WHY, for the love of heaven, don't they make UPGRADEABLE digital cameras???

cop welfare wrote:
i know i always ask for too much...

How do you define "upgrade"?

Get an SLR. Start with a cheap kit lens. Use the built-in flash. Add
lenses, flashes, and other accessories as budget permits. Sounds pretty
upgradeable to me.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-3, 12/22/2005
Tested on: 12/22/2005 10:16:54 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

(Dave Martindale) writes:
But once you have a reasonable investment in several good lenses, the
cost of the body is only a small fraction of the total.

I don't know about this. Maybe so for expensive pro lenses. I have
about ten lenses, of which I think about six are Nikkors, including a
few very nice ones like the 35/1.4. None are junk. Adding up what I
paid for all of them probably comes to less than a D200 body. And I
bought them during the film era. They're probably worth even less now.

Paul Rubin writes:

(Dave Martindale) writes:
But once you have a reasonable investment in several good lenses, the
cost of the body is only a small fraction of the total.

I don't know about this. Maybe so for expensive pro lenses. I have
about ten lenses, of which I think about six are Nikkors, including a
few very nice ones like the 35/1.4. None are junk. Adding up what I
paid for all of them probably comes to less than a D200 body. And I
bought them during the film era. They're probably worth even less now.

It's certainly true for film bodies; my most expensive film body was a
$900 nikon N90; I've got lenses that I paid $700, $850, $650, $450,
$750, $600, and $900 for, just off the top of my head. Many of them
bought used for those prices, list prices go up over $1500. And I
don't own *any* high-end Nikor zooms or any exotics like a Nikor 300
f2.8 or better; except for a couple of fast primes, my collection
isn't outstandingly good glass.

If I were buying the Nikor 12-24mm dx, 17-55mm f2.8 dx, and 70-210mm
f2.8 VR, which seems like a basic starting kit, that'd cost more than
a D200 by quite a lot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet writes:
It's certainly true for film bodies;

That might be why the thread started is bewailing the lack of
upgradeable digital cameras but not the lack of upgradeable film
cameras.

In article , Dave Martindale
writes
"cjcampbell" writes:

Obviously, some things cannot be upgraded, such as sensor size. DSLRs
are extremely flexible as far as upgrades go; if you want a better
lens, you just buy one. Same for flash units, remote controls, battery
packs, hand grips, etc. But you cannot change the basic design of the
camera. A 6 MP camera will always be 6 MP camera.

But once you have a reasonable investment in several good lenses, the
cost of the body is only a small fraction of the total. So the camera
system *is* upgradable by changing only the body, at a small increment in
cost compared to the whole system.

But I think the original poster wanted to be able to upgrade just the
sensor, for example, like you can upgrade the CPU in a home computer.

Ah, yes, of course; I've got this old AMD 486 machine next to me,
perhaps I can fit an Intel 64 bit CPU into it for enhanced speed, then
again
That's generally not practical.
Actually it servers very well as a time server and striking clock.
--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Paul Rubin
writes
(Dave Martindale) writes:
But once you have a reasonable investment in several good lenses, the
cost of the body is only a small fraction of the total.

I don't know about this. Maybe so for expensive pro lenses. I have
about ten lenses, of which I think about six are Nikkors, including a
few very nice ones like the 35/1.4. None are junk. Adding up what I
paid for all of them probably comes to less than a D200 body. And I
bought them during the film era. They're probably worth even less now.

Don't view their worth as how much you would get if you sold them but as
what it would cost you if you had to replace them. I am migrating to
dSLR from film and have to buy new lenses.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Prometheus writes:
I don't know about this. Maybe so for expensive pro lenses. I have
about ten lenses, of which I think about six are Nikkors, including a
few very nice ones like the 35/1.4. None are junk. Adding up what I
paid for all of them probably comes to less than a D200 body. And I
bought them during the film era. They're probably worth even less now.

Don't view their worth as how much you would get if you sold them but
as what it would cost you if you had to replace them. I am migrating
to dSLR from film and have to buy new lenses.

What I mean by "worth less" is I could buy the same lenses today for
less than I paid for them years ago. They are mostly MF Nikkors but
should be usable (including metering) on the D200.

In article .com,
"cop welfare" wrote:

i know i always ask for too much...

Which aspect of the capitalist growth and profit philosophy are you
unsure about?

Prometheus wrote:

Don't view their worth as how much you would get if you sold them but as
what it would cost you if you had to replace them. I am migrating to
dSLR from film and have to buy new lenses.


Exactly.

I have an excellent film system with some really nice lenses, most of
them costing more than my camera body.

And this is a manual focus system. The same lenses for autofocus cost
2-3 times that. I'm looking at $1200 for an 85mm f/1.2 lens which is
very important for me. Even though I have a digital SLR now, I cannot
sell my older equipment yet because I cannot afford the same lenes that
I already have for my film system. I can do some great outdoor work in
good light, and great indoor work with flash. But I cannot possibly
shoot indoor action without flash with the two lenses I have for my
digital camera.

Granted, I bought an older digital body, so my investment was less, but
it is still a great camera, works quite well, and was highly
recommended back when it came out at $2800. I bought it recently for
$300, and it is far cheaper than the lenses I need to buy before I can
replace my film system. Most of the lenses I need are $1000 and up.

As long as the camera works well, the lenses are much more important.
You don't need a 12MP camera to get good photos.