DEbate: Whay Expensive DSLRS vs Consumer Bodies?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jerry McG, May 5, 2004.

  1. Jerry McG

    Jerry McG Guest

    I'm a D1x owner, watching the thing rather quickly migrate to the land of
    obsolete junk. I am beginning to wonder if it isn't more prudent to shoot
    with consumer level bodies like the D100, and now the D70, since none of
    them will be worth beans soon anyway. The large metal framed bodies like the
    Nikon D1 series and the Canon EOS I digitals may be robust, like their old
    film ancestors, but so what? They'll be junk in a year anyway as their
    sensors become obsolete.

    Also, has anyone wondered why with DSLRs the mfrs can't simply upgrade the
    chips, rather than requiring an entire new body be purchased? The current
    business practices are akin to requiring everyone to upgrade film bodies
    every time Fuji reformulates Velvia!
    Jerry McG, May 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jerry McG

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Jerry McG"

    >I'm a D1x owner, watching the thing rather quickly migrate to the land of
    >obsolete junk. I am beginning to wonder if it isn't more prudent to shoot
    >with consumer level bodies like the D100, and now the D70, since none of
    >them will be worth beans soon anyway. The large metal framed bodies like the
    >Nikon D1 series and the Canon EOS I digitals may be robust, like their old
    >film ancestors, but so what?


    Canon's pro models like the 1D Mark II have shutters tested to a minimum of
    200,000 exposures, while bodies built on less robust consumer models like, say,
    the Kodak 14n/c are more like 25,000 cycles. That's one reason to buy the more
    expensive bodies, if you think you'll shoot that many frames.

    If you shoot enough the high end models pay for themselves through film costs
    you don't have to pay, but if you don't shoot much they are not a good buy, I
    think.

    >Also, has anyone wondered why with DSLRs the mfrs can't simply upgrade the
    >chips, rather than requiring an entire new body be purchased?


    Kodak did that with the 14n, giving users of the older model the option of a
    new sensor, so maybe that's coming. But the sensor was the same size and pixel
    count as the earlier model. If there's a larger sensor (either physically
    larger or the same size with more pixels) then this becomes increasingly
    unfeasible.

    >The current business practices are akin to requiring everyone to
    >upgrade film bodies every time Fuji reformulates Velvia!


    In a few years things will maybe settle down but right now change is happening
    so fast we're seeing improved models every year or so. As one pro friend said,
    "I used to spend a lot of money on film but now I spend it on digital bodies".

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, May 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jerry McG

    JT Guest

    They'll be junk in a year anyway as their
    > sensors become obsolete.
    >


    Not true - My 10D will always take as good a picture 10 years from now as it
    does today. It will be just as fast and it's internal software will never
    degrade.

    But, I know what you are saying - there is *always* a better model in a few
    months. . .

    My wedding was done on a 10D - and I'm *extremely* pleased with the results.
    Although the results may be better with a 1D (or whatever is the current
    high line Canon), I doubt I would notice a difference or become disappointed
    in the future by viewing wedding pics taken with a 1D.

    So, although it would be nice to have the best of the best, it simply will
    never be possible with a dSLR (at least for me).

    For now, I'm thinking with each doubling of pixels I'll consider upgrading.
    .. .so, when the 12MP 10D equal comes along I'll probably be ready 'just
    because'. Then when the 24MP 10D equal comes along, ditto. . .etc. . .
    JT, May 5, 2004
    #3
  4. Jerry McG

    Bowzer Guest

    On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:40:50 -0600, "Jerry McG"
    <> wrote:

    >I'm a D1x owner, watching the thing rather quickly migrate to the land of
    >obsolete junk. I am beginning to wonder if it isn't more prudent to shoot
    >with consumer level bodies like the D100, and now the D70, since none of
    >them will be worth beans soon anyway. The large metal framed bodies like the
    >Nikon D1 series and the Canon EOS I digitals may be robust, like their old
    >film ancestors, but so what? They'll be junk in a year anyway as their
    >sensors become obsolete.
    >
    >Also, has anyone wondered why with DSLRs the mfrs can't simply upgrade the
    >chips, rather than requiring an entire new body be purchased? The current
    >business practices are akin to requiring everyone to upgrade film bodies
    >every time Fuji reformulates Velvia!
    >


    Your D1x will still be as viable as the day you bought it for years to
    come. Unless you truly need the capabilties of the newer bodies,
    there's no compelling reason to dump it and upgrade.

    I think the main reasons for using pro bodies are reliability, quick
    response, and durability. In this respect, it isn't different from
    film bodies. If the D100, D70, and D1x produce similar images, what
    differentiates them? Same for the F100 and N80. Same basic images, but
    totally different cameras.
    Bowzer, May 5, 2004
    #4
  5. Jerry McG

    [BnH] Guest

    Drop them on an assignment and need not to worry bout it to break apart?

    Saw an F4 that dropped from 1m high n it is not even dented !
    Do that with a 300D and I would like to see the result :)

    Sensor wise ... well if you will still print in 8R size for the next 10
    years ...
    ur D1X can still match the quality of what's in the future.

    =bob=


    "Jerry McG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm a D1x owner, watching the thing rather quickly migrate to the land of
    > obsolete junk. I am beginning to wonder if it isn't more prudent to shoot
    > with consumer level bodies like the D100, and now the D70, since none of
    > them will be worth beans soon anyway. The large metal framed bodies like

    the
    > Nikon D1 series and the Canon EOS I digitals may be robust, like their old
    > film ancestors, but so what? They'll be junk in a year anyway as their
    > sensors become obsolete.
    >
    > Also, has anyone wondered why with DSLRs the mfrs can't simply upgrade the
    > chips, rather than requiring an entire new body be purchased? The current
    > business practices are akin to requiring everyone to upgrade film bodies
    > every time Fuji reformulates Velvia!
    >
    >
    [BnH], May 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Jerry McG

    Mark B. Guest

    "Jerry McG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm a D1x owner, watching the thing rather quickly migrate to the land of
    > obsolete junk. I am beginning to wonder if it isn't more prudent to shoot
    > with consumer level bodies like the D100, and now the D70, since none of
    > them will be worth beans soon anyway. The large metal framed bodies like

    the
    > Nikon D1 series and the Canon EOS I digitals may be robust, like their old
    > film ancestors, but so what? They'll be junk in a year anyway as their
    > sensors become obsolete.
    >
    > Also, has anyone wondered why with DSLRs the mfrs can't simply upgrade the
    > chips, rather than requiring an entire new body be purchased? The current
    > business practices are akin to requiring everyone to upgrade film bodies
    > every time Fuji reformulates Velvia!
    >
    >


    New sensors will typically require an upgraded processing system. Software
    can be upgraded of course, but it's not as easy to upgrade the hardware.
    The 10D has a completely new processor even though it's still a 6mp 1.3x
    sensor like the D60.

    Mark
    Mark B., May 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Jerry McG

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "JT" <> wrote:

    >My wedding was done on a 10D - and I'm *extremely* pleased with the results.
    >Although the results may be better with a 1D (or whatever is the current
    >high line Canon), I doubt I would notice a difference or become disappointed
    >in the future by viewing wedding pics taken with a 1D.


    The 1D is not "better" than the 10D, as far as image quality is
    concerned. The 10D has higher resolution, and lower noise.

    The 1D is a high-end camera because of its ruggedness, weatherproofing,
    high-speed flash sync (1/500), burst mode, etc. Things you may need for
    certain kinds of shooting, but not higher quality images, AOTBE.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Jerry McG

    Guest

    In message <>, I,
    wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >"JT" <> wrote:
    >
    >>My wedding was done on a 10D - and I'm *extremely* pleased with the results.
    >>Although the results may be better with a 1D (or whatever is the current
    >>high line Canon), I doubt I would notice a difference or become disappointed
    >>in the future by viewing wedding pics taken with a 1D.


    >The 1D is not "better" than the 10D, as far as image quality is
    >concerned. The 10D has higher resolution, and lower noise.


    I should have wrote, "The 10D has higher absolute resolution, ...",
    meaning it resolves the focal plane better per unit of area (besides
    having more pixels than the 1D).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 6, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. malc
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    377
    Ionizer
    Oct 2, 2004
  2. George Preddy

    Kodak DSLRs dump Nikon, turn to pro Sigma bodies

    George Preddy, May 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    945
    Skip M
    May 17, 2004
  3. Heidy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    475
    jasen
    Apr 7, 2007
  4. Heidy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    386
    jasen
    Apr 7, 2007
  5. Paul Furman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    479
    David J Taylor
    Apr 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page