Post Nine

A lot of beginning photographers don't know when the right time to upgrade is. The thing most beginners want to upgrade is their body. I think this is usually because camera manufacturers and magazines/reviewers spend so much time on the specifications of camera bodies.

When I first started out, I thought the body was the most important thing too. It wasn't until I gained a little more experience and watched a few videos on YouTube that I learned that bodies aren't the most important thing, for a number of reasons.

Most importantly, lenses are the eyes of your camera. There isn't much difference in the way cameras record photos. All cameras, at least dSLRs, have some sort of sensor. Lenses, though, come between the photographer and the moment they're trying to capture. It may seem obvious, but sometimes people don't realize that without good glass, you won't get good photos. If someone who needs corrective lenses get a pair of glasses with low quality glass, they won't see things as well as they would with a pair of glasses with higher quality glass.  The same thing applies to lenses. Fortunately, prime lenses are usually pretty good bang for your buck. Prime lenses don't zoom, but the lack of moving usually keeps the price low and usually means the lenses are more precise. Prime lenses are usually fast as well, in terms of aperture. Other than prime lenses, good class is usually pretty expensive. Sometimes decent zoom lenses can be had for a decent price, but usually a good, fast lens will run around $2,500 if the brand of the lens begins with a "C" or an "N." Photographers also have the option of third-party lenses. I picked up a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for around $650. Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 was $2,500 last time I checked. The Tamron doesn't focus nearly as fast as the Nikon, the Tamron doesn't have the fancy coating that the Nikon has, and the image quality probably isn't as good as Nikon's either. As far as image quality goes, though, I can't tell. And for almost a third of the price, I'm not complaining. I'll most likely use the Tamron until it stops functioning, which could be quite a while.

Which brings me to my next point. Lenses aren't replaced as frequently as bodies. A replacement camera body can come out in as little as a year for lower-end bodies, such as Nikon's D3XXX line. Nikon's D3000 was released in 2009. Nikon's D3100, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2010. The D3200, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2012. So, as you can see, it doesn't take long for a lower-end body to become obsolete. Not to mention that each new version of Nikon's most inexpensive dSLR possessed features that would make anyone who just purchased the older model regret their decision as soon as they find out. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of the D3000 sold their body to get the D3100, and the owners of the D3100 did the same thing for the D3200, either. Fortunately, camera companies usually don't introduce replacements for their more expensive bodies as often, although new models of the body will sometimes be released, such as Nikon's D300 and D300s. Lenses on the other hand, can last for a photographer's entire career. If a photographer spends good money on a good piece of glass, there will be less reason to replace that lens. Sure, camera companies will add things such as vibration reduction, but those things aren't necessarily reasons to go out and buy the newest lens. I've seen plenty of photographers using lenses from decades ago and getting decent results from them. A well built lens from 1970 will, usually, still be a well built lens in 2012. Bodies from as recently as 2004 don't stand a chance when compared to a recent body, ISO performance alone  being a deciding factor. Sure, photographers can still use older digital bodies and still produce great results. I used a Nikon D70 for five months and took around 3000 photographs with it. Even though the D70 only had 6.1 megapixels, I was still satisfied with the photos. The ISO performance, five focus points, and the lack of reliability made it obvious that I needed to upgrade, though.

So when is the right time to upgrade? I wouldn't do it until I had a decent collection of lenses first. Sure, a kit lens may be great for a kit lens, but that's just it. I want my lens to be great for a lens. Lenses are unquestionably, unarguably, the most important aspect of a set up, besides the photographer, so I would strongly suggest investing in good glass, then worry about upgrading. Lenses will last you much longer than a body will. That is, of course, unless your body is unreliable. My D70 was to the point where it was slowing me down. There was also a time when I was photographing a birthday party. I got through halfway of the party before I had to switch memory cards. I continued to take photos without much more of a problem than I usually had with the D70, until I got home and found out that there weren't any images on the second card. I lost half of the birthday party. Luckily my fiance was helping me and she got photos of the second half. At that point, though, I realized there would be absolutely no way I could be a photographer without a reliable body.

On an unrelated note, this is also why I use smaller memory cards. I think right now I'm using multiple 8GB cards in my D7000. I can get about 250 photos on each one. Some photographers use huge, massive cards that can store more photos than they could possibly take on them. The idea of that scares me. What if something happens to the one card you have every photo on? I use a larger card in my D7000 in the second SD slot, but that's for backup purposes only. Memory cards don't fail often, but they do fail. I feel sorry for the day that happens to someone who, for instance, shoots a wedding all day using one card and ends up with no photos because the card fails. Just some food for thought....