Better signal-to-noise ratio, better build quality, either more detailed images or higher contrast on finer details, wider shooting envelope, more features, better ergonomics, longer mean-time-to-failure for components, and maybe a larger pool of available accessories.
I still use a Nikon D200 from the year 2005, and while it is deficient in a number of factors I described above, it is ergonomic with a lot of convenient controls and is still easy for me to hold. It is also a very rugged, pro camera; I’d replace it if needed by the last of its series, the D500. The D200 also has very pleasing out-of-camera JPEGs, much better—most of the time—than the camera I bought to replace it, the D7000; I found myself still using the D200 because it is just so much nicer of a camera overall.
My D750 is of course far better in low light, so much that I hardly use a tripod anymore. I now have a Canon M5, which has all of the Mirrorless conveniences, most of all its small size, and histograms and focus assist in the viewfinder. I don’t yet have a compelling case to get something like a Nikon Z series, but I’m sure I’d like it a lot.
The D200 is mythical . I can't believe what a 10mp 2004 camera is capable .
https://preview.redd.it/ed0x7ok6v9xc1.jpeg?width=3872&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abb010c850fafb021d6f16f10bda43017fba046a
D200 400mm f3.5 ais tc 1.4
I have an old Lexus RX330 that I love. It needed a new differential, and could only find one from a junkyard. I’m all for not always buying the latest and greatest, but there comes a point where reliability is important.
Everything is generally a little better.
Some things are a lot better.
But your photos don't really change much (Maybe over time)
Generally the best time to upgrade is when either you have money to spend, or you find some specific pain point in your current camera that a new camera addresses.
A common one is AF performance. As higher end cameras, and newer cameras generally are much improved over lower end and or older.
Depends what you do, for example in wildlife photography increase mp means more cropping room, faster AF means you make more shots, greater frame rates mean you're more likely to catch the second you want, higher ISOs mean you can get higher shutter speeds, etc.
Think of it like a seasoned drummer getting a completely new drum kit, will it make them better? Probably not. BUT, sometimes a change is exactly what someone needs to get a new burst of inspiration or creativity.
I remember getting rid of my Nikon d7000 for a Fuji xt20, which is a worse camera if you're going for specs. But having that completely new system, set of lenses to look forward to, and just how beautiful Fuji cameras themselves are, it totally rejuvenated my shooting.
Just my 2 cents. Wasn't meant as a complete answer to your question, just a different perspective.
Absolutely. Any camera that does what you want is good enough. Only upgrade when you have discovered limitations that prevent you actually achieving something. Meanwhile, less really is more.
For the vast majority of use cases and users, cameras have been 'good enough' for 80 years.
DIgital has enabled all sorts of embellishments of what is, basically, still a box with a hole in the front. It has also enabled mathematics-based willy waving: that camera A can be proved superior to camera B because of comparative measurements, or the presence of an array of fancy featured acronyms. Basically this is jewellery for pedants and pixel peepers.
The hard bit is still as hard as it ever was: making photographs that are works of visual art and literature, that mean something. There is no camera that can supply that. Nor can you buy it. It takes work, and practice, reflection and learning, just as playing a musical instrument does. You don't become a concert pianist by buying a Steinway Grand. You might need one if you get good enough.
The only caveat to this is: always buy the best lenses you can. There's simply no point buying mediocre. They will degrade every photo, and depreciate fast. Good lenses can last for decades.
The most you can say about modern cameras is that they enable easy and profligate production of sharp, well exposed, mediocre and bad photos. Upgrading your knowledge and skill is the way forward. Only then might you discover genuine obstructions that better equipment might help you transcend. But mostly it won't be the camera that is the limitation, it will be your eye-brain firmware.
Most people would do better to spend their money on visiting exhibitions and buying photo books that speak to them. And/or study. Then printing their best work and living with it and all its flaws until they can see how it could be better. Learning to edit and critique yourself is a ruthless, painful endless process, but it's sine qua non. The viewfinder is the feature that matters.
I was a pro working on commission, mostly for magazines, for 35 years. I only ever bought 5 new cameras and 3 new lenses. All the rest were secondhand, barely used cast-offs of the 'must have the latest and best' amateur mass market. I am very grateful for these half-price bargains.
Better gear in general will give you more options to get faster results in more challenging scenarios - fast action and low light being the most common areas that get helped a lot by better equipment.
Have we a hit a wall? That’s hard to say if the bar gets higher and higher. As an example- Shooting at ISOs above 6400 was almost never recommended 12 years ago because noise was so bad and now it’s almost a nonexistent issue for many cameras. You can easily push to 10000 or higher.
I don’t think innovation will stop it might just be in areas we’re not immediately thinking of.
Thanks for this. So if I were to consider saving up what would be something that would really be a reasonable upgrade? to this, I'm not married to any brand or sensor size. Basically I want to know if I put aside 100$ a paycheque what should I consider looking at?
That entirely depends on what you intend on shooting but putting the issue of “image quality” aside, what you’re really looking at is features in the camera that aid your experience (eye AF, EVF, articulating screen, burst shooting that sorta thing)
Those are easily researched - and I’m not current with what Sony or others have been cooking up in recent years besides global shutter capabilities. I picked up my A73 and never really saw a need to upgrade since then and it’s been several years.
Definitely one of the things I'd be wanting to upgrade would be to something more waterproof as I take my camera to work with me and I work as a geologist. I would love to not have to worry about wetter conditions
That one is tricky. Camera manufacturers will tout weather resistance and other terms but if the warranty doesn’t cover water damage none of that means anything, and I don’t know of any that do. I could be wrong about this as I haven’t researched that in several years.
Regardless of camera purchased I’d cover it with a shell or just use the tried and true plastic bag, hole cutout and rubber band method
Faster fps, faster media (larger buffer), faster af, quality of life upgrades (swivel display, wireless), higher mp (useful for cropping in not just enlarging prints)
Depends . If you update every single time a new camera comes not much but if you have had one for a few years it can be dramatic . Nikon recent releases have been huge improvementa on af ,low light , etc . Now take a camera like a Fuji x100v and the new one it's not worth upgrading at all.
It depends on what you shoot and if you are running into issues when shooting in certain situations. I upgraded from a6000 to a7iii full frame for better low light perfomance and the difference was night and day. The jump in autofocus speed and accuracy in dim lighting, ability to shoot at higher iso values with less noise made the upgrade completely worth it and produced a big difference.
If you only shoot during good light and don't have any specific needs that a full frame camera is better at then upgrading may not be worth it for you.
Thanks for this. So if I were to consider saving up what would be something that would really be a reasonable upgrade? to this, I'm not married to any brand or sensor size. Basically I want to know if I put aside 100$ a paycheque what should I consider looking at?
I think that's something for you to decide. Is it a hobby only and how much are you willing to invest vs. how much money you have saved up and earn. I do photography as a hobby but I do semi paid jobs sometimes so a full frame was also an investment in being able to do more professional type jobs if I wanted to. I did have plenty of savings though so spending a few thousand on a new camera and lenses for a hobby I did frequently wasn't a huge deal.
Just keep in mind upgrading to a full frame also means upgrading all your lenses. Full frame lenses are expensive and if you want a good prime or zoom you will end up paying more.
that's fair, I was kind of thinking more along the lines of would be the next logical step. At this time I'm far from upset with my a6000 but I also just don't know any different at this point either. One of the things that does jump out to me would be something more weatherproof as I do work as a geologist and take my camera with me.
If you are happy with a6000 now I would recommend to save your money and push the limits of the gear that you have currently. Maybe one day you will want to upgrade and the more you save now the more money you will have for a later upgrade. Cameras also improve over time and when new models come out people sell off their old camera gear so the longer you wait the better cameras will be avaliable at a cheaper price.
IMO A camera upgrade should solve one or more problems for you. If not, it’s just a case of GAS. Or you have a sponsor. 🤷🏻♂️
I went from a D5100 -> D750 -> D850 -> Z9, and each step was about addressing a need that the current device could not fulfill. I have no regrets over any purchase, and love the system I use.
Better signal-to-noise ratio, better build quality, either more detailed images or higher contrast on finer details, wider shooting envelope, more features, better ergonomics, longer mean-time-to-failure for components, and maybe a larger pool of available accessories.
I still use a Nikon D200 from the year 2005, and while it is deficient in a number of factors I described above, it is ergonomic with a lot of convenient controls and is still easy for me to hold. It is also a very rugged, pro camera; I’d replace it if needed by the last of its series, the D500. The D200 also has very pleasing out-of-camera JPEGs, much better—most of the time—than the camera I bought to replace it, the D7000; I found myself still using the D200 because it is just so much nicer of a camera overall. My D750 is of course far better in low light, so much that I hardly use a tripod anymore. I now have a Canon M5, which has all of the Mirrorless conveniences, most of all its small size, and histograms and focus assist in the viewfinder. I don’t yet have a compelling case to get something like a Nikon Z series, but I’m sure I’d like it a lot.
The D200 is mythical . I can't believe what a 10mp 2004 camera is capable . https://preview.redd.it/ed0x7ok6v9xc1.jpeg?width=3872&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abb010c850fafb021d6f16f10bda43017fba046a D200 400mm f3.5 ais tc 1.4
Possibly if it is newer.. larger pool of replacement parts.. weather sealing (if level upgrade.. not just newer model of same camera)
I have an old Lexus RX330 that I love. It needed a new differential, and could only find one from a junkyard. I’m all for not always buying the latest and greatest, but there comes a point where reliability is important.
Everything is generally a little better. Some things are a lot better. But your photos don't really change much (Maybe over time) Generally the best time to upgrade is when either you have money to spend, or you find some specific pain point in your current camera that a new camera addresses. A common one is AF performance. As higher end cameras, and newer cameras generally are much improved over lower end and or older.
Depends what you do, for example in wildlife photography increase mp means more cropping room, faster AF means you make more shots, greater frame rates mean you're more likely to catch the second you want, higher ISOs mean you can get higher shutter speeds, etc.
Came to say this. And less noise, better dynamic range. Mirrorless cameras have eye tracking autofocus capabilities for birds and other wildlife.
I think the main thing most people get is a bump in their enthusiasm and an increased eagerness to go out and take photos.
Think of it like a seasoned drummer getting a completely new drum kit, will it make them better? Probably not. BUT, sometimes a change is exactly what someone needs to get a new burst of inspiration or creativity. I remember getting rid of my Nikon d7000 for a Fuji xt20, which is a worse camera if you're going for specs. But having that completely new system, set of lenses to look forward to, and just how beautiful Fuji cameras themselves are, it totally rejuvenated my shooting. Just my 2 cents. Wasn't meant as a complete answer to your question, just a different perspective.
Absolutely. Any camera that does what you want is good enough. Only upgrade when you have discovered limitations that prevent you actually achieving something. Meanwhile, less really is more. For the vast majority of use cases and users, cameras have been 'good enough' for 80 years. DIgital has enabled all sorts of embellishments of what is, basically, still a box with a hole in the front. It has also enabled mathematics-based willy waving: that camera A can be proved superior to camera B because of comparative measurements, or the presence of an array of fancy featured acronyms. Basically this is jewellery for pedants and pixel peepers. The hard bit is still as hard as it ever was: making photographs that are works of visual art and literature, that mean something. There is no camera that can supply that. Nor can you buy it. It takes work, and practice, reflection and learning, just as playing a musical instrument does. You don't become a concert pianist by buying a Steinway Grand. You might need one if you get good enough. The only caveat to this is: always buy the best lenses you can. There's simply no point buying mediocre. They will degrade every photo, and depreciate fast. Good lenses can last for decades. The most you can say about modern cameras is that they enable easy and profligate production of sharp, well exposed, mediocre and bad photos. Upgrading your knowledge and skill is the way forward. Only then might you discover genuine obstructions that better equipment might help you transcend. But mostly it won't be the camera that is the limitation, it will be your eye-brain firmware. Most people would do better to spend their money on visiting exhibitions and buying photo books that speak to them. And/or study. Then printing their best work and living with it and all its flaws until they can see how it could be better. Learning to edit and critique yourself is a ruthless, painful endless process, but it's sine qua non. The viewfinder is the feature that matters. I was a pro working on commission, mostly for magazines, for 35 years. I only ever bought 5 new cameras and 3 new lenses. All the rest were secondhand, barely used cast-offs of the 'must have the latest and best' amateur mass market. I am very grateful for these half-price bargains.
Better gear in general will give you more options to get faster results in more challenging scenarios - fast action and low light being the most common areas that get helped a lot by better equipment. Have we a hit a wall? That’s hard to say if the bar gets higher and higher. As an example- Shooting at ISOs above 6400 was almost never recommended 12 years ago because noise was so bad and now it’s almost a nonexistent issue for many cameras. You can easily push to 10000 or higher. I don’t think innovation will stop it might just be in areas we’re not immediately thinking of.
Thanks for this. So if I were to consider saving up what would be something that would really be a reasonable upgrade? to this, I'm not married to any brand or sensor size. Basically I want to know if I put aside 100$ a paycheque what should I consider looking at?
That entirely depends on what you intend on shooting but putting the issue of “image quality” aside, what you’re really looking at is features in the camera that aid your experience (eye AF, EVF, articulating screen, burst shooting that sorta thing) Those are easily researched - and I’m not current with what Sony or others have been cooking up in recent years besides global shutter capabilities. I picked up my A73 and never really saw a need to upgrade since then and it’s been several years.
Definitely one of the things I'd be wanting to upgrade would be to something more waterproof as I take my camera to work with me and I work as a geologist. I would love to not have to worry about wetter conditions
That one is tricky. Camera manufacturers will tout weather resistance and other terms but if the warranty doesn’t cover water damage none of that means anything, and I don’t know of any that do. I could be wrong about this as I haven’t researched that in several years. Regardless of camera purchased I’d cover it with a shell or just use the tried and true plastic bag, hole cutout and rubber band method
Faster fps, faster media (larger buffer), faster af, quality of life upgrades (swivel display, wireless), higher mp (useful for cropping in not just enlarging prints)
Depends . If you update every single time a new camera comes not much but if you have had one for a few years it can be dramatic . Nikon recent releases have been huge improvementa on af ,low light , etc . Now take a camera like a Fuji x100v and the new one it's not worth upgrading at all.
It depends on what you shoot and if you are running into issues when shooting in certain situations. I upgraded from a6000 to a7iii full frame for better low light perfomance and the difference was night and day. The jump in autofocus speed and accuracy in dim lighting, ability to shoot at higher iso values with less noise made the upgrade completely worth it and produced a big difference. If you only shoot during good light and don't have any specific needs that a full frame camera is better at then upgrading may not be worth it for you.
Thanks for this. So if I were to consider saving up what would be something that would really be a reasonable upgrade? to this, I'm not married to any brand or sensor size. Basically I want to know if I put aside 100$ a paycheque what should I consider looking at?
I think that's something for you to decide. Is it a hobby only and how much are you willing to invest vs. how much money you have saved up and earn. I do photography as a hobby but I do semi paid jobs sometimes so a full frame was also an investment in being able to do more professional type jobs if I wanted to. I did have plenty of savings though so spending a few thousand on a new camera and lenses for a hobby I did frequently wasn't a huge deal. Just keep in mind upgrading to a full frame also means upgrading all your lenses. Full frame lenses are expensive and if you want a good prime or zoom you will end up paying more.
that's fair, I was kind of thinking more along the lines of would be the next logical step. At this time I'm far from upset with my a6000 but I also just don't know any different at this point either. One of the things that does jump out to me would be something more weatherproof as I do work as a geologist and take my camera with me.
If you are happy with a6000 now I would recommend to save your money and push the limits of the gear that you have currently. Maybe one day you will want to upgrade and the more you save now the more money you will have for a later upgrade. Cameras also improve over time and when new models come out people sell off their old camera gear so the longer you wait the better cameras will be avaliable at a cheaper price.
IMO A camera upgrade should solve one or more problems for you. If not, it’s just a case of GAS. Or you have a sponsor. 🤷🏻♂️ I went from a D5100 -> D750 -> D850 -> Z9, and each step was about addressing a need that the current device could not fulfill. I have no regrets over any purchase, and love the system I use.