20 ms·

The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that t

The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. We're back at a stasis point, though. My 6- or 7-year-old Olympus still takes great pix; I'm not leaving a lot on the table with it. Any full-frame DSLR is even better, and they've been around for even longer. Today's high-tech cameras are definitely more susceptible to life-ending obsolescence than the mechanical cameras of yore, but I think we'll see folks use a given body much longer now than we did 5 years ago.

ghaff 8y ago
Especially for photographs that are mostly about getting an image rather than wringing the last piece of technical quality out of a scene, DSLRs have pretty much approached good enough. Sensitivity is still improving a bit, as is autofocus, but I'm at the point now where the gear I have is at the point where a new camera isn't going to really improve on my enjoyment, quality of photograph, etc. There's still miniaturization going on. My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1. But as long as I'm willing to lug a full-frame DSLR around, there isn't a lot I feel I'm lacking even though it's 4+ years old at this point.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1." There is definitely still a lot of movement in mirrorless but judging from the latest releases they will plateau in a few years too. It looks like mirrorless will soon reach the point where their AF is as good or better as the best DSLRs.
rangibaby 8y ago
> The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. By ten years ago the most dramatic gains had already been had. Nikon D3S (2009!) still sells for $1,000+ where I live (Japan). To me that is way past "obsolete curiosity" pricing, and more in the zone of "I can still use this for work". It was only last year that Nikon released a camera approaching double the resolution of the D3 (12MP), the D850 (45MP).

ghaff 8y ago

Especially for photographs that are mostly about getting an image rather than wringing the last piece of technical quality out of a scene, DSLRs have pretty much approached good enough. Sensitivity is still improving a bit, as is autofocus, but I'm at the point now where the gear I have is at the point where a new camera isn't going to really improve on my enjoyment, quality of photograph, etc. There's still miniaturization going on. My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1. But as long as I'm willing to lug a full-frame DSLR around, there isn't a lot I feel I'm lacking even though it's 4+ years old at this point.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1." There is definitely still a lot of movement in mirrorless but judging from the latest releases they will plateau in a few years too. It looks like mirrorless will soon reach the point where their AF is as good or better as the best DSLRs.

rangibaby 8y ago

> The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. By ten years ago the most dramatic gains had already been had. Nikon D3S (2009!) still sells for $1,000+ where I live (Japan). To me that is way past "obsolete curiosity" pricing, and more in the zone of "I can still use this for work". It was only last year that Nikon released a camera approaching double the resolution of the D3 (12MP), the D850 (45MP).