Sat 07-Sep-13 05:00 AM | edited Sat 07-Sep-13 05:07 AM by km6xz
I notice many questions about "upgrading" regarding whether a camera is worth it or is it needed. In most of those discussions the general qualities are mentioned but seldom discussion of the specific task it must accomplish that is not accomplished now. There are two reasons to change cameras, one being a desire to self medicate, or to get an emotional high, albeit temporary, of getting something new, anything new. The second reason to change cameras is to accomplish something that the current can't do. So what does the D800 do that your current camera does not do? If money is no issue and all other wants and desires are already taken care of, than why not get everything in the catalog in the chance situation where that stuff makes a difference in do what is not possible now. No camera is clearly better in all things and any change involves winning and losing on some items. A D800 is technically a great device but it also has some restrictions on what you might take for granted now such as portability or file size, shooting stamina(battery life, card capacity), and size. The camera itself is hardly larger than a D40 but the lenses to make it work as intended are heavy and large, and of course much more expensive. So, what specific technical issues are you wishing to address with spending $5000-10000 to solve? I have a D90, D7000 and D800, all solve enough problems to warrant keeping them and shooting with them because in some aspects they each are the best solution. None of the upgrades really changed my shooting and objectively were not needed. No one can tell the difference in the prints, between any of them. To get better, more relevant advice you should start with posting a photo that illustrates what is wrong with your current setup so those experiences with both the situation and various bodies, can suggest what differences would be seen. Make no mistake in assuming the impact of moving to FX will have on your budget, it will be significantly more expensive to properly equip the FX kit. A poll here would probably reveal that the average hobbyist FX bag has $10,000 invested unless they are into field sports, birding or wildlife, in which case it might be twice that. I have no Fx focal length covered over 200mm or under 24mm and have over $13,000 in my Fx bag alone and that does not include a good tripod, or strobes and this is only for people shooting, a little street, and a bit of landscape. Other specialties involve more. What problem in photography is worth $10,000 to solve for you? And what are you willing to give up that is an advantage of your current camera lenses?
The whole question of upgrading for hobby is hard, it DOES feel good to get something new so that needs to be considered because personal pleasure is the goal of a hobby. But is upgrading to Fx worth the price to get that temporary emotional boost?
For business, the choice is very easy: does the purchase of a device increase the profit over what is earned now, more than the cost of owning and maintaining it?
If specific goals are formed in the decision process, and a new body satisfies those goals why would a rumor of new model coming out change the fact of the goal being satisfied? The question itself suggests that the goal is not well enough defined as what is needed to be accomplished. If my goal is to haul 2 tons of material and buy a truck that satisfies that goal, why would I care if a new model is rumored to be released that can handle 2.1 tons?