# When will a given camera be obsolete?



## Msteelio91 (Jan 5, 2017)

Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens? I still use my now 7 year old D7000 which shoots at a max of 4928 x 3264. Still pretty good but once you start cropping you start to dip below the resolution of some monitors. I'm wondering if there's a formula here for figuring out at which point a camera is unable to meet the "stretch" of say a 50" 4k screen. 

It's also possible I'm looking at this totally wrong but I'd like to hear what you all think


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 5, 2017)

I think that really is a personal thing.

If for instance you only care about your photos being displayed on the most modern top of the line screens, you'll be buying a new camera every 4-5 years minimum. Most people probably don't own a 50" 4k monitor that they look at photos on so until that becomes the norm I's say anything in the last 10 year should do reasonable well.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 5, 2017)

when you stop using it


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2017)

Msteelio9 said:
			
		

> Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens? I still use my now 7 year old D7000 which shoots at a max of 4928 x 3264. Still pretty good but once you start cropping you start to dip below the resolution of some monitors. I'm wondering if there's a formula here for figuring out at which point a camera is unable to meet the "stretch" of say a 50" 4k screen.
> 
> It's also possible I'm looking at this totally wrong but I'd like to hear what you all think



It depends on the camera, the user, and the uses for the photos. OLD digital cameras like 1.5 to 4 MP models...that shoot only JPEG...not the best these days.

I dunno...the Nikon D2x is now 11 years old. At BASE ISO of 100, with studio flash, it is still usable. The dynamic range is easily bettered by newer, cheaper cameras, but the files can be up-rezzed, and the original D2x Color looks were carried forward by Nikon and other developers. 12.2 megapixels on APS-C. Crappy at over ISO 400. I still use it for my eBay pics. Works GREAT!

Canon 5D Classic: 12.8 MP. Very nice sensor for its era, still usable image quality wise, but the AF is slowish for sports. Still a viable portrait and general use camera. 11,12 years old now...

Nikon D3x: 24 MP on FX...still a great imager...not quite as good of a FILE as the D600,D610,or D750, but a much better camera body and viewfinder than any of those ever had...Released years ago, in 2009...still a great "shooter", with incredible battery life.

Canon 5D-II. Obsoleted by two three newer models, but still very usable.

Nikon D90: lot of features, but the image sensor is definitely nowhere as good as newer cameras.

Cropping a 16-MP D7000...Jeezis...I sold newspaper sports images shot on a 4.2 MP D1h...and I would crop a bit if I needed to. And that is the real issue: MOST images will be seen way below the shooting resolution, as 900-pixel tall verticals, or 2,400 wide max width JPEG images smushed down to 300k...so...we're right back to 4.2 MP being fine.

The older the camera, and the crappier it was, the more likely it'll be obsoleted by newer models--but being "obsolete" does not make a thing useless. Just as a 1955 Chevy is "obsolete", or a '67 Mustang is "obsolete", they can still be useful as cars. The issue you raise is pixel-peeping, on a big monitor. People now see many (most?) images on smart phones. The issue you seem to be bringing up is, specifically a *50 inch 4k screen*.

Not sure what peoples' expectations are on that, and it might vary quite a bit. My kid HATES to watch 480p video on YouTube. I dunno...I can handle that. I think "newer screens" depends on the viewer, and the exact size of the screen.  And you are not taking into consideration the easy up-rezzing of images, and working on them HUGE...this can be done pretty easily, and was done a lot, a decade ago.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 5, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> when you stop using it



Yuuuup!


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 5, 2017)

I am still using 75 year old cameras on a regular basis so I don't really hold with the concept of obsolescence.
My 75 year old cameras use 120 film so they will be obsolete when I can no longer get the film, I suppose.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 5, 2017)

Msteelio91 said:


> Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens?


 For photographs printed on paper, not viewed on a screen, the screen will never be relevant.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 5, 2017)

My D500 shots 4k video.  So perfect for that 4k TV.  All other cameras, I suppose, are technologically obsolete, though that doesn't mean that they don't still function perfectly fine.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 5, 2017)

I still run film through my 108-year-old Kodak 3A...... even though it takes 122 film that was discontinued in 1972.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2017)

What is the _appropriate viewing distance_ for a 50 inch wide image? This is an old,technical photographic term that was used in the calculation of Circle of Confusion and Depth of Field for printed images, decades ago. 

Surely the appropriate viewing distance for a 50 inch wide image is at least 10 feet, so...considering human eyesight, I really do not think the requirements are "all that" strenuous. I don't feel like researching this. But consider that at the appropriate viewing distance for a huge, roadside billboard, the pixels per inch needed to make a SHARP-appearing image are vastly lower than for a really crisp 8x10 inch print held in the hands.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 5, 2017)

People tell me my Nikon FM and Pentax SP-1000 are obsolete but they keep taking pictures.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 5, 2017)

There are some people who mis-use the word "obsolete" to refer to "there is better technology available."  My take is that modern cameras are always capable of doing more than you need them to do--we almost never (even pros) maximize all capabilities of a modern DSLR.  So for me, being "obsolete" is not about if there is better technology out there.

I would argue that your camera is obsolete when:
1.  It doesn't work and you need to replace it.
2.  When it can't do what you want it to do.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 5, 2017)

Like everything else, they are obsolete as soon as you buy it.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 5, 2017)

Definition is everything...
ob·so·lete
ˌäbsəˈlēt/
_adjective_

*1*. 
no longer produced or used; out of date.
"the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"
synonyms: outdated, out of date, outmoded, old-fashioned, démodé, passé, out of fashion; More. 
BIOLOGY
(of a part or characteristic of an organism) less developed than formerly or in a related species; rudimentary; vestigial.
_verb_
US

*1*. 
cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new.
"we're trying to stimulate the business by obsoleting last year's designs"


----------



## KmH (Jan 6, 2017)

Most sources #1 definition of obsolete is - No longer in use, or no longer useful.
Based on that pretty much any camera, film or digital, that still works is not yet obsolete.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm obsolete, then.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jan 6, 2017)

When we start printing space billboards that can be seen from the ground most modern 36MP cameras will be obsolete.... 

People are still shooting wet plate stuff, I still use my Hasselblad 500C/M all the time, so maybe stuff is never obsolete just less useful and far more cumbersome by comparison than it once was... 

Digital is a game of screen resolution vs camera resolution. As we shove more pixels on a display we demand more pixels in the cameras we create the content with. In reality you can make great prints (and some say photography is really all about the printing) with 12MP cameras. The 24MP you find in even the lowest of Nikon stuff makes beautiful 8x10's when in reality most people are using it to take photos for Instagram that people look at on a 2 inch screen.... 

Regards 
Dave


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2017)

I use sunshine every day that was generated deep in the core of the sun anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 years ago.


----------



## runnah (Jan 6, 2017)

June 3rd, 2021


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2017)

runnah said:


> June 3rd, 2021




What time?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2017)

I like the word "*obsolescen*t" for things like old-fashioned models and types and forms of things, like say hay rakes, hay mowers, tractors, cars, trucks, wood-fired ovens, cameras, refrigerators, freezers, rifles, handguns, hand tools, and so on. Not "obsolete" as in the sense of_ no longer capable to do the job  hey were designed to do_, and not_ no longer of any usefulnes_s.


----------



## Rick50 (Jan 6, 2017)

480sparky said:


> I'm obsolete, then.


Me too!

My Canon 60D became obsolete the day the new 80D showed up. But that only applies to me as I'm giving it to a friend who will make it un-obsolete. I remember when girlfriends worked this way.


----------



## bogeyguy (Jan 6, 2017)

Why would I want to view my photo's on a 50" screen/monitor??


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 6, 2017)

So you can see the individual pixels and make sure they are tack sharp.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 6, 2017)

Obsolescence is a state of mind in my opinion.  As long as something still does what I want it do do it isn't obsolete to me.  This tends to correspond with Wikipedia's definition of obsolescence:

*Obsolescence* is the state of being which occurs when an object, service, or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2017)

Rick50 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I'm obsolete, then.
> ...



No... *I *am obsolete... not my gear!


----------



## Bebulamar (Jan 7, 2017)

Something is obsolete if it's not broken yet it can not be used.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 9, 2017)

A camera is called a camera because it can take pictures. The moment a camera loses that ability and it cannot be restored its objectively obsolete.

Subjectively obsolete is a camera if you think you are better off with another model. But fortunately others might disagree. Thats why theres a used market.





JoeW said:


> There are some people who mis-use the word "obsolete" to refer to "there is better technology available."


 Why, if thats the case, the Sony 54x40.5mm 100 Megapixel Sensor has clearly made all other cameras obsolete.

I hope everybody here has the money for a Hasselblad H6D-100c and a couple Hasselblad HCD lenses. Or the Phase One/Mamiya/Schneider Optics alternatives. For who wants to be obsolete ? Even less with photography !


----------



## nerwin (Jan 9, 2017)

When the camera starts to limits your creativity. Or well, it just stops working. 

Are old 35mm film cameras obsolete? heck no! They still make 35mm film today! 

You want something that is _really _obsolete? Checking out the Sony Mavica where the images are recorded on a floppy disk. That is obsolete because no one has/uses a dang floppy drive anymore!


----------



## Msteelio91 (Jan 9, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> So you can see the individual pixels and make sure they are tack sharp.



Lol

I like what a lot of you guys have said about it being obsolete when your creativity is limited or you can no longer do what you want with it. I feel that in some ways I've hit that point with the D7k and in other ways I haven't. Low light performance sucks massive rocks, but overall the camera still offers pretty sharp shots with the right lenses. That said, it would be really nice to have that extra "wiggle room" a higher-rez sensor would provide.


----------



## nerwin (Jan 10, 2017)

Msteelio91 said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > So you can see the individual pixels and make sure they are tack sharp.
> ...



I used my D7000 so much that the buttons literally started falling off. Haha. 

I thought the low-light performance was really good.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Msteelio91 said:
			
		

> I like what a lot of you guys have said about it being obsolete when your creativity is limited or you can no longer do what you want with it. I feel that in some ways I've hit that point with the D7k and in other ways I haven't. Low light performance sucks massive rocks, but overall the camera still offers pretty sharp shots with the right lenses. That said, it would be really nice to have that extra "wiggle room" a higher-rez sensor would provide.



Agreed on this idea, that one's camera can limit creativity or potential images that can be made. And that newer, higher-resolution sensor can offer you wiggle room (and more). I've gone from the D1, to the D1h, to the D70, D2x, and D3x in Nikon branded cameras, and had Fuji S1, S2, S5 d-slrs, and Canon 20D and Canon 5D Classic. We have advanced a long, long ways in the 18 years since the Nikon D1 was released in late 1998.

The reallllllllly major breakthrough was the shift from a camera like the Canon 5D and its somewhat narrow dynamic range, and the D3x with like 13.7 EV total dynamic range, and just a MUCH,much,much better sensor, and better electronics. Moving from 10.5 total range to 13.7 was a huuuuuge difference. And the ability to recover over-exposure with the Sony-made sensor was a game-changer.

Today? The D600, D750, D810, all of the "new-generation" Sony FX sized sensors offer astounding quality in 35mm-sized cameras. And the D7200: the sensor shows almost no pattern noise in the dark areas when a 5-Stop under-exposed raw image is *brightened up* in software. That's the major difference that I can see between the D7100, and the D7200: the newest sensors are basically ISO invariant. This is a major,major,major shift in the new Sony, Nikon, and Pentax cameras: you can now under-expose to a huge degree, to build shutter speed, or to get more DOF, or to protect briliant highlights--and then, you can "lift the shadows" to a huuuuuge level, and not have a ruined image. This. Is.The. Biggest. Advance. Of. The . Last. Decade. Achieving wide,wide scene DR through ISO invariance due to better sensors, and better in-camera electronics, and better signal processing.

This means that  the Canon 5D Mark III loses real DR to a Nikon D610 or D750, or to a Sony A7r series camera. Nikon D750 vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III | DxOMark

Compare the 5D Mark III with 11.7 maximum EV to 14.5 EV to the D750. WHO wants to throw away almost three, full EV?

I dug out the Nikon D1 last year. Ugggggh. Wow. HORRIBLE dynamic range. Awful. Low-res images, 2.7 MP. Weird color response. Truly, not a camera I want to use.


----------



## nerwin (Jan 10, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Msteelio91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still though, there are people on Flickr actively taking and sharing photos from the D1 and some of the photos are beautiful. In some ways, the D1 still outperforms today's smartphones.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2017)

Trust me...the D1 has the worst color and DR of any d-slr made since....2002. it's NOT good, and the color space is like TV 1953...does not conform to any recognixed color space, cannot handle reds or pinks very well at all (so lips and flowers look way off). Sure...it can use Nikon lenses, but it is an AWFUL imager compared to a D610...weak color, low DR, limited ISO, low razz, weak battery life. On Flickr, with processing? Sure! IN real life? Not so much...

iPhone 4 is better.

Compared to the D2x or the D3x, the original D1 is awful. Custom functions? 28 or 29 choices, all in Numbers, with A-B or A-B-C choices, no languages! You need to know how to set it up using a book, or a cheat sheet.

Sure, some of the photos can be beautiful, with processing. But it is a 2.7 MP camera. My 2004 Canon PowerShot G4 is better. My 2009 Nikon Coolpix S570 has 12 million pixel res, and wider DR and richer color.

Be aware: EVERY single file out of the original D1 needs processing, and if the sun is in the frame...forget it...it blows highlights like a ba***ard. VERY fast, very awfully....it is terrible on DR, and highlight handling. It's a  cranky camera in actual use. It is a lot like shooting 1980's color slide film. The orignal D1 has a rather narrow, small window of operation; the new Sony-sensor cameras are ALL-window.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 11, 2017)

I've been using the same 9 year old camera for portraits (a Canon 5D Classic) for about 6 years now, and have yet to find a situation in which I find my camera to be obsolete. It should be noted however that I don't plan to display my photos on a 50" 4k screen, I don't print much larger than 20", and the clients I have who expect higher resolution images from me include the cost of gear rental in my pay. I often shoot at ISO speeds above ISO 800 with my 5D Classic and noise isn't a problem for me. The dynamic range is great despite the comparisons often made with newer cameras, and I often shoot in low lighting (however since I do portrait work I'm not having to deal with some of the problems that others may face in low light conditions). Oftentimes I feel that many photographers feel that their camera is holding them back when in fact they themselves are lacking the skill in order to use their cameras to their potential, which is a lot higher than what people seem to give credit for older cameras.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 12, 2017)

Pfft ISO 800 is nothing to any full frame camera. Except maybe the Canon 5Ds (its resolution already collapses at ISO 800), Nikon D3x (sensor ends at ISO 1600), and the Leica M9/M-E (CCD-Sensor ends at ISO 1250).

My D750 has given me images at ISO 3200 that look like being taken at ISO 100 ... I have no clue how the camera does that.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 12, 2017)

Solarflare said:


> Pfft ISO 800 is nothing to any full frame camera. Except maybe the Canon 5Ds (its resolution already collapses at ISO 800), Nikon D3x (sensor ends at ISO 1600), and the Leica M9/M-E (CCD-Sensor ends at ISO 1250).
> 
> My D750 has given me images at ISO 3200 that look like being taken at ISO 100 ... I have no clue how the camera does that.


I thought I mentioned I often shoot _above_ ISO 800, not only at...

I'm commenting from the perspective of someone who used to be afraid of going above ISO 100 and always thought this old camera was holding me back, and now I shoot well above it on that same camera that's over 10 years old now, which many find to be obsolete and I now completely disagree.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2017)

I shot a 2005 Nikon D2x and a 1980's era 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S zoom lens today...Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR AI-S 100-300mm f/5.6 MF Telephoto Lens SN208933 *As-Is* | eBay


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Jan 12, 2017)

If the manufacturers have their way cameras would be obsolete 10 minutes after leaving the store with them.
I often keep a camera for up to 2 or 3 years though, much more than that and you are gimping yourself by not having the state of the art electronics. I also buy new tools when they come out if it is a tool that I do not have already. I do the same with Consumer electronics and stereo and home theater equipment too though so I am not a good representation of the norm.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 12, 2017)

Definition of obsolete
1a :  no longer in use or no longer useful
b :  of a kind or style no longer current

I find all my photographic equipment  (film and digital) still useful, no matter what their age.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 12, 2017)

Still shooting my D200, and when it dies I will just pull out the backup D200. However, the other day I did buy a new CF card for it a Best Buy and at checkout the guy said "_haven't seen one of those for a long time_". 

By the way, a 32gb card shows 1500 RAW files on the D200 LCD (not that I plan to ever put that many on it).


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 13, 2017)

Dave442 said:


> Still shooting my D200, and when it dies I will just pull out the backup D200. However, the other day I did buy a new CF card for it a Best Buy and at checkout the guy said "_haven't seen one of those for a long time_".
> 
> By the way, a 32gb card shows 1500 RAW files on the D200 LCD (not that I plan to ever put that many on it).


I love that the file size on older cameras is much smaller, significantly reducing the amount of space they take up on memory cards and computer or external drives.


----------



## ashleykaryl (Jan 13, 2017)

I haven't read this entire thread, but as it happens I purchased a 49" 4K TV just last week and out of curiosity I checked out the website in my signature below. All of the images were prepared for retina devices at 2x resolution, but not specifically for 4K. Nevertheless they looked absolutely fine. 

It's worth remembering that displays like this are typically using clever technology to make lower resolution content look better, so to that extent we have a safety buffer. Frankly I am more interested in print quality, since I would never post huge images on the internet. 

I still have a 1DsII that is now an old camera in digital terms, yet I would not call it obsolete, even after 11 years. The 16.7MP files it produces are more than adequate for fine looking large prints.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2017)

Msteelio91 said:


> Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens? I still use my now 7 year old D7000 which shoots at a max of 4928 x 3264. Still pretty good but once you start cropping you start to dip below the resolution of some monitors. I'm wondering if there's a formula here for figuring out at which point a camera is unable to meet the "stretch" of say a 50" 4k screen.
> 
> It's also possible I'm looking at this totally wrong but I'd like to hear what you all think


When an entry level dSLR is better.


----------

