And that is where the photographer's skill takes over. You will always be in situations that are no ideal.

And I don't know why you are using a 10-year-old camera, but in today's cameras, ISO 1600 is very good.

Not sure where you got ten years from. I have a G1 two years old to me, four year old tech. ISO 1600 is dreadful.

I dont mind that i can now pick up some same sensor size cameras as my GF3 to have as a backup.

Also i feel that i have been looking at the NEX C3 and it is actually increasing in price (USED) for some odd reason.

Also, if you want to make money on actual physical stock, buy the 20mm1.7, that thing just keeps climbing in price, best investment i ever made.

No one forces us to by those "minor updates." If we didn't, the manufacturers would stop.


But it's not just digital, not just cameras, and not new.

Remember the annual "new car" introductions? Often nothing changed beyond the grill, taillights and wheel covers, but people just had to have that shiny new car. Typical trade-in cycles in the 1960s were 3 years for a lot of people.

But yes, I think it's silly. If the camera I have today takes excellent photos today, it will take excellent photos tomorrow, and next year. Might something newer be "better"? Yes, it might be. Will it make much of a difference in my photographs? In most cases, no.

Sometimes there is a significant advance from one generation to the next. From the Pens to the OM-D, for example (although that's kind of a bad example, since it's really an all-new line, not a new generation of an existing one.) Canon's 7D is a significant upgrade from the 50D that it nominally replaced. And at the high-end, pro cameras are more likely to offer significant upgrades between generations, but then those generations tend to come further apart.

But for most cameras, for most of us, most of the time, there's little to be gained from one generation to the next. I tend to skip generations, sometimes two (e.g., EOS 20D to 50D, skipping the 30 and 40.)

I'm kind of hoping the GH3 will offer a dramatic improvement in C-AF and EVF performance, in which case I'll probably look at upgrading from my GH2. But if it's just a slightly better sensor, another tiny increment in the "world's fastest AF" marketing battle, and a few new features, I'll wait for the GH5 (or EM-6, or whatever offers something that might actual improve my work.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.

I went through many Nikon cameras since the mid 1960's. Each one was better than the last, but there were several years between models. Dpreview has a lot of gear forums, and people seem to forget that photography is all about the pictures. The fact that so many people no longer print also means you don't need as much camera as you once did (not talking about wedding or sports). I moved from the GF1 to the G3 and have no plans to buy another camera or lens anytime soon (I mean years). I try and spend more time learning more and more about the camera and how to get the most out of it. That was the beauty of cameras in years past. The manufacturer didn't come out with a upgrade but maybe every 5+ years, so you got to know the ins and outs of the camera. Not today. The truth is that many of these people think that a better camera will turn out better work. I know I did when I bought my first Nikon. I took bad photos before then, and the Nikon didn't help at all. I had to learn to be a photographer.

Images for books, magazines and calendars | photosbypike

Funny, ISO 1600 in my E-P1 is very good.

OK.

I know this isn't entirely new ... but I do think that things have gotten even worse in the last few years.

I'm sure part of my belief in that comes from getting my start in photography in the early 90s before digital took off (so I remember the way that old film bodies kept their value (or at least a higher percentage of their value) compared to digital cameras.

I'm not really "complaining" so much as I am just trying to understand it. It just seems silly that a professional camera that originally sold for $5000 in 2005 now is only valued at $250-$300 at a used camera store or $500-$600 on ebay.

I understand depreciation but this seems crazy extreme. I also heard from a local camera dealer that he expects the used prices for the Nikon D3 and D700 to drop to "fire sale prices" if the rumored Nikon D600 is indeed launched at an MSRP of less than $1,600.

On a m4/3 note, just look at Olympus Pen prices! You can buy a "new" (not used, not refurbished, but NEW and never opened) E-P1 or E-PL1 for $200 or less if you shop around. Granted, the E-P1 or E-PL1 aren't considered professional camera bodies but they're still excellent photographic tools.

I love the fact that this means we can get GREAT gear for next to nothing (I was certainly happy to get my old D2X back for just $300) but something just feels wrong in my gut when I think about how little value so many photographers place on tools that are capable of returning so much more value in terms of the images we create with them.

Sure, technology gets better every year, but I bet that if I put four identical sample photos taken from four completely different cameras made between 2004 and 2012 and made both a screen-size image (1920x1080) and a print at 16x20 inches from all four cameras no one would be able to accurately guess which camera took which photo without looking at the EXIF or just being lucky with a blind guess.

Not sure the film/digital comparison is relevant--you can't put a new sensor in an old digital camera like you can put new film in a film camera. Also, film cameras were cheaper to manufacture.

Why would a professional buy a seven-year-old digital camera? The folks that have the budget for expensive cameras will spend it on new ones. BTW, why does your camera dealer think the prices will be low after the D600, when the D800 has not put a dent in them?

Your idea about price is strange. The new price reflects what the manufacturer needs to make a profit, or at least minimize a loss. The secondhand market is driven by what people place a value on--there is no manufacturing cost to a used camera and people don't value old digital cameras.

"Investing" in camera equipment will always lead to a loss. Don't buy unless you can afford to lose the money.

I used my Argus C3 for 20 years, my Canon AE-1 for 20 years after that. The FILM changed, got better, etc., and some new developers came to market. LENSES got better, or at least different.

Where is our "film" today? It's built into the camera. It's not only the sensor, but the CPU designed to work with it, as a system. Unfortunately, as digital "film" gets better, we need the new camera to use it.

Closer comparison might be a digital back on a large format camera.

Of course, the fact is that all us photo nuts are wacko to some degree, and we live in a frenzied tech-obsessed culture that makes it seem normal.

__________________
..... Mike .....
-GF1, GH2, E-PL1, 20mm f/1.7, 14-45mm, 45-200mm , OM 14-42mm
-Hexanon 40mm f1.8, Minolta 50mm f1.4, Pentax 50mm f1.4, plus "full frame" Graflex 4x5