Getting off the tread mill.

[Eric Rose]

I will not be buying a new digital camera until they make them sensor upgradeable. If my D700 bites the dust I will look for a used one to replace it. They can dangle all the shiny goodies they want in front of me. They might even get me somewhat excited, but I've become to jaded to be swayed enough to plunk down my hard earned cash for the latest wundercrap.

I can upgrade the processor in my computer, why not a new sensor in a camera? I'm sure it can be done. My D700 is built like a tank. I don't see it failing any faster than say an F5 or F6.

 

[OzJohn]

I will not be buying a new digital camera until they make them sensor upgradeable. If my D700 bites the dust I will look for a used one to replace it. They can dangle all the shiny goodies they want in front of me. They might even get me somewhat excited, but I've become to jaded to be swayed enough to plunk down my hard earned cash for the latest wundercrap.

I can upgrade the processor in my computer, why not a new sensor in a camera? I'm sure it can be done. My D700 is built like a tank. I don't see it failing any faster than say an F5 or F6.

Better buy up a few D700s Eric because it ain't gonna happen. Apart from the marketing aspect of continually releasing new cameras, not only the imaging chip would have to be replaced but also most of the support chips. I think it has to be remembered that digital technology is evolving much more rapidly than film ever did but I do relate to the frustration with so many "new" models many of which are not that much better than the last one. Solution is to update infrequently when some real improvements have been made. A good example is comparing the D700 to a D200 - the D700 is worth every penny - not necessarily so with the D800 over the D700 unless you really need the huge pixel count as I do for a few things. Enjoy your 700 - a mighty fine camera indeed. OzJohn

 

[L Gebhardt]

I agree with OzJohn, it isn't going to happen. And I really don't want it to either. It doesn't take much time to adjust to a new camera, so when I finally need a new one I have no issue just buying a new one and selling off the old one for 50% of what I paid for it.

You won't save any money this way, but go for a medium format system that uses digital backs. Then you can keep the body and just upgrade the sensor and sensor electronics.

 

[Pioneer]

I am in your camp eric rose. I started thinking about this in 2012 and have not bought another digital since then. I can't say it has really bothered me all that much. I have not thought much about sensor upgrades similar to computer process chip upgrades. Like Larry I am not sure that will happen with digital SLRs, though if camera sales continue to drop it may come up as an option as camera manufacturers cast about for ways to reduce cost. However, if it does happen, I think it is more likely to be part of the professional camera market like the Canon 1Ds or the Nikon D3/4 series of cameras. And it will almost certainly be very high priced to buy the camera in the first place.

 

[Eric Rose]

I realize it will probably never happen, but I am so sick and tired of all the crap "upgrades" Nikon/Canon launch expecting people to get all sweaty about. The price of micro 4/3 cameras is outrageous! No wonder sales figures are going down.

 

[Pioneer]

I do agree with that. Like you and everyone else I have watched the upgrade progression get faster and faster. First it was important to upgrade because of increased megapixels, then it became higher ISO and better dynamic range. Now it seems that everyone is trying to jump on the retro bandwagon. There is always some technical reason you need another camera.

Interestingly though, technical image quality is rarely the primary reason that an image is successful. It can be nice for sure if that technical quality is a necessary contributing factor, but even then I think people credit it with more importance then it deserves. IMHO a clear personal vision of what you want to accomplish and a real deep understanding your equipment is more important.

 

[John_M_King]

Just over 18 month ago my desktop computer decided that it was too cold and the hard drive caught fire!!! I jest not!!! I had to replace the computer and like last time opted for a custom made device but try as I may I could not locate a new Windows XP disc to work the operating system. So had to - reluctantly use Windows 7. This automatically meant my current printer, graphics tablet and my Nikon Scanner would not work. So More cost! I didn't know at the time that there were ways around getting the Scanner to work.

I have since bought a used but refurbished laptop which has Windows XP professional installed and I find it far more user friendly than the version 7, and don't get me started on Windows 8 which my partner has on her laptop. - What an absolute dogs dinner! So newer doesn't automatically mean better.

 

[John_M_King]

I do agree with that. Like you and everyone else I have watched the upgrade progression get faster and faster. First it was important to upgrade because of increased megapixels, then it became higher ISO and better dynamic range. Now it seems that everyone is trying to jump on the retro bandwagon. There is always some technical reason you need another camera.

Interestingly though, technical image quality is rarely the primary reason that an image is successful. It can be nice for sure if that technical quality is a necessary contributing factor, but even then I think people credit it with more importance then it deserves. IMHO a clear personal vision of what you want to accomplish and a real deep understanding your equipment is more important.

Is it a technical reason? Or is it the sales of the cameras, or whatever is being upgraded are needing a revamp so that the accountants are kept happy. It is all down to money and errrrr.......Corporate greed.

All these trillions of pixels; are they really needed? Not for a minute! I still occasionally use my old (by digital standards) D100 and an A4 size print from that and an identical image from my D300 with twice the number of pixels are indistinguishable. The coulors may differ slightly and so will the Dynamic range but very little else.

So would you be able to tell that an average photographer used a camera with 6 or 16 million pixels because the images are very rarely enlarged to their full potential for most of the time. I feel there is an optimum number of pixels for each sensor size and overcrowding the sensor will not relate back in any visible improvement of the image. Without any scientific background to support this, I would suggest for a DX size sensor 14 to 16 is about the max number needed and for a 'full frame' about 20 to 24 Million pixels will prove the optimum before overcrowding becomes a hindrance to better quality. I may be wrong but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I realize it will probably never happen, but I am so sick and tired of all the crap "upgrades" Nikon/Canon launch expecting people to get all sweaty about. The price of micro 4/3 cameras is outrageous! No wonder sales figures are going down.

New ones are way over priced, but if you can wait there are good deals out there on new old stock models and barely used cameras being sold so someone can upgrade to the latest. It's actually a decent time to be a consumer.

 

[L Gebhardt]

So would you be able to tell that an average photographer used a camera with 6 or 16 million pixels because the images are very rarely enlarged to their full potential for most of the time. I feel there is an optimum number of pixels for each sensor size and overcrowding the sensor will not relate back in any visible improvement of the image. Without any scientific background to support this, I would suggest for a DX size sensor 14 to 16 is about the max number needed and for a 'full frame' about 20 to 24 Million pixels will prove the optimum before overcrowding becomes a hindrance to better quality. I may be wrong but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My opinion is different. If you are just talking about image quality the sensor generation has more to do with the quality than the pixel pitch, or MP count for a size. So I think you will get a technically better image from a 36MP D800 vs the 12MP D300, even at the pixel level. I have seen that enough to know it's true between those two cameras. There is much less difference between the D7000 and the D800, but it's still there. I expect the 56MP D900 to surpass the quality of the D800, despite the larger pixel count.

 

[Pioneer]

Think of a couple of your favorite pictures taken by photographers that you admire. Do you care if that picture had been taken with an 11 megapixel Canon or a 36 megapixel Nikon? Do you even think about what camera was even used when looking at these pictures?

For myself I don't even think about it. I know intellectually that Dorothea Lange most commonly shot 4x5 sheet film, but when I am looking at Migrant Mother, or other pictures she took it doesn't even enter my mind.

I do think that many of us are far too concerned with the technical end of photography because the camera manufacturers have repeatedly stressed in their advertisements that some technical aspect of their product is essential to taking memorable pictures. This is the trap in my mind and it has gone on so long that it has almost become dogma, even among a lot of professionals.

To me it is different. If you can achieve your personal vision and take the picture you see in your minds eye with your current camera, why buy another? Now everyone certainly has the right to do, and buy, anything they want. But most of the buying is happening because it is the newest thing. It is better than what I bought last year. It really has nothing to do with whether they need that smoother rendition from that 36 megapixel camera to achieve their personal vision.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I agree with you. For the longest time digital cameras felt limiting, where as now the D800E I have is good enough for almost any task I throw at it. Of course so is the 4x5 film camera and the 5x7 and the Hasselblad, etc. But up until I got the D7000 I felt the DSLRs were too limited. I went with the D800E as much for choice of lenses available for FX as for the resolution and pixel quality. I probably won't upgrade again until the D800E breaks or Nikon comes out with a better way of using manual focus lenses. There are many Zeiss lenses that look great, but without autofocus they are almost useless with the provided focus screen (I have a new one from Focusing Screen, but the jury is still out on that) for anything other than tripod work.

 

[rknewcomb]

I'm weary enough of pixels, software, which printer inks to use etc. that I'm thinking about just sticking to film.
Seems simpler in many ways.

 

[John_M_King]

Duplicate posting - sorry!

 

[John_M_King]

Treadmill

Larry, I would go along with your argument but out of all the digital camera users out there, how many ever use the instrument to it's maximum. Even my D300 would/will give a sharp image when the print is enlarged to A3 size. I would say without any reason to doubt this, but the VAST majority of digital users very very rarely enlarge more than 5 x 7 or the equivalent A5. A lot of people are being duped into parting with their cash for no good reason.

By boasting that camera 'A' has X times million pixels whilst camera 'B' has 10% less they are fooling folk into thinking they will get better pictures if they use camera 'B'. The vast majority of users out there only want family pictures and don't really care so long as their A5 prints are sharp and moderately clear.

The main problem with unsharp pictures in the days when film was the king and now, with digital is the old bogie of camera shake. You can have 100 million pixels, but if the operator wobbles about when taking the picture it is going to be unsharp and rubbish quality. The anti shake technology in some cameras and lenses and 'unsharp mask' in Photoshop isn't going to help a great deal either.

 

[L Gebhardt]

John, it's not mainly the resolution that I find impressive now, but the dynamic range and clean shadows. I really liked my D300 and found it an excellent camera that printed very well up to 13x19. But the D800 is noticeably cleaner in the shadows and seems to have better dynamic range (possibly because I shot the D300 in 12bit more to get more than 2 frames per second).

I would upgrade in a minute to get a D800E with built in stabilization like the new Olympus systems. They really are very good. But at least with the D800 you can use the auto ISO system (since it can be biased to give you fast shutter speeds). Coupled with clean sensor it sort of works as a stabilizer system for most of my handheld shots. That's where I find it a big advantage over the D300 and D7000. Also, remember that the camera shake blurs the image the same amount between all the cameras if the print size is the same and the angle of view of the lens is the same. So a higher MP camera isn't any more limited in this regard.

 

[John_M_King]

I have never had a problem with shadows or highlights that I couldn't sort out with using RAW after processing but then I do prefer film and that has a greater range than I recon most digital. I have mono negatives going back almost 50 years that are still fully printable and colour one that are close to 25 years old likewise. I don't have to upgrade my equipment for them, in fact I relish in the idea that I have been able to do so at a relatively little cost when compared to digital which is largely what this topic was all about.

 

[analoguey]

I will not be buying a new digital camera until they make them sensor upgradeable. If my D700 bites the dust I will look for a used one to replace it. They can dangle all the shiny goodies they want in front of me. They might even get me somewhat excited, but I've become to jaded to be swayed enough to plunk down my hard earned cash for the latest wundercrap.

I can upgrade the processor in my computer, why not a new sensor in a camera? I'm sure it can be done. My D700 is built like a tank. I don't see it failing any faster than say an F5 or F6.

There aren't any custom built cameras out there, unlike Computers. Dell obliviously made a hell of a deal starting so, but now pretty much everyone gravitating towards portable - smaller - computers, I don't think there's much possibility of upgrades in the near future.

Also, computers are built to be upgraded cos enterprises need them to be and not obsolete in 2 years - which essentially means there's a large built-in market for steady supply and upgrades.

Cameras are a consumer toy. Like smartphones, the only upgrade is a new body - was the same even 50 years ago when film was the medium of capture.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[analoguey]

Larry, I would go along with your argument but out of all the digital camera users out there, how many ever use the instrument to it's maximum. Even my D300 would/will give a sharp image when the print is enlarged to A3 size. I would say without any reason to doubt this, but the VAST majority of digital users very very rarely enlarge more than 5 x 7 or the equivalent A5. A lot of people are being duped into parting with their cash for no good reason.

By boasting that camera 'A' has X times million pixels whilst camera 'B' has 10% less they are fooling folk into thinking they will get better pictures if they use camera 'B'. The vast majority of users out there only want family pictures and don't really care so long as their A5 prints are sharp and moderately clear.

The main problem with unsharp pictures in the days when film was the king and now, with digital is the old bogie of camera shake. You can have 100 million pixels, but if the operator wobbles about when taking the picture it is going to be unsharp and rubbish quality. The anti shake technology in some cameras and lenses and 'unsharp mask' in Photoshop isn't going to help a great deal either.

I don't think it's as easy as saying having the best camera /film works - the printer needs to be good too. There are enough printers out there who happily mess up color which means good files which can be printed well get made into horrible images - I have been at the receiving end of some such 'efforts'!
A lot of emphasis is on the camera and very little on the rest of the workflow - backups, prints or any image management! And also the processing horsepower needed to process larger n larger files!


Having said that if someone offered a way like with MFDBs of just upgrading the processor system or capturing system for 35mm -that would be wonderful! (and I'd be really happy to use) -but only the chip-makers would make money, what about the camera makers? Anyhow, if people didn't want upgrades -we'd all shoot same bodies as 1900s ones and camera companies wouldn't exist anymore!

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[wfe]

I used my first DSLR for six years before upgrading. It's now my backup and I still use it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Iwas happy with my D200but upgraded to the D700because I wanted full framethen to the D800becaue, I could not resist the temptation of 36Mp. Now, I havr reached the point where the camera is a better camera than I am a photographer.So, no more upgrades unless it is something dramatic or someone comes up with an affordable digiback for my 501c.