Do I Really Need To Spend $1000

[smkymtns]

My answer. It depends. All of the responses so far make good points but for me one thing that differs between a low-end DSLR and a upper-end/pro body is access to functions. You can access most of the same functions on a low-end DSLR as on more expensive models but most require you to wade through menus which I find time consuming and tedious. On the higher-end cameras you can access almost all of the necessary functions through a button, switch or dial on the body. This can be a big time saver and make taking pictures more enjoyable rather than a chore. But I still use my D50 with the 18-200mm over my D2X when I want to travel light. You will always find cameras that have better, faster, whatever features but what it boils down to is a camera is a camera. I would vote for a more inexpensive body with a kit lens and you can spend the difference in price on better glass.

pat

 

[nwoods]

I think one of the considerations with the better camera is that your shot percentage of "keepers" goes way up with a nicer SLR. Also, they are way faster in turning on and being ready to snap the image (great if you have kids), and certainly the are extremely power efficient so batteries last far longer, which increases their usefullness. But all this pales compared to the ability to mount a high quality piece of glass and capture the shot you've always wanted, be it wide angle, high speed pano, long exposure night shots, etc....

I have a Canon G10, it takes amazing photos and the sensor is way better than my older Canon 20D, but I consistently get better shots with the 20D mounted to a few respectable lenses.

 

[The-Aperture]

The Canon 5D's strength is not only in ISO abilities, but dynamic range. Take this shot for example. It would be hard to capture the detail involved with just any body.

Really? The EXIF says that was taken with a G9, not a 5D.... It's not exactly highlighting the dynamic range of the G9 all that well either...

 

[Lost Canadian]

... I asked myself why in the world do I need to spend $8000, $4000, $2000 or even $1000 for a new camera.

As it pertains to outdoor adventure and travel, a good camera does make a difference but not in the way you may immediately think. I'll point you towards the comments made today by Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape, which actually made me think of this thread for some reason. On returning from his trip to Argentina/Antarctica with 77 other photographers he posted a camera casualty list.

In a summary session on the last day at the Peninsula I asked everyone to report on any equipment failures. Here's the tally.

The top LCD on a 5D MKII spontaneously cracked; Another 5D MKII had a jambed on lens caused by a loose screw, a 1Ds MKIII reported intermittent problems; a 1D MKIII kept reporting Error 99; one Hasselblad reported electronic lens connection problems; two Canon G9's failed (no G10s had any reported problems), and a Nikon 80-400mm lens came apart. No Nikon bodies (mostly D700s) failed in any way.

The largest group of failures though were among the Canon 5D MKIIs. Of the 26 samples of this camera onboard, one quarter (six) failed at one time or another, and while three recovered, the other three never did. In all cases it appeared to be water or humidity damage. Of particular concern were two cameras which stopped working while completely protected within Kata rain covers during a light rain ashore. They came back to life the following day though and were mostly fine for the rest of the trip, but one died permenently just before the end of our voyage.

Several people noted that when returning to the ship after working in light rain 5D MKIIs with vertical battery grips tended to collect water in between the grip and the base – something that may have been the cause of some of the failures.

I should note that the 5D MKII's are not rated as weather resistant, but then neither are the Sony A900's. I deliberately allowed both of my A900 bodies be exposed to the rain for two days ashore to see how they would stand up. There were no operational difficulties. I also have used the Sonys back here in Toronto in snow storms, (unprotected), both before and after the Antarctic trip, with no ill effects. Though also not claimed as weather sealed, they appear to be as well protected as any other camera I've ever used.

As for the failed Canon 5D MKIIs, I hope that expedition members will report back to me with what Canon service has to say about what happened to them. As for the loaner that we had, Canon says that it was a unit that had been in circulation for testing prior to coming my way and it might have suffered some water damage previously.

I don't know what conclusions should be drawn from this high percentage of 5D MKII failures. All I can do is report on the facts of the matter. As for the weather during which most of the failures happened, it was no worse than a drizzly day in winter in New York or Berlin. Nothing Antarctic about it at all.

Now keep in mind these are pro and semi pro bodies not plastic, unsealed units. If a good group of the better bodies suffered issues I can only imagine what would happen if the lesser models were placed into the same situations. Of course you don't need a big, heavy, pro body to take great pictures, but if travel, particularly outdoor travel and recreation are of interest to you, a better body may be worth the added investment.

 

[nwoods]

My friend and his wife actually went to Antartica onboard a National Geographic research vessel and took some amazing photos. I asked him a question about the challenges of the weather conditions with respect to the equipment. Here is his answer and related photo that really says it all:

> In that environment, especially with swirling snow, was changing
> lenses a challenge? Did you run into any temperature issues with your batteries?

Yes, and Yes. The rule was, pick a lens and stick with it. Clean lenses
every chance you get. I shot the 70-200 sometimes with a 1.4x and then a
16-35 or a 35-70 on the second body. Darcy shot the Rebel or our point
and shoot. We both had two cameras on us at all times. Batteries became
the issue for the Rebel (as well as water intrusion, and vaporing).
I had no issues with the 1D's on any count save one. Had a lens not seated (clicked on) and gave an error code. I didn't know why, so didn't want to reset for fear of killing the pics on the card, waited to get back to the ship, and it was a simple fix. Hard to tell when your bundled up, shooting with gloves, wind and snow in the face, a viewfinder fogged up with snow in it.... I LOVED EVERY MINUTE!

some of his images:

 

[bajasurf]

As it pertains to outdoor adventure and travel, a good camera does make a difference but not in the way you may immediately think. I'll point you towards the comments made today by Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape, which actually made me think of this thread for some reason. On returning from his trip to Argentina/Antarctica with 77 other photographers he posted a camera casualty list.



Now keep in mind these are pro and semi pro bodies not plastic, unsealed units. If a good group of the better bodies suffered issues I can only imagine what would happen if the lesser models were placed into the same situations. Of course you don't need a big, heavy, pro body to take great pictures, but if travel, particularly outdoor travel and recreation are of interest to you, a better body may be worth the added investment.

I also liked this observation from Michael: " My guess though is that I had 50% more gear with me than I needed to,"

When I was in my 20´s and went to Hawaii every year I took 2 boards with me. One was a 9´4" for riding Haleiwa, Chuns, Pipeline or many of the small breaks on the North Shore. Then I had my 10´10" Gun for Sunset, Laniakea, and of course Waimea. My clothing wear consisted of what I could fit in a Pam Am flight bag. Usually a few Jacobs Surfboards T-Shirts and whatever I was wearing when I got on the plane. First stop was the Haleiwa store to have a new pair of custom made surf trunks made. Had to have the heavy canvas so when I slipped them off they would stand up on their own like a fireman´s boots. Now that I am much older I find myself that a ¨Less is Best¨ attitude again has many rewards.

 

[esh]

Pic got changed. So much for external linking...

 

[bigreen505]

why in the world do I need to spend $8000, $4000, $2000 or even $1000 for a new camera.

http://www.abqstyle.com

If you have to ask, you clearly don't.

 

[7wt]

If you have to ask, you clearly don't.

That sums it up completely.

 

[Scenic WonderRunner]

I visited photographer David Peterson´s site this morning and after viewing his awesome photos taken with a Nikon D40 and KIT LENS(which can now be bought for around $400) I asked myself why in the world do I need to spend $8000, $4000, $2000 or even $1000 for a new camera. I invite you to visit his site and the photos presented are recent.

http://www.abqstyle.com

Thank You for asking!

It's Really OK to ask! No Question....is a dumb question!

I'm kinda new to digital. I bought my first digital a couple of years ago. It's a Fuji Finepix S5200. All the pics you see me post are done with that camera. I got a great deal online at just over $200 bucks including shipping and no tax! Dude Sweet! I see they are now even selling for more, several years later! What's up wit dat?

I'm perfectly happy with my $200 purchase....while I sit and wait for prices to come down. I may upgrade one day. But I am patient, and have no problem waiting for the right deal. And my waiting gives me more time to study up on my next best deal!



Best of Luck!.....:beer:



Fuji FinePix S5200 .........Meets Sedona and the Mogollon Rim!

.

 

[Zorro]

You need an SLR. Save on the body and invest in glass. Remember you can rent lenses. It's dirt cheap (around 30$ for the weekend for a 2500$ lens) and lets you try out many different setups and see what you actually use/need.

Don't get me wrong, I have gotten some great great shots with a simple bridge (Canon G5 and sony R1), but an SLR is just another league. Slap on a super wide angle and the landscape shots blow your mind. Quality zoom and you can shoot concerts or wildlife ... you can't do that with a P&S or a Bridge.

FWIW, I defy anyone to replicate the the Antarctica shots with a Point&Shoot. I just do not see it happening.

Also, do not underestimate the power of the Photoshop. Post-editing is very important, and enhances the photography ... of course, overdoing is also a risk.
SWR, hope you don't mind, I had to have a whack at your pic ...

Oh, and obviously ... some people can have 50 grand worth of gear and still come up with lame results. You have to sort of know what you're doing, and have the eye for the right composition.

As to why spending thousands on camera gear ... I'd say because every so often you come up with shots worth framing.
Oh and also because you can actually get paid to shoot events and it pays the gear in no time.

 

[Scenic WonderRunner]

Yes it was a very hazy day.

And.....

No .......I don't doctor my pics.

I take it the way it is......

and I share it.

I don't have photoshop.....and don't even know if I would know how to use it if I had it. I'm a computer dum dum! You are lucky, you can read me right now!.....LOL:elkgrin:

Thanks for the kewl correction...though! Dude! Sweet!




.

 

[bajasurf]

If you have to ask, you clearly don't.

I probably should have added to my question " when I can wait 6 months and buy the camera body for 35 to 50% less than today,s price." Just as I posted about the Canon 20D being for sale at Luminous Landscape for $350 with a great lens. Wasn´t the 20D around $1500 without lens when it first came out and I believe the lens included in this sale was $2000 new. So instead of paying $3500 new I could have picked up this camera for $350. Now that I bought a mint Nikon N90s with lens for $105 that leaves me $3400 to buy film and have it processed. B&H sells rolls of Fuji(36 exposures) for $2 so I will buy 1000 rolls for $2000 and have 240 CD´s ( maybe more or less) burned at my local Costco( Ensenada) over time. That´s 36,000 photos and I am sure I can sell my N90s for close to what I paid. If not, I only have $105 in the camera. Isn´t a 35mm camera considered " Full Frame"?

 

[Zorro]

SWR, you're welcome. I'm the opposite ... I never post an un-edited picture. Call me a geek.:elkgrin:
For these kind of shots, a polarizer would do wonders ... maybe they exist for your camera.

bajasurf, you're optimistic here. I got a used 40D (6 months old) for 15% off msrp, and it was a decent deal. However you are correct that even the older cameras can be a good deal and still produce very nice pics. Heck I have a 36x24 poster shot with a 10D!

In the end, it depends on your needs. I did not get a 20D because I shoot sports indoors and needed the better high ISO management and faster burst ... if it was only outdoors photography, a 20D could've been just fine.
And yup, film cameras are full frame, much the bigger models, 5D or nikon D3 (I think ... not familiar with Nikon lineup).

As for digital/film, it's a matter of preference ... but I just can't do without the instant review screen and pretty much free shooting. I was at an amateur boxing event yesterday ... took around 1200 pics ... it would suck to have those processed every other day. I've had my camera for a month or 2 now and must've taken 10k pictures already ... uh-oh.
Plus last time I shot film and had the pics digitalized, the quality was sub-par at best ...

 

[bajasurf]

SWR, you're welcome. I'm the opposite ... I never post an un-edited picture. Call me a geek.:elkgrin:
For these kind of shots, a polarizer would do wonders ... maybe they exist for your camera.

bajasurf, you're optimistic here. I got a used 40D (6 months old) for 15% off msrp, and it was a decent deal. However you are correct that even the older cameras can be a good deal and still produce very nice pics. Heck I have a 36x24 poster shot with a 10D!

In the end, it depends on your needs. I did not get a 20D because I shoot sports indoors and needed the better high ISO management and faster burst ... if it was only outdoors photography, a 20D could've been just fine.
And yup, film cameras are full frame, much the bigger models, 5D or nikon D3 (I think ... not familiar with Nikon lineup).

As for digital/film, it's a matter of preference ... but I just can't do without the instant review screen and pretty much free shooting. I was at an amateur boxing event yesterday ... took around 1200 pics ... it would suck to have those processed every other day. I've had my camera for a month or 2 now and must've taken 10k pictures already ... uh-oh.
Plus last time I shot film and had the pics digitalized, the quality was sub-par at best ...

Thanks for the reply. I am attaching a photo I took with the N90s with Fuji Superia 400 film that was at least 3 years old and had been sitting in a desk drawer. I scanned the negative on a HP flat bed scanner model Scanjet 4370( far from being a high end scanner). The photo is by no stretch of the imagination a ¨good¨shot. I didn´t post process or do any manipulation except to re size and a small cropping.