How Old Is Your Camera?

jamiebonline

jamiebonline

Messages
194
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
During the process of thinking whether to buy a D7000 or a D7100 of course I am influenced by the age of the camera. The newer model has better resolution, for example. It got me to thinking again. Which is never a good thing...

IQ is getting better and better so does this mean that the pictures you take or took on a camera from 10 years ago are, for want of a better word, crap? Obviously that is kind of ridiculous, no? And it would also mean, that someone with the latest most expensive Nikon DSLR, let's say, will have a poorer instrument relative to the newest ones in 5 years and a dinosaur in 10 years. And the pictures they took will be inferior IQ than ones taken in that time in the future.

I see people holding out for the next model a lot. But of course there is a fallacy in this for the reason that tech keeps advancing and new cameras coming out so often that it is like a race to stay on top of the game as a consumer. Stuff is good but could always be better so the market is set up to leave you dissatisfied and waiting for the next one. Especially when it comes to ''chasing the light''. Low light performance and general IQ seem to be infinite in their progress. It can always be better. At some point you need to ask if you need the latest camera at all since the old one did the job fine?

Your thoughts please. :)
 
I don't see resolution as an issue and I don't use features such as focus tracking, face recognition, wifi, gps or anything like that so maybe I'm not too demanding. I do like to have good DR, the ability to shoot at 1/8000 sec and I like having exposure and focus aids so mirrorless and EVF's suit me and I do like having reasonably good higher ISO performance too.

So, for me a DSLR of any age is pretty much behind the times now and I'm much happier with a recent CSC but other than that unless some new tech and ability comes along that I suddenly realise I want I can't really see myself being happier with older kit or lusting after newer.
 
My oldest body is a Canon 5D (C2005) and it still meets my needs for a lot of shoots (except for very high ISO performance and speed)

My second oldest body is a Canon 40D (C2007). It is a good camera, and much faster than the Canon 5D, however it is showing signs of failing after 6 years of of very heavy use. It doesn't see a lot of use now.

The Canon 40D was replaced late 2014 by a Canon 70D. Much better camera than the 40D and better high IQ than the full frame 5D (I have no foreseable plans to replace it)

Latest two bodies are Olympus E-M5MarkII (purchsed 5 months ago or so, mainly becuse of the f2.8 zoom lens availability, in a easily handled packages)
They are good cameras, except for shooting high speed action where fast acurate tracking is needed. High IQ performance is better than the 5D and 40D but not as good as the 70D
I have no plans to replace these bodies in the foreseeable future.

I am a hobbyst who has an ocassional "client".
I do not upgrade bodies just becuse someting new comes out.
 
I am interested in this thread as I have a 4 or 5 year old Panasonic G2.

With the cash back deals on just now I could get a G7 body for £250. But if I'm using my old lenses I do wonder whether I will be any further forward.

When I upgraded my smartphone a while back from Samsung Galaxy S2 to S5 I wasn't overly impressed with the S5 it didn't really seem to be that much better than the S2. Despite being 3 years younger and 3 models more advanced.

Manufacturers bring out new models promising better features than before when they are not always better. The camera on my S5 does not focus as well in low light as it did on the S2 for example.

Also I upgraded my 5 yr old laptop to a desktop recently and found that processor chips are the same now as when I purchased the laptop, nothing has really moved on.
 
You're right that newer cameras are better. Your mistake is in believing the sales pitches of those who want you to buy the latest model. I've had four cameras since my first good digital camera in 2007. My best images of 2007 are just as good in terms of IQ as my best images of today. Today's best images can take bigger prints because of the increase in MP, but that difference is just an upgrade of about one paper size, from A4 to A3 if you like. That's what you get from a doubling of sensor size, if your lenses are up to it. Today I get more images of good technical quality more easily, partly because my skills have improved, partly because I have better lenses, and partly because today's camera is easier to use. For example I miss fewer of those unexpected fleeting shots where you only have seconds to knock the camera into a rough approximation to appropriate settings and shoot.

In fact the only reason I've upgraded my camera so often is because I kept breaking them. I think my natural upgrade cycle without breakages would have been a camera every three to five years. It takes me two years and at least three careful readings of the best independently authored camera manual to learn how to get the best from a new camera. Even then if I start doing a new kind of photography I'm quite likely to start kicking myself for not having noticed my camera has certain features which make things much easier than the way I'd been doing it. It never seems worth it to buy the next upgrade to the model I've got, a lot of money for minor improvements whose effect on image quality nobody but me would notice, and then only on carefully selected fragments of special test images.

My current camera is a four year old model which I've had for three years. It's still so far ahead of my skills that I'm sure I'd get a much bigger improvement in image quality from reading the excellent third party manual carefully again and spending a few months practising on a new project than spending any amount of money on a new camera and lenses. If I got a windfall of £2,000 I'd be much more likely to buy a top lens and a top tripod than a new camera.
 
Sensors do continually improve. But it maybe best not to get too geeky about it. At time of purchase look to get a modern sensor. Then stick with it until something breaks or something annoys you.
 
Its a bit like buying a car, will a Fiesta get you about OK or do you really need a Rolls or a Bugatti, if its working and you like the pictures you get from it do you really need to change.
 
My oldest camera is only a year old, the D750. I do also have the EM5-II but this is only about 8M old. However, I do plan on keeping these for some time as last time out I made a conscious effort to buy 'keepers' ;)
 
Grey77 said:
I am interested in this thread as I have a 4 or 5 year old Panasonic G2.

With the cash back deals on just now I could get a G7 body for £250. But if I'm using my old lenses I do wonder whether I will be any further forward.
Click to expand...
I have a Panasonic G1 which I use quite a bit and a GX7. The GX7 is better than the G1 at higher ISO's and maybe has a touch more DR, I also have a Sony A7 and IMO it's singnificantly better than both.

I use old SLR lenses on all of these cameras and I'm pretty sure you'd see an improvement with the newer G7 especially at the higher ISO's but at 100 to maybe something like 400 I think that the old G1 and G2 are very good and I'd have to look very closely to see much improvement with my GX7 at those lower ISO's and maybe you'd have to also look closely to see an improvement with a G7. Sony A7 files are gorgeous :D
 
Canon 5D is eight years old, Fuji X-T1 eighteen months old, also got a s/hand Fuji X-E1 which I presume is three or four years old

All produce a nice photo when the operator gets it right, strangely enough the X-E1 is my favourite and gets used the most
 
Last edited:
Still got my Canon 300D, although it doesn't get used as much as I'd like now due to newer bodies :)
 
I bought my D700 in January 2009 and haven't had cause to change it yet. This was a replacement for a D70 I bought in 2005. The biggest I can print on my printer is A3+ and the 12mp D700 files look great at A3. I've upsized one to A2 and had it printed commercially and that looks very good when framed, not sure it's exhibition quality though, so I'm pondering getting a D810 next year for a project I am planning that will have big prints as an output.

That being said, I have gone through a series of smaller cameras over the same time period. I've always had a smaller camera for when I don't take a DSLR out and I think I'm now satisfied with the Fuji XT10 I bought this year as it hits the sweet spot for size and capability.
 
I've had a Nikon D80 since 2007. Only recently acquired a D7000 (brand new from Digitalrev) at a price that was lower than many were offering used examples on eBay. It's a camera that was released in 2010 so it's hardly new technology. I'm not after the latest whizz bang gadgetry and I'm certainly not prepared to pay silly money for the latest and greatest kit.
 
Ive got a D700 (2009) and a Fuji X-Pro1 (2012 ish) Both still take photos, what more do you need?
 
I have four main cameras that I use. In order of how much that I use them, most often down to least often:
  1. Olympus XA2. circa 32 years old
  2. Bronica SQ-A. circa 33 years old
  3. Yashica T7. circa 30 years old
  4. Agfa Isolette I. circa 60 years old (but like new).
Oldest camera that I've used was around 80 years old.

I don't just use old film cameras because I like old technology, I also use them because I enjoy that process, and I prefer the results of home developed then digitally scanned film, over any other process. Horses for courses.

I'm not sure what IQ really is. My cameras certainly don't have any. If I leave them alone all day, they never as much as try to take a photograph. They expect me to make all of the decisions. Even my dog has more IQ, and he really is not too bright.

Okay, I'll stick my neck out to be axed.

Warning: I really don't care what other enthusiasts (professionals are not included) do or do not use, or what their school and preferred technologies consist of. As long as people gain satisfaction and happiness from their photography, what does it matter?

However, I do see many young newcomers arrive who are often seduced by market driven propaganda to spend, upgrade, feel inferior, spend a bit more, upgrade, still feel inferior, spend, buy, consume, need to update .... and then feel that their photography is none the better for it. The upgrade culture is not new - it's as old as George Eastman's box camera mk II. However, it does appear to be accelerating. For some schools of photography, this is fine. I wouldn't want to photograph that Little Owl 200 metres away with any of my cameras / lenses, nor would I expect my ISO 400 Tmax, even if pushed a stop or two, to match to a cutting edge digital sensor in very poor light. What sort of photography that anyone enjoys - dictates how often that they might want to upgrade to newer technology. Many arguments occur on this board because of the failure to grab that. The needs of a macro bug photographer, are quite different to the needs of a b/w film street photographer. The needs of a high speed sports photographer, are different from the needs of a large format landscape photographer.

When people first arrive into photography now, with a so-called entry level DSLR, they don't have this explained to them. That great photography can be made with any class of camera - even a disposable film camera. What people interpret as good photography, is not always based on IQ, sharpness, pixels, dynamic range, or ultra perfect exposure. If that was the case, then we need to stop revering some of the great masters of photography. Go look at an HCB photograph, yes, he was using a posh Leica range finder - but his images have not become less valuable to us, or less ascetic, for the introduction of better gear with higher IQ.

I mentioned disposable cameras. I quite liked this photo that Anita took on an expired disposable c41 camera, that I later cross processed in b/w chemistry:

14238536875_64c458870e_z.jpg


I think that the littl'un was upset because he didn't have a D7100.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Ive got a D700 (2009) and a Fuji X-Pro1 (2012 ish) Both still take photos, what more do you need?
Click to expand...

I guess that's the point. You are the one taking the photos. Not the cameras. If you take good ones on a D700, then you should be able to do the same on an F2 or a D810. The limits of the camera changes a lot obviously but you can create greatness within the limitations. Otherwise, as I said in the beginning, it would mean only the most recent cameras can get the best shots. Kind of casts a shadow on the whole history of photography, to think this way. :D

I agree with the most recent poster too who said newcomers are seduced by the market. Totally see that every day.

About cameras, as far as I can see, the only differences between the old and new are IQ levels and ease of getting the shot you want. Higher cleaner ISO: you can get a usable picture in darker places. Faster more accurate AF: More chance of getting an in focus action shot. More frames per second: Again, more chance of getting a shot you are happy with. And so on... I can't think of anything that doesn't fit these two categories. Maybe someone thinks otherwise :)
 
Last edited:
jamiebonline said:
IQ is getting better and better
Click to expand...
Only some aspects. Think deeply about that.
And is AF getting more accurrate? model-to-model makes a huge amount more difference than date of manufacture!
Colours : depends not a jot on year.
FPS? Yes. Getting faster. Whoopie doo.

There are "bad" cameras every year, there are "best" cameras too.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Someone with deep Nikon knowledge can advise you on your Nikon purchase.
(I only have deepish knowledge of Olympus & Panasonic)
 
Between the D7000 and D7100 I would think resolution has nothing to do with the decision, neither does ISO as there isn't much in it (may 1/3 stop but not anything like an dx to fx comparison or a different older dx to modern dx). There really isn't much in a few years of similar model updates, its the difference between models where the differences are. Honestly I think it comes down to price and whats the best deal you can get second hand.

All you really need is a camera that does what you need it to do. If it does what you need it to then you don't need to change for a newer model. It all depends on what your needs are. All cameras will be 'out of date' as new models are released but you don't really need the new models. Its best to choose one and stick with it, much cheaper in the end.
 
I had a D7k and then a D7100... The D7k is a brilliant camera. I didn't really enjoy my D7100. Not sure why, just didn't seem to really do anything better than the older model.

I still have a D7000 now.
 
I have a Nikon D80 I would love to upgrade because of low light issues however, my reasoning for sticking with it is until my photography improves to the point I can say, lovely , I am pleased with that picture, I refuse to reward myself. It has done ok up til now for the pics I have taken with it over the year's (2009) as an amateur . Funds are another thing. So a bit of an effort on my part to actually learn again, this will suffice. The up grade will be more rewarding and worthwhile then , that I have made an improvement. in other words. Knowledge is more important than the camera at this stage.
 
I have a 9 year old camera, a leica m8 and am in no great hurry to upgrade to a later model as it has all the "features" I need even though it is very basic by modern standards. Have never had much interest in features such as auto focus, auto exposure, super fast frame rates, super high iso and similar features most photographers now expect. I'm happy as long as it has a shutter release button and shutter speed dial as that's the only features I would ever really need on a camera.
 
It's easy enough to obsess about the technical capabilty of equipment, but in the absence of a specific requirement, maybe one should pause and ask whether a new device or accessory will improve the intellectual, emotional or cutural 'truth' of the images likely to be produced.
 
droj said:
It's easy enough to obsess about the technical capabilty of equipment, but in the absence of a specific requirement, maybe one should pause and ask whether a new device or accessory will improve the intellectual, emotional or cutural 'truth' of the images likely to be produced.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, I use a Canon 1Ds Mark III which is 8 years old for landscapes and it never comes off 100 ISO, along with the 21mp sensor it equals the newer 5D Mark III, 6D etc. for what I do so there is no point in 'upgrading' alot of it these days is all just all advertisement to get your cash out of your wallet...
 
I've got a Canon 700D, so about 3 years old or so! Perfectly happy with it, no need to upgrade!
 
My oldest body at present is my beloved Canon 50d (2008). It still takes stunning photos. As it will do in another 7 years time!
 
Mine are all within 3 years old, Previously my M8 was 7 years old and took a tremendous photo as long as you didnt try and use it when the sun went down.
As many have written, the camera doesn't become less effective just because a successor is released! The tangible benefits for me with newer cameras are higher ISO capabilities (My DF can take a decent photo occasionallly at ISO 50k! and thats a couple of years old). Other than that its a page in the instruction manual that I probably haven't read.
 
My main camera is D300S, (which replaced a D300, which replaced a D200, which replaced a D70) which I have had since 2010. Nikon haven't brought out anything that has, imho, bettered it in every way. :( :rolleyes: There are better sensors, but not very many better overall cameras for me.

Canon have, so the choice to move over to the 7DII is getting closer depending on my circumstances.

I also have a Canon S95 from 2011, which is the camera I have with me all the time. I would love to replace that with a Sony RX100 III. ;) Ah, wishful thinking. :rolleyes:
 
my oldest DSLR body is a 20D although i did not buy it new, i still have a 40d which i did buy new in 2008 they don't get used that much nowadays but i keep them so the kids can use them if they want to

i still have one of these although not a dslr it was one of the first canon compacts with an L lens unfortunately the AF isn't great but i still like to have a play every now and then


i find even the 20D gives very good results with a decent lens attached to it my daughter used it for her A level photography course which i thought was more to do with art than photography
 
Last edited:
I think that the OP has to ask himself what he is going to do with his camera, if its just casual snaps, wont really matter what he buys, most any recent camera will produce good images, the make/model wont matter, whatever fits him best.
 
I've been looking at images I took with my Nikon D50 (6mp) and comparing them to my latest 24 mp D750.
The images are brilliant from each of them.
Obviously, resolution is bound to be better with 24mp, and this shows if you want to crop a lot or print huge images.
New cameras are brought out every year with newer features, faster this and that, but IQ is the bit that hasn't changed that much.
 
My Canon 350D lasted for 9 years sadly the sensor got damaged whilst on holiday although fortunately it did not damage the photos too much.
 
My oldest DSLR is a 20D , probably about 8-9 years old (I bought it s/h so i'm not 100% sure)

I also have an Eos 30, and Eos 3 and an eos 5 which are older

and a mamiya 645 which is older still
 
I earned a living shooting on a 20d. Now it's a d810.
They are just tools with different feature sets. Learn how to use them within their limitations, be creative, and they will perform admirably.
Being Scottish, I'm immune to this marketing nonsense by virtue of being too stingy. The only thing that dictates my purchase now is a) will the tool do the job, b) does it fit in my hand comfortably for all day shoots?
 
ianp5a said:
It's a Canon IXUS. One of the first to start the trend of all metal case compacts.
Click to expand...

and still the one I throw in my shirt pocket if I'm going for a long days walking in the hills, because it weighs pretty much nothing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top