If ancient 30D is still good enough for National Geographic why upgrade your camera?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18515092
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.

.

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.

.

I hate to quote the whole post but it does allow people to know to whom I'm addressing my own post.

Tom, I'm with you on this though I have taken what I believe to be very interesting photographs with my 1D IV. The files have a certain look that I enjoy.

However, like you, I have run up against some limitations when the sun is setting. I'm not a professional like you are so perhaps it shouldn't matter to me, but it does.

I'm going to find a way over the next couple years to upgrade to a 1D X Mkii. From what I've read, it's quite a leap from the 1D X Mark 1, let alone our 1D IV's. Prices will continue to drop and eventually, a 1D X Mark iii will be out.

I love the old cameras...I still use my Nikon D200 for all types of work, including weddings, and haven't had one bit of problem. Those older cameras were built to last, that's for sure.

saea501 wrote in post #18514790
I've been a NatGeo member since the late 60s and have always loved their photography.

However.....when you look closely at the pictures in the magazine, and at the same time, if you consider the truly great quality of most of the pictures posted here and what gets heavily critiqued here, many of NatGeo's pictures would be lambasted as being out of focus, noisy and suffering from lens distortion.

Maybe that should provide some healthy perspective for us.

But however are the big brands going to make more money off of you, if your OK with your older model? You MUST UPGRADE to be considered legit. Congrats! on the picture. Nice shot, and Ill bet that was some special moment for you.

If you dont mind my asking, did they request to purchase the rights of the image?

They purchased the rights to use it in that issue - i still own the rights

Thats pretty sweet.

I have an ancient 30D I've been thinking about selling. The images don't even begin to compare to those from the 5D2 - and THAT is ancient. That's why you upgrade.

During Nat Geo heydays film ruled. Why did we ever upgrade to digital?

Hogloff wrote in post #18661883
Why did we ever upgrade to digital?

Being able to take more then 36 pictures without having to change the roll of film... not having to wait a week (or more) for the film to be developed are 2 I can think of right now.

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18661895
Being able to take more then 36 pictures without having to change the roll of film... not having to wait a week (ore more) for the film to be developed are 2 I can think of right now.

Yeh I know now we blast off thousands of images in an outing and still come back with less keepers than what one got out of a measly 36 roll. And we've developed this new technique called chimping where we quickly look at the images we just took while the great shot goes by.

Sometimes convenience is not necessarily progress.

Hogloff wrote in post #18661963
Yeh I know now we blast off thousands of images in an outing and still come back with less keepers than what one got out of a measly 36 roll.

I don't know about you, but I get way way way way way more keepers than I ever did with film. . In fact, being nit-picky about image quality at larger sizes, I hardly ever got true "keepers" back in the film days. . Many were the times when I would get several rolls of film back and not be happy with even one single frame out of hundreds. . But now with digital I get keepers every time out, even when there is low light and I have to shoot at ISOs that were unheard of back in the film days.

.

Hogloff wrote in post #18661963
And we've developed this new technique called chimping where we quickly look at the images we just took while the great shot goes by.

I chimp a lot, but it doesn't keep me from missing opportunities. . Rather, it allows me to find-tune my exposure and my composition/framing, so that I am able to get things darn near perfect in the camera. . This ultimately leads to end results that are better than i would have if I didn't chimp.

.

Hogloff wrote in post #18661963
Sometimes convenience is not necessarily progress.

That is true, but I don't think that advances in digital photography have so much to do with convenience - to me the advances are more about increased image quality and the ability to shoot in poor/challenging conditions and still get excellent results.

It's not like we're taking shortcuts because things are "just easier" with digital photography. . Instead, our expectations have risen, and we are pushing ourselves just as hard as we ever did with film, driving ourselves to the limit in order to get the very best images possible. . But the results are simply better. . And because there is more latitude with regards to the technical aspects, we can devote more of our time and energy to the creative part of photography, instead of stressing over image quality all the time.


.

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18661895
Being able to take more then 36 pictures without having to change the roll of film... not having to wait a week (or more) for the film to be developed are 2 I can think of right now.

and being able to check instantly for blown highlights....camera shake....crappy composition...ect.

philmar wrote in post #18751001

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18661895
Being able to take more then 36 pictures without having to change the roll of film... not having to wait a week (or more) for the film to be developed are 2 I can think of right now.

and being able to check instantly for blown highlights....camera shake....crappy composition...ect.

Yeppers!

Well back when I shot film I did not have to wait a week for my images to come back from processing. I did it myself at home, just as I do now for digital. As well as black and white film I used to process all my E6 slide film too, the only stuff that I really had to wait for was when I shot Kodachrome 25 or 64. If I did venture to shoot print film I could get that done on the high street, and in an hour too, and it came with a small "proof" print too.

Alan