800 total invested into the camera. Even with lenses, a smart buyer could spend far less than a grand.
Bifurcator wrote:
...It would be a rare photographer indeed who wasn't upgrading their 35mm bodies with every new company release - and that was about the same as it is now I think - every 18 months or so....
rodrickreidsma wrote:
Actually, no. Camera manufacturers would typically introduce a new pro body about once every decade in the days of film.
Well, as I remember it and I'm old enough to have purchased and still have, the very first 35mm SLR model ever produced for the USA, there were few to none who held such a concept as a "pro body". It was either an SLR or it wasn't. It was either a rugged body or it wasn't. It either had the features (including the lenses) needed/wanted or it didn't. "Pro" is a marketing concept that wasn't commonly part of any buyers' guide pre-80's. Most 35mm SLR bodies were good enough for "pro" use and classification. It could even be argued for the first 20 years or so that no 35mm camera was "professional" at all. The term during the late 60's and through the 70's was commonly "Base" or "Top of the line". There was no such concept at all pre-1965 or so.
Just from some of the lists I could find on the net (as my memory isn't that good):
Nikon F series (1959-1972)(labeled in Germany as Nikkor)
Nikkorex series (1960-1964)
Nikkormat FT series (1965-1977) (known in Japan as Nikomat)
Nikon F2 series (1971-1980)
Nikkormat EL series (1972-1977) (known in Japan as Nikomat)
Nikon EL2 (1977)
Nikon FM (1977)
Nikon FE (1978)
Nikon EM (1979)
Nikon F3 series (1980-1997)
Nikon FG (1982)
Nikon FM2 series (1982-2000)
Nikon FE2 (1983)
Nikon FA (1983)
Nikon FG20 (1984)
Nikon F-301 (1985) (known in North America as the N2000)
Nikon F-601M (1990) (known in North America as the N6000)
Nikon FM10 (1995)
Nikon FE10 (1996)
Nikon FM3A (2001)
F65/N65,
F70/N70,
F75/N75,
F80/N80,
F90x/N90s,
F100,
F5,
F6
Canon (Just the EOS Film series):
EOS 650
EOS 620
EOS 750
EOS 850
EOS 630
EOS-1
EOS RT
EOS 10S
EOS 700
EOS Rebel/Rebel S
EOS 10S commemorative kit
EOS Elan
EOS Rebel II/SII
EOS A2/A2e
EOS Rebel XS
EOS Rebel X
EOS-1N
EOS 5000
EOS-1N RS
EOS Elan II/IIe
EOS Rebel G
EOS IX
EOS IX Lite
EOS-3
EOS 3000
EOS Rebel 2000
EOS-1v
EOS Elan 7/7e
EOS Kiss III L
EOS Rebel XS N
EOS Rebel Ti
EOS Rebel GII
EOS Rebel K2
EOS Elan 7N/7NE
EOS Rebel T2
rodrickreidsma wrote:
With digital we've gone through a period of rapid technological advancement. Not really in camera design and function (as far as handling is concerned, a Nikon D3 is very much like an F5 and a Canon 1D mkIV is rather similar to a 1V), but with respect to sensor technology. Now that we're reaching a plateau of sorts in regards to the image quality available from the camera, a shooter can, as Ben proposes, pick up a "cheap" body and produce images of a quality that you would be hard-pressed to eek out of a 6x6 or 6x4.5 camera.
It is entirely feasible for someone who is of a determined mind to create stellar work for years and years with little more than $400-800 total invested into the camera. Even with lenses, a smart buyer could spend far less than a grand....Show more →
Yeah, I tend to agree with that assessment in general.
Well I use a bunch of used bodies... a 1Ds2, a 1D2, a 1D... and they have served me well. When it's time to upgrade I'll probably end up with another used body!
I will never buy new again. It is a waste of money. I need that money not for "kids, your girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or mistress", but for a new lens or two. Even used lenses are expensive.
When I first went into Nikon, after Pentax, it was with a pair of Nikon F3 bodies. I eventually accumulated a bunch of the Nikon AIS lenses. Many years later I got a pair of F100 bodies and eventually one F6 body. I never liked the F100 body that much. The F6 is really so superior that I am keeping the F6 and one F100 body as a backup. All of the rest, I sold. I really like AF and I don't mess around with MF unless I cannot help it (55mm F2.8 Micro Nikkor, 500mm F6.3 Rokinon mirror).
I started digital with a pair of D70s bodies. Now, I have a pair of D300 bodies.
Upgrading to me is finding superior features that really make a difference and when the cash is available to go for it.
Honestly, I don't know why I have digital bodies right now because I grew up with film. I am in awe of the F6 but I am shooting digital all of the time now and I don't know why.
I was smart using the F3 bodies for so many years. I was smrt getting the pair of F100 bodies to replace them and to experience AF.
Now, I think I am dumb. The D300 bodies are really everything I currently need. I feel dumb having two systems both film and digital. It should be about the pictures but it is always about the gear somehow because the gear must work well with the photographer and the way I shoot what I routinely shoot.
I wish I was smart again but somewhere along the line I lost it going digital.
I just bought the Nikon D3s and am selling my D3. Why? Because the D3s has at least 1 extra stop of hi ISO which makes all my Nikkors 1 stop faster. Know any where to go to buy a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 F2.0? How about a 35mm F1.0 AIS? God bless Canon/Nikon now I can shoot at 6400/12800 ISO and get the same/better results as with film @ 400 ASA.
The term during the late 60's and through the 70's was commonly "Base" or "Top of the line". There was no such concept at all pre-1965 or so.