I Have To Know

It appears that as new models are introduced every few months, there is a fairly large % of folks that feel the need to upgrade. After upgrading a step or two, they often come across as is they don't know how they lived with or took an acceptable photo with their old (often less than a year old) camera. My question is, does the upgrade really enhance one's ability to take award winning photographs? Does the keep rate increase by 20% or 50%?As for me, I dream about upgrading like many others but the cold fact is, my 2 year old xti will always prove much more capable than me..... any thoughts?

For me, my pictures are improving because I'M getting better. (I did upgrade though)

great observation.....do you think the mentality is sometimes..."if I buy the newest camera my photos will improve."

the upgrade makes it a better tool IMHO but does not take better images that were impossible with an older camera. I upgrade A LOT. But I've gone back to some old 10D files and they're still very workable. My PP has probably improved more than the sensor technology honestly.....

But if the camera allows you to take shots you couldn't with the old one (faster FPS, faster buffer, better AF, better high ISO, FF over crop, whatever) then yes, it does mean you couldn't get the old shot.

But personally for me I know right now with the 5D it's 3 years old. It's IQ is outstanding for what I want/need. I know I'll be tempted to get the mII if/when it comes, but I also don't need it... It's the menu's/controls I'll want, not the better sensor.

The camera is just a tool, but if you need a screwdriver and have a hammer you're kinda SOL....

Till recently the quality improvement in the results obtained from upgrading a camera were fairly obvious.
With the arrival of this present generation of cameras, the quality obtainable is now at lest as good as most were able to achieve with film.
cameras like the 40D 5d and the enthusiasts ranges from the other makers are capable indeed.
I can not see the need to upgrade any time soon, as the 40D does every thing I need of it.
However there will undoubtedly be breakthroughs in sensor design in the future... this more than anything else will set the scramble off again.

Till then it is more about design convenience and special needs, and upgrading glass.that will cause the most attention.
But this will be unlikely to entail the same rise in quality that has come about recently.

Pixel density has already reached a point of diminishing returns, which is why I say there will need to be a complete breakthrough in sensor design, before quality once again becomes a driving issue.

Terry

i think it gets a bit easier to take a better pic with a better camera, I mean, try to shoot a ball game with your Point and shoot Vs a top of the line canon DSLR... folks who jump on every new release either just like to have new toys or truly feel it will make them better photographers.

Mike J. wrote in post #5666429
It appears that as new models are introduced every few months, there is a fairly large % of folks that feel the need to upgrade. After upgrading a step or two, they often come across as is they don't know how they lived with or took an acceptable photo with their old (often less than a year old) camera. My question is, does the upgrade really enhance one's ability to take award winning photographs? Does the keep rate increase by 20% or 50%?As for me, I dream about upgrading like many others but the cold fact is, my 2 year old xti will always prove much more capable than me..... any thoughts?

Better equipment will let an experienced user do more in many cases. In my own situation for example I do a lot of low light shooting and while I've done "ok" with my Rebel XT, I -know- my new 40D will allow me to do even more because it has better capabilities than my Rebel XT. At some point when I can afford to get faster lenses, those capabilities will be even greater too...after all a f/2.8 lens will do better in low light than my currant f/5.6. Also in just the last 24 hours my new 40D has already proven itself as far as having better AF and better image quality. It's simply a better camera. Does that mean that I couldn't have lived without the 40D? No. My Rebel XT has been a very good camera and I've taken some really great images with it. The new camera is just going to allow me to do things a little easier and (perhaps) get more "keepers".

Think of it this way...at one time people used to build things using simple hand saws. Then someone invented power tools such as a circular saw...which is easier to use? You can still build things with the hand saw...and many still do, but using the power tool just makes it easier (often with more precise results). From there you can expand things even further...you can build things with a $70 Black & Decker circular saw easier and faster than you can with a hand saw, but -if- you have the money, wouldn't something like a Makita laser guided saw be even easier? The same is true of photography. Technically speaking, to take pictures we don't "need" a Canon 1D MkIII or a 5D or a 40D...or even a Rebel. For that matter, we don't even need a 35mm SLR...all you really need to take a picture is an oatmeal box with a little hole cut in the front and a piece of photo sensitive paper! In your own case, ask yourself "why" you're shooting with an XTi instead of a 35mm or even a film point & shoot...I'll bet is has something to do with convenience, instant gratification and the ability to do more with your images .

Now that said, as I have said a great many times it's not the gear, it's the person using it. A better camera will allow an experience user to do more but the most expensive gear in the world will NOT allow a person new to photography to shoot like a pro. A top of the line camera will not correct for a person who doesn't know anything about composition just as a set of custom golf clubs won't correct a newbies slice. I have no doubt what so ever that a person such as Tiger Woods could do more with my $79 "K-Mart Blue Light Special" golf clubs that I could -ever- do with his clubs! LOL!!! The gear, regardless of whether or not it's "top of the line" is only as good as the person using it.

To that however I would add that in this day and age of digital photography where competition between "pro" and even your average shmoe who owns a digital is fierce, having the newest equipment can give you an edge over the competition. However, here in the US at least, there -ARE- people who honestly believe they have to have the biggest, newest, best, etc., that their money can buy (pro or otherwise)...and often these people have very deep pockets to begin with. A great example of this is computers...look at all the folks who will go out and buy the newest version of Windows (or Mac OS) the day it hits the shelves! It's the newest so they have to have it. Doesn't matter whether or not they really need it...they just have to have it. I guess it's along the same mindset as people who have to go out and buy a brand new car every 4 years...part of the whole "keeping up with the Jones" mentality. Personally...I don't get it.

All and all I think it's really a subjective thing. There are people out there who will upgrade their gear simply for the sake of upgrading their gear and there's people out there who simply have to have "the best". Then there's other like myself who have to pick and choose their battles carefully. In my case I upgraded because as I'm starting to go more pro with this stuff and trying to get my own photography business going, I know that I can simply do more with a 40D than I can with my Rebel XT.

I'm not sure if that really answers your question or not, but then I'm not really sure there is an answer to this question...

Peace,
Jim

If they brought out a 5D II tomorrow with the same sensor but 6 fps would I buy it...hell yes. Would it take better pictures, hell no. Would it increase my chance of nailing the one shot...it would, 2 fold. I am not after fangled menus and mega pixels I want function, the one mentioned will do.

Spending money on the hobby can invigorate your creative urge. To justify the outlay, you go out and shoot more. As this usually coincides with greater experience, you will hopefully see an improvement in your work.

Besides, as everyone knows, 'you must take really good pictures with a camera like that!'

Terrywoodenpic wrote in post #5666604
With the arrival of this present generation of cameras, the quality obtainable is now at lest as good as most were able to achieve with film.
cameras like the 40D 5d and the enthusiasts ranges from the other makers are capable indeed.

<snip>

Agreed. I'm still undecided how to handle my current 'dilemma' though, I'm thinking a 5d + a lens for portrait stuff might suit well, but I still kind of want to play with a sigma sd14 (with all its flaws). Ah well. Either way I'm not too worried about the near future of digital cameras unless something superlative comes out, which I expect if it will it will be coming form Nikon or Sony and not from Canon (if recent history is any indication, Id love to be surprised).

Years ago I tried to purchase my way to good photography. It didn't work. I then upgraded my Leica M6 for a Canon XT and my keeper rate increased. At some point, I outgrew the XT, but better lenses, technique and talent (which I really have to work at) will produce better results.

When it comes to low-light / high ISO performance and AF accuracy/speed then yes, the body upgrade can make a huge difference.

A good photo comes from opportunity, not from better gear.

Depends on what you shoot and what you need. Look at what Ansel Adams, Minor White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Yousuf Karsh, Man Ray, Julia Margaret Cameron, and the likes did with technology that is at least six or seven decades old.

Of course, they weren't trying to track an eagle 500-meters away. As noted, recognizing your style and needs is the first thing. When I got into photography three years ago, I eyed the Canon 70-200mm. I am glad I didn't buy it, as I eventually discovered that a telephoto was unnecessary for my interests, and right now, the longest lens I have is 50mm (and no crop factor involved).

Anyway, I've since "downgraded" to film, and my keeper rate has increased, largely because I take more time before I shoot. And one of my favorite lenses is a 1980s East German Zeiss manual focus only that cost under US$200.

Once again, figure out your needs, and from there, determine what improved functions might actually benefit you. More importantly, engage in the perennial exercise of honing your photographic skills, because what you consider a boring photo will always be so regardless of the gear used.

For the type of shooting I do my new 40D makes a difference over my 20D.

1. The image style adjustments help keep me from doing post work on a few thousand images after a race weekend. Especially the saturation, even in small increments it is more noticeable then on the 20D.
2. Faster frame per second rate. The 6.5 versus the 5 fps makes a difference when capturing off-road race action. It allows me to catch the dirt flying just right or the contact between the racers.
3. Better focusing. I photograph off-road trucks and buggy's moving at over 100mph and I find more frames in focus after a burst than my 20D.
4. Dust data deletion & sensor cleaning feature. These races are very, VERY dusty and with my 20D halfway through the day spots started to show up in my pictures. I use the dust deletion feature and I haven't seen a single spot so far...

So for me, as I am becoming a better photographer, I also did need to upgrade to keep up with the features that help with what I am shooting. I am not trying to be artistic, I am trying to produce a product as efficiently as possible and the 40D makes that more possible than my 20D.