Wait or upgrade?

[TimSchroepfer]

My question might not easily be answered. When I purchased my 10D last summer I wanted to buy a 1dMrkII, but I was afraid that after spending 4K on a camera to support my hobby that in a year or two that toy would be eclipsed by better and better technology. I have an AE1 that I use and enjoy using. It seems the difference between the world of digital and analog (for lack of a better term) is that analog technology remains a viable longer. The life span of my AE1 is pushing 30 years with better than 100000 frames and during that time the camera has been serviced only a few times. The technology that drives the AE1 has progressed very slowly as compared to the evolution of digital technology. Even now there seems to be very little sense in the way that digital photography is evolving. I am wondering where it is going to plateau and how to protect ones investment into this technology? At some point increasing the maximum resolution will become more or less pointless as at a certain point you can only get so fine a picture and at some point the speed at which images can be captured will be fast enough that even the most demanding photographers will be ultimately satisfied. So should we be planning on purchasing new equipment every two to three years? I am not thinking about keeping up with the Joneses, but more like keeping equipment that is functional and up to date with a standard digital workflow. As we have learned with the personal computer, new technology often does not allow for legacy (a nice way of saying obsolete) technology. I just am afraid of dropping 4k or even 8k and in two years not being able to use the technology due to upgrades in my digital workflow and the obsolesce of the storage media and transfer setup. Perhaps the proliferation of digital technology will help maintain the viability of the older technology for years to come and then again perhaps that will be am incentive for manufacturers to plan the obsolesce of the technology to motivate consumers to upgrade ever few years.



This post was spurned by my buyer’s remorse over the purchase of my 10D.

The 10D just does not give me what I need in a camera especially in the metering and focus departments. Also anything over 400ISO is unacceptably grainy.

After almost a year and 25K pictures later I have learned a valuable lesson that for my needs and wants I require a piece of equipment that perhaps I need to upgrade or replace every 2 years. You see I want to buy a 1DMrkII, but I have the feeling as soon as I do Canon will replace that model with a better piece of equipment for the same price. I think that this fear is something that I will have until we hit a plateau in the technology as we have with the personal computer. As a side note, I have no fear of my L serries lenses being phased out anytime soon. Or maybe I should be worried about that too?



Any comments on this rant are always read and appreciated. :D

[Hellashot]

I am waiting for the replacement of the 20D, whenver that might come out. And that camera will do me for several years. Canon seems to leaving a breadcrumb trail for its high end consumer users, except that the crumbs cost money. I'm sure there are several users on these forums that bought the 10D, the Drebel, and either the 20D or XT. I'm sure Canon will see a drop off in their increasing sales of dSLRs when users realize they have a formidible camera in their hands that they don't need to replace every 18 months.

The ideal camera would be a full frame sensor with the low noise of the 20D but that probably won't happen for at least 10 years.

[ssim]

I moved from the 10D to a 1DMKII last year and haven't regretted it at all. Your biggest concern seems to be that the 1DMKII will be replaced by a better model. It really doesn't matter when or what you buy in the electronics field. There is always something bigger and better on the horizon. I think that the question that you have to ask yourself is, does the 1DMKII meet my technical requirements in a camera. If yes, then go for it. When the Canon came out with the 1DMKII I knew that the 1DsMKII was on the horizon. I am truly thankful that I didn't wait for it. I have no specific need for the extra resolution that it offers and the 1DMKII is better suited for my type of shooting, FPS as an example.

I have no fear of my L serries lenses being phased out anytime soon. Or maybe I should be worried about that too?
I wouldn't be too concerned with this either. Canon's line of L series glass is great. If you are happy with what you have now then why worry about always wanting to have the latest and greatest.

To reiterate, if you wait until the 1DMKIII comes out you may find that it is better suited to your requirements but it might not too. The MKII is one of the best cameras out there. If you are always going to wait for the better mousetrap to be built, you'll be swimming in mice.

[Moments]

As with computers, expect that digital cameras will always have a newer faster, better resolution etc. version down the road. I started shooting with digital cameras/backs as a commercial photographer, and we invested in digital backs for large format, and as soon as you would spend 20 to 35K on a back, a new one was always introduced, even when we thought that we hit a plateau in the technology. Even the first digital back that I used to use, a Leaf DCB I which cost over $40K to set up, still works today. Of course we can't use it with todays newest G5 Mac, it still can be used with the original Powermac and Photoshop 5.5 that powered it back in 1995. Althogh it is a slow system by todays standards, it still works fine and the picture quaility is still the same as day one. A client can not look at a file from that system and say it is out of date, unless you try to do something with it that it was not designed to do.
I guess what I'm saying is that we generally see something that is newer and faster and say we need it.
I live with the attitude that you buy the best that you can afford or the best that will do the job you need it for. You can't really say, I'll hold out for the next model, unless you know a new one is right around the corner and that is what you need to complete the jobs you have for it.

[Longwatcher]

Some thoughts that might help you,

- The 1DM2 is most likely going to be upgraded around October/November at the earliest.
- Right now it seems the primary limitation to a 1DM3 with 22MP and 8+ FPS is the processor, given Moore's Law, It will be at least 4 years before it gets there (4.5 years from 1DsMkII release, possibly as much as 6 years.
- Expect that 35mm sized camera bodies and the Canon lenses that go with them, will hit a plateau around 22-25MP due to physics limits. Look at pixel/detector size for this. The detector must be bigger then the wavelength of the light to pick it up correctly and preferable at least 4 times larger. Light goes from 400nm to 750nm. Sensors are at 2800nm (2.8um) in size currently on P&S 8MP cameras (they are there) and the 1DsMkII is at 7200nm? (I Have one and I can't remember it) . The problem being Signal to noise, the smaller the detector the more noise it picks up. So realistically 22-25MP is about the practical limit on a FF 35mm size sensor to still have the full range of ISO values and low noise. To get more pixels you need to go to a medium format back and lose some flexability you have with 35mm format. They may some day be able to get it to maybe 50MP and low noise, but I am starting to lean against it.
- Lastly look at the cost in film savings, how much film would you be using if you did not have a digital camera. If the cost is more the a DSLR, get it.

Just my opinion and research,

[dsze]

The 10D just does not give me what I need in a camera especially in the metering and focus departments. Also anything over 400ISO is unacceptably grainy.

I'm not sure I understand the complaint. Your 10D doesn't do the job as good or better than your AE-1? The 10D is a great camera... Personally, I'd love a MkII as well, but when you can buy a 10D for well under $1000 right now, I just can't possibly justify $4000 for it. Maybe if I was making SERIOUS money shooting sports, but I'm not.... I make some money shooting portraits and weddings and my 10D had been great. In fact, I just (tonight) purchased a 2nd 10D body because I've been so happy with mine.

Yes, there will always be something newer and better on the horizon and you'll always experience buyer's remorse if thats what your focus is on. Personally, the 10D makes me a little money on the side, and it provides me with outstanding documentation of my children. It does the job, whether or not something better exists. ...just my opinion.

-daniel

[CyberDyneSystems]

MkII is only one year old,. the 1D was three years ofl before the MkII reoplced it.

20D is not yet a year old.. the 10D was 1.5 years beofre it was replaced..

Waiting makes no sense,. it relly made no sense not to get the MkII when it was mere months old,. they all get replaced some time. Doesn't make them any less a camera than they are now.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Man, just get the 1D MkII if you really think you want/need it. Canon's have great resale values anyway, and there's a 500 dollar rebate on them right now at bhphoto.com. So, it's only 3,500 right now...... great price!!!!! Great camera, and it's fairly new. So, I doubt any new technology will be making it obsolete any time soon. There's really no point in waiting........ your only other option is to get the 20D which is also a spectacular camera and is far cheaper than the 1D MkII. The 10D isn't givin ya what you need though. So, upgrade! Do it now! Don't wait and miss out on the oppertunity to get some great shots, learn more, and expand your skill in photography.

[lancea]

If you can afford it but are prepared to wait till it gets cheaper of is replaced by a more advanced model, then you obviously don't really need it ;)

But really if you want the latest technology you have to be prepared to put up with paying a premium and seeing the apparent price of your aquisition plummet. I say apparent because you've had the value of the goods for all that time and have probably learnt to get the best from it. And if you buy quality you'll still have a well made camera or lens. The newer cheaper models might have finer sensors and more features, but if you still want to buy "quality" you'll likely still be paying a premium. Unless you're a professional, I'd expect at least 5 year's life out of your 10D. Does it really limit what you do that much? I've seen very good comments about it. It's easy to get equipment envy, especially reading these forums :mrgreen: .

While I'm sure full-coverage sensors will be affordable (20D price-class) within a few years or even sooner, there's interesting material elsewhere about how minor the effect of the extra pixels is.

Going backing to my original point, if you can afford the 1D go and buy it (provided that'll make you happy!).

[cactusclay]

I think you need to ask yourself what it is you are looking for and if it is availible, then get it. Personally, I wanted something that was as good as 35 mm film and had instant start up time as well as no shutter lag. I think the 20D has all that, so anything else at this point would be over kill. I remember when I first got the Rebel and I new after a few shots, that I would need to upgrade, but I haven't felt that way with the 20D.

[condyk]

This is a very interesting thread ... I bought a 300D when it was 'yesterday's model' and been very happy with it. I don't want to upgrade and can't see good reason to either. I built my last PC nearly 3 years ago and it was a 1.6mhz AMD top of the tree spec. It still performs very reliably, is super fast and does exactly what I want and runs all the software I need, from PS CS to MS Project and Word, etc. When I write something the words come through me and the technology just needs to not get in the way.

If I read lots of computer magazines and took part in forums then maybe I would want the latest and greatest to keep up ... but I don't think so. 'Keepping up' for me means doing what I need outstandingly well and no more.

Not sure if photography is that different. One solution is to never buy a photo magazine or visit a forum :-) Great shots have been taken for 100 years plus, and the 'latest technology' won't make a great shot so much as our own talent (sure, it can help but I am talking about a general principle!) and being in the right place (and luck!)

If you find a camera that does the job for YOU then buy it and don't look back. You'll go bonkers trying to achieve the optimum. The optimum is really the shots you can get and NOT the technology ... isn't it?! Refocus ...

However, by shopping around when you buy you can at least ensure that when you DO see something else coming on the very distant horizon then you can sell on just before many people realise a new model is even here. Ebay is great for this BUT you must buy low initially to minimise financial loss. Any loss is just the price we pay for having a great hobby anyway :-) Say a camera lasts three years ... what is the weekly cost excluding resale value? Not that much!

This is perhaps the main concern ... will I waste my money? By shifting focus from the technology to the results then you can become less concerned about this. By buying low then you can still minimise any inevitable loss.

[ScottE]

Tim,

Are you saying that the AE1 had good enough autofocus and exposure for you but that the 10D does not? I think that if you compare you will find that the 10D is every bit as good, if not better than the AE1 in those departments.

It sounds like you are being caught up in the bigger, faster, better world of digital photography technology. You lived with your AE1 when you could have upgraded to 1N with better autofocus and exposure control. Ask yourself again why it is necessary to upgrade for digital.

If you are cost sensitive, the 1 series digital cameras are not a good investment for you. In a few years technology will have advanced, you will be wanting to upgrade again and todays star camera will be yesterdays has been and can only be sold at a loss.

If you have money to play with or if you earn your living with your camera it is an entirely different question and the 1 series cameras make sense.

Scott

[Jesper]

My question might not easily be answered. When I purchased my 10D last summer I wanted to buy a 1dMrkII, but I was afraid that after spending 4K on a camera to support my hobby that in a year or two that toy would be eclipsed by better and better technology. I have an AE1 that I use and enjoy using. It seems the difference between the world of digital and analog (for lack of a better term) is that analog technology remains a viable longer. The life span of my AE1 is pushing 30 years with better than 100000 frames and during that time the camera has been serviced only a few times. The technology that drives the AE1 has progressed very slowly as compared to the evolution of digital technology.Why do you think your 10D doesn't remain viable? In 10 years, your 10D will still produce the same great photos it does today. OK, there will be new models with more megapixels and other improvements, but the 10D is a great camera that can produce super quality photos. It won't suddenly become useless when a new model comes out.
Even now there seems to be very little sense in the way that digital photography is evolving. I am wondering where it is going to plateau and how to protect ones investment into this technology? At some point increasing the maximum resolution will become more or less pointless as at a certain point you can only get so fine a picture ...We're already there. With the 10D you can make photos that are just as good as with traditional 35mm film, and especially at higher ISO settings it's better than 35mm film. The 1Ds Mark II (16.7 megapixels) rivals medium format film cameras.
... and at some point the speed at which images can be captured will be fast enough that even the most demanding photographers will be ultimately satisfied.We're already there too. The 1D Mark II can capture 8 frames per second. I don't know if there's a film model that can do that, but if you want faster than 8 frames per second you'd better buy a video camera.... ;)
So should we be planning on purchasing new equipment every two to three years? I am not thinking about keeping up with the Joneses, but more like keeping equipment that is functional and up to date with a standard digital workflow.No, ofcourse not, and your 10D will be just as functional in three years as it is today!
As we have learned with the personal computer, new technology often does not allow for legacy (a nice way of saying obsolete) technology. I just am afraid of dropping 4k or even 8k and in two years not being able to use the technology due to upgrades in my digital workflow and the obsolesce of the storage media and transfer setup. Perhaps the proliferation of digital technology will help maintain the viability of the older technology for years to come and then again perhaps that will be am incentive for manufacturers to plan the obsolesce of the technology to motivate consumers to upgrade ever few years.Exactly the things you are mentioning here (storage media, transfer setup) are things that are not changing very quickly. Almost all of today's digital cameras use Compact Flash (CF) or Secure Digital (SD) memory cards. Those won't disappear in three years. Also, the USB and Firewire interfaces are likely to stay with us for a long time.

[griff2]

The problem with digital photography, is that it's chip driven, as with computers. This means that as soon as you've purchased it, it's out-of-date. It's very easy to get caught up in the must have the latest and greatest, and: "this new product makes my old product look like crap" syndrome.

I've got the 300D, it takes superb pictures and I've got no intention of "upgrading" any time soon, I'd rather spend money on photographic gear where it matters - on the glass.

[defordphoto]

The camera you buy today will take the exact same quality pictures in 10 years.

[martcol]

RFM's hit it - just because there's something better doesn't make what you've got any worse.

The original post said, "The 10D just does not give me what I need in a camera..." so, you just gotta get something else! I went from the 10D to 1D mk II and realise that a) the camera is awesome but not without it's flaws which, I can exagerate without even thinking about and b) my 10D is lovely.

Martin