Pro cameras no longer a long term investment?

[piedad]

Just saw the post for an EOS 10D camera at less than the price of the new EOS 350D (actually, much less). There was a time that the pro camera genre represented a solid investment with very good resale values. I remember enviously eyeing my friends' 3 year old Nikon F3 even when I had a newer Canon EOS 5e (with the eye-controlled focus).
Question now is: since digital camera's have probably 80% electronics wizardry inside, and given that technology improves dramatically in the electronics space (versus the mechanical / optical only space of the film cameras), it seems that the top of the line camera today is easily outbested by even the new prosumer digital SLRs. Would you buy an EOS 350d or a good 2nd hand EOS 10 (around 2 years old only)? Are EOS 1D users disadvantaged compared to the EOS 350d users of today?

[Kenneth]

Certainly not Floyd. Its like this, 300D and 350D are Canon's entry level DSLRs. Next is 10D, then 20D then 1D, 1D Mk II, 1Ds, 1Ds MkII.

The further you go from the lowest to the highest model, the more features there are accordingly; along with better camera build, not to mention the heavier your camera!

So between a 350D or a 10D, a 10D is still a better choice in IMHO despite the new improved sensor on the 350D. Same goes with Nikon and other brands.

Are EOS 1D users disadvantaged compared to the EOS 350d users of today?

Disadvantaged? How exactly do you mean? Feature wise? The only thing the new entry level cameras have vs. the older but higher models is a new sensor and increased megapixel. Both of which don't play a big factor in creating a great picture. Bigger megapixels are a marketing hype.

A good photographer with a prosumer camera can still create better pictures vs an inexperienced person with a 1DMkII. So in the end, it all falls down to the photographer. Thats the bottom line. How does that saying goes again? "Nasa indian yan, wala sa pana"

I've used my humble 300D to take fantastic pictures of my family that I never tire of looking at. So in that sense, my camera has paid for itself a hundred fold I think about the small fortune I've spent for all the lenses, the accesories, the lights, the bags, all the photography seminars; I say without a doubt, its all been worth it. Ever look at a photograph and say "wow, that is simply beautiful...that is perfection incarnate... and I took that!"? Its quite a feeling.

Then again, this could all just be my excuse to buy more toys :winkgrin:

[piedad]

Ok, so maybe comparing a top-end versus the low-end DSLR is not a fair fight...how about the argument that the rate of development is so fast on the same model line, that devaluation is much faster in the digital arena. There are definite advantages due to technical development...like faster start-up times, longer battery life, higher ISO capability, more bursts of shots, etc....The new 350D has sub-second start up time (compared with the 3 seconds for the 10D), so in a sense the photographer using it will be better-abled to take a spur-of-the-moment shot.
You have to admit that the Full-Auto mode of cameras today are just so good, it takes an idiot not to make a good shot in terms of exposure. But agree that what makes a work of art photograph is beyond that.
Bottom line question: has DSLR technology reached a status now that you pretty have much of what you will need to take excellent photographs (artistic abilities included), in terms of:
- start-up times
- focus speed
- ISO range
- Low noise performance
- and all the essentials?
Cause if all these are answerable by a YES, then I would be comfortable to make that investment in the camera body, and just focus on future purchases towards lenses, external flash, filters, etc.

[hacksaw]

I would say if you are a first time buyer, buy the best camera your money can buy and stick with it. Having the latest, all "bells and whistles" camera does not equate to great pictures. I would say invest in lenses rather.

~hacksaw

[patmartires]

Pro digital cameras are not a long term investment but lenses are

[acaspillera]

IMHO, i think hobbyists and amateurs are not really affected by this trend. even a crappy camera, as long as you can take nice pictures with it, will suffice. for us professionals, it's a whole different story. we usually find ourselves caught in the middle of the so-called "megapixel wars". there have been stories about photographers losing a project because he/she doesn't have a 22-megapixel camera.

i can attest to this. recently, i lost a potential client because i use a 6.3 megapixel camera and not an 8 megapixel camera. and i quote, "we're really impressed with your portfolio but we have a question. why is it that your rate is the same as this other guy who uses an 8MP camera? di ba you're using a 6.3MP camera lang? mas maganda yung sa kanya!" how can i respond to that?! so, in a case like this, a 300D user (like myself) is at a clear disadvantage compared to a 350D user. :no:

p.s. - i was so affected by this that when i saw this guy, this afternoon, holding a 7.1MP Sony point-and-shoot, i just wanted to clobber his head with my 300D! :devious: buti na lang mahal ko yung 300D ko. hahahahaha!!!

[totolabradog]

Yup, there was a time that pro cameras represented a solid investment, sorry to say that that was the time when everyone was still shooting film, and it really didn't matter much how old your camera was. Heck i remember when i was shooting with my Nikon F and no one seemed to care that it came straight out of the sixties. What mattered was the film you put inside it, which was relatively cheap. I still have that camera, and still enjoy shooting with it, I even have an F3 that i'm hanging on to for sentimental reasons, sold my F4 to get a D100, which has been recently sold because i have to upgrade again, because, as Aldwin stated, clients seem to ask ... "bakit 6.3 mp lang?"

Most of my work now is still film based, and is shot with a 15 year old camera. I just really think a medium format transparency still looks better than any output of any DSLR in the market, and frankly spending a million bucks on a digital back for a medium format body is just plain nuts!

Anyway, i think pat's right, DSLR cameras will keep getting better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. I remember one of the first Kodak digital cameras that we used in school, it was an F3 body that had a huge HD grafted on the back with a 1.3 mp sensor which sold for over 15,000 USD.

Spend your money on prime glass, you can always upgrade to a better, and cheaper DSLR.

Hope this helps!

[hoho]

Originally posted by piedad
You have to admit that the Full-Auto mode of cameras today are just so good, it takes an idiot not to make a good shot in terms of exposure. But agree that what makes a work of art photograph is beyond that.
Bottom line question: has DSLR technology reached a status now that you pretty have much of what you will need to take excellent photographs (artistic abilities included), in terms of:
- start-up times
- focus speed
- ISO range
- Low noise performance
- and all the essentials?
Cause if all these are answerable by a YES, then I would be comfortable to make that investment in the camera body, and just focus on future purchases towards lenses, external flash, filters, etc.

Start up times: You don't need a fast startup time to take a good photo. Turn on your camera, and keep it on. Be ready, anticipate.

Focus speed: It depends, if you're talking about candids/events/sports, maybe. But you can also do that by pre-focusing, and using the depth-of-field to keep things in "reasonable focus", that's how the old pros with fully manual cameras did it.

ISO range: Why? Low-light shots? Use a tripod, or a flash, or even both! Available light shooting at an event? Harder, but still possible. Even the high-end cameras will have trouble.

Low noise performance: This usually relates to higher ISO speeds. Stick to the lower, cleaner ISO speeds.

All the essentials: Like what? Metering system? Shutter speeds? Flash sync?

Like you said, the metering systems today are excellent. But these metering systems can still be fooled by weird circumstances, like extremely bright light (beach scene), or extremely dark areas, etc. Learn how to deal with those.

Buy the camera that you want/can afford, learn its ins and outs. Get good lenses (they're the best investment for a camera system). Practice, practice and practice!

It doesn't matter what camera you have, what matters is that you have a camera, and that you know how to use it.

H

[piedad]

Just to summarize....it seems that the megapixel issue is one valid cause of a pro camera's fast depreciation, and for as long as camera manufacturers want to earn money, they will keep on pushing the limits. It was only two years ago when everyone said the sweet spot for resolution was 8mp and above it is just not necessary...but nowadays????
As soon as I can sell my fixed lens Dimage A1, I will shift to a bargain 8mp 20d and stay with it...until the cost of hard disk storage and blue-ray disks go way down for it to be reasonable affordable to store the thousand or so pictures I take every month.

[HooHaw]

*Sigh* It used to be that a camera was only a light-tight box to hold the film, it's the lens stupid! Those were the days...

More pixels = bigger prints.

Now a Ferrari F50 is probably selling less than a 612 Scaglietti... but that doesn't mean the F50 is less of a joy to fling around...

Selling to ignorant and shallow customers might be like banging your head against a wall to break it... painfull and ultimately, futile.