[shuttertalk]

Hey all,

As the purchase cycle rolls round again for me - I'm faced with the usual "what camera/gear to buy" dilemma. I've currently got a [semi-pro] body and a small collection of lenses - including the standard 18-135mm kit zoom and a nice 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 28mm f/2.8. The camera is getting a bit long in the tooth, so I'm thinking it's time to upgrade.

At this stage I'm tossing up between the following. (I'm leaving specific models and brands out at this stage as to not colour people's views / opinions)

Option A:
Upgrading to a "pro-ish" DSLR body, with 1 above average lens + flashgun. With this option I'll be changing systems completely so will be starting over from scratch.

Option B:
Upgrading the body only to the latest model + kit lens, and keep my stable of lenses and possibly add a couple more on. I'm thinking maybe a macro lens would be nice...

I've worked out that the price differential between the two options will be the same, since in the first option I'll be selling all my old gear.

If you were in the same position, which would you choose? Would you stay with an "average" body and lens but have lots of flexibility in your kit, or give it all up for a "better" quality body and lens.

Appreciate your input... Decisions decisions... *sigh*

[EnglishBob]

I'd go for the flexibility route, I find even with all teh lenses I have, i always want one more, more lenses and flexibility would be my choice.

[Irma]

Hi Jules,

I have been already in that situation... and here are my thoughts...

I think that if you had the chance to upgrade and have a pro body, even though it means to have just one lens now, I would go for it.

Having a lens, let's say a 28-135mm, you are not missing much for regular shooting... With the time you can build up again your stock of dedicated lenses.

Still, you can always rent other lenses for special shootings, if that were needed, while you get your own ones.

From my own story, I could say that when I change system and upgrade, I left behind my D70, 4 lenses and some converters... I don't regret the change... After three years of my upgrade, I have all lenses I need... and my body that I don't think I will upgrade in many years to come.

All the best in your decision...

[matthew]

I would probably go with option A - which makes me a massive hypocrite, considering that I buy camera gear more often than I buy socks. But the idea of having one really good lens that suits what I want to shoot is far more tempting than a larger collection of general-purpose lenses.

But I also don't have kids. You may need more flexibility than I do...

[Pavel]

I do not think that anybody can meaningfully advise you. I have not seen too many of your photos. If you are a technically outstanding photographer and you are truly bumping against the limits of your hardware and yet you want still better images, than go for fancy gear. Few of us are that good however. With software like DXO and NIK, and with good in-camera techniques, you can produce astonishingly high quality images with good quality consumer lenses and cameras. Before I would buy any new expensive camera/lens, I would really learn to use this type of software, use the apertures leading to best results, use tripod and use high quality clean filters. As to the lenses you need, it really depends on what you photograph. Matthew likes to walk around with a tele, although he is a true expert with other lenses as well. I tended to favor the kit lens (18-70), but now in the city I walk with the 70-300 most of the time. Your subject matter, your style and your vision determines what lenses you need.

As Matthew said, there are really two separate hobbies - photography and equipment acquisition. If you are buing an equipment, you should know for which of the two hobbies you are buying it. I think that when you start with a brand, you stick with it. I think that all major brands are good. I have seen thousands of photos, but I can not tell which camera/lens was used to capture the images. Cannon and Nikon are generally best supported and to me that is important. Temporary advantages of one brand are usually duplicated by other brands and so it is your investment in lenses which I think really matters.

Pavel

[Wedding Shooter]

Hi Jules - a bit hard to advise without knowing what body and what lens. I am guessing option A is Canon as you are a Nikon shooter.

If you could let us know what focal length and max aperture (with what crop if any) option A is it would help as you have told us what you already have. That way we can compare what you would be giving up for what you would be getting.

At the end of the day lenses make a bigger difference then a new body. But if your lenses are only average then I would be going for a decent lens and nice body and planning a strategy around that. Of course - you could always go with Option C: Stick with your current brand, sell your lenses and buy a newer body and one nice lens from that brand.

Unless of course they don't offer the lens (I am thinking a 24-105 f4 IS L on a 7D or a 5D is what you are considering for option A) - Nikon don't have an equivalent for that lens.

If your 70-200 2.8 is a non VR/IS lens then I wouldn't cry over having to sell it and go with option A - however if it is the Nikon VR one then I would lean towards Option B.

Cheers,

Chris

[shuttertalk]

Hey all, thanks for the input - very much appreciated.

Irma, Matthew, Wedding Shooter - you've hit the nail on the head - I'm considering doing exactly what you described with Option A.

I was also trying to keep it as general and hypothetical as possible, but since you're talking specifics, Chris, thanks for the advice.

Pavel, I appreciate your views too - have often given the same advice myself. I think in my situation though I find the equipment itself is lacking. Bear in mind I purchased my current camera when it had already become superseded (budget driven decision for a quick gain), and it is well and truly a couple of generations behind technology-wise. That and some niggly little things like the lens occasionally failing to register on the body and having to take it off and put it back on a few times before it is recognised - makes me think that it's past it's used by date. If you accused me of liking shiny new things though - I couldn't fault you there

I think Chris summed it up nicely though - that my current handful of lenses are only average and the question is whether I continue to supplement my average lenses with others OR whether I take this opportunity to start from scratch with higher quality equipment - whether it be within my current brand or not.

The latter definitely sounds more appealing, but I would sacrifice much flexibility in the short term until I can build up the collection again (which may be a while). And therein lies the dilemma...

[matthew]

Just to talk in general about a couple of cameras in particular, the Brand New Canon 7D is almost a spec-for-spec a match for the Nikon D300s, except for the marketing buzz. It's a big deal that Canon users have a reasonably weather-sealed fast camera - but Nikon had one with the D200, so the continuing improvements in that family are nothing special.

Cameras are just cameras.

I'm just saying...

[DeltaHotel66]

Hi guys,

Just thought I would throw in my two penneths worth here. Now I have to admit that I am a complete novice with virtually no knowledge of the equipment discussed, however, I do think that this is a totally subjective issue. Personally, I think you have to choose whatever route you deem appropriate and as much as others input can possibly give insights you hadn't previously considered, what others would or wouldn't do shouldn't influence our final decision. I can't recall the exact wording of the quote but the other day I read a line that said something like, "saying an expensive camera takes great pictures is like saying an expensive guitar plays great music". Of course these statements can be true but it depends on who is using them. What I am trying to say is, the equipment is only as good as the operator. I think more expensive equipment has the "potential" to take "better" pictures but it solely depends on the skill and ability of the user. This being said, I also believe it's true that a highly skilled photographer could produce "better" images using lower spec kit than a novice using top spec equipment. Of course I don't know your personal level of proficiency ( although I am sure it far exceeds mine) I am just trying to say that as with most things in life, there are so many variables at play here, that I think it's somewhat simplistic to think that it's "better" to go down a higher spec route. Speaking from my experience as a computer engineer, I know that so many products are marketed as "faster, smoother" etc and yet as I stated earlier, so many variables come into play that its not that simple. One final factor I feel is important to mention is price differential related to product difference, is the extra cost reflected in the "actual" performance of the equipment or is it simply a case of marketing hype as with so many other things. Will the final work you produce be significantly superior and will these results be solely down to the performance of the equipment or your skill as the user ? For me its all swings and roundabouts, and ultimately the most important thing is that you are happy with the choice you make.

I am sure you will enjoy your new equipment whichever way you decide to go.

Cheers
David

[shuttertalk]

Just to talk in general about a couple of cameras in particular, the Brand New Canon 7D is almost a spec-for-spec a match for the Nikon D300s, except for the marketing buzz.

That's true too... price is similar as well. Now you've got me thinking...

Thanks for your comments too David - much food for thought there.

[Irma]

I agree with David's argument about variables, and one thing also to consider in my opinion.... Far from the equipment itself is to check the service and support to customers you will get from the company you chose. Availability of accessories, lenses etc...

This thread got me thinking about a video I just saw... telling that day by day our making decisions is more difficult because there are more options to chose from... if there were just blue and pink... the choice is easy... but if you have to chose among 50 colors... make a decision turns a bit complicated.

To have more variety in the long run doesn't make our life easier. I think.

[DeltaHotel66]

Absolutely Irma, modern life presents us with a mind boggling, endless stream of choices that can indeed lead to needless stress. Ultimately, I have to ask myself, whichever way I decide, how much "actual" difference will there be. Some people will advocate one brand, others another, it's all about personal bias and opinion. Is this camera "better" than the other, well, to accurately determine this, we really have to define the term "better". This forum is obviously about photography and for me at least, the work we produce as "photographers" is THE most important aspect, whichever equipment we use.

I agree with Pavel, no one can really advise you which choice to make and ultimately, will it really make that much difference? In the real world, the differences are probably virtually negligible,all modern dslr cameras can produce excellent results when used proficiently, and as I said, the images themselves are what ultimately matter.

Cheers
David

[Wedding Shooter]

At the end of the day it comes down to the range of lenses available. Who has the lenses you feel you will use the most.

[zanjoeh]

For me, I'd take option B. I am using a Nikon right now and I am pretty pleased with it. I also have Canon friends who love their canons. I am real loyal and if ever I were in your place I'd still go for a Nikon and just upgrade it to the latest one. That goes for me though.