"it's amazing how quickly the digital age puts a 2, 3, 4 year old camera to shame"
Are you sure? I've got a Canon 40D, which is pretty damn old these days, and I can't see a single thing I'd like to upgrade about it. Well, except that I'd quite like one that takes videos. So maybe I've just ruined my own point.
Well maybe "to shame" wasn't quite fair - I imagine it depends on what you want in a camera.
I have the EOS 40D and 20D. I'd like a full frame camera (I miss that) and I'd like more megapixels and I'd like HD video. So the EOS 6D and better are what I want, but not what I can afford right now.
I still love my cameras, but I don't feel film cameras advanced annually the way digital ones seem to do...which could be seen as either positive or negative! :)
I totally get your comparison with film cameras, where the technology was more stable.
More pixels? REALLY? I've NEVER missed having more pixels on my 40D. (I've also got a 50D but I prefer the 40D.) All the reviews I've read say that more pixels give you no improvement in image quality at all unless you've got a $5,000 lens. As for full frame, I'll have to take your word for that. And I do understand wanting video.
If you sold both your 40D and your 20D, that would just about pay for a second-hand 7D (APS-C + video), which is what I'm aiming for.
Yep, really! I have to translate my photos to poster-size and larger. More megapixels help with that. That's been my personal experience, anyways. I don't want a Mark III because it has a bazillion megapixels, though.
For most of my what I do, no, having more pixels than my 40D or even my 20D isn't going to IMPROVE my photography...but it would give me more flexibility with what my organization can DO with my photos.
Full frame (35 mm) is nice, especially for appropriate wide angle shots...and their ability to work better at higher ISO (which is helpful for photographing rescues and the animals in lower light/in barns/etc w/o flash). I've played with a Mark II and loved it.
I'm at a place where I really need two cameras. I've gummed up my lenses and my camera sensor too much by having to remove and change in the field. Having two cameras is great when I'm outdoors trying to get a landscape and a portrait of an excited calf, kicking up dirt.
I have a sad little Rebel, but can't justify upgrading because I just take pictures for fun. I did get a new lens, which I'm trying to convince myself is the main thing. My camera is still good - how many megapixels do I need?! Am I going to blow pictures up to poster size?! - I just need more lenses... Except the lenses I want are way too expensive...
And the saddest thing? I take the most pictures these days with my crappy cell phone camera, because it's there and handy. :/
I like the Rebel. If you're taking photos for fun, there isn't a reason to upgrade. Better to invest in functional prime lenses than more expensive bodies.
One of my favorite lenses is a cheap-o 50mm f/1.8 plastic Canon lens. It was only a $100. I use it all the time.
Comments 8
Are you sure? I've got a Canon 40D, which is pretty damn old these days, and I can't see a single thing I'd like to upgrade about it. Well, except that I'd quite like one that takes videos. So maybe I've just ruined my own point.
Reply
I have the EOS 40D and 20D. I'd like a full frame camera (I miss that) and I'd like more megapixels and I'd like HD video. So the EOS 6D and better are what I want, but not what I can afford right now.
I still love my cameras, but I don't feel film cameras advanced annually the way digital ones seem to do...which could be seen as either positive or negative! :)
Reply
More pixels? REALLY? I've NEVER missed having more pixels on my 40D. (I've also got a 50D but I prefer the 40D.) All the reviews I've read say that more pixels give you no improvement in image quality at all unless you've got a $5,000 lens. As for full frame, I'll have to take your word for that. And I do understand wanting video.
If you sold both your 40D and your 20D, that would just about pay for a second-hand 7D (APS-C + video), which is what I'm aiming for.
Reply
For most of my what I do, no, having more pixels than my 40D or even my 20D isn't going to IMPROVE my photography...but it would give me more flexibility with what my organization can DO with my photos.
Full frame (35 mm) is nice, especially for appropriate wide angle shots...and their ability to work better at higher ISO (which is helpful for photographing rescues and the animals in lower light/in barns/etc w/o flash). I've played with a Mark II and loved it.
I'm at a place where I really need two cameras. I've gummed up my lenses and my camera sensor too much by having to remove and change in the field. Having two cameras is great when I'm outdoors trying to get a landscape and a portrait of an excited calf, kicking up dirt.
I'll get there someday.
Reply
And the saddest thing? I take the most pictures these days with my crappy cell phone camera, because it's there and handy. :/
Reply
Reply
One of my favorite lenses is a cheap-o 50mm f/1.8 plastic Canon lens. It was only a $100. I use it all the time.
Reply
Leave a comment