PS: That's not really the correct definition of a "pixel peeper", either. The definition of that is one who "peeps at pixels", regardless of whether he USES them or not.
Diagram the sentence, then come back and tell me what it says.
Who is it that wants the "biggest pixel settings"? Why, typically it's the pixel peeper. And they want that, even though they would only print out 4x6 prints or upload pics to the net or email.
THAT is what he said.
If he meant to say what you allege, then he needs to work on his English.
I was a diagrammin' maniac back in Mrs Swindle's 8th grade English class (back in the 60s when teachers still knew how to diagram). I still frequently diagram a complex sentence (at least mentally) while writing for business and profit.
He certainly could have written the sentence a bit more clearly
So:
The subject of his sentence is: Who.
The subject is modified by: pixel-peeper type
The verb is: wants
The verb is modified by: typically
If we left it right there, your interpretation would be an accurate interpretation of what he actually said. He did, however, append a run-on phrase: "Even though they would only print out..." You can't ignore the fact that he attempted to cross-categorize pixel peepers people who both wanted the most pixels and would never use them to the most gain.
We could ask him if he meant his sentence to apply to people who commonly printed to 20x30 or larger, and I'll bet he'd say "no."
DavidP wrote:
PS: That's not really the correct definition of a "pixel peeper", either. The definition of that is one who "peeps at pixels", regardless of whether he USES them or not.
"Pixel peeper" is normally used as a pejorative term. Inasmuch as all of us "peep at pixels" in the course of digital photography, it makes no sense as a pejorative--or as any kind of discriminatingly descriptive term at all--unless it means something more in context than simply "peeping at pixels."
It means--and and most people know it means--"peeping at pixels to no useful photographic purpose."
RDKirk wrote:
If we left it right there, your interpretation would be an accurate interpretation of what he actually said. He did, however, append a run-on phrase: "Even though they would only print out..." You can't ignore the fact that he attempted to cross-categorize pixel peepers people who both wanted the most pixels and would never use them to the most gain.
The only (correct) reason for adding that phrase, though, is that the type of "pixel-peepers" who would want more megapixels are those who would only print out 4x6's or use the shots for web-use.
While "pixel peeper" is a pejorative, it really means somebody who "peeps at the pixels" instead of "taking photos and looking at the prints". Or who "peeps at the pixels" and somehow isn't qualified to be a "real photographer" because he doesn't know how to use the equipment or lacks the "photographer's eye".
I sincerely doubt that there are many people around who "pixel peep" and buy the latest/greatest DSLR and then only use the images to pixel-peeping and web/email use.
As to the original question, I sincerely doubt that many of us truly ever "need" to upgrade. For the same reason that we don't "need" a digital SLR, or even "need" an SLR. We WANT to take certain images. Somtimes that does require a certain level of equipment. But we only "need" the equipment because of our WANTS.
OK, OK, so I'm on a rant. I suppose I should be more tired of those who ask "when do I need . . . . ". Instead, I grow more weary of those who imply things like the only ones who upgrade DSLRs are the pixel-peepers.
I can't speak for others, but I certainly WANT better equipment as it becomes available, as long as I think I can justify the price, and if I think it'll give me some benefit, however small that benefit may seem to others. And thanks to all those like me, DSLRs continue to get better and cheaper. Hopefully those who consider themselves "worthy" of owning a great DSLR remember that were it not for those of us "unworthy", they probably couldn't afford to own one.
PS: I also think that the original poster was asking this: how often should one upgrade in order to lose the least amount of money? ASSUMING that one wanted to eventually end up with "the best".
Obviously, the correct answer would be to simply NOT buy any camera until you just couldn't take it any longer, and then buy what was available.
And then do the same for the next upgrade. Wait until you just can't stand it any more.
But it probably has little to do with "need". And if it does, that would mean it's probably a professional, who could hopefully make this decision himself without asking such an open-ended question on a message board.
Any way, my answer is: upgrade your camera whenever you want to. But the more frequqently you upgrade, the more money you'll lose in the process. You just have to ask yourself how much pleasure that money-losing proposition buys you . . . just like any other purchase that's not an investment.
I am way behind the schedule. I have not gotten to D60 yet. That's my next stop
You CAN be a Pixel-peeper with D30. I am the "FM-certified" pixel-peeper. I didn't need newer DLSR to be certified
I feel that a change is due when your camera no longer meets your needs, or perhaps when some breakthrough would allow you to be dramatically more effective in the photography you enjoy.
I love my 300D. It is a great camera, capable of wonderful images when it's owner is lucky enough to get it right.
I have found in recent months that the camera is limiting me: the start-up time can be a pain, and it could be a lot better at action shots. As I have become more adventurous I have come to alter the settings more and more. This has shown me the ergonomic limitations of the control interface, which is largely unchanged in the 350D.
What I have to weigh up is how often the limitations influence me, and to what extent. The perfect camera does not exist an everything is about balancing pros and cons.
The advent of a new model or even a new technology alone is is not a reason to upgrade, in my view. If these changes make a real difference to your photography, then it's a different story.
Pondria wrote:
I am way behind the schedule. I have not gotten to D60 yet. That's my next stop
You CAN be a Pixel-peeper with D30. I am the "FM-certified" pixel-peeper. I didn't need newer DLSR to be certified
I wanted Pondria to upgrade so I would have bragging rights. Last week, I couldn't take it anymore.
Ben Horne wrote:
Barring some sort of technological advance that truly renders your DSLR obsolete, you never *need* to upgrade your DSLR. You may want to, but you don't need to. I still own my Canon 1D which is a 4MP dinosaur...... I have no need to upgrade it. DSLR's are computers with lens mounts..... they are far from an investment. Don't think of them like that. If the camera still does what you need 5 years from now, then you have no need to upgrade. If you're thinking more about the value of your equipment than photography, chances are you're not into this for photography, but rather the camera is just another techno gadget. That's just fine, but keep in mind that any of today's DSLR's are very capible, and the advances in technology from model to model are very small. ...Show more →
Listen to Ben on this one... very good advice. My D30 still kicks butt when I use it.
Pondria wrote:
It's easier to peep through the larger pixel
And it has LESS NOISE, too.
If I were you, I'd probably at least wait to see what this "new camera in September" is all about. "All new AF" (per Paul Pope) sounds very intriguing.
It'd be great to match the alleged low-light, low-contrast AF performance of the Nikon bodies.
yes I'm happy with 20D but I plan to sell it when I hit the 70,000 shots How much do you think it will cost for the replacement of the 20D sensor and is it still available 3-5years from now?
Of course the shutter will still be available 3-5 years from now. Have fun making your photographs. Think about each one before, during, and after making it. Review carefully later.
I find the resale value is often so poor on used electronics it's better to keep it, in this case as a second/backup camera body. And when the third camera is bought - give the oldest, but still very good camera (in my case a 10D) to some relative's kids to learn on.
But when it comes to consumer cameras (Expecally Compacts!) most of the ppl who use them in reality will not print up large prints, So everytime a new model come out with more pixels they think "ah my camera is junk this new model has a extra 2mp I need the new model" but in reality they would not print larger than A4 on a home printer, The question they should be asking is Why do they need to upgrade then?
Unless there is a huge step up in resolution or technological advance there is no need!
Did someone say big pixels! I love big pixels.... I wish I had a full frame 3.3 meg camera!