Recently, some of my gear broke, and as always, it got me pondering if I should upgrade my gear. I ended up finding the same unit online and purchased it to replace the old one. That was a light, but if it were a camera, what would I do? Very likely, the same. Here is why.
One of my "favorite" questions is: what camera should I get? Frankly, it is a question with no answer or the answer being a rather unsatisfactory one: the one you already have or your phone. While this disappoints a lot of people and clearly isn't the answer they are hoping to get, it is an honest one. Often, the camera you already have is more than good enough; you just need to get your head around all its features and make sure you know what you’re photographing. Let’s dive in and see the reasons why you should not upgrade your camera.
It's Expensive
Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a professional working photographer who makes their living from photographing. Such a professional will likely have two or more identical bodies of the same make of camera, as well as a couple of lenses. Do as I say, not as I do, since at the moment, I have only one Canon 5D Mark IV and a Canon 5DS. Two bodies, but they perform different functions and can't be considered a perfect replacement. That said, I usually have two 5D Mark IVs kicking around and a single 5DS. Cameras are expensive, and the 5DS only comes out on editorial jobs. Lenses-wise, a professional photographer is bound to have at least two or three lenses. The total of such a kit is likely to be close to a $15,000 figure. Even my kit, which I bought used and some of which is the same age as me, still totals up to $6,000.
What would replacing kit mean to a professional photographer? Likely a big check that is hard to justify. Even if all the kit that I have would sell used for almost the same price that I bought it for, I would still have to invest an extra $4,000-$5,000 on top to upgrade to a new system (DSLR to mirrorless that is). This cost is far too high and extremely hard to justify.
Hard to Justify
This brings me swiftly to my second point. An upgrade should be justifiable. I see far too many photographers upgrading their cameras because the marketing team tells them to do so. Camera companies are clever in bringing out minor features and blowing them out of proportion. Take Eye-AF, for example. Sure, it makes focusing a lot easier, but it's not like you could not focus on the eyes before. It takes a little longer and requires more skill. It was possible, though.
From a purely business perspective, an upgrade, or an investment, should return more than it ate up. Take investing in creative work: spending money on it will lead you to have a stronger portfolio and hence land better-paying clients. A tethering setup will be an investment that will enable your team to work together and hence provide tangible value to the set. In some jobs, it will be a make-or-break situation. Some clients require the photographer to tether on set. This will result in a monetary return. In the case of cameras, it is not so black and white. A better camera will be a better image-making tool for sure, but will it make you more money? That is the question one should ask themselves before upgrading. One of the easiest ways of telling this is if the clients are demanding something your camera can’t do. In my case, it would be higher resolution, or perhaps better color accuracy, or something else. Fortunately for me, nobody has ever demanded more than what my cameras can do. Upgrading to a more modern but similarly performing camera would not yield a higher level of income for the business.
I say this with a very cold heart, because a large part of me wants to own a medium-format system. The pleasure of shooting with it would be much higher, and the images will look better from a technical perspective. I will also have more flexibility in doing color grading, and on top of that, the images will look better, all this while making me no penny more than the current setup.
But, Enjoy Your Gear
Moving on, I would like to give a very valid reason to upgrade: the joy of shooting. You need to love your camera, not hate it. It is very difficult to love a craft if you hate the tools you’re creating with. If I do upgrade to a “better” camera soon, it will be because of a sudden lack of joy of shooting. Often, buying a camera or some other gear does lead to more enjoyment. There is nothing wrong with using that as an excuse, as long as you understand that it is not the wisest business decision. With this in mind, I might even purchase a medium format camera and not look back. Still, being money-conscious is super important. Don’t go into debt on camera gear. Despite all the advice I get to use financing to enable my purchases, I refuse to go into debt over something that I barely need. In general, staying out of debt is a good idea, especially if you’re investing in something that will become obsolete in a couple of years.
Closing Thoughts
So, be it a professional camera or not, you probably should not upgrade and instead focus on learning your current equipment. It is as able as the one that you want, just in the right hands. The only valid reason for upgrading in 2023 that I see is the so-called joy of shooting. Even then, some photographers satisfy that want with an old film camera. While camera marketing teams make every effort to tell you that you need their latest product, chances are, you likely don’t. Requirements for most work have not changed; the only thing that has is cameras.
Totally agree. I have two 5DSR bodies and 4 lens …. This is what I need for landscapes. If I change, I am likely to go a Fuji based medium format system. The major drawback to that is that the lenses are so expensive, I would lose coverage.
If you're okay with manual lenses, there are some amazing 645 lenses you can adapt
For the Fuji?
"Take Eye-AF, for example.… it's not like you could not focus on the eyes before."
Colour me disappointed!
For some reason, I always thought "Eye-AF" meant that a sensor looked at your eyeball, and put the focus point at wherever you were looking at in the viewfinder.
Silly me! "Eye-AF" is just something that many other camera makers have had for years. My seven-year-old Olympus E-M1 Mark II has it.
Well the Canon R3 has both traditional Eye-AF and also the ability to track your eyeball in the viewfinder to focus on whatever you're looking at. So in that you are not entirely wrong. But the traditional interpretation is focusing on the eye of the subject.
As to the author's point, you can certainly make amazing photographs even with old gear. However, Eye-AF on older Olympus bodies does not really compare to the Eye-AF that Sony and Canon are doing right now. In one, it's OK for static portraiture and reasonable accuracy. However, the newer Eye AF systems can nail focus on the eye in fast-paced action with an absolutely insanely high hit rate, even at extremely shallow depth of field.
The tools are always improving, and it gives a photographer more options and a better chance of getting that shot technically correct when a fleeting moment passes. Of course, ultimately, it's just a set of tools that good photographers can use to aid in getting the shot.
Just upgraded in an odd manner - a7 ii to D750, both equipped with a 50mm. Effectively, yes, I managed to grab focus with the a7 eventually, but the D750 is just so much nicer in use.
How about the photo quality between the two?
It depends. I already own a couple Z7s and one D500 with 80-400. As the Z7s are good landscape bodies but not good sports bodies, and it doesn't look like Nikon is going to introduce a pro grade, copped frame mirrorless sports body this year, I just bought another D500. (Used but in excellent condition.)
The nine word summary of every Illya Ovchar post:
"I don't need new gear. My 5DS still works."
We get it. Thanks.
Most accurate comment of the year.
sed -e 's/5DS/OM-1/'