| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Online
|
The sad point is in days of Rollie, Hasselblad, or Nikon F3 (film) these cameras were almost for life they were so well made. In 40 yrs of using Hasselblad I only ever had 4 bodies and the lens lasted almost for ever.
We seem to be needing now to get a new DSLR almost every three years. In less that 10 years we went Nikon D1, D1X, D2X D3X D800. But we all know the D800 is many times better than the D1 but it cost us photographers a lot of money to get there.
There is no doubt that the digital upgrade route is whole body orientated, rather than mere film ASA improvements that were the norm predigital.
Body retention used to be measured in years...now it's months. With the commensurate oncost of doing so.
But here's the question... Had we known how good the D1X was at the time, would we have bothered doing all this intermediate upgrading? Personally I was disappointed when I got the D2X...unless I used a tripod, the images were always inferior (or at least no better) than the D1X I had sold for a pittance!
When the D3 came out I was ready to get rid of the D2X. The carrot of FX was enough for me to do it...despite it being the same MP as the D2X!
The change was a revelation. It was so forgiving of technique, so easy to use and the images were waaaaay better than my D2x...probably better than the D1X.
But it's this relief, coupled with being a Yorkshireman , that's stopped me from upgrading further. The D3 more than matches the film photography I did and in truth it's ....good enough for my needs from now on.
My equipment searching is now entirely directed towards getting D3 quality and performance in a compact lightweight camera...to remove the weight of the D3 system when travelling.
____________________
Eric