A logical progression or just camera envy?

Ok, so it's been about 3 months since I bought my G5, I have taken tons of photos, and now I am buying accessories like the lens adapter and a few lenses.

Yesterday I was over at a friends' house for a going away party, and they pulled out their cameras, matching his & hers Nikon N80 SLRs (non-digital). They are nice cameras, and it sort of humbled me into thinking, "Gee, all I have is this little G5, maybe I should consider upgrading." Then I looked at the prices and I think I will stay with my G5 for awhile, until I can justify spending boatloads of money on a Digital SLR.

But this has planted a small seed of doubt in my mind, in that I am now wondering if my G5 will take satisfying pictures during my Costa Rica vacation. Will I regret the fact that all I had was the G5? I hope not, because I love the camera, and as my vacation is less than a week away, I don't want to spend it trying to learn the ins and outs of a new camera. I know my G5 (to some extent), and I think I can get some quality shots out of it, but will it be enough?

At the opens houses I went to this year it was annoying. First one someone had a nikon n50 and another person had a digital rebel. Second one someone had an a80 and an AE-1.

Its all equipment envy. Better equipment wont make you a better photograher.

But what is better than equipment envy is creative envy. That is something you can not get at the store.

Better to have top of the line creativity and bottom of the line equipment anyday.

I just upgraded: after about a year with a G3 I bought a Digital Rebel used. When I was using my G3 I found somethings very frustrating, I thought about the criteria and then decided to upgrade based on what my needs were.

If your G5 is suiting your needs then you probably don't need to upgrade. For me the biggest reasons were: less noise at higher ISO's; faster AF; less downtime between pictures; SLR viewfinder over the LCD; and zomm telephoto lens selection.

Vince

What I would really love is to get the short depth of field and wonderful background blur you get with SLR's, that my G5 just cant do as well. I would also love a 400mm lens to take photos of all the wildlife that I come across but am too far to shoot. For these reasons an upgrade to an SLR will definitely occur in the future.

joeyjoeyjoey wrote:
Its all equipment envy. Better equipment wont make you a better photograher.

But what is better than equipment envy is creative envy. That is something you can not get at the store.

Better to have top of the line creativity and bottom of the line equipment anyday.

That is a good sentiment. However, if you feel like your G5 is hindering your creative/skill progression, then by all means upgrade to a DSLR.

This is my story. I'm a graphic design student and I needed a digicam for school badly. I got the G3 April 2003, then upgraded to a G5. Both cameras served their purpose really well and I have now have a nice portfolio with some beautiful pics taken with those cams. However, I've been commisioned to do some work that I felt my G5 was inadequate, so I upgraded to a DRebel. One thing that I really love about the Rebel is the super responsive shutter and true SLR depth of field and the non existent noise at lower ISO. I still use my G5 to take the less serious photos, and by all means the G5 is still an amazing camera.

So long story short, it all really depends on how serious you are with photography. If you think you can benefit from a DSLR and have the cash to buy additional lenses that can cost you much more than the camera body, then by all means upgrade.

yes, the process has started. I won't be surprised, if a few month from now I'll see your post on the EOS forum "it's here!!!" I cannot say how long it will take for you, it depends on how long it will take you to accept DSLR prices. you can try to fight it, but it's hopeless

Good Points

Thanks, you guys all make some good points. I'm still learning, and so I think the G5 is probably still the right camera for me.

When you learn to drive, no one hands you the keys to a Ferrari, you have to work your way up, which is essentially what I am trying to do.

The whole reason I bought the G5 was to pick a good camera that can take great photos that was not limited to just point and shoot capabilities, and that would facilitate my need and want to learn more and pursue my hobby.

I guess I was a little envious, and their snobby attitudes towards digital didn't help. I should just take my G5 to Costa Rica and wow them with some good photos. I just bought the Teleconversion and Wide Angle lenses, so I'll see how that works. I guess it's a little unfortunate that most of my hobbies cost a considerable amount of money, but what can you do?

I'm finding I can get the atmospheric DoF you refer to with the G5. I've just posted a pic in this thread: http://www.photography​-on-the.net …839824e9e9dd7b8​9322302d76 The main problem was the difference between what I saw and what the lens saw! (Parallax error - took several shots before getting it right.)

I think you'll find that you've made a good choice. I'm with joeyjoeyjoey all the way: "Better to have top of the line creativity and bottom of the line equipment anyday."



Sam

I have a G3 which I use to take most of my pics. The only complaint against it is the shutter lag, espcially when I want to photograph children. I almost always miss the shot. For that purpose I have kept my trusty Canon Elan IIE SLR with a 50 mm 1.8 lens. Boy, can you shoot fast with that.

One downside with my config is that I have to lug two cameras, none of them light. I just hope that someday a Digital Rebel (hacked one, preferably) or a 10D would replace the two. Or may be a used D60 would do.. mmmm!!! I am am going into a dream......... zzzzzzzzz!!!

<WAKE UP>
one suggestion, though. Make sure you have a backup camera with you, even a 35 mm point and shoot. You never know what would happen to your main camera. I was a on trip to India and Europe recently and promptly lost my digital cam (my fault, though). Luckily I had the Elan II with me to take care of the rest of the trip. But how I regret not having a digital cam on my Europe leg.

Paul, I don't think you need to make any apologies for the G5. It is a great camera, and now that you have the TC and the WC, you have extended it's capabilities by quite a bit. I've carried a G5 on many trips and made better images with it than some pros with 10Ds and 1Ds who I met on a shoot. They goggled at the G5 and went out and bought one for themselves. (Should have seen how they sweated lugging their big guns up a volcano!) Sure, the big guns have their place, but they have no exclusivity on good images.

It will serve you well in Costa Rica, just protect it from the humidity.

La Reunion, Feb. 2004

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Just camera envy I would say!

I just came back from a 3-week trip to Asia armed only with my Sony F717 - which I might add I bought only a couple of months after getting my Canon G3. I wanted to take a camera with me on my trip that had fast & responsive & accurate AF, and the Sony F717 fit the bill perfectly.

While the pictures from my trip turned out really well with the Sony, I have constantly been thinking of the shots I might have been able to take if I had a DSLR with me.

I still use my G3 a lot and it gives the Sony F717 a run for its money. But I'll be waiting for at least another full year before seriously thinking about getting a DSLR (unless I happen to win the lottery first ).

Bottom line for me: it would be really nice to have a DSLR, but I think its more challenging and fun to try and work with the P&S cams that I currently have.

I think your G5 will serve you well on your trip.

Regards,

I still have and use my G3 all the time. Twice before I have reached my limits of useability (above and beyond snapshots) and have been able to take care of the problem with adding the Teleconverter first, then the Wide-angle converter.

However, I find myself hitting the limits with my G3 again. No so much in what I capture, but what I print. While I have gotten some amazing and successfull shots, I am missing out on quite a bit due to the 4 MP size. The ability to crop a good deal out and still print a nice 8x10 is becomming annoying.

Also, I am now having to out-guess the shutter lag for some shots of sports.

My solution - get either a business loan or home-equity loan (if the insurance settlement falls through) and upgrade to a new system, letting my G3 fall to my wife. Right now, my eye is on the 1D Mark 2. I cannot find any reason NOT to move to this camera. Seems like a logical progression (for me) and I have been able to have extended trial periods with the DRebel, 10D and 1D and the 1D Mark 2.

The ability to get very long lenses (and with the 1.3 factor of the Mark2) to get those tight crops while maintaining printability at larger sizes is the quencher. Yes, I can get the same with a less expensive DRebel and 10D, but I do not want to outgrow my camera again, and I seriously doubht I will outgrow the Mark2 within the next 5 to 7 years.

It can still be read as equipment envy, but I want larger prints for selling and the better crops. 8.5 fps for 40 shots ain't too bad either (for the sports aspect.) Also, I have been turned down for a couple jobs because the client though I was using a toy, even after seeing my portfolio. I got around this by borrowing a 10d from a friend. Besides, my wife wants something more than her SD100 (which will go to our daughter.)

I have been comparing the DRebel and the Nikon D70. I think that the
D70 wins hands down. So if you are serious about upgrading and you do
NOT have a bunch of Canon gear (other than the P+S digicam), give the
D70 a serious look. One big advantage over the Canon is the kit lens...if
you don't believe me, search for a Nikon D70 kit lens on eBay, then try to
search for the DRebel kit lens... you will not find the D70 lens for sale by
itself, but there are a number of DRebel lenses for sale.

D70:
- high quality ED lens
- 1/500 flash sync speed
- compressed raw
- wireless slave with SB600 or 800 flash
- looks more cool than the Canon

Yes, its true you can get a short depth of field when the subject is close to the camera, eg macro shots like the one you posted. But trying to get the same effect when taking other pictures (eg portraits) is not really possible. You might get some background blur at full zoom, at F3, with your subject close to the camera and and if the background is very far from the subject, but this is more limiting. I don't understand the exact specifics, but I think its because SLR's have a different size sensor, or something like that, that makes it possible to get a shorter depth of field.