How far back would you go?

cornishboy

cornishboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
578
Edit My Images
Yes
With all the progress in technology, I wondered how older but higher spec equipment holds up in the modern day.
If you had £500 would you buy a used piece of pro kit or a new prosumer?
For instance a used 1d mkiii comes in at less than £400. Alternatively you could get a new Canon entry level camera for same money.
Which would you buy?
 
Depends what you're using it for really. I recently wanted a new Nikon body and looked at all the latest models out there. I chose to go with a D700 because it offered me exactly what I wanted in a body I already knew like the back of my hand. Pixel count is definitely not everything and pixels are not all equal, either, which is something to consider when choosing a next body.

I also needed a second body to use for one of my blogs where the image quality and resolution of those particular shots really didn't need to be the best of the best and the camera needed to be smaller and easier to pop in a bag. I ended up purchasing an absolutely new condition D70S for £55 shipped! That's a lot of camera for the price of a decent meal!

I'm the same with lenses, too. I guess having used so many different lenses over the years I know which of the oldies will still live with the newer glass IQ-wise and if you don't need lightning AF then some of the classic AF-Ds are tough to beat.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. Loved the image of the spider in the raindrop! As an aside did the papers contact you after seeing them? Just wonder how these things work
 
All depends on what kind of work you're doing. The one area that seems to be moving at a lightning pace right now is video. In that field, today's entry-level makes the professional equipment from 5 years ago look dated.

For sports/action, the top-series DSLRs from a few years back still hold up well although you may be in the situation of having to up-res your photos to meet current agency minimum resolutions. Not my area, but I'd be surprised if they ever noticed the difference.

For portraits, product photography, e.t.c. you can get by with 10 year old gear just fine. Equipment-wise, your time & money should be going on lighting / grip first, then photoshop/post-production, then lenses, then cameras last. I still use my original Canon 5D sometimes as I like the files it gives me and the operation is so familiar. 12.8 megapixels from a full frame sensor is still plenty for anything going on the web (where all content ends up these days).

I remember getting an email a couple of years ago asking what what digital medium format back & lenses, e.t.c, someone should buy, to get photos like a certain one of mine they had seen - the photo was taken with a 5D classic and a 135mm soft focus lens (in the non soft-focus position of course). I just sent back "Photoshop -> Unsharp Mask" :)
 
cornishboy said:
With all the progress in technology, I wondered how older but higher spec equipment holds up in the modern day.
If you had £500 would you buy a used piece of pro kit or a new prosumer?
For instance a used 1d mkiii comes in at less than £400. Alternatively you could get a new Canon entry level camera for same money.
Which would you buy?
Click to expand...

The first digital camera I was happy with was the Canon 20D and I used it for over seven years but I did see an improvement when I moved to the 5D. Sitting where I am now with Sony FF and MFT mirrorless cameras I wouldn't like to go back to the 5D let alone the 20D. I could I suppose live with the newer MFT models but to be honest I've been spoilt now and I'd be upset to have to take any step away from the Sony A7.

If gerbils ate all my money and ran off with every piece of camera gear I had I'd sell something to get an A7, an adapter and an old manual lens or two and that would do me but that's just me :D
 
I think we forget how things have improved.. I was happy with my Leica v lux - about 10 years old - and then bought an FZ1000 a couple weeks ago. The difference is pheromonal - Leica is up for sale soon! In terms of DSLRs, I do think they age far better. I am currently looking at DSLRs and am whittling it down - it certainly won't be a "new' body though!
 
I still use old models of Dslrs Yes. I have a D810 but use my D3 & D700 they still punch well above there age imo.
And the same goes for the original Canon 5D I have no complaints for what I shoot.
I'm guessing it all depends on your needs ?
But the low cost used pro cameras often get over looked sadly.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
The 40d is a great camera I could use for 90% of my current requirements.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a friends 40D that convinced me to grab a 50D I was so impressed at the time with the results off his 40D alas at time of looking for one a 50D with grip and spare batteries came along at the right price
 
Was using a canon 20D for years first as my main camera then as a second body until the shutter broke, wasn't financial economical to repair it, bought a 70D to replace it. The 1D MKIIn became my main camera and that had been out several years already when I bought it, it's been a great camera, still is, does majority of what I need it to do, but I've just replaced that (well bought) with the 1D MKIV and again that's not a new camera as the 70D lacking a bit in the autofocus stakes, Been spoilt with the 1D, and never been impressed with the 7D or its replacement the 7D MKII, hence when the opportunity arose, bought myself the MKIV. I've never wanted to go full frame, really grown to love the 1.3x crop format, gives me the best of both worlds for the photography I like to photograph which is aviation, motorsports, wildlife. Is there still a requirement for older technology, hell yes, but people get blinded by the new technology when for a whole lot less they could get a camera that's miles better than the new beginner / intermediate type cameras.
 
D3 & D700 can still cut it today. :agree:
the DR on the older D2Xs is very limiting but if used within its operating range its still good.
as far as nostalgia goes i always kinda liked my D200. just something about that CCD :banana:
 
I'm on a very strict budget, so the question is usually not "How far back would I go?" it's more like "How new can I possibly go without having to sell something and/or live on bread and water?" :D
 
Tirpitz said:
D3 & D700 can still cut it today. :agree:
the DR on the older D2Xs is very limiting but if used within its operating range its still good.
as far as nostalgia goes i always kinda liked my D200. just something about that CCD :banana:
Click to expand...

Saw a D200 while perusing a local camera shop - again, very nice camera! I was sorely tempted for the princely sum of £165, but thought I must make an informed decision before investing!
 
Nikon D700, D3, Canon 5D mkii is still a fantastic camera that will do the job at a very low cost. I still shoot with my D3 and have no intention to sell it for something newer. The cost is the lens.
 
I would take a (well looked after) used enthusiast level camera any day in preference to a new consumer version model, there are some real bargains about that are far more capable than new entry level cameras.

Enthusiast cameras have more controls and functions than the cheaper consumer level models, and are generally more robust too.
 
I have an entry level canon 1100d (can't remember its release date) and it was fine for me to learn with. Now I've up graded (if you can call it that) to a 50d (for £199 from mbp you can't go far wrong) which I used for the first time on Sunday. I found it much easier to use, felt better in my hands, was quicker at everything. And strangely for an older sensor the noise wasn't as big a problem as the 1100d.
I only do this as a hobby so can't justify spending out on ff or the latest xxxd, xxd series.
So for me I'm happy to use "old" tech.
 
Their will always be new body release every year, I would invest on quality lens which will hold their value better and is something that you will keep most of the time.
 
It does depend on what you are shooting.

A high end camera of 8-10 years ago is still a great camera, but (as others have already mentioned in part), newer models will surpass them in 4 main areas
(The below are, of course, generalisations, the exact advantages depend on specific camera models)

1) Resolution - Despite most images ending up displayed via the web at 1200x1200 or less, MP counts have increased over the years. Newer models allow you to print ever larger, or to crop more heavily.

2) AF coverage and Tracking - Central AF on static subjects is still accurate and fast on older models, but newer bodies improve in both coverage of the frame (IE available AF Points) and ability to track subjects in continuous AF modes.

3) ISO - Newer sensors can be pushed to higher ISO levels before noise becomes an issue with the image.

4) Dynamic Range - This has also improved, which can mean for some shots ND Grads are no longer needed (or Bracketing can be avoided, etc).

Additionally, Video has significantly improved, but that's a subject in itself!

So if you shoot in studio conditions, or landscape, then (with the possible exception of dynamic range) a newer model is much less of a boost than if you are, for example, shooting action in challenging light.
 
I had the 1D MKIII and I loved it. One thing to look at for is not all cameras are the same. Treat it like buying a car, whats the milage / shutter count and whats it been used for. A 1 D MKIII which has been looked after with a shutter count of 100,000 will still give you years of service. One other thing that may or may not be important is the MK III is no longer covered by CPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top