Is it time to UPGRADE?

[AB26]

Are the camera manufacturers leading us by the nose? Has the peak been reached in current digital imaging technology?

No matter what camera you have or what brand you like, they are all good and you can find a camera to suit your specific needs. You may be a P&S user or a Leica owner, you can capture images.

The ISO race is still on. Nikon released the D4s with a maximum of 409 600 ISO. Is it usable? I do not believe so. Maximum usable ISO on the D4s is 25600. At ISO 25600 the images from a D4s are still acceptably “noise free”. Is ISO 409600 just a figure to impress prospective buyers? A Bugatti Veyron can reach the maximum speed the manufacturer claims. Maybe, very few people will be able to handle a car at that speed but, at least it can reach that speed. A D4s is useless at ISO 409 600.

The megapixel race seems to have calmed down a little. The D4s is still fitted with a “mere” 16,2 MP sensor. The new Expeed 4 processor seems to be a little monster driving the D4s to new heights.

DXO Mark seems to be disappointed with the little difference between the D4 and D4s. Is this good news or bad news? Maybe it is bad news to camera manufacturers but good news to consumers. Consumers might perhaps see the latest technology implemented in affordable cameras. (DXO rate the Df sensor the best of the lot in low light. The same sensor as used in the D4, rated as sixth.)?

I am of the opinion that camera manufacturers have reached a ceiling and are now running the ISO race to keep sales up. Perhaps consumers are putting pressure on manufacturers to keep producing new cameras, expecting technology to keep advancing in leaps and bounds. Technology has advanced tremendously from the time the first digital cameras were produced. To expect technology to keep advancing at the same pace might be an unreasonable expectation of consumers.

The good news coming from all of this is perhaps that consumers can now pick up used Nikon D3s cameras, or any other brand you might like, at a bargain price. Cameras that can capture images that are in no way inferior in IQ to the images coming form the latest technology.

What I am suggesting with all of this is that if ever you wished to upgrade, you might just be able to upgrade to that camera you have been dreaming of for so long, at a very affordable price. Your second hand camera is not going to be as “outdated” as you might think.

What is Canon going to do 819200 ISO?

[Venser]

I plan on upgrading.
My D700 isn't going anywhere, at least until it dies. It's my X100s that need to go. I had the E-M5 but sold it because I was continuously picking up lenses for it when I shouldn't have been. Decided to grab a X100s because of the fantastic reviews everywhere. The autofocus is beyond terrible. I'm normally chasing my two-year daughter around, so that's the perspective I'm coming at the situation.

In terms of Nikon, I'm dreading the day my D700 dies. I really have no clue what to pick up. Used D700's last one or two days at the camera stores around here. D3(s)(x)'s are still demanding top dollar. I'll probably shell out the cash and grab a D4 or D4s as I really don't want the MP bloat that comes with the D800, and I need a shutter capable of 1/8000 of a second, so the D610 is out.

[davidedric]

I suspect Andre is right when it comes to dslr's. However, if you look at the various mirrorless systems there seems to a lot going on, with some obvious opportunities still to be taken when the technology gets there, though they also suffer from the "problem" that the current crop of systems is extremely capable.

[John 2]

I think that you are right Andre when you say that it's all in the interests of keeping us on the buying trail. I think back to Audio amplifiers in the days when Hi Fi was the current must have. If in the intervening period for instance, distortion levels had really improved year on year in the way some claimed, audio reproduction would have reached absolute perfection by now - but it hasn't.

[shreds]

New features will appear and consumers will keep wanting them, not because they necessarily need them, but because the manufacturers and media tell you so. I disagree regards innovation plateauing, it will continue. Have you used a D4/D4x?

I have used a D3 since it was first released and the high ISO has been a boon to my business. I will therefore follow the developments in this area with interest. The D3x provides a good compromise in MP, although it is primarily a studio camera.

Having borrowed a couple of D800s I have to say that I was impressed by their output.

I find it interesting that the Df is extolled, (marketing?) yet it is the same sensor as the D4 and I think the D610, so its all about how that signal is processed surely?

I think I can hold off for a D5(!) with my current stable. No doubt in 12-18 months time the rumours will be rife.

Maybe it should be a 36Mps at a suitably fast frame rate of 11 fps and low light as far as you can go.......complete with built in wifi, GPS and twin XQD cards, but of course there are technical limitations as to why the twin Nikon streams have developed for speed and quality.

Lets just get on with what we have and hone those photo skills rather than dreaming.

[William W]

There will always be customers who want the latest technology because it is the latest technology and there will always be customers who have a need for the latest technology.

The manufacturers are not leading any body by the nose - they are doing their job in TR&D and the sales and marketing people are doing their job too, probably in raw numbers more to the former than the later group.

There is no "peak" to reach in any development.

DSLRs and the digital sensor based camera will be passé and will be replaced by other imaging tools.

WW

[NorthernFocus]

I guess you have too be a low light shooter to fully appreciate high ISO capability. Is there still room for improvement? Heck yeah. If they can get the 36MP sensor to the same low noise levels as the 16MP D4/D4s that would be excellent. And increased frame rate for the 36MP sensor as well.

Figuring out how to get the same AF speed and fps out of mirroless bodies as currently possible only in DSLRs is likely the next big gain. The market will likely drive that step as mirrorless are simple/cheaper to manufacture. That change will put cameras on the track of most electronics. Continually higher performance for less cost. Which in reality translates to more features/higher performance at the same price as the previous model...

Many of these issues depend on what one shoots. For the serious wildlife photographer, there is still room for improvement in both higher pixel count and ISO performance. For the casual/vacation photographer, the world is your oyster already with the existing technology.

[DanK]

Of course the manufacturers are trying to innovate to encourage people to buy. They are in business to make money. As a result, they may produce innovations that many of us don't care about, but that is nonetheless the same reason they produce the innovations we DO care about. I'll wager that Canon vastly improved the AF system from the 5D2 to the 5D3 -- a very valuable innovation, IMHO -- because they thought they could make money that way. They managed to get some of mine by doing so.

It's often the case that in areas of rapid innovation, you can save a lot of money by forgoing the newest and sticking with a generation behind. This isn't unique to cameras. For example, a friend of mine who is an electrical engineer often buys electronics that way, deliberately waiting until new models are released to buy the previous ones. It's just a matter of which features are important to you, for what you do.

[ajohnw]

Interesting noting the comment about buying lenses for an EM-5. I had that on a Pen but have managed to hold the tendency back now. I might buy a 14-150mm though but fortunately 10:1 zooms go well against my beliefs. Might be handy and reduction masks most of the problems with lenses like that. I'm still keen on trying to use very long lenses on it. I saw a 600mm photo sniper outfit but had settled on my max bid. Just as well really as the casings were in a terrible state.

As you can see from my camera list I don't upgrade my cameras often. Part of the reasons for this goes back to compacts. I have noticed that more pixels and higher iso's don't always offer what might be expected. An example of that is a noisy Nikon nef I posted on here. One common response was well when reduced most of noise goes anyway. At the size shown on the web a compact could probably do just as good a job. On the other hand 1/5000 sec iso 2000 not so bad but still strong luminance noise in mid tone whites. I needed the high speed - not that high really - because of no VR or IS etc. Most lenses have it these days. If that speed was needed to prevent motion blur it would show severe distortion from the shutter. I have frozen cars travelling at over 100mph on film with shutter speeds and iso's well under that. At close distances too - not sure they allow that these days.

In real practical terms many of the advances are dubious - smaller pixels = higher iso's = more noise. No balance against what is needed in practice - just the ways it goes and has been doing so for a long long time on compacts at a much faster rate than real cameras. Compacts may be at the end of the line now or have been for some time. Don't look very often now.

I might upgrade from an E-M5 to an E-M1 but only if it offers some sort of real usability advantage. I have used the E-M5 at 25,600 ISO and a slow shutter speed but other lower iso settings and faster speeds have produced mixed results. Almost like there is some strange relationship.

I suspect if some one wants a well balanced camera along these lines best buy Colin's or the Nikon equivalent. both of which on the face of it lag behind more mundane models.

John
-

[Shadowman]

I thought wifi capable and GPS were the latest bells and whistles on cameras?

[rpcrowe]

I used a variety of SLR film cameras over the years until I finally settled on one which had the parameters that I required, the Canon A-1. I was quite happy with that camera and used it over many-many years, forsaking an entire generation of Canon film SLR cameras; the EOS auto-focus group.

I think seriously, that I am at that point with my pair of 7D cameras... I am quite happy with their capabilities and quite liable to stick with them for a long while since the 7D fills my needs very well...

I am pretty darn happy with my lenses also and except for obtaining a lens here and there, on a whim (I bought a 40mm pancake on-sale at Canon's refurbished store and I purchased a 135mm f/2.8 soft focus on eBay at a very low price), I am probably set in my ways regarding glass...

[dabhand]

Walk into any fishing tackle shop and you will see countless fishing lures of imaginable shape, shade and cobfiguration and all will claim to be the ultimate for catching fish - when in reality all they do catch is anglers !

Ans so it is in photography, stock exchanges and shareholders expect companies to keep on growing within what is essentially a finite marketplace, so if you can't get more users then get them to continuously upgrade by adding more lures - sorry features.

What was a fantastic piece of kit two / four years ago hasn't suddenly become a piece of junk just because it hasn't got the latest shiny bits which *guarantee* perfect images every shot - only trouble is, if you own one, it's lost all its resale value.

steve

[JR1]

I am getting a D4s to compliment my D7000s, this however will not be an upgrade as the cameras are used for totally different things.

"you say mere 16MP"

Far too much is placed on sensor size, One can easily print A0 with 16MP, I do.

I used to teach IT, I laughed when people asked me what is the best computer to buy (and still do), decide what you want to do before you buy, then chose the appropriate computer, same with cameras.

I chose to buy D7000s over Canon Ds because I use them for a living and tested both, I have/had and still use Canons, but the D7000s were better for my needs than the 7D so I bought into Nikon too, so decide what you want to shoot then what to buy

[inkista]

... In real practical terms many of the advances are dubious - smaller pixels = higher iso's = more noise. ...

Well, per-pixel noise. Not necessarily per-image noise as additional resolution can offset this.

And OTOH, smaller pixels => reduces chance of moire => removal of anti-alias filters => sharper (e.g., D800e).

Just saying. Dubious is in the eye of the beholder.

[Colin Southern]

Are the camera manufacturers leading us by the nose? Has the peak been reached in current digital imaging technology?

No matter what camera you have or what brand you like, they are all good and you can find a camera to suit your specific needs. You may be a P&S user or a Leica owner, you can capture images.

The ISO race is still on. Nikon released the D4s with a maximum of 409 600 ISO. Is it usable? I do not believe so. Maximum usable ISO on the D4s is 25600. At ISO 25600 the images from a D4s are still acceptably “noise free”. Is ISO 409600 just a figure to impress prospective buyers? A Bugatti Veyron can reach the maximum speed the manufacturer claims. Maybe, very few people will be able to handle a car at that speed but, at least it can reach that speed. A D4s is useless at ISO 409 600.

I'm not sure if there is any agreed standard in terms of what image quality is acceptable, but I wouldn't write-off ISO 409600 just because it may (will!) look noisy - there may well be situations where noise doesn't matter (eg a photo of a burglar "caught in the act"). I agree that we're probably not going to see it used to photograph bridal parties inside a cave at night on a moon-less night though.

[John 2]

I think in this sort of debate, we have to differentiate between innovation (something novel/ something new) and Development i.e. an existing capability being improved. IMHO, there will always be room for innovation but development can reach a point where there is no real world benefit except to aid the sales and marketing organisations in convincing some customers at least, that they need the "latest and the best". Not sure whether we have quite reached that point yet with camera gear but it is akin to being persuaded to buy a 180mph sports car when the only roads you travel on have a 60mph speed limit. There used to be a popular definition of a good salesman as being an individual who could sell a one cow farmer the latest milking machine ................. and take the cow in part exchange.

[Didace]

There is no "peak" to reach in any development.
WW

"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer"

[shreds]

I thought wifi capable and GPS were the latest bells and whistles on cameras?

Strangely not on the Pro models, but they still put the floating horizon in there!

[NorthernFocus]

The main thing that this type of discussion accomplishes is to demonstrate the narrow perspective on life that we all have. If I have no use for something, clearly no one else needs it either. And the very fact that they want it demonstrates how few functional brain cells that they have...

[Scott Stephen]

The ONLY thing that would make me upgrade bodies would be better high ISO. Like about 2 stops worth. I couldn't care less about any more frames per second as I always come home with too many shots already.

Since that does not appear to be in the offing anytime very soon, I will save my money or put it into lenses which are more important than bodies, and which hold their value much, much better too.