40 yrs. ago, did photographers switch brands or bodies every 2 yrs?

In my opinion, no. The technology wasn't moving fast enough that upgrading every two years would make sense. IMO, a few years ago, photographers upgraded about every two years because 2 years could produce a considerable technology change, and the upgrade made sense. However, these days cameras are so excellent that you could stay with a three-year-old (or more) camera and still take amazing pictures. Plus, upper-grade cameras have gotten horribly expensive. I moved up to a Sony A9 plus three lenses but I could only do it because I suddenly came into some cash and could afford it. It's my last high end set before I'm simply too old to lug around that much heavy gear. I do not think I will ever upgrade again, it's just too expensive. And my A9 and lens set take freakin' amazing pictures.

Rainyday wrote in post #19161721
In my opinion, no. The technology wasn't moving fast enough that upgrading every two years would make sense. IMO, a few years ago, photographers upgraded about every two years because 2 years could produce a considerable technology change, and the upgrade made sense. However, these days cameras are so excellent that you could stay with a three-year-old (or more) camera and still take amazing pictures. Plus, upper-grade cameras have gotten horribly expensive. I moved up to a Sony A9 plus three lenses but I could only do it because I suddenly came into some cash and could afford it. It's my last high end set before I'm simply too old to lug around that much heavy gear. I do not think I will ever upgrade again, it's just too expensive. And my A9 and lens set take freakin' amazing pictures.

You know.... thats kinda where I was. I had a couple of Canon 1D cameras. What more could I ever need. Then on a whim I bough a Sony a6300 for travel. And I was kind of suckered by the performance. Then I moved to A7 line... and I was suckered. How in the world did I ever function without focus peaking. I could again manually focus reliably. Even when I couldn't see, the camera could. Can't imagine living with that, and zebra stripping. Never a blown high light unless I want it that way.

So I am back into the cycle of I've got all the camera I could ever imagine needing. But I am sure there will be some feature that will come forward that will sucker me into another upgrade. Only thing I can think of is if the cameras eventually truly embrace computational photography... then I might leap again. But "need" to..... I have a hard time imagining needing to.

I still have my film cameras and darkroom. Who knows when ever I fully embrace retirement maybe I'll give those a go again.... maybe.

RDKirk wrote in post #19161583
Yes, I knew Topcon's pedigree, but it was significantly cheaper than the Nikon F2 or the Canon F-1.

I am curious...during my teen lust for the Topcon Super D, it was $420 with 58mm f/1.4... the average (median) income of families in 1965 was $6,900 so the Super D was over three weeks pay for Joe Average.

At what price point was the Super DM, when you purchased it?

For now I'm keeping my 5D4 and lenses as my full body system. It has all the performance I could need, and current improvements and trends for FF are better computing and digital interfaces with mirrorless. Well a few weeks ago I invested in my compact camera system: the iPhone 12 Pro Max. When iOS 14.3 comes out, it will be even more a capable pocket camera as it will have ProRAW. It's also amazing to me that such a small device can record 4K Dolby Vision video. There's also quite a bit of new AI focusing/exposure computations going on with the latest batches of cell phone cameras (including also MPs for some Android models). It is a smaller margin of people who consider constant upgrades with dedicated digital cameras (and that has been so throughout digital photography). It does seem more of the population likes upgrading their smart phones...and then they also get the advances with the most popular consumer camera format.

Wilt wrote in post #19161919
I am curious...during my teen lust for the Topcon Super D, it was $420 with 58mm f/1.4... the average (median) income of families in 1965 was $6,900 so the Super D was over three weeks pay for Joe Average.

At what price point was the Super DM, when you purchased it?

Unfortunately, I don't recall the prices. I have a copy of Camera 35 from December 74 with an article that compares the systems extant at the time, but it doesn't list prices. I do know, though, that the Topcon was significantly cheaper, which was the reason I went that way in the first place.

You and I must be soul-mates (don't be offended). I started with Minolta about 1971. SRT101, XE-7, XD11 (boy did I love that camera). Then switched to Nikon, buying a N8008 (another love affair). Then a F3HP to accompany it. Then a N90S (didn't like it - too heavy). Switched to Canon A2E (not the AE2) somewhere in late 90's. I love the eye-controlled focus. Have been with Canon ever since. Started digital with the D20, then D40, then 5D, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4, and NOW R5!

I now have a collection of old manual film cameras. They are cheap. My favorites are the Minolta XD-11 and a Nikon FM2 (which costs the most to "collect")

Minolta - Nikon - Canon. It's been a fun journey.

Croasdail wrote in post #19161370
Trading gear was unheard of. I had my AE-1 for ever. I also had a Minolta xg-7 and xd-11. A rolie. Got a Pentax k-1000 from my grandfather. And he list went on. But for the most part, they all did the same thing, well. This trade up thing is crazy. I loved being able to use the same body with Agfa, Fuji, and Kodak... to achieve looks. Not a huge fan of the trading up cameras deal. That somehow you have the new megapixel whatever... your imagery will be ever so much better.

One AD I shoot for has on his office wall a shot I took years ago with a 20D. He has no complaints... doesn't see the big deal. The main thing I see is way improved AF. I think back at one of my old standby Olympus cameras in the day.. and if the subject was moving... forget about.

I want get at least 5 years out of a camera body. And my Mac is 10 years old... and still plugging away happily. So you know where my bias is.

I still have my AE-1, bought in 1977, and still shoot it a couple times a year. I never needed a "professional grade" camera (e.g. F-1), so never felt the need to replace it until I bought a digital SLR. Unlike the film bodies, digital cameras are still undergoing significant improvements (resolution, noise reduction, dynamic range) that have a measurable impact on output. But my upgrade plans are closer to 6-7 years than every 2 years.

Rainyday wrote in post #19161721
In my opinion, no. The technology wasn't moving fast enough that upgrading every two years would make sense. IMO, a few years ago, photographers upgraded about every two years because 2 years could produce a considerable technology change, and the upgrade made sense. However, these days cameras are so excellent that you could stay with a three-year-old (or more) camera and still take amazing pictures. Plus, upper-grade cameras have gotten horribly expensive. I moved up to a Sony A9 plus three lenses but I could only do it because I suddenly came into some cash and could afford it. It's my last high end set before I'm simply too old to lug around that much heavy gear. I do not think I will ever upgrade again, it's just too expensive. And my A9 and lens set take freakin' amazing pictures.

in terms of imaging, the A9 is one of the most revolutionary pieces of equipment this decade.

that stacked sensor is something special, and there simply is nothing like it. banding free, little to no distortion, makes ALL the difference in the world. I side graded to the A7siii because I do a ton more video than stills, but if sony or anyone makes an A9 WITH video features to match, I'll upgrade once again. that said, the A7siii for video will last me 5+ years, I have no doubts on that. I cant have an expensive camera that specializes in stills, then one that specializes in video. Sony has the technology because the ZV-1 has both stacked sensor and capable video features, but it's only 1" sensor.

the A9 is revolutionary, the size is just an extremely nice topping. aside from that, I'm not going to be tempted so easily by measily features anymore, my next "stills" camera needs to have a stacked sensor. needs to have incredible video features..... if not, I can get a used A9 again, not going to bother with anything else. The biggest issue with the A9 is that it's essentially on it's first iteration, and not super mature, but the writing is on the wall..... at least it is for me.

I still use the A7siii primary, A7iii backup, and will be saving up a war chest for the eventual A9 with top notch video specs.... at that point, the A7iii gets bumped, and to even consider the A7siii as a backup camera is kind of absurd, but an A9 done right would do that.

Charlie wrote in post #19166599
in terms of imaging, the A9 is one of the most revolutionary pieces of equipment this decade.

that stacked sensor is something special, and there simply is nothing like it. banding free, little to no distortion, makes ALL the difference in the world. I side graded to the A7siii because I do a ton more video than stills, but if sony or anyone makes an A9 WITH video features to match, I'll upgrade once again. that said, the A7siii for video will last me 5+ years, I have no doubts on that. I cant have an expensive camera that specializes in stills, then one that specializes in video. Sony has the technology because the ZV-1 has both stacked sensor and capable video features, but it's only 1" sensor.

the A9 is revolutionary, the size is just an extremely nice topping. aside from that, I'm not going to be tempted so easily by measily features anymore, my next "stills" camera needs to have a stacked sensor. needs to have incredible video features..... if not, I can get a used A9 again, not going to bother with anything else. The biggest issue with the A9 is that it's essentially on it's first iteration, and not super mature, but the writing is on the wall..... at least it is for me.

I still use the A7siii primary, A7iii backup, and will be saving up a war chest for the eventual A9 with top notch video specs.... at that point, the A7iii gets bumped, and to even consider the A7siii as a backup camera is kind of absurd, but an A9 done right would do that.

"A9 is revolutionary" so says a sony camera owner

As a camera owner since 1973....I have jumped away from Canon 1 time and that was the Olympus om77AF

I have been tempted to move to Nikon with the D4s and D5 models but I am heavily invested in Canon and the costs would have been not smart to change

I was tempted by the A9 but again for same reasons costs to do so are just a not smart move when you have 25K is glass to attach to your body

The sensor changes that Sony brought to the market were indeed revolutionary..... but the body ergo's and menu system are simply horrendous

Now that all the MFG's have clean sensors the Sony advantage has disappeared

And to answer the OP's question.....most photographers I know upgraded cameras for sensor performance. Now that all mfg sensors are clean camera sales have dropped off the planet. There is not a lot of reason to upgrade a camera. 12800 iso is the standard. So now MFGs will stop making DSLR's and try to force everyone into that market. This strategy may or may not work......and during the Film days....None of us changed bodies

moose10101 wrote in post #19166593
I still have my AE-1, bought in 1977, and still shoot it a couple times a year. I never needed a "professional grade" camera (e.g. F-1), so never felt the need to replace it until I bought a digital SLR. Unlike the film bodies, digital cameras are still undergoing significant improvements (resolution, noise reduction, dynamic range) that have a measurable impact on output. But my upgrade plans are closer to 6-7 years than every 2 years.

• Most folks do not need 50 MPixels
  
• Most folks do not shoot in conditions so dark it requres a slow speed and fast lens even at ISO128000 while shooting motionless subjects (so they are not blurred at the slow shutter speed). I cannot even see where to point my camera at the EV2 low light levels it can focus and meter, without allowing 10+ minutes to acclimate to the low light! ...so who needs focus and metering to EV-3?!
  
• Most folks do not need dynamic range beyond 14 bits...in fact so many don't even get exposure right (and do not care) in normal daylight...look at all the underexposed shots posted here on POTN!
  

Wilt wrote in post #19272458

• Most folks do not need 50 MPixels
  
• Most folks do not shoot in conditions so dark it requres a slow speed and fast lens even at ISO128000 while shooting motionless subjects (so they are not blurred at the slow shutter speed). I cannot even see where to point my camera at the EV2 low light levels it can focus and meter, without allowing 10+ minutes to acclimate to the low light! ...so who needs focus and metering to EV-3?!
  
• Most folks do not need dynamic range beyond 14 bits...in fact so many don't even get exposure right (and do not care) in normal daylight...look at all the underexposed shots posted here on POTN!
  

I would say that these are items that would not limit a talented photographer (or not a concern with a casual photographer). However, it's always a nice to have (and today is a justification for paying extra for a high end camera). I myself am enjoying the 30MP of 5D4: it's appreciable if I need the option of cropping or printing large scale (My experience with DSLRs started with 12MP 5Dc). 45MP is probably the max I'd ever need for FF. Coming from film, I was impressed by the 5Dc's ISO, but disappointed by it's DR. With the improvements in AF with the 5D3, I found it also easier to focus in the low light situations I might encounter with night time photography. I did immediately see the jump in DR improvements with the 5D4. However, I still do encounter situations with DR in which I either have to consider areas to blow out or bracket to do automatic HDR or layer mask different exposures (they might be considered extreme when it comes to certain outdoor shots that you might alleviate with filters...or interior architectural with outdoor windows). As someone who's also been involved with merging photos for 32bit light simulations for 3D rendering...I can see how it would be nice to have DR capabilities beyond 14 or 16bit for those extremes that need even more exposure latitudes (or you might be that photographer who is specializing on photos that have that extreme situation).

umphotography wrote in post #19272452
and during the Film days....None of us changed bodies

Au contraire. During my 10 years as a newspaper guy I switched over from the F2 to the F3. Snapped one up within the first 2 or 3 years of release.

Thing is we traded flip though all the time. I loved Kodachrome. If I want a different look, or color balance, I used a different film. Fuji was a lovely thing too.

But in the aggregate, I probably spent on film and processing what I spent on a camera body. So different means to sort of the same end.

Strangely enough, I'm taking a local introduction to photography class at my community college. This is an online class, that the instructor is requiring online discussion posts. There are quite a few young, I'm guessing 18-to-20-year-old first year students, that are now expressing a curiosity in film photography, but are hesitant to jump in because they do not know how to set the exposure for that perfect photograph. They have been so conditioned to the instant gratification of viewing their perfectly exposed digital photos on the screens of their cameras and iphones, that it scares them to take a film picture, and not knowing whether that picture ever came out--until they take the time and expense to process and print.

There is an irony here, because I'm the opposite. I started out in film, and had learn to wait and see how my exposures and prints came out. I actually like digital because of that instant gratification of seeing the image, and then making quick changes to correct issues of exposure. For my classmates that were hesitant on trying film, I told them to go out and try some film photography. Just try it and see what happens.

I think it's great there's a resurgence of film photography but it seems that film shooters these days view it as a delicate medium that's only suitable for babies and empty streets.

We had fast lenses back then, and motor drives and we shot everything we shoot today. As for the things we didn't have, autofocus is a bigger deal than the screen on the back.