# To keep up with technology, or keep your wallet happy...



## K8-90 (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm interested to know what you think about this... 

Hopefully, I will soon be purchasing my first DSLR. I have a choice between a cheaper, entry type camera (Canon XSi) and a more advanced one (Canon 40D). However. Technology is changing so much, and fast. I know I will want to upgrade to the newer technology, even if my current camera is still good/working.

My question is - how often do you guys upgrade your cameras? Are you careful with your money, and only buy when you *need* (ie. your camera is toast)? Or do you keep up with ever changing technology?

Thanks!


----------



## Rachelsne (Jun 18, 2008)

the 40d was out and the xsi was about to be released but i opted for the 30d, because I wanted a camera that would last me and teach me, eventually I hope that the 30d will become my backup camera when I start shooting proffesionally.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm still shooting with a couple of 20D cameras.  They are a bit behind in terms of 'modern' technology but they get the job done just fine.  Remember, it's the photographer, not the gear, that counts.

When the 30D came out, I had very little inclination to upgrade as the differences were minor...however, the 40D was more of a complete redesign and I would buy one of those today (if I could).

Technology is always moving pretty fast...and I don't think that it's necessary to always be on the cutting edge.  Some of the upgrades are more useful than others...and if a newer model has something newer/better that will make your life/job easier...then it's probably worth the upgrade (or at least easier to make the justification).

As for the XSi vs the 40D...that is a matter of different levels.  The 40D is a step above in many aspects...but image quality is probably pretty close.


----------



## Overread (Jun 18, 2008)

Well the camera body I say is the low point on the budget marker. The best place to spend your hard earned money is on better lenses - stick canon L lenses on low end bodies and you can take shots that will stand up to those captured on top end bodies:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-geese_and_ducks_of_racconigi.htm
examples there (the 350D being the first of the digital rebel series of cameras)
However the skill of the photographer in charge of the equipment is the most important part, but I would say save on the body and spend on the lenses.
However I understand that that top end rebel at the moment is almost the same as the 40D in cost - with that choice now I would say go for the 40D over the rebel


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 18, 2008)

> examples there (the 350D being the first of the digital rebel series of cameras)


The 300D was the first


----------



## saltface (Jun 18, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Remember, it's the photographer, not the gear, that counts.



My Rebel Ti just got all warm and fuzzy (Ti, not XTi).


----------



## Overread (Jun 18, 2008)

QUICK take out the battery you have a short circuit in there somewhere


----------



## saltface (Jun 18, 2008)

Overread said:


> QUICK take out the battery you have a short circuit in there somewhere



That took me a moment. I thought you were talking about a known defect. LOL


----------



## skieur (Jun 18, 2008)

Most pros buy a new camera every 2 to 3 years.

skieur


----------



## Sarah23 (Jun 18, 2008)

I bought the XTi, but next year after tax season, I am going to upgrade. The lenses and skill are more important then the body, IMO.


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 18, 2008)

I know it's the photographer that makes the picture - I have an quaintance with a 40D  that is just hopeless... But having the right gear is nonetheless a large part of it.

I am I right in saying that most of you do not upgrade too often, but would if you could? So changing technology doesn't phase you?

I am trying to make a good, well informed decision on my purchase. I have researched the life out of it, even giving the sales people a run for their money. I just don't want to regret my choice...

Thanks for the input!


----------



## Garbz (Jun 19, 2008)

Actually technology doesn't change that quickly. I have a D200 and plenty of spare capital at the moment, but no desire at all to go out and grab the D300. 

Incremental changes in bodies are often small at the lower-mid range of the spectrum. Maybe in 2 years I'll get a D400 or one of those rumoured D10s.

It won't make me a better photographer but by then my D200 is likely broken and not obsolete.


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Actually technology doesn't change that quickly


Uh, haha. I would have to agree to disagree on that point! But I don't really want to argue it...




Garbz said:


> Incremental changes in bodies are often small at the lower-mid range of the spectrum


 
That's true, though. I understand what you are saying here.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 24, 2008)

Ok I won't argue, I will just expand on what I meant since technology itself changes quite rapidly.

In the context of my post I meant what have we really got now that we didn't have a few years ago. Sure the D3 is a drool worthy piece that causes all of us to go green with one of the 7 deadly sins, but aside from the high ISO performance and a few more megapixels it really is no more of a camera than the D2 of yesteryear. It has some cool features to make taking photos easier, but that didn't mean that people couldn't take sporting photos with a D2 because it didn't have 52 AF points and the firing rate of a Kalashnikov, just like people still took photos at sporting events before VR and AF-S came out.

Basically the D200 is more than 2 years old now, but so far the D300 is only a minor step up in quality (again ISO1600+ not withstanding) and fully loaded with lovely gimmiks like live view, Active-D lighting, colour tracking AF and the likes. But I'm a bit of a biased classic guy who is perfectly happy using a fully manual film camera too, so I am sure many people will disagree


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> drool worthy piece that causes all of us to go green with one of the 7 deadly sins


 


I get it and all... But people lived fine without electricity, for centuries, too. And I think I'll stick to electricity, even though camping is fun on occasion  

If I had the XTi (or even the XT) I wouldn't be looking to upgrade to the XSi. However, if they introduced the next in line to the 40D, I would be thinking about it, hard.


----------



## D-50 (Jun 27, 2008)

I can understand upgrading from an entry level DSLR to a more advanced i.e. a D50/D40 to a D200/D300 but once you are in the more advanced bodies there is really no point in upgrading your body everytime a new one comes out with a couple new bells and whistles.  I plan on sticking with my D200 for a last a couple more years after having got it about a year and a half ago.  I find no real reason to upgrade unless my D200 dies or I run into a whole bunch of money.  But honestly I do not know if I would even want a D3. Yeah its an unbelievable camera but its huge and I do not want to lug that thing around with me all the time. If I were pro I could justify it but for me the D200 it perfect.

Invest in glass that is where you will get the most noticable results.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jun 27, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> If I had the XTi (or even the XT) I wouldn't be looking to upgrade to the XSi. However, if they introduced the next in line to the 40D, I would be thinking about it, hard.



Your a manufactures' best friend!:hug:: 


just messing with ya


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 28, 2008)

C677T said:


> Your a manufactures' best friend!:hug::
> 
> 
> just messing with ya


 
Meanie! 

What would you suggest I do? In my position, what would you get?

By the way, I have been researching and thinking about taking the plunge for about three years now... But this summer should be the one! I am not made of cash, so any decision I make will be very well informed - that's why I am here.

I hate to admit it, but one of the reasons I am so tempted to go with the 40D is to escape the stigma of the Rebel series... However, even though I know it's the "consumer camera", and that anyone who weilds it is frowned upon by other "real" photographers - I honestly think it is what I need for now.

Oh. And by upgradinging "often", I would say within 5 years of purchase... So I'm not saying I'd be pulling out my wallet every time they unveil a new "upgrade"...


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 28, 2008)

D-50 said:


> Invest in glass that is where you will get the most noticable results.


 
Thanks, I think I'll go with this advise


----------



## Dweller (Jun 28, 2008)

I run into this situation all the time. I like gadgets and gizmos and they are constantly being improved upon as time goes by.

I simply look at what features are available right now, and of those I determine what are most important to me. Once I find the right model that meets those needs I research the crap out of it (at least on high ticket items) to make sure I am fully aware of any issues, quirks etc and once I am sure it is the right one, I go for it.

"Once I am sure it is the right one" is the key here. Newer/better/shinier stuff WILL come along. That is inevitable. But I can always know that my choice (D70s in this case) was the right one for me. I can see the new bodies and know that if or when my beloved D70 ever gives up the ghost then I have something newer/better/shinier waiting for me, but for now the D70 does everything I wanted it to do, and it does it well.

Good luck in your choice!


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 28, 2008)

Mhmm. Thanks!
Life would be so much easier with a bottomless wallet...


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 28, 2008)

I'm happily still using my first DSLR (350D) some 3 years after I first got it. Whilst it might be interesting to look at the 450D, I've really got no incentive to go and buy one. I am however awaiting the 5D MkII with interest, as I'd like to move to a full frame sensor. I could look at the existing version now I suppose, but short of the 350D dying on me, I think I can afford to wait a while longer yet.


----------



## penfold1 (Jun 28, 2008)

Try this one. Think about it from an economic point of view.

Ask yourself these questions.
-Am I the type of person that HAS to have the newest gadgets?
-If I go entry DSLR, will I want to upgrade in a year?
-If I go advanced will I want to upgrade in a year?
-What kind of resale vales do the cameras your looking at have?

Remember, the true cost of the camera will be your purchase price minus it's sale price down the road (assuming you sell it.)

So it may in the long run end up being cheaper to buy the 40D.


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 29, 2008)

Once I take the plunge, I'm hoping the chosen camera will last me at least four years... I'll probably eye the new cameras, but not seriously.

Chris of Arabia - like you said, my stuff usually dies on me rather than me deciding I am moving on 

Penfold1 - I haven't considered the resale option. That's an interesting idea - about the 40D costing less in the long run... Then again, as I said, I'll probably be looking to move on only when my camera dies on me...


----------

