Hit Me Like A Sledge Hammer!

[johnpalamaro]

While this may be one of those MOTO moments (master of the obvious) this comment hit me like a sledge hammer. An acquaintance of mine who owns a few Nikon bodies made this comment, and I paraphrase: Good lens are long term but I've come to grips with the idea that the [Nikon] bodies are really just computers that need to be replaced every couple of years.

 

[Amarok]

...[Nikon] bodies are really just computers that need to be replaced every couple of years.

My FM is offended by this comment.

:biggrin:

But my D70 is hiding in the corner.

 

[Pianisimo]

Well, yeah, that's completely true. Gone are the days of film where a 20-year-old camera was just about as good as a new one. A 3 megapixel camera from 6 years ago can probably be found in a museum - I guess if you own anything less than 12mp, you're behind in the times. Hah. That's so lame.

 

[bradNYC]

Sorry, but I have to agree with your acquantance. My first camera was an old Olympus 35mm (the P&S at the time). Then in:
2003 - Canon P&S 2.3 mp
2005 Canon P&S 5mp
2007 Canon P&S 7mp
Feb 2008 D40
May 2008 D80
Oct 2008 D700

I don't use the old cameras anymore with the exception of the Canon for small movie clips.

 

[johnpalamaro]

I posted it because, as I said, hit me like a sledgehammer. I have a D300 and a recent acquisition of a D700. Both cameras are fine for my use, in fact, overkill, in that often I just use my G10 P&S Canon when taking the motorcycle. I can now salve my conscience and stupidity by just saying, "Hey, I'm just upgrading my computers..!":biggrin:

 

[Lurker]

I think it is a statement that is becoming less and less true as the digital camera industry is maturing rapidly. The returns of a new camera are diminishing with every generation. Look at the "3 digit" class - the D100 brought us an DSLR in the first place. The D200 brought us much more megapixels (from 6 to 10). The D300 brought us better ISO and live view. The D700 brought us full frame - but nobody talks really about megapixels anymore. At one point it will be the same with high iso performance. Once a certain threshold is passed increases will be less significant for "the market" and at one point "all the basics" (resolution, noise, sharpness, etc) will be covered.

I'm not a fool - I know that the D400/800 will improve over the D300/700. But by how much? And to what extend is the improvement "performance" and to what extend is it "gimmicks"?

For many D200 owners upgrading to a D300 was simply not worth it. I'm not saying that it's not worth it - there are just as many D200 owners who did upgrade to the D300 - but I think that the percentage of "upgraders" from D100 to D200 was much higher.

I think we'll see the same with a D400/800 - for a lot of D300/700 owners the upgrade might simply not be worth it because the improvements over the current camera are simply too small. When the D200 was two years on the market, many Nikon owners were dying to see a replacement. But somehow I don't think that six months from now there will be that many complaints that the D300 is "getting long in the tooth" - we might get a D400 in 2009 but it will not be accompanied with terms as "long overdue".

 

[johnpalamaro]

I sent my daughter my D100 and SB28, plus some lens that are by this cafe's standards, mediocre, as she has an interest in photography beyond P & S. I attempted over the phone to explain the relationships among ASA/ISO, f-stops, and shutter speeds, and decided that it was beyond the telephone. The Internet, and Elite Video, managed to come up with a $39.95 DVD of 'How To' for the D100. Hope that helps.

I felt a bit like a traitor sending her, gosh-forbid, a 6 megapixel camera that is so many years old.

 

[johnpalamaro]

I think it is a statement that is becoming less and less true as the digital camera industry is maturing rapidly. The returns of a new camera are diminishing with every generation.

Sorry to edit/cut short your excellent post, btw, but to save some space I did so. I think Nikon will be forced to enter the megapixel race to combat Canon and the prolific P&S's that are now 14+, and perhaps move towards that Holy Grail of, and the number is faint in my mind, the 25-35 megapixel alleged resolution of Kodachrome.

 

[davidfig]

In 2001, a few friends and I sat down to decide what MP would be required to replace 35mm film. We were working on a CCD project at the time. Eventually we decided that 8mp would be enough and that 16-21mp would be good enough to compete with medium format.

You can find a comparison of the Canon 1DsMII with medium format on the web somewhere. Although film was still just slightly better in resolution (to the eye). It was clear that just a few mp more it would be equivalent or better. I think I have to agree with diddlbiker.

 

[davidfig]

In 2001, a few friends and I sat down to decide what MP would be required to replace 35mm film. We were working on a CCD project at the time. Eventually we decided that 8mp would be enough and that 16-21mp would be good enough to compete with medium format.

You can find a comparison of the Canon 1DsMII with medium format on the web somewhere. Although film was still just slightly better in resolution (to the eye). It was clear that just a few mp more it would be equivalent or better. I think I have to agree with diddlbiker.

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html

 

[agw0]

John,

I fear that you're right, at least for the foreseeable future (5-10 yrs). I think digital capture technology has not yet matured to the point where not at least every other product cycle will deliver something that is successfully marketed as "desirable" or even "necessary".

However, I decline.

I just cannot see me spending 2000€ on a soon-to-be-obsolete camera every other year, or even every four years or so. Rather, I'll say goodbye to all "feature-itis" and fall back to what I've learned to use and what is giving me predictable results without the need to read a 400+ pages manual (which leaves half of the functionality in the dark anyway). Like my trusted old F3HP+MD-4, which is strongly aspiring to become my main body over the last year.

 

[SP77]

+1 to Diddlbiker's post. Agree with all of that.

But note the specific statement in john's post...

Good lens are long term but I've come to grips with the idea that the [Nikon] bodies are really just computers that need to be replaced [size=+1]every couple of years[/size].

Yes, I actually agree. Every couple of years. Not every other year, or once per year, or even twice per year as is seen a lot here. Every "couple" of years, as in 2, 3, or maybe even 4.

I plan to maybe get a D60, another D40, or whatever replaces the D40 in 2009, perhaps a D700 (or D300) on clearance in 2010, and I'll be set for bodies for a very long time after that. I'm perfectly happy to keep on shooting with my 2006 model D40 for the time being. Yes everything else out there has "more", but do I really need it?

6MP vs 10 or 12 or 20+? Nope. I can make great 20 x 30" prints at 6MP and rarely print that big and rarely crop a lot, so 6MP is fine for me. And I only have myself to please and not clients looking for big files.

high ISO? This little camera does great at high ISO. Won't touch a D700, but it's really not too far off what a D90 or D300 will do and is much better than the D80/200.

fast frame rate? Pokey 2.5fps is good enough for me right now and I do not find this limiting.

Super fancy 3D 51 point AF tracking? I do fine with 3 on the D40, lol.

Awesome lenses I can make quite good use of though, which is why I've been putting almost all the money I dump into photography right now into glass. My needs in a body are really very basic. And thank God for that with the high price of bodies, and their steep depreciation curves.

 

[Luke_Miller]

I certainly agree with the statement that "good lenses are long term". I am still using Nikon lenses I bought in the mid-70s on my current Nikon bodies. I really appreciate that Nikon has maintained the usefulness of the "legacy" glass.

 

[reignmkr]

+1 to Diddlbiker's post. Agree with all of that.

But note the specific statement in john's post...


Yes, I actually agree. Every couple of years. Not every other year, or once per year, or even twice per year as is seen a lot here. Every "couple" of years, as in 2, 3, or maybe even 4.

I plan to maybe get a D60, another D40, or whatever replaces the D40 in 2009, perhaps a D700 (or D300) on clearance in 2010, and I'll be set for bodies for a very long time after that. I'm perfectly happy to keep on shooting with my 2006 model D40 for the time being. Yes everything else out there has "more", but do I really need it?

6MP vs 10 or 12 or 20+? Nope. I can make great 20 x 30" prints at 6MP and rarely print that big and rarely crop a lot, so 6MP is fine for me. And I only have myself to please and not clients looking for big files.

high ISO? This little camera does great at high ISO. Won't touch a D700, but it's really not too far off what a D90 or D300 will do and is much better than the D80/200.

fast frame rate? Pokey 2.5fps is good enough for me right now and I do not find this limiting.

Super fancy 3D 51 point AF tracking? I do fine with 3 on the D40, lol.

Awesome lenses I can make quite good use of though, which is why I've been putting almost all the money I dump into photography right now into glass. My needs in a body are really very basic. And thank God for that with the high price of bodies, and their steep depreciation curves.

Hey Steve! I see now why you like the D40 so much. I have had mine for some time now and compared to my D200 I have noticed the better ISO performance. Is this due to the amount of MP? I love how the size/info of each photo. It prolongs the amount of storage in my ED.

 

[Jeff Lee]

I agree with Bart, just like with CS, for most folks a 2 or 3 generation gap is meaning less and less. I really expect my D200 to last until the D700 upgrade at which point I will be in the market again.

 

[PJohnP]

Interesting discussion on this point, but there's no reason at all for despair or the gnashing of teeth/rending of garments with this situation...

I've progressed from the D100 to D200 to D300. As I "incremented", each older model became the back-up for the current one as I used it in my "day job". But when I progressed last year to the D300, my D100/MB-D100 combo sat gathering dust.

Hmmm... What to do ? The sale price on a (then) two generation old DSLR is relatively low. The schools here sneer and turn their noses up if any gift isn't the latest and greatest*. Most of my photographic friends have their own gear, and so don't need the D100/MB-D100.

So I ordered the IR sensor filter from LifePixel and this week I finally converted the D100 combo over to IR service. Much much cheaper than buying an IR converted camera, or getting another DSLR body to convert, or even sending the body off to LifePixel to do this for me. For something like $150, I now have an excellent IR camera to play with... **

As for computers, I recently took an "obsolete" computer, cleaned it up, and installed it for someone who had lost their income. The computer works well, but if not capable of running PS-CS4 and NX-2 simultaneously, still gives her e-mail and internet capacity to job-hunt, and is a heckuva lot better than landfill addition. It's being used daily now.

So, yeah, lenses are a better long term investment with longer term use than camera bodies, but there's a lot more to transitioning on camera bodies and computers than just "upgrading".



John P.


* This includes computers, cameras, anything they might be offered - if it's not spiffy and cutting edge, they plainly don't want it. At the same time, the public schools here are chronically short on resources and materials. Go figure.

** The IR conversion isn't for the much less technically gifted or those who don't have a very "detail oriented" approach to taking stuff apart, but having said that, anybody reasonably competent at taking apart an electric razor, or in times gone by, repairing an old radio could do this with ease. :wink:

 

[commtrd]

I think the whole pixel density thing is getting overdone. While it may be true that a hardcore professional shooter may need the resolution potentially avialable with >24 mpixels, the majority are better served with the current FF snsor with its larger photosites. The better dynamic range and higher iso capabilities are probably where any appreciable gains are offset by the cost of constantly acquiring new bodies. Money better spent on getting top-quality glass IMHO. Of course this argument would then imply that the D3 would be the body to get due to the 300,000 cycle longevity of the shutter mechanism. If planning on keeping and using that body through several cycles of bodies being marketed. At any rate the D700 or D3 would most likely be perfectly fine for a long time for most photographers...

 

[Pa]

I have been pushing the analogy of digital cameras as computers for some time, and I basically agree with the concept. But there is one significant difference. My 2.5-year-old D200 takes pictures just as well today as it did when I got it, and it will do so when it is 4 years old. On the other hand, my 4-year old computer struggles running today's software and surfing the internet with a modern browser.

Computers have to be upgraded to keep up with the software; cameras don't.

 

[johnpalamaro]

Computers have to be upgraded to keep up with the software; cameras don't.

Excellent point. The thread wasn't meant to be as profound as the replies imply. But that's usually the case, isn't it?

Perhaps the better message might be, and it was stated differently but the same idea, invest in lens, camera features are going to change as camera manufacturers attempt to snag us into new, exciting, feature-rich, hardware that most of us have neither need nor use.:biggrin:

 

[Lurker]

Perhaps the better message might be, and it was stated differently but the same idea, invest in lens, camera features are going to change as camera manufacturers attempt to snag us into new, exciting, feature-rich, hardware that most of us have neither need nor use.:biggrin:

You're right about that. A $1500 lens kept in pristine condition will still be worth around 80% of its original value five years from now; a five year body - even if never used and in brand new condition - will get 25% at most.

I still advice friends & coworkers to get the most expensive body they can afford though. But I tell them that it is under the assumption that they will not upgrade the body for the next 3-5 years and spend the money on lenses instead.