TeamSpeed wrote in post #18514568
I think the point is now that 7 years later, hardly anybody is shooting a 30D for things like this magazine, I am quite sure a vast majority have "upgraded" to something else. I could be wrong but it is on others to prove many are still using a 30d.
saea501 wrote in post #18514790
I'm sure too that most of their photographers do use much newer, more robust camera models as their primary concern is durability when used in harsh conditions and being thrown in and out of bags and, no doubt, banged around and dropped.
You are both right on the money.
NG uses my photos somewhat regularly in various different publications. Several years ago, I "upgraded" from using a 50D / 5Dc combination to using a 1D Mark 4. . Yet NG still, to this day, uses many of the photos that I took years ago with the 50D and the 5Dc.
So why did I upgrade? . Well, sure, I could sometimes take a picture good enough for NG with the 5Dc or the 50D - when the animals weren't moving around too rapidly, or when there was enough light. . But the 1D Mark 4 allows me to take MORE photos that are good enough for NG. . There used to be situations at dusk when I just couldn't get a good photo, but now in those same situations I can get a good enough photo with my 1D4. . Better gear increases the total number of photos I can get during the course of a day. . Many of the 1D4 photos that I sell could not have been taken with the 50D or the 5D.
The goal isn't to take a photo that is "good enough" for NG. . The goal is to license as many photos as possible to NG (and other publishers), so that one can have a continuous flow of income from such sales. . So one really needs a huge ____load of photos that are good enough for NG, and one typically demands of one's self to produce such photos every time one heads out with the camera.
These days, I often have encounters with wildlife and can't get a "good enough" photo, because my 1D4 simply isn't up to the task. So I will soon upgrade again, either to a 5D4 or a 1Dx. Why? So that I can take better pictures? Not really. Rather, so that I can take pictures of the same quality, but in worse conditions.
Wilt wrote in post #18514962
I merely expressed how simplistic is the decision "I need a better camera because of (resolution, noise)"...because the photo 'will not be acceptable for publication if it is not the newest generation'!
I think that I understand what you mean.
Often times, the gear we have does not have enough resolution. . And the high ISO performance isn't good enough. . But we should identify the weak link in our gear and assess the gear according to the specific uses that we have in mind for our work. . Upgrading specifically to get more resolution doesn't make any sense if we are only going to make little 16" by 20" prints, and upgrading for better high ISO performance is unnecessary if we are always using artificial lighting and shooting static subjects. . We should have good, logical reasons for upgrading, and fully understand exactly what the upgrade will do for our imagery.
"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".