It isn't just megapixels. The newer chips have advantages that your 10D just doesn't have. Working in a theatrical environment you probably have to work in very low light levels from time to time. The newer cameras do far far better with noise in low light situations and especially at high ISO levels. Whether its worth it to you is a choice you make, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now your point about quality of equipment does not necessarily mean quality result is definitely true. And it is equally true that no one can create the best images with total junk for equipment. What we are talking about is the middle ground. The 10d in its day was the top of the line. I used one way past when I should have upgraded. I am paying for it now in that many images I took in the time where it was used past its prime would have been more marketable with a newer body. The when decision is not always so clear cut, but upgrade you will do.
Knowledge, talent and experience are important, but did you ever see Ansel Adams with a Browne???
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Everybody Is A Photographer
From: Russ <rebphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 12:11 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
My point is that not EVERYONE needs to upgrade every year or so...
My work as a Theatrical Photographer does not require me
to print photos the size of a Bill Board............
I just get irritated when it is thought that the only
way to produce QUALITY results is if you buy the
newest and most expensive equipment!
On 9/22/2011 12:55 PM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:That can work with a non pro, but if you do that you are making compromises. Pros to compete with other pros usually have to be working with something close to top of the line. Yet as technology marches on computers quit and the new ones won't run the old software. The new bodies have features that DO improve your work and improvements in the chip do improve the quality of the files. Better resolution, bigger file size ect but all other things being equal, you work suffers if you don't upgrade. Maybe your type of work doesn't make those advances important, but that makes it a limitation now not a choice. At 8x10 a 10d did ok, but go bigger and you were going to run into limitations. Unless you take enough that you can throw away a body in 2 years, for most pros its not cheaper
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Everybody Is A Photographer
From: Russ <rebphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, September 22, 2011 11:17 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Gang..............
Now here is something I don't understand.................
Why is it when people talk about the "cons" of digital
they always mention that you have to up grade every
two years?
I used a Canon 10d for long time and since I was getting
great results with it I never saw the need to up grade.
At one point I got a large payment on a job and since I saw
the need for a second body I bought a 30d, this was when the
50d was in production. I didn't see the need to spend a fortune
on the newest technology when I didn't need it.
After my camera equipment was recently stolen,
I bought a Nikon D90 .............not the most recent technology!
If I am getting great results with the equipment I currently have.....
Isn't buying new stuff every year or so more like
"Keeping up with the Jones'"
Than actually needing or requiring to have a new camera?
Russ R.E. Baker Photography
www.rebphoto.smugmug.com
Feed a Cat...
Starve a Fever.....
-- Russ R.E. Baker Photography www.rebphoto.smugmug.com Feed a Cat... Starve a Fever.....
