Is the constant need to upgrade/blame kit a digital thing?

ernesto

ernesto

Messages
2,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I noticed a lot of threads where the persons camera is not good enough and doesn't do X and Y etc,. leading to 'upgrades'.
Also see themes that an entry level camera can never be good enough once you know what you are doing.

What happened in the days of film, did people just accept what they had an go out and take pictures? Or would they always be unhappy with their cameras?

I am happy with an entry level camera and it does all I need and more but the assumption is I will need to upgrade when I get more experience.
I dabbled with film and bought an OM-10 and loved using it and didn't need it to do anymore (it did help point out my lack of skill though!)

Does this mean I am easily pleased or just have simple needs?
 
ernesto said:
I noticed a lot of threads where the persons camera is not good enough and doesn't do X and Y etc,. leading to 'upgrades'.
Also see themes that an entry level camera can never be good enough once you know what you are doing.

What happened in the days of film, did people just accept what they had an go out and take pictures? Or would they always be unhappy with their cameras?

I am happy with an entry level camera and it does all I need and more but the assumption is I will need to upgrade when I get more experience.
I dabbled with film and bought an OM-10 and loved using it and didn't need it to do anymore (it did help point out my lack of skill though!)

Does this mean I am easily pleased or just have simple needs?
Click to expand...

It is a modern thing - same with phones, cameras, computers, tv's, cars. We live in a marketing driven consumeristic society
 
Good to know I have risen above that and can be at one with my entry level camera :)
 
Or you bought the right camera for your needs & your needs haven't changed yet :)
 
Richard King said:
It is a modern thing - same with phones, cameras, computers, tv's, cars. We live in a marketing driven consumeristic society
Click to expand...

I'm a bit under those marketeers radar. I have all the mod-cons but I'm still a bit Northern & tight, I don't need to upgrade my iPad 1 to a 3 because I still count myself lucky to have any iPad at all, my cars get changed when they start costing more to maintain & I try to buy the best computer I can afford at the time so there's no need to switch up until it stops working and is irreparable. Him indoors, however, is always looking for the next best thing - I'm so glad I have a lazy astigmatic eye & can't see 3D so he can't buy a new tv :D
 
To say that there is never a need reason to upgrade would be to say that things never improve and clearly that isn't true.
Whilst a good 'eye' and good opportunity can produce a spectacular image irrespective of camera, (e.g. the woman jumping from the burning building during the Tottenham riots), improved technology can reduce the odds of being able to catch it well.
The introduction of VR/IS made it possible for those whose hands don't have a vice-like steadiness to capture sharper images in lower light, the improvement in AF has made the use of teleconverters more productive etc, etc.
Some people will always want the latest, whatever it is but some may see an advance in technology as a real boost to their photographic capabilities.
All that having been said, the kit is only as good as we use it :)
 
i think its down to you get an entry level camera and start snapping away and you find what intrests you and you may not be able to do that with your current camera so need to upgrade to get the xyz your missing on your current one or you may want dedicated buttons so you dont have to continually dive into menus
 
It does seem to be a thing with modern day system.

However when AF, multi mode metering systems etc etc etc started to appear on film cameras then yes people used to trade up which provided a very healthy used camera market.
 
I used to be one of those who wanted a new camera because my 1100D wasn't good enough. I wanted to take detailed moon pictures, ones of the stars. Wildlife photos is something that interest me as well as landscapes. When I wasn't getting the results I wanted I blamed my camera - really it was user error. Yes ok I do know that I think I would like my next camera to be 650D and maybe it would take better pictures, but now I'm starting to get the settings right on my camera now I'm beginning to see the photos I want from my photography. I don't think it's going to stop me lusting after new gadgets in photography good old consumerism has taken care of that. But it has made me think a lot more before I go out and buy. I can still think of lots of things I would like to buy, a remote, flash, a longer focal length lens, either a macro lens or macro tubes. But I'm enjoying the challenge of creating the images I want out of the kit I've already got. So instead of buying everything as quickly as possible, I will endeavour to do it more slowly and enjoy my camera as it is now as much as possible.

Happy snapping all,
Liz
 
As well as the marketing guff, remember that it is only recently that digital has been able to match slide and negative film in dynamic range and quality. So the image quality driver wasn't as prominent with film when it came to bodies. But having said that, people still "upgraded" from Boots own brand film to Velvia or Tri-X or whatever.
 
Unfortunately most of us are caught up in a hobby that is also a profession for some.
This creates a need for high quality durable and reliable equipment and the manufacturers provide the professional users with the right tools.
The hobbyist sees the next big thing and gets a bit envious, some even think that an upgrade to the same equipment will give an instant, professional boost to their images but soon realise this is not the case.
How many posts do you see made saying "bought a new 1d4xhs.5mk3 and my photos look JUST the same"? None lol
Sure enough money will buy you speed, sensitivity, sharpness and bigger images but what use are these without fundamental understanding?
But, take a step back to the 1800s and think about what an upgrade meant then, it was more of an evolution than upgrade with each new discovery and piece of refined equipment taking a step forward in a field that only the privileged could be a part of.
Things haven't evolved much in world of digital, only fine tuned and i can honestly see the wall coming closer and closer for digital, and unless a real step forward is made then we will all be shooting with the same equipment but with different levels of understanding.
I really do look at the steps that have been made and how photography has evolved and i wonder what discovery will be next.
 
Last edited:
These posts would probably be correct - if there were only a few film cameras and everyone was happy with them. But judging from the thousands of camera models released every few years (on a similar cycle to most DSLR classes from the top manufacturers) by a greater pool of manufacturers, with a greater range of obscure formats and sizes - for a long time digital was only APS-C, for instance - I'd say it isn't a digital thing, it's been there since the start.

The difference is that the reasons often used to justify updates and new purchases are often different - now it is higher ISO, higher megapixels, mostly parameters of performance around the sensor; but in the past it would've been more feature based, depth of field preview, 100% viewfinder coverage, motor drives and so on. Obviously film emulsion manufacturers pushed the higher ISO, higher IQ as well, but the camera manufacturers were no slouch at trying to get people to upgrade either.

It's not a modern thing, by any stretch of the imagination. If it was, we probably would be nowhere near where we are now in terms of camera technology.
 
I'm happy scratching impressions into cave walls.
 
Camera body development has always gone on but I think the advent of digital saw cameras move towards the technology / gadget market which is renowned for being a market full of people who (being interested in technology) simply have to have the latest models regardless of their photographic requirements.

I'd love to see somebody given the latest top of the range body and then get dumped on a desert island. After 10 years I think they would still be more than happy with it.
 
Last edited:
I remember people writing about this in photography magazines back in the 70's and it probably wasn't a new thing then :D
 
new2me said:
I'm happy scratching impressions into cave walls.
Click to expand...

I was but I found I couldn't get the longevity with flint tools so had to upgrade to animal dyes. Should give a good archival quality now, no need to upgrade further.
 
The other factor is that technology drives the need for further technology.

Whilst old farts like me are saying, 'but you can get a usable shot at 3200 iso, you realise that was impossible just a few years ago'. All the people who only picked up their first camera in the last 5 years don't feel a need to understand the great strides made but just want their 6400 ISO shots to be as clean as their 800 ISO ones.

And if they can get usable shots in those dark conditions, why has their AF system given up? And if I can use my phone as a mini computer with just a touch screen, why does the camera have all these controls that are so un-intuitive?

I grew up without AF, but it allows me to do things now that I could only dream of when I started. Likewise the digital lightroom is much more user friendly than the analogue darkroom, meaning we can all produce images that could only be produced by experts in the past. But computers get bigger and faster, and software engineers have to find tricks to take advantage of all that power. And when they do, they become must-haves too.
 
As cameras are no longer reliant on film as the recording medium (which hasn't really evolved that much over the past 100 or so years compared to electronics), the camera manufacturers are more in charge of their own destiny and can throw money at improvements to sensor size, design, sensitivity, and the accompanying technology in the cameras. Hence the rate of change has accelerated beyond comprehension.

Of course there were innovations in the 600's, 70's and 80's - in-camera metering, auto exposure, auto focus, and all these were improved over time, but the rate of change was glacial compared with where we are now.

Personally, I only upgrade when I run out of capability in my current camera - probably explains why I've had 'only' two DSLR's since 2005. I'd have kept my D70 if it had been better in low light, and I see no reason to upgrade my D700 until it breaks.
 
I like upgrading my gadgets, certainly don't NEED to but if I don't spend the money on camera gear and other nice tech the wife will only spend it on soft furnishings!

Somebody hit the nail on the head when they said it was a lad thing.
 
As has been touched on already, the digital end product is less dependent on consumables than with film cameras and conversely, more dependent on the technology inside the camera so a body-upgrade is more relevant now. As far as glass goes, I think photographers have for a long time recognised the value in a better lens (but if you were taking your film to the shop for a set of 6 x4s or whatever, there's only so far you can go to improve the IQ by upgrading the lens - not many hobbyists got the loupe out to check for sharpness, lol).

I remember going from a fully manual camera with no metering, no ttl viewfinder and no focus-screen (you had to focus by guessing or with a tape-measure and the scale on the side of the lens) to my first SLR - in-camera ttl metering, a ttl viewfinder with a focussing screen and aperture priority automatic mode. It doesn't need an explanation as to how all that could improve my keep-rate (much more important when all was on film).

Then my dad got AF (I didn't trust it until I saw it in action).


I think that more than the move from film to digital, there is a bigger cultural change at play: we are seeing the tail-end of the generations that were brought up with a 'make-do-and-mend' mentality at the same time that we are seeing technological advancement forcing products into obsolescence way before they are worn out or broke - new products often being cheaper than repair of old ones. The modern way is to upgrade and replace before things are broke.
 
Last edited:
I use a Canon EOS 500d with the kit 18-55 lens on Av mode and occasionally need to slap the very nasty 75-300 MkIII USM on it.

For what I need it for, I couldn't ask for any more out of it.

Generally it depends on what your doing. I use it for panoramic photographs and the odd line of sight photograph (hence the 75-300). Since it is small and light it is perfect to throw in a bag when climbing telecom towers etc. I took the D3s and 24-70 one day and it was brutal.

If I had it for personal use, I'd be frustrated by the lack of AF points, slow burst rate and the small body.
 
The difference in the film days was that any decent camera lens combination with the right film could cover pretty well all eventualities,so if you had a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and a roll of say Fuji 1600 you could do floodlit football with a Canon AE1 (Amateur) or a Canon F1 )Pro).
With digital there is the sensor to conswider and the reason I have moved up to the 60D recently is to be able to get good quality night time football that the iso quality on the 40D could not deliver.
However I do now feel I have got all bases covered for a good few years so when the 70D comes out I wont have an urge to upgrade
 
ernesto said:
What happened in the days of film, did people just accept what they had an go out and take pictures? Or would they always be unhappy with their cameras?
Click to expand...

Every time you reloaded a film camera you put a new sensor into it. As film improved your camera improved with it. Film technology has been constantly improving since the dawn of photography with great films like the new Portra being released in the last few years.. and this cutting edge film is fully compatible with my vintage cameras from the 1940's, '50s and '70s.

With digital you don't have this constant, low-level, almost throw-away upgrade trickle.


But I'd question whether there wasn't the same upgrade desires with film. It may have been at a lower level, but relative disposable income is much higher now.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst old farts like me are saying, 'but you can get a usable shot at 3200 iso, you realise that was impossible just a few years ago'.
Click to expand...

I still marvel at getting usable results at ISO 1600 with my 5Dc, even if it ain't perfect. In my mind, anything above ISO 200 is 'fast' :)

Mind you, I also marvel at the results I get with ISO 400 film today compared with older-formula HP5 in my youth.
 
SLR developments were more gradual, and didn't really take any sort of leap forward until automation came in. Film was still the common denominator and any of these cameras, from the earliest 35mm and roll film models, could take advantage of any new film that came onto the market in the right size. I think there was also a greater expectation that things would last, not forever, but for a long time; and very few of us blazed through 1000s of images at a time with a motor drive.

Digital photography is probably still in its infancy, and following the trend set by personal computers that started in the 80s. Very rapid development and 'exciting' new features coming along all the time. The consumer societies most of us live in are driving this too, and you can see it in threads where some people say they've had an entry level DSLR for a year or two, and now want something 'better', but don't really know why. I daresay it'll settle down eventually, and become a bit less frenetic.

I don't get too caught up in this. I have an F2 (my favourite) and an FM with some older Nikkor lenses and a Vivitar flash; and a 30D with two lenses and a Canon flash. That's enough for now. I might buy some more Nikkor glass, but I probably won't add to the digital gear or replace the 30D in the future. It's an excellent camera, but I just don't get any joy out of it.
 
Can people not just get bored with there gear? Fancy a change?if people just stayed the same we would still be in caves hitting rocks together making fire
 
Siilver said:
Can people not just get bored with there gear? Fancy a change?if people just stayed the same we would still be in caves hitting rocks together making fire
Click to expand...

Fire was the original fast lens
We just like shiny things :D
 
Well light hasn't changed yet lol

I like that feeling when I get a new camera toy in the post, opening it up having a play is fun

You never know what you will learn with new gear, old gear you might just stick to the same and may not learn anything new
 
I find new gear gives me inspiration to shoot more, so that's always a reason for me to spend money I don't have.
 
It did exist, but in a slightly different way.

I can remember sitting with my little Zenith and wishing I could shoot faster film, which my brother could in his Nikon FM, I also loved the idea of being able to shoot in aperture priority and the better range of shutter speeds as well as lenses.

So its not really any different, except now there is more to think about when it comes to getting on that upgrade train.

I myself currently haven't shot anything for 2 months, I can no longer hold my camera due to its weight and cant use a tripod due to the dog and my carers, I've already had one big claim on the household insurance for a smashed lens due to a knocked over tripod and I cant see them wearing another.

So for me upgrading means the difference between being able to continue with my photography or not.

Things like weight, sensor size,excellent high ISO performance (abysmal light in here) and optical viewfinder are paramount and very limiting, in fact those factors and the need for a focal range of 90mm + limit me to just one camera thats on the market today that ticks all the boxes.

So for some like myself, upgrading is a matter of necessity rather than just getting stuck in that mind set.
 
Last edited:
We get too caught up in the spec sheets, the reviews and the results we aspire. Sometimes we just need to step back abd think coldly for a min or two. But i see this happening everywhere on the internet forums (specially when there are americans around! ;D)! You see people lusting for the trends the community revolves around. Power in cars, iq in photo, sq in audio, lightness in regular bikes, thoughness in downhill bikes... Nothing wrong in wanting perfection but most of the time the weakest link is the human operating the tools, and to upgrad that you need more than money.
 
dinners said:
Camera body development has always gone on but I think the advent of digital saw cameras move towards the technology / gadget market which is renowned for being a market full of people who (being interested in technology) simply have to have the latest models regardless of their photographic requirements.
Click to expand...

Tunbridge said:
I like upgrading my gadgets, certainly don't NEED to
Click to expand...

and your not alone Turnbridge.

I've nothing against folk who want to have the best gear and know what they're doing.

last week I sat next to a guy with a D3 who was compalining about needing a new long lens as his wasn't fast enough to enable him to get the shutter speeds he wanted despite shooting wide open.

I suggested he increased his ISO to get his speed up and he said that he didn't understand what the ISO setting was for. :bonk:

We're not alone as phoptographers though - I've tried to teach guitar to Les Paul owners and chuckled at 4X4 drivers stuck in 3" of snow.
 
Last edited:
Let me put it like this. I bought my Olympus E-3 just over 4 years ago (secondhand) for £740. I've recently "upgraded" (?) to an E-M5 and now need to sell the E-3, the going price for which seems to be about £350. So, over 4 years the E-3 has cost me approximately £400, or £100 a year. If I was still using medium format film, how much would my film and processing costs have been over the same period? In addition to that photography is my main hobby and I don't drink or smoke. Suddenly it starts to look quite a cheap hobby.

Why have I suddenly felt the need to change cameras? I have Parkinson's Disease which is slowly but progressively getting worse and I now find the E-3 (which is not particularly huge or heavy) a real struggle to carry around all day. Also, when shooting continuously for a while the weight quickly tires my arms and exacerbates my symptoms. By comparison the E-M5 is tiny and feather-light and it has given my photography a new lease of life. If it depreciates at the same rate as the E-3 over 4 years it will be a real bargain! :D
 
i would have upgraded the 5d2 if the 5d3 was so pricey, but il have to wait
 
goldenlight said:
...So, over 4 years the E-3 has cost me approximately £400, or £100 a year. If I was still using medium format film, how much would my film and processing costs have been over the same period? In addition to that photography is my main hobby and I don't drink or smoke. Suddenly it starts to look quite a cheap hobby...
Click to expand...

Good point - the main reason I bought a DSLR was the cost of consumables with my film SLR. Using Jessops 5x7 prints, a trip to Duxford Flying Legends in 2006 (I think) cost me £50 for my photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top