How do you decide when to upgrade your gear?

[StefanSC]

How did you learn when your photography skills were holding you back and when your technology (say sensor resolution or autofocus speed for wildlife) were holding you back?

It's gonna sound strange but... with enough experience you'll know when you know that it's time for an upgrade.

Basically, it's gonna be that moment when you have an idea of an image or you encounter a situation that your gear can't capture it the way you want it, no matter how much you try to use your skills.

Also, one thing I learned is that renting now and then some new gear can be an eye opening experience. For example, ages ago, I was shooting with a 300mm f4 and was happy with what I got from it. Then I rented a Sigma 150-600mm C and was amazed at the new possibilities it opened up.
Ditto after shooting with an A9 and it's "blackout free" EVF.

Nowadays, even the cheaper cars are more reliable and if they're more expensive and more complicated to repair, at least they don't NEED repairing as often.

I think the automobile had a golden age in the 2000s up to around 2012, when cars where advanced enough to be reliable and comfortable but not complicated enough to have all sorts of things to break down. These days there is too much technology in a car and most of it is done by the cheapest bidder...

I took my car in for service last month at the dealership (one of the biggest brands in the EU) and I was talking to a service rep about buying a new SUV. His advice: avoid the newer models as they are full of electric gremlins and go for an older platform.

 

[RikWriter]

I think the automobile had a golden age in the 2000s up to around 2012, when cars where advanced enough to be reliable and comfortable but not complicated enough to have all sorts of things to break down. These days there is too much technology in a car and most of it is done by the cheapest bidder...

I took my car in for service last month at the dealership (one of the biggest brands in the EU) and I was talking to a service rep about buying a new SUV. His advice: avoid the newer models as they are full of electric gremlins and go for an older platform.

I don't know about the EU, but we've bought a few new cars in the last four years in our family and that hasn't been our experience. Only issues I had were taken care of quickly and never reoccurred.

 

[sh1209]

I used to upgrade quite often when I shot DSLR cameras. I shot Nikon for over 20 years and had many of their great DSLR bodies. Since switching to mirrorless, I am definitely more content keeping the bodies far longer. I think one of the biggest things for me is to stay off YouTube and not be falling prey to the hype of having to upgrade camera bodies Every year or two. I currently have the Sony A1, A7RV and A6700 bodies. I could easily keep these cameras for another 3 to 4 years and be perfectly content. I think the money is better spent in buying the best lenses you can purchase, or at least that’s my opinion. I think just about any mirrorless cameras that are on the market now, could easily be kept 4 to 7 years with no issues whatsoever.

 

[GG1]

This question relates to the thought process, technical but also philosophical.

For example, does one start with the current gear they have (say body and lenses) to pursue the photography of interest (wildlife, nature, landscapes, portrait etc)? If you are unable to achieve what you are looking for how do you know its a technology issue and not a lack of skill? Some things are obvious- faster lenses, longer reach etc. For reference, I have no formal photography training, just learning as I go and I enjoy the hobby.

What about camera bodies?

It seems like most people here are shooting with pro level/top end bodies. I'm assuming many here are professionals. For those who are not pros or make money from your photography (a hobbyist) what criteria/reasoning do you use to upgrade? Do you buy the most advanced camera you can afford in hopes that the technology will last the longest? Do you let your wallet decide? Do you always buy the best?

How did you learn when your photography skills were holding you back and when your technology (say sensor resolution or autofocus speed for wildlife) were holding you back? Thanks for sharing.

$$$

 

[eaglenws]

I am far from a pro. I shoot mostly birds & wildlife. I started with a D5500. About 2 years ago I upgraded to a Z6 because I felt that the D5500 was holding me back. This past spring, I bought a Z 180-600 lens. I know that the Z6 doesn’t have the best AF tracking available, but I get some very good (in my opinion) shots. I occasionally think about getting a newer body to improve the AF tracking ability, but I can’t really justify the cost. I also don’t know if I would want to get a Z6III or a Z8. So, I will wait until the Z6 is holding me back and I can justify the cost.

 

[DaveyDitzer]

If you're like most people, you are only using 50-60% of the new features in your camera. If that's the case, are you willing to stretch yourself and go through the learning curve of those new features? And those features may have been included for one or two prior generations of cameras. There is a lot less value in a new camera if you intend to use it like your older camera.

I'm not sure whether you know your current camera is holding you back. It does not keep you from photographing the subject matter and types of photos you already make today. The question is about what kind of new photos you can make, where your keeper rate improves, and where you raise the bar.

Between the high frame rate and ability to use pre-release capture, static photos of a bird on a branch are a lot less desirable. It is much more often a case of getting great action with perfect timing or the photo is a discard.

I've seen comments about how pre-release capture is useless because it is JPEG only. But for some situations, a perfectly timed JPEG is a lot better than less effective timing and a raw file. I'm putting a lot more emphasis on Picture Controls, shooting JPEG more often, and exploring these newer features.

The general rule of thumb for camera upgrades used to be to buy every other generation. But at this point with frequent firmware updates, my camera is a lot more camera than it was when purchased. My most recent purchases were the Z8 and then Z6iii - and I sold my Z7ii. The Z7ii had some places where it might have a slight edge, but those situations were so narrow and minor that I viewed the newer cameras as clear upgrades. A camera is a computer that is used to connect to a lens - and it's hard to justify performance of a 5-6 year old computer, phone, or similar electronic device.

I do think for lenses it is possible to see specific differences in image quality. Often that's based on sharpness - particularly midframe to corners. AF speed is less of a factor. I usually get 10-12 years out of a lens.

Given the technology in cars these days, I wonder if we'll feel the same way about replacing cars based on technology rather than engine, interior and other traditional factors. Can you imagine how out of date 10 year old technology is in a car?

Concerning cars and technology, I just bought a new car (current model year) because I did NOT want the infotainment updates which demanded more touchscreen interaction and fewer buttons that came on the new "updated" edition.

 

[aringer]

Better gear does not make you a better photographer, but it DOES give you better images. I started like you, no schooling, just YouTube channels like Steve's and his books. This is how it worked out for me: I started with a Nikon kit, had the D5500 and the 55-300 lens. Once I started focusing on wildlife, I knew I needed better gear to get the images I wanted, but didn't have much money. I started with the Tamron 150-600 (the glass will make the biggest difference, especially if you need reach). Once the D500 came out, I waited for a sale to buy it. It made a big difference. After a couple of years of practice, and doing everything I'm supposed to do (stabilizing the camera, proper light, settings and conditions, etc.) I was still getting soft images, so I questioned if it was me or the gear. I rented the Nikon 500 mm f4 FL ED and right away, my images were wall hangers. Not all of them of course, but the IQ was much better and my question was answered.
IMHO, practice everything until you're consistently as good as you can; then you can rent great DSLR gear very cheaply, and see if it makes a difference. If it does, you can buy awesome DSLR gear for a fraction of what it used to be. I now shoot the Z8 because of the features, bells and whistles which make things easier, not necessarily better images. It's definitely a want and not a need. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy the wonderful world of wildlife photography for many years to come.

 

[Anjin San]

Better gear does not make you a better photographer, but it DOES give you better images.

First sentence says what I said…only better than I said it.

 

[FB101]

The reality is that I am holding my gear back, and so it changes owner when it's tired of putting up with my limitations - but then it often has regrets afterwards because the old man may not have the fancy features the new guys have, but he's reliable

 

[babytuckoo]

I am far from a pro. I shoot mostly birds & wildlife. I started with a D5500. About 2 years ago I upgraded to a Z6 because I felt that the D5500 was holding me back. This past spring, I bought a Z 180-600 lens. I know that the Z6 doesn’t have the best AF tracking available, but I get some very good (in my opinion) shots. I occasionally think about getting a newer body to improve the AF tracking ability, but I can’t really justify the cost. I also don’t know if I would want to get a Z6III or a Z8. So, I will wait until the Z6 is holding me back and I can justify the cost.

Yes, I'm heard the autofocus is improving with the newer and higher end bodies. I'm weighing costs now and wondering if getting more keepers with faster autofocus is truly worth it. I don't shoot much wildlife but maybe going out more with this subject in mind will improve my skills and as others have said, allow me to realize if new technology is really needed.

 

[babytuckoo]

Better gear does not make you a better photographer, but it DOES give you better images. I started like you, no schooling, just YouTube channels like Steve's and his books. This is how it worked out for me: I started with a Nikon kit, had the D5500 and the 55-300 lens. Once I started focusing on wildlife, I knew I needed better gear to get the images I wanted, but didn't have much money. I started with the Tamron 150-600 (the glass will make the biggest difference, especially if you need reach). Once the D500 came out, I waited for a sale to buy it. It made a big difference. After a couple of years of practice, and doing everything I'm supposed to do (stabilizing the camera, proper light, settings and conditions, etc.) I was still getting soft images, so I questioned if it was me or the gear. I rented the Nikon 500 mm f4 FL ED and right away, my images were wall hangers. Not all of them of course, but the IQ was much better and my question was answered.
IMHO, practice everything until you're consistently as good as you can; then you can rent great DSLR gear very cheaply, and see if it makes a difference. If it does, you can buy awesome DSLR gear for a fraction of what it used to be. I now shoot the Z8 because of the features, bells and whistles which make things easier, not necessarily better images. It's definitely a want and not a need. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy the wonderful world of wildlife photography for many years to come.

Excellent points and I totally forgot about the idea of renting gear to try out. A good way to run some experiments!

 

[AlanB313]

In my case, I started with a Nikon FG but couldn't afford to take lots of photos due to the cost of film. I got a d90 and could now take lots of photos and learn. But due to family and work obligations couldn't put the needed time in. After retirement, I got into birding. The d90 couldn't do what I wanted even after many months of trying. I tried it with a friend's 70-300 and a used 28-300. The d90 wouldn't properly use the tamron 150-600mm so I got a d500.
The difference between the d90 and the d500 was night and day.
The next upgrade was lenses. The 150-600mm is heavy. I discovered the wonderful 300mm f4 pf and the 500mm pf. These are my kit now.
Lower light is what may motivate me to get a longer lens f4. I was out last night at dusk. It was really hard to focus on small birds in the marsh with f5.6. If a f4 500mm gets cheap enough I may go for it someday.
But, a z8 or z9 might enable lower light shooting and I should probably make that move first. The f4.5 400mm might handle low light with a z8 better than my d500 with a 500mm f4.
All food for thought once I get past other necessary expenditures.
Edit, I expect to rent a z8 this Fall and try it out.

 

[RichF]

i upgrade when I want something new. SInce I don't have to make money off my equipment I can do as I please (as long as my wife does not get TOO mad at me.

 

[Craig Yuill]

I generally upgrade when a camera stops working and is not worth repairing, or I believe that the camera is holding me back in some way. (Slow AF, mediocre DR, etc.) But I am less likely to upgrade than supplement existing cameras with one that has different features and/or characteristics. I still own most of the cameras I purchased over the years.

 

[fcotterill]

[edited] Over the past decade, I turned over cameras more often than lenses. One reason is modern ILCs are basically expensive computers with an impressive sensor, and the technology has advanced remarkably over the past 15 years. I upgraded every year, since 2015, often to Used cameras - buying a new D850 in 2017 - until I could afford a Used Nikon D5 in 2021, and upgraded to a D6 soon after. Since 2022, the Z9 has levelled off the impetus to upgrade any camera.

How important is the camera body

Well, I propose some loose and lighthearted discussion thread. How important is the camera body in wildlife photography? Many wildlife photographers are saying that You should always invest in lenses. But I feel it's not always true. Maybe if You already have a good, older body, and want to...

bcgforums.com

Looking back, compared against my own experience with Nikon cameras since 1984, the past decade has delivered unimaginable advances of Flagship and also Prosumer cameras. The D3 in 2007 shattered the ISO performance ceiling with improved AF. The D5 Triumvirate followed, 2016-2017, including the D500 and D850 (their credentials need no explanation); the D6 in 2020 radically improved Autofocus. Several features make the Z9 in 2022 Nikon's latest "D3 level" leap forward.

This technology with modern lenses radically improves the means to capture the proverbial 'fleeting moments', even after sunset. So today's cameras include:

• Powerful fast Autofocus plus Subject Detection using machine-learning AI;
• Unprecedented Lowlight imaging quality;
• Wysiwyg exposure settings in EVFs;
• Impressive image stabilization;
• Excellent Resolution of FX sensors, 45mp and higher;
• Very Fast capture rates;
• Built in Networking as well as AutoCapture for remote photography;
• Automated Focus Stacking aka Image Stacking;
• Silent Shutters.

Considering what is now possible with these cameras for wildlife photography, it's hard to imagine how the current line up of Prosumer and Pro cameras - released 2022-2024 - can be improved upon significantly. More specifically, what features can help improve our successes in most wildlife photography situations.

Frame rates of RAW images are likely to increase above the current ceiling of 20-30 fps, and RAW PreCapture are likely to justify upgrades. Personally, success in outdoor photography has become more about opportunities and field craft, and what"Nature's Luck" turns up out there.

 

[Milos]

I started with D70 and I was chasing megapixels until I got to D800. Then I got Z7 so I would have lighter camera for hiking. I still use it but it does not work for birds, so I got D850. After many missed shots I started to save money for Z8. Now I hardly use my D850 since Z8 is so good for any action shots and Z7 for stable shots. I pick up my D850 only if I want to use a lens that I don't have Z version yet. Now I will concentrate on lenses. It may take a while until I think about a new camera.

 

[fcotterill]

The rule, Date the Bodies, Marry the Glass, has sense at least for rationale purchasing tactics.... Until a company like Nikon releases significantly lighter Z Telephotos that caused many owners to trade in their now older and heavier but expensive and very high quality telephotos!

The market impacts of past 2-4 years of the FX Mirrorless maturation has worked in both directions. Canon and Nikon have released entirely new camera systems over this period. In Nikon's case, the current total is 45 new Z Nikkors in 6 years. There're many more affordable Used DSLR optics is one unprecedented result, many of which perform as well on Mirrorless cameras, and sometimes better.

The ergonomics and features, let alone optical quality, of the new Mirrorless lenses have justified many photographers to buy new and/or switch entirely to Mirrorless from DSLR. However some of us are happy with mixed DSLR - MILC systems, which at least share F-mount or EF-mount glass.

 

[xxx]

When a new model of camera or lens I use is released, I sell my old gear right away while the used prices are still high and upgrade to the latest. This way, I stay up to date with the latest tech at the lowest cost.

Hang on to old gear too long, and its value drops significantly—just ask the F-mount owners.

 

[O]

This question relates to the thought process, technical but also philosophical.

For example, does one start with the current gear they have (say body and lenses) to pursue the photography of interest (wildlife, nature, landscapes, portrait etc)? If you are unable to achieve what you are looking for how do you know its a technology issue and not a lack of skill? Some things are obvious- faster lenses, longer reach etc. For reference, I have no formal photography training, just learning as I go and I enjoy the hobby.

What about camera bodies?

It seems like most people here are shooting with pro level/top end bodies. I'm assuming many here are professionals. For those who are not pros or make money from your photography (a hobbyist) what criteria/reasoning do you use to upgrade? Do you buy the most advanced camera you can afford in hopes that the technology will last the longest? Do you let your wallet decide? Do you always buy the best?

How did you learn when your photography skills were holding you back and when your technology (say sensor resolution or autofocus speed for wildlife) were holding you back? Thanks for sharing.

Date the camera, marry the glass as Steve says, and let me say that is so so true.
Camera Gear are nothing but tools.
90% of what you achieve comes from you.
Not everyone can truly say they have completely outgrown the capability of the camera their using.
New technology brings new feature new tools, if they enhance or help achieve things easier or resolve specific issues or meet your needs then that's fit for purpose.

Example:

The reason i upgraded my D3X to a D850 was mainly i needed a tilt screen, yes a tilt screen as doing waterfall shots laying on a rock in the middle of a running stream in Tasmania's wilderness was a challenge with the D3X not having one.

The D850 tool brought with it the option of a grip offering 9 FPS, plus some additional resolution, ok its not a D5 but gee at 9 fps and now 45mp, a tilt screen, with iso good to 12800 in my area, hello i could now use a tool that could do everything really well, so i sold the D5 and got a second D850. At 9 fps is enough speed it covers most needs.............what changed was not my photography but simply the tools used to help achieve different outcomes.

Haven't looked back since, mind you for known super high iso needs in really challenging low light conditions with blistering strong stickiness in tracking the rented D6 tool was and in many cases for me is still king especially at higher than 12800 iso.

Along comes the Z9 i sold recently after 2 years for a Z8, subject to the specifications of the pending Z7III the Z8 may be traded in for a Z7III, yes i am going backwards not forwards, why is the question, the Z8 is excellent but not the tool i specifically need to meet my current needs, i do more 4 to 5 day hikes, or a lot more traveling so weight and size is paramount, other than that i don't need 20fps RAW with 3 D eye tracking as much or as often as first thought.

If tracking was super super critical all the time i would rent or buy Canon.

My needs are light small, prefer high resolution to reduce some dependency on longer glass, tilt screen, 5 -12 FPS at most is plenty, ISO to max 12800 is plenty. What tool fits that, is the Z7III and what light compact good glass can i add to that is important.

If i use my 300 2.8 VR II at F2.8, (not for Hiking LOL ) i find the image outcomes are almost indistinguishable be it the D3X DF D5 D6 D850 Z8 Z9
after all 90% of what you achieve comes from you, that said we are all using fundamentally just a combination of time light and speed to make a photograph.

New gear high end gear can make things easier or faster to achieve certain results, there just different tools, but ultimately you don't buy a photo you make it.

When you look through your album's and have to check the info to see what lens or camera you used as you couldn't tell looking at the photograph, tells you something.

Mirror less tools have introduced some serious advancements, especially in costs and
especially in 3 D tracking and speeds which benefit people greatly that need those tools.
Mirror less has also been supported with great glass, as well as ushering the industry into the videography market.

See the gear as nothing but tools to meet certain needs, specifically or all round.

The latest and most expensive is not always the greatest, especially if your skill sets are not on par.

Only;y an opinion

 

[wotan1]

it depends on budget and functional need. I found myself with disposable income to support new equipment as I entered retirement and had more time for photography. I had the Z7ii but read about and eventually bought the Z9 because it offered huge advances in capability compared to anything I had used in the past. I ended up getting interested in bird photography and I found I needed longer focal length to reach some subjects so I ended up with the 800mm pf.

One purchase, the 135mm Plena was not made out of need but based on impressive results and reports by others. I bought it and have found it is now my favorite lens and its ability is directing me to new ways to shoot. It is now my favorite lens and I take it with me everywhere.

If you are not using it let it go and get something else.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

In the Nikon world I upgraded from a D-7200/Sigma 150-600 to a D-500/500pf for better focus and better IQ. I got that, in particular Nikon's GRP autofocus which allowed to capture BIF much better.

However, on the South Padre Island Bird Park boardwalks I determined that I could not comfortably carry my two-camera solution (D-500/500pf+D-500/300pf). It didn't matter that it took killer images. It was too heavy for walk around bird photography. (Note: In the Ranch blinds it worked well and outshot the Sony A1/200-600 in a professional's hand because I was routinely able to get a SP autofocus on the bird's eye. A couple of shots are still on the wall.) I decided I needed a one-camera solution, a body and a zoom lens. Accordingly, I sold what was arguably the best DSLR combo for bird photography for exactly one reason-weight.

After much trial I settled on an OM Systems OM-1 mk 1 and the Olympus 100-400 lens. This combo won out over a Canon R-7/100-500 and the aforementioned Sony A-1/200-600 simply because my wife loved it in her hands. (My wife and I shoot exactly the same rig.) Did this take better shots than the D-500/500 and 300pf that I sold? No!, not for perched birds where I could get SP autofocus on the eye, but yes when it came to BIF because the subject ID for birds was excellent. The OM Systems rig focused on the eye while the Nikon focused on the nearest part of the bird. Better IQ no, more pleasing BIF shots, yes. (Note: In the Ranch blinds I used a Olympus 300f4. That does produce better IQ without a TC and about equal with a 2.0TC.)

My probably final upgrade, I am 83, is to the OM-1 mark 2. Again, one reason, buffer size. The OM-1 had a very advanced pre-capture capability, but the buffer was too short to use the pre-capture routinely. The mk has a 2.5x buffer which is why I upgraded.

 

[O]

In the words of Tom Hogan.................. when i was suffering from GAS, he said "why not enjoy what you have and focus on photography", i have never forgotten that.

Nor Steve's ...................."Date the camera Marry the glass"

And my own mantra, ......................."photography is mostly made with the fundamentals of composing a story to make memory's using mainly a combination of time light and speed.

 

[EricBowles]

Excellent points and I totally forgot about the idea of renting gear to try out. A good way to run some experiments!

While renting gear is a good idea, you have to remember you are trying out new gear with your existing technique. Often there is a learning curve with new gear, and you're not going to pick it up with a one week rental. Not that you shouldn't rent. Just keep in mind that renting new gear is a way to provide a preview of what you need to learn and how hard you may need to work to fully take advantage of the gear.

I don't think any of the early buyers of the Z9 or Z8 immediately jumped into their first week or two understanding how the camera worked and how to set it up for specific subjects. Even when they thought they had it figured out, most ended up changing their mind with settings as they used the cameras more.

 

[James C.]

More recently, I had a Nikon D500 with a 500mm PF lens. I was getting frustrated though, with the mirror slap often scaring away the birds I was photographing, and I wanted a little more reach. Also, I was getting frustrated that I couldn't crop as much as I wanted to in post sometimes because of the D500's crop sensor. When the Z8 came out, and it had a silent shutter feature, plus it was full frame and I could crop deeper in post, it only took me a couple of months of reading reviews and asking questions to decide to upgrade to it.


Soon afterwards, the Nikkor 180-600mm lens was announced. I had had a 200-500mm Nikkor lens before the 500mm PF. This gave me the extra 100mm I'd been wanting. The IQ seemed good, and the zoom was internal, and the throw of the zoom ring was MUCH shorter than the old 200-500mm lens, AND it was at a decent price. (Although, I wish it had been a pound or two lighter).


In both of these decisions, after doing considerable researching, the camera body and lens that I decided to buy met multiple needs and wants. I think that is what made me feel good about making the upgrades.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

Call me a Luddite but I yearn for cars from a previous generation, when you didn't have to be an engineer or techie to change the radio station, or turn on the AC. Just give good old fashioned push button radios and physical keys to lock the car!

You are a Luddite.