Fraser Speirs Cocoa and Photos

Cameras as Computers

It’s been a bumper week for digital SLR photography. Between the Canon EOS 40D and 1Ds Mk III and Nikon’s D300 and D3, there are lots of lovely new toys to look at. Me, I’m still delighted with my 30D. Approaching 30,000 frames on the counter since I got it last October, it’s barely let me down. I have a few shots that I would have preferred the camera to have handled better, but not many.

This is the first time that my DSLR has been replaced whilst I was still using it - I upgraded from the 350D whilst that was still a current model - and it got me into thinking about camera upgrading strategies. It struck me that, in some ways cameras are like computers. They essentially are little specialised computers that only do a few things. They’re not general purpose computers, and nobody’s trying to hack together a Twitter client for my 30D, but they are nonetheless electronics and roughly follow the market forces that other electronica do.

The DPReview links above all contain nice timelines of when the predecessors to each camera was released and their major features. Here’s the 10/20/30/40D line from Canon:

Which roughly equates to a resolution bump every 2-3 years and a feature bump every 12-18 months for Canon’s prosumer DSLR. Nikon’s upgrades for the Dx00 line are more leisurely: the D100 appeared in Feb ‘02 at 6MP, the D200 in Nov ‘05 at 10.2MP and the D300 in Aug ‘07 at 12.3MP. A model upgrade every 2-3 years.

Let’s just avoid argument and assume here that Canon and Nikon both make excellent cameras that take awesome pictures. That’s what I believe to be true, even though I have a strong personal preference for Canon.

My question, then, is this: is it better to update your prosumer model every time it’s upgraded, or to buy a high end model and keep it for years?

With film photography, that’s a non question. In digital photography, I don’t think it’s clear at all. The main reason being that camera sensors and onboard image processors are still making dramatic progress in terms of low noise, high sensitivity and increased dynamic range. In resolution too, of course, but I think that’s becoming less of a driving factor for upgrades these days. I hesitate to say “12MP should be enough for anybody”, but it’s certainly good enough for this Flickr junkie.

The 30D costs about £600 right now. The 5D is £1500 and the 1D Mk II is £2600. Let’s pick a number out of the air and say one might want to spend £300/year on photography. That’s what I pay for my broadband service every year, as a yardstick. Assume, for the sake of argument, that paying up front isn’t a problem.

At £300/year, the £600 40D has to serve two years. The 5D has to serve 5 years and the 1D Mk III just over 8.5 years. Is it a better deal to get an update to Canon’s latest sensor and processing technology every two years, or to get what’s great right now and hold on to it for some time? Maybe you’ll never own the ‘best’ camera at any instant in time but, given such regular and significant advances in sensor technology it might be better for some kinds of photographers to be more current.

Your thoughts?

Interesting concept. I have been in to photography on an off about 30 of my 39 years on this planet. I didn’t jump in to the DSLR camp until last year about this time. There just wasn’t a camera that had the right features to make me open my wallet. I bought a Nikon D80 and haven’t regretted the decision since I bought it.

Now almost a year later Nikon and Canon drop two cameras that make me rethink how long I will keep the D80. When I bought it I figured it would be at least 2 years. I told myself and other people if they are on a budget spend the money on the lenses and replace the body more often. I have gone with that philosophy and still think it is a good one.

Assuming you buy really nice lenses and stay with the same manufacturer it seems perfectly reasonable for a prosumer to upgrade their camera every two years. Even if I decide to switch to Canon I can get most of my money out of my lenses. I say unless the high end camera has a feature you have to have, go with the lower end and replace more often. Of course if you are a gadget freak like me the new stuff tends to make me forgot all my plans and yank the credit card out of my wallet . I am sure the extra 3 fps on the D300 is worth buying a whole new camera. I need to be able to capture our active kids in sports. At least that is the pitch I am going to throw at my wife

Quit interesting thought. I bought my first serious non film camera 2 years ago a Canon 20D and some months ago a 5D and kept the 20D also as second camera. I expect the 5D to last me some years 2-3 at least. In fact I really like the 40D features compared to the 20D but not so much that I would not buy the 5D again!
Having a second 5D is a bit too costly and a bit to heavy also, compared to the 20D I already owned. For lenses I use mostly L quality by the way.

I’ve brought out my old Canon EOS 650 from hiding and back into use. I’ve only had Cybershot point-n-shoot cameras, but I’m planning on getting a digital EOS soon.

I’m in the upgrade often camp. I’m on my fifth digital camera in ten years. I figure that after two years the combination of feature increase and price drop is worth it against missing out. It’s the same way with computers. I’d prefer to upgrade twice in four years for half prricee each than once at full price. Hence the iMac on my desk right now instead of a macPro.

To anyone who is interested: I just got the 30D and have been blogging some of my experiences with it.

Well if you sell off your old camera on ebay or whatever after the two years that knocks down on the expense of upgrading.

Loving the bw photo work. Well done