I have been reading a few blogs and discussions for a while about purchasing cameras. When do you find its time for you to find and purchase a new camera? I am finding myself a little apprehensive to trade in my trusted buddy, but craving newer technology. I am not a professional by any means but the newer cameras are so tempting. What are your thoughts?
I'm not a pro either but I know what you mean. New technology is very tempting. I've only had my camera two months, and I am already itching for a newer better one. I plan on keeping the old when I buy the new, as you never know. The Canon 60D looks really cool.... I think personally once I am more skilled, I will most likely upgrade my camera every two years. That timeframe seems just about right. Good luck!
The tech matters less than the lenses. I would invest in that first. Unless you don't have a camera with manual functionality, because otherwise I wouldn't hesitate to get a D-SLR!
I wouldn't restrict technological upgrades by timeframes (every two years), as you have to ask yourself what the tech will offer you. For example, I bought the 450D two and a half years ago and I am still getting use out of it.
However I've invested in lenses and I'm now thinking about the 60D or the 7D next though because it will offer more pixels, custom modes, HD movie mode, in-camera leveller, more frames per second, etc... things that will benefit me after my experience on the 450D. After that though, there isn't much more that can be offered except by going full frame.
What I'm trying to say is that tech matters less than technique and lenses. Invest the time in the technique and the money in lenses first then worry about the camera body later. Just my two cents!
Hm, I bought my DSLR in June because I could afford it. I had the extra money that I didn't need for anything else, and I wanted it. Really, that's what it has to come down to for me; can I afford this right now? If you can afford to upgrade and want to, then go for it.
Looking at other peoples photos can some times make you think that you need a better/newer camera. I would bet more often than not, you aren't seeing the images straight from the camera. Editing programs have alot to do with the look of peoples photos (sorry if thats obvious, it wasn't to me at first).
Have you seen the Clark Little thread? If not check it out. His stuff is really beautiful. If I'm not mistaken he started taking his photos with a P&S. I mention this because alot of us get tempted by newer tech all the time (I'm soooo guilty of this). As Vikdaddy said, look for some faster lenses. His response is spot on.
Having said all that - for me its a two part answer. The first is learn a photo editing program (if you don't already). You can get Photoshop elements for like $80. Cheaper than a new camera. Its fun and you can really help/supplement the look of your photos. The second is if you aren't happy with your current camera and you can afford to get something newer, then go for it.
Sorry if that was long winded and rambling. Its early here. :P
I bought "new technology" and went back to my old technology. Sorry, it just does a better job. Extra buttons and menus distract us and get in the way of our composition. Do what I did, use the money to buy a nice lens. That's what really counts.
I am gathering from the input that getting a better lens is the way to go... ok, problem... I have Fuji film finepix 9100s and the lens is not removable. The lens that is attached has a focal length of 28-300 mm with macro capability of 1-100cm. I have in the past enjoyed this lens length in my 35mm film camera as it reduces the load of carrying a bunch of lens with you.
So if I were to invest in lenses what inexpensive body would anyone of you go with?
I also understand by getting a good photo program helps which I am researching also... Photoshop vs. Aperture for my mac.
Ah if you've got a fixed lens camera then you don't have a D-SLR. Sounds like it's a Bridge camera or the like. In that respect then I would go down the D-SLR route and purchase a Canon or a Nikon.
Uhhh, join the minority? XD Pentax are cheaper though - their entry level k-x is £380. Also if you're a cheapskate like me you can scout out manual prime/zooms on Ebay for a lot cheaper than the digi ones. My main cart-around lens cost me £12.50 :D I shoot with a k-m which is the predecessor to the k-x so if you're interested in the kind of stuff you can do with it you can just look at my calendar.
I came from an Olympus OM-10 manual SLR - I decided to trade up to digital after my trip to Canada, where I shot about twelve films in two weeks and it cost me a veritable fortune to get them processed, and then all the faffing with scanning them in to share them etc. I did a lot of research before purchasing, but a few of my good shots in Canada got ruined by lens debris so the dustproofing on the Pentax was a bit of a weight in its favour, along with the ability to use manual lenses which is a huge cost-saver and most of the digital Pentax lenses in my price range are nothing like as nice.
But everybody takes photos for different reasons - the capabilities of one model may not suit the next person. The question you need to ask yourself is how many times you've used your camera but been unable to get the shot that you wanted because of the following:
1) Over/underexposure
2) Focus
3) Subject being too close/far away
These are the three main things that you can compensate for with a dSLR that you can't so well with a P&S. If you're finding that being a frequent barrier to your shots, then sure, think about an upgrade. If it's not, then scout around here for ideas - maybe start a P&S thread to swap ideas and tips? I don't think there's anything like that just now.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I wouldn't restrict technological upgrades by timeframes (every two years), as you have to ask yourself what the tech will offer you. For example, I bought the 450D two and a half years ago and I am still getting use out of it.
However I've invested in lenses and I'm now thinking about the 60D or the 7D next though because it will offer more pixels, custom modes, HD movie mode, in-camera leveller, more frames per second, etc... things that will benefit me after my experience on the 450D. After that though, there isn't much more that can be offered except by going full frame.
What I'm trying to say is that tech matters less than technique and lenses. Invest the time in the technique and the money in lenses first then worry about the camera body later. Just my two cents!
Looking at other peoples photos can some times make you think that you need a better/newer camera. I would bet more often than not, you aren't seeing the images straight from the camera. Editing programs have alot to do with the look of peoples photos (sorry if thats obvious, it wasn't to me at first).
Have you seen the Clark Little thread? If not check it out. His stuff is really beautiful. If I'm not mistaken he started taking his photos with a P&S. I mention this because alot of us get tempted by newer tech all the time (I'm soooo guilty of this). As Vikdaddy said, look for some faster lenses. His response is spot on.
Having said all that - for me its a two part answer. The first is learn a photo editing program (if you don't already). You can get Photoshop elements for like $80. Cheaper than a new camera. Its fun and you can really help/supplement the look of your photos. The second is if you aren't happy with your current camera and you can afford to get something newer, then go for it.
Sorry if that was long winded and rambling. Its early here. :P
So if I were to invest in lenses what inexpensive body would anyone of you go with?
I also understand by getting a good photo program helps which I am researching also... Photoshop vs. Aperture for my mac.
Thanks for the input.
*silence*
Uhhh, join the minority? XD Pentax are cheaper though - their entry level k-x is £380. Also if you're a cheapskate like me you can scout out manual prime/zooms on Ebay for a lot cheaper than the digi ones. My main cart-around lens cost me £12.50 :D I shoot with a k-m which is the predecessor to the k-x so if you're interested in the kind of stuff you can do with it you can just look at my calendar.
I came from an Olympus OM-10 manual SLR - I decided to trade up to digital after my trip to Canada, where I shot about twelve films in two weeks and it cost me a veritable fortune to get them processed, and then all the faffing with scanning them in to share them etc. I did a lot of research before purchasing, but a few of my good shots in Canada got ruined by lens debris so the dustproofing on the Pentax was a bit of a weight in its favour, along with the ability to use manual lenses which is a huge cost-saver and most of the digital Pentax lenses in my price range are nothing like as nice.
But everybody takes photos for different reasons - the capabilities of one model may not suit the next person. The question you need to ask yourself is how many times you've used your camera but been unable to get the shot that you wanted because of the following:
1) Over/underexposure
2) Focus
3) Subject being too close/far away
These are the three main things that you can compensate for with a dSLR that you can't so well with a P&S. If you're finding that being a frequent barrier to your shots, then sure, think about an upgrade. If it's not, then scout around here for ideas - maybe start a P&S thread to swap ideas and tips? I don't think there's anything like that just now.