I saw on T.O.P. that the Canon reduced their price on the 5D MK II in an effort, as Mike says, to get a few fence-sitters into the Canon camp before Nikon releases it’s newest camera to the market, rumored to be the D700x or perhaps D700s having 24+ mega pixels, HD video, blah, blah, blah.
Unless I missed it, Nikon didn’t really introduce much of anything around Christmas; however, I may have missed some point & shoot offerings, but I’m talking prosumer and above. Of course, we realize that in order to stay in business, they must keep us buying.
I have no desire for a new camera, whatsoever. I’m not interested in HD video. I tried a bit of videography and decided that it wasn’t my cup of tea. It’s a different realm of expression. A very different realm! I’m not so much interested in full frame digital as I am quite happy with film, or as Ken Rockwell calls it, the real raw! And all of my film cameras are full frame! 
As for more megapixels, well, I demonstrated to myself that a 6 MP (Nikon D40) can make great 13 x 19 prints from JPEG files (Uh oh!)!
I guess that I fulfilled all of those desires last year. I am, however, very much interested in getting out and shooting some more film. It has been a while.
So, are you sitting on the fence? Waiting? Hoping? Thinking about a new camera? And, if you are, what feature are you waiting for before you get the green light?
Come to think of it, something that would be interesting would be a B&W digital camera that would allow you to customize it, somehow, to mimic a certain type of film … but then again, why not just shoot film? Certainly, the market for such a thing would be nonexistent and not worth investing in, but a guy can dream, no?
Related posts:
28 Responses to “What would convince you to buy a new camera”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A new camera? Well, I am certainly content in most aspects with my gear
* megapixels? sufficient
* dynamic range? sufficient
* high iso? almost sufficient
* focal length range? sufficient
* viewfinder? sufficient
* flexibility? sufficient
The only real annoyance that I feel at the moment is an AF that does not full cope with the hair-thin DoF of a widest f-stop of my 1.4/85mm lens. But I do not know if such an AF exists.
If a camera maker could offer the same performance for half the size and weight, that might be tempting, but probably not tempting enough to invest the same amount of money again. So at the moment I do follow the news about new cameras less than half-heartedly.
Well, I would imagine that technology will advance to the point where the camera can handle that hair-thin DOF, but for now, you’ll just have to focus manually.
Oh well, if the groundglass would be up the task, maybe I could – these microlens-types are good for slow zooms (of which I have two) where AF precision doesn’t matter that much, but they don’t help at all with very fast lenses. And exchanging the groundglass maybe on a weekly basis is no solution either
Well, I went to the 5d as soon as i could afford it last year, and I haven’t looked back. Recently I’ve had my eye drawn by these little rangefinder like micro 4/3rds thingies, but when i realised they were 6-700 quid i came to my senses! I’m just spending money on polaroid film now, mostly. I enjoy making the most of what I’ve got, rather than wishing i had better gear. It wasn’t the same story when i had a 350D though…
As a general rule, nothing in the Camera World gets announced around christmas, they generally wait until January.
That said, Nikon did announce a new 300/2.8VR and a new 2x TC in December, but that was almost assuredly driven by the upcoming Olympics.
One of the crazy things I keep hearing people ask for is a sensor that would capture b&w instead of color. Get rid of the Bayer array and just capture luminance. Doing this, as I understand it, would give you better resolution and no interpolation of the array. Superficially, this would appeal to me as a guy who loves his b&w. But part of what makes b&w appealing are the very differences between film types (the spectral response of HP5 is different than the response from Tri-X) and wouldn’t this sensor just make everything the same?
But, in response to your question, if a digital camera came out with, say, a 12mp full-frame sensor that was b&w, it would get my attention.
Why would you want a digital that shot B&W when you can get Nik Silver for a lot less that does the same thing. To my mind it is like the different developers and processes you use with film? There is a B&W mode on the camera you have now.
The video on a lot of the newer pro body cameras are aimed at the changing pro market. A lot of my clients are asking for video to go along with still work. The one thing that does interest me is the Ricoh GXR or some of the 4/3 sensor cameras for everyday walk around and personal work.
Ummm, because it would be cool!
Every once in a while the geek in me must be set free!
At this point in time I can’t think of anything that would convince me to buy a new camera, unless they were giving away a D3s (not likely). Over the last two years I’ve moved to full frame (Nikon D700) and have purchased a couple of lens to take advantage of full frame. I also continue to enjoy my Nikon D300 for certain types of photography. I’m set and feel very content with my current gear.
When my 1D breaks.
I feel like Charlton ‘from my cold, dead fingers’ Heston. Now I wonder if he was buried with a gun.
Remember, now.
“Full Frame” with film means at least 8″x10″, maybe larger.
Not those little squinty 24mmx36mm postage stamp negatives you’re getting from your miniature “35mm” cameras.
Real men use real cameras. On tripods.
It sounds like the “full frame” film types are compensating for something…
I guess that I’ve never been a real man.
I’ve only shot 4×5. I guess that I only made it to adolescence!
I thought you’d gotten over that tripod affliction
Now, now. I didn’t claim I was a real man. I just asserted that, if real men existed and made photographs, they’d use large format cameras on tripods.
Myself, I use a 24mmx36mm ‘full frame’ digital camera. Sometimes on a tripod.
Right now nothing. I have a D40 and D90 and I am happy.
To much is put into pixels and full frame.
Just get out and shoot.
No upgrades planned for me, but I am always tempted. My current equipment is serving my personal and business needs, so it would have to be a fairly significant upgrade.
Hmm … I’m a gear head, really, I am, but at the moment I see no reason to part with my D300.
If there is a perfect camera for me, at least at the moment, it is the D3s. It fixes the one thing that was missing on the D3 and the D3x, namely sensor cleaning. The D700 has that, but it lacks a 100% viewfinder. No, at the moment it’s the D3s, nothing else, and because it is so out of my budget, especially when I consider the lenses that I’d need, it is nothing at all.
Thus: if I had money to burn, I would buy the D3s. Because I have not, I keep my D300 and I’m just as happy
If I look at this, and if I look at the other comments, I ask myself if we probably have reached a state of “good enough”? And what does that mean for the industry, especially in times of an economic slowdown?
I think that the manufacturers will be just fine because whatever new features that they add will cause a demand somewhere and people will buy. However, I would imagine, and hope that in times of economic slowdown that people would spend a little more wisely.
I won my DSLR and have no plans to upgrade, change, add to or anything. If it dies one day then that will be it, unless I win another one
My wife will tell you that I’m such a cheapskate. Drives her nuts lol.
Cool! That’s great! The best cameras are free!
Staying with my D300 this year. I haven’t really even used it that much yet. I need to spend my time and energy shooting with the D300 and not looking toward other gear this year.
Two more things that I’ve forgot and why I am not totally convinced of FX land:
No equivalent to my Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. The famous Nikon 24-70/2.8 is not stabilized! Nikon is the only player in the market without stabilization in that range. Sure, ISO is better on FX, but if I gain something only to lose it elsewhere, where’s the advantage?? OK, it helps in sports, where stabilization does not work, but then, if you have it and don’t need it, you can always turn it off.
The second may seem like nit-picking, but the D3s has no on-camera flash. Don’t get me wrong, I have two external flashes, but I don’t use them. I don’t work in the studio and I am no journalist, I only need fill flash and that rarely, thus I never walk around with flashes, but I did really have some uses for the on-camera flash. What’s that? Real men don’t use on-camera flashes?? I know, no professional camera has it, but the D300 and the D700 do.
At the moment I see no camera around that is convincingly much more advanced than the D300. Both the D700 and the D3(s) are, but in both cases I’d have to pay so much more, that the differences in features is not worth it for me.
I would definitely upgrade from the D70, most likely from the D200, and at the moment not at all from the D300. I suppose it’s good for at least another year.
Great thoughts, Andreas. I’m going to go out to my car, get my D300, kiss it, and thank it for being such a great camera!
I have to keep track of these real men statements. Real men don’t use flashes and real men use 8×10 film and a camera mounted onto a tripod!
I’m late to the discussion as usual but here is my situation.
I am a happy Olympus user since the E1 and now use an E3. The problem is that it appears Olympus may be gearing up to drop 4/3 DSLRs in favor of their very successful m4/3 line. I wouldn’t blame them really. From a sales point of view Olympus has been marginal in the DSLR market from day one. But here’s the kicker for me; I currently have no interest in m4/3 so I would be forced to buy new equipment if Olympus kills their DSLR line. If that happened tomorrow I’d probably go Nikon.
Brian,
I can’t imagine that Olympus would drop their DSLR line. And if they do, well, your E3 won’t suddenly evaporate. It has ever been and will still be a very capable camera. There’d be plenty of time to consider changing systems when you were really forced to do so. But then again, I don’t expect it.
Of course you’re right Andreas and I will be happy with my E-3 for a long time to come. Still, I can’t seem to shake that feeling of impending doom. Olympus has done it before.
This past week I learned some new things about my D300 and I’ve owned mine for just over a year. So, with that said, I have no desire to upgrade, spend more money and start reading another manual. As long as this camera keeps working there is no need.
I am one of those photographers who looks and reads about the newest and greatest which only causes daydreams and heavy breathing. Every once in a while I wonder if the larger format would be better. but because I’m poor I keep working with what I have. We only become better photographers when practicing our craft with what we have. And, I’m a believer that size doesn’t matter.
Great post, again!