MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: mj007 on April 05, 2018, 13:54
-
Just my thoughts. I use to up-grade my cameras ever five years or so. I shoot with a Nikon D800 now. I just read a rumor of the new Nikon D900 coming out soon . I don't even think I wont to upgrade until my D800's die. Not sure it makes logic to upgrade anymore as newer cameras will not help with future sells. I look back at buying Hasselblad's in the day and it was like Christmas when you bought a new camera. I miss those days of dreaming of getting the latest film camera and lens. I think the fun is gone on buying cameras anymore other than replacing when broke..... W.Scott McGill
-
newer cameras will not help with future sells
Perhaps not because of technical quality, but for me, a new camera or lens really gets my inspiration going = a lot of work done in a short period of time. Everything is fun with new gear. ;)
-
Perhaps not because of technical quality, but for me, a new camera or lens really gets my inspiration going = a lot of work done in a short period of time. Everything is fun with new gear. ;)
Totally agree
-
Just my thoughts. I use to up-grade my cameras ever five years or so. I shoot with a Nikon D800 now. I just read a rumor of the new Nikon D900 coming out soon . I don't even think I wont to upgrade until my D800's die. Not sure it makes logic to upgrade anymore as newer cameras will not help with future sells. I look back at buying Hasselblad's in the day and it was like Christmas when you bought a new camera. I miss those days of dreaming of getting the latest film camera and lens. I think the fun is gone on buying cameras anymore other than replacing when broke..... W.Scott McGill
Yes, I have read about it too:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/just-announced (https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/just-announced)!-daikon-d900!/
-
I only buy second hand kit I love paying a fraction of the new price when gear heads feel they have to upgrade and get rid of lenses and camera bodies with next to no usage.
-
I might buy 5d mark IV when 5d mark V appears on market.
Now I'm on the mark II and not see the need for upgrade.
-
Perhaps not because of technical quality, but for me, a new camera or lens really gets my inspiration going = a lot of work done in a short period of time. Everything is fun with new gear. ;)
Totally agree
Even so, it seems unlikely that your surge in enthusiasm would generate enough additional material (that you wouldn't have shot anyway, with your old gear) to justify the cost of a new top-end camera. Not from microstock with its diminishing returns, anyway.
Personally, I find that using gear that imposes severe limitations inspires me to think more deeply about what I'm doing. I was shooting with 105mm and 200mm manual focus primes yesterday and I got some very pleasing results precisely because I had to "zoom with my feet" and think carefully about depth of field, hyperfocal distance, shutter speeds, telephoto compression effects and how they all worked with what I was trying to achieve. The temptation when using the latest bells and whistles is to let the camera (or, at least, the Japanese technicians who programmed it) do the thinking for me and end up using it like a "point-and-shoot". That's my own fault, of course, but I suspect I'm far from being the only one who is inclined to be lazy.
-
I was shooting with 105mm and 200mm manual focus primes yesterday and I got some very pleasing results precisely because I had to "zoom with my feet" and think carefully about depth of field, hyperfocal distance, shutter speeds, telephoto compression effects and how they all worked with what I was trying to achieve.
Using primes and getting a new camera have very little to do with each other. :)
If I can suddenly record 4k 60p, that means a HUGE increase in what I can produce.
If I can suddenly use ISO 3200-12,800 and get professional looking results, that means a HUGE increase in what I can produce.
If I can suddenly shoot at 600 mm instead of 300 mm, that also means a HUGE increase in what I can produce. ;)
If my camera can suddenly go under water or fly, you guessed it, huge increase in what I can produce.
So yes, gear matters a great deal, and for me, the inspiration alone can be worth it.
-
Using primes and getting a new camera have very little to do with each other. :)
Well, you did say "or lens".
It certainly sounds as if you should go for it. I really need to bookmark your response for use on my wife the next time I feel the urge to upgrade. :)
-
Using primes and getting a new camera have very little to do with each other. :)
Well, you did say "or lens".
It certainly sounds as if you should go for it. I really need to bookmark your response for use on my wife the next time I feel the urge to upgrade. :)
Well, yes, and of course I fully agree with your using what you have argument, and you should always zoom with your feet if possible, think about depth of field, shutter speed etc.
But with a 600 mm lens you can get shots that are simply impossible with 200 mm. :) No way around it. A 2.8 lens vs. a 5.6 at the same focal length will also yield very different results.
A 2.8 lens on a Sony a7S II means you can get shots that you can sell that would be impossible in the same situation with a 5.6 lens on a GH4 for example.
Of course, upgrading from a 24-70 mk I lens to a 24-70 mk II isn't quite as dramatic, and THAT would be more of a "gearhead" upgrade. ;)
-
But with a 600 mm lens you can get shots that are simply impossible with 200 mm. :) No way around it.
I've never used a 600mm. At $11,500 from B&H it's beyond anything I could reasonably justify. I suppose I could fake things a bit by upgrading from 20MP to 50MP and sticking with the 200mm lens.... That's a much cheaper way to get bigger. But then I could get 50MP and 600mm and have more than seven times my current magnification.
Still, for the moment as I see it 600mm is strictly for the birds.... and the paparazzi. And I don't do either.
I am tempted by the 100-400 MkII zoom, though. That could definitely come in handy and not just for distant objects.
-
And I don't do either.
Well, you don't do it because you don't have a 600 mm lens. ;) ;D
Anyway, you have to look beyond the Canon primes. I don't have one of those either. Sure, it opens up to f4 and has better sharpness than my 150-600 S from Sigma, but the Sigma is pretty darn all right. ESPECIALLY for the money ($1,800). And the zoom range is quite versatile. In reality, a 600 mm prime is not something I would like bringing on long hikes, because changing lenses between every shot is not something I enjoy too much.
I mostly film, and on my GH4 it becomes 1,380 mm in 4k, or 2,760 mm if you crop down to HD, which can be useful for much more than birds. I have maxed it out many, many times. The Moon or the sun filling the frame for example. All kinds of animals really, even getting fine details of big animals.
Actually, when I use 600 mm on my Canon 5D mk III, I don't think I get much reach at all anymore. ;D
-
My Canon 5D Mark II now is about 10 years old and it still is an everyday work horse (I do stock fulltime).
I am thinking about upgrading this year to the 5Ds or the 5D mark IV, but I am wondering if this would yield better sales because of the larger image resolutions both offer; otherwise I don't see a benefit.
Problem with the 5Ds is that my 100-400mm L and 24-105mm L aren't good enough for that resolution.
It's a lot of money anyway...