Keep your old DSLR?

[MarkBarbieri]

I think the term obsolete can mean two different things.

The most stringent definition would be something is no longer used because it cannot be used. That might mean something like a film camera that relies on a type of film that is no longer available. In that sense, no DSLR is obsolete.

The more practical definition is something that has been improved upon to such an extent that the original is of negligible value. The Canon D30 (not 30D) was originally a $3,000 DSLR that shot 3 megapixel pictures and had bad (by today's standards) high ISO noise. It is functionally obsolete because you can buy relatively inexpensive cameras that vastly outperform it. They still do precisely what people paid $3,000 for them to do several years ago, but few people use them today because newer cameras are so much better.

When something becomes obsolete by the latter set of standards is very much a judgment call. IQ advancements seem to be smaller with each new generation of camera. That means that features weigh larger in the mix of what makes a newer camera more desirable and what makes an older one "obsolete." What features matter to you has a large impact your determination of obsolescence.

 

[JR6ooo4]

right now, most any body is much better than my talents. I think the only reason I would upgrade is to get spot metering....

Mikeeee

 

[Pea-n-Me]

What features matter to you has a large impact your determination of obsolescence.

I think this is mostly where I was going with it. (Sorry if it was OT.)

 

[jann1033]

i'll give hub my old one. i only want to upgrade when i see something that is "better" that imo really matters, ie the focus is better on the 40d so i want that...unless they release something else before i come up with the money which could likely be, the way i am going( ie 90d might be my next camera )

 

[boBQuincy]

I think the term obsolete can mean two different things. ...snip

The more practical definition is something that has been improved upon to such an extent that the original is of negligible value. The Canon D30 (not 30D) was originally a $3,000 DSLR that shot 3 megapixel pictures and had bad (by today's standards) high ISO noise.
It is functionally obsolete because you can buy relatively inexpensive cameras that vastly outperform it. They still do precisely what people paid $3,000 for them to do several years ago, but few people use them today because newer cameras are so much better.

It's not quite that obsolete. The D30 has an image quality that few cameras can match. Even though it only has 3 MP these are *large* pixels and the images are very smooth. High ISO noise is an issue but 400 and even 800 are good if we avoid underexposure.
I still use the D30 on occasion and it still takes really good photos.

Now it's low light focusing capability, *there's* an issue!

 

[frugal_mar]

When I upgraded from a D50 to a D80, my D50 went to my youngest son. I have also lent out the D50 to a friend whose camera went into the repair shop and she was stuck without a camera. It is now with another friend who needed to take some special pictures.

 

[Lancer]

I have no set schedule for replacement. Probably when ever I have a spare $1500. I currently have a Canon 20D which does everything I need but, it would be nice to have some of the features of a newer model. When I do invest, I will definately keep the 20D. In the parks, I am content with one body and two or three lens, but, everytime I go to an auto race, I can understand why the proffessionals have two or three bodies with different lens around their neck. I get tired of constantly switching lenses every few minutes all the while missing many impromptu shots.

 

[thomas998]

probably have the IR filter removed from the sensor and use it as a IR camera... resale value is nill.