When should I upgrade my camera body?

Question

As the question says, when should I upgrade my camera body? In particular, if I have a low- to mid-range body (A DSLR such as a Nikon D3200 or Nikon D5100, or Canon SL1 or T5, or a mirrorless camera such as a Panasonic GH3 or an Olympus E-PL6). How do I know when I need to upgrade?

I have a complement of "kit" lenses, such as an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and a 55-200mm f4-5.6. Maybe I've even added a 50mm 1.8 to the kit. Flash is only for indoors (right?) and I usually shoot outside, so that means I don't need an external flash.

I shoot photos of my family and friends whether out at the park or having a picnic, my kids sports practices and games, vacation photos, as well as some landscapes, flowers, and whatever else catches my eye. Pretty familiar territory. I'm not a professional and don't intend to become one.

Answer 1

You need to upgrade your camera when, and only when, you need a camera that can do something in particular that your current camera can not. This is not only true for your camera body but for your lenses and any other accessories that you might need in order to produce a photo you desire.

The specific reasons for upgrading a camera body can be as varied as the different photographs one might wish to take. Here are just a few of them.

• Perhaps you need a faster, more accurate autofocus to capture fast moving subjects more consistently.
• Perhaps you need a camera with more direct controls that allow you to change settings quickly without having to take your eye away from the viewfinder to deal with rapidly changing shooting conditions.
• Perhaps you need a camera that can take bursts at a faster frame rate and for a longer sustained period to maintain coverage through a sequence of events that you wish to record from start to finish.
• Perhaps you need the ability to do some basic in-camera editing and maybe even convert some raw files to jpeg so that you can move time-sensitive pictures to their destination faster.
• Perhaps you need a camera that can weather more harsh conditions without being damaged by them. Or a camera that will hold up to more frequent and heavy usage and last longer.
• Perhaps you wish to produce photographs that can be displayed at larger sizes that require a sensor with more resolution.
• Perhaps you desire shallower Depth-of-Field than is practical with the sensor size of your current camera, even with fast lenses with apertures as wide as f/2, f/1.8, or even f/1.4 and f/1.2. Assuming your lenses are compatible with the larger format, a larger sensor gives the ability for shallower DoF to all of them.
• Perhaps you need a better signal-to-noise ratio for extreme low light situations. Improvements in noise reduction and post processing can only take you so far. And whatever techniques you learn that work well with a lower/older/smaller sensor model will work that much better with a newer/better/larger sensor model.

Until you can articulate exactly what you wish to do photographically that your current body or other gear doesn't allow you to do you don't yet need an upgrade. It is even better if you can articulate exactly how you expect the newer camera will allow you to accomplish what your current camera doesn't. It is fine if you wish to upgrade without needing to and can afford to do so, but don't expect the change in gear to make a marked improvement in your images until you actually need what the newer gear will offer. Because until your skill level and vision demands the improved capability of the newer camera (or lens, or lighting, etc.), you're not going to be able to take advantage of the improved capability the newer gear offers you.

---

Here's an example of this concept from my last upgrade.

Shooting Scenario: Friday Night Lights

For several years I've shot high school football and marching bands at night under artificial stadium lights that flicker at 120Hz. My normal shooting arrangement was to use an APS-C Canon 7D with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and a FF camera with a wider lens (usually either a 24-105mm f/4 IS or 17-40mm). Due to the need to use faster shutter speeds so as to freeze the action with the telephoto lens, coupled with the way focal plane shutters accomplish exposure times shorter than the camera's sync speed, this often resulted in shots that were well focused and timed to capture the exact moment I wished but which were affected by the differences in color and brightness that resulted from the variation in the intensity and color of the lights as the slit between the first and second shutter curtains transited across the image sensor. The faster the shutter speed selected, the narrower the slit between the two curtains, and the more pronounced the effect of the flickering lights would be. One side of the frame could be dark and a brownish looking color and the other side much brighter and a cooler color temperature. Or the entire frame could be dark and brown (when the shutter transit time was centered on the lights at their dimmest) or too bright and much cooler in color (when the shutter transit time was centered on the lights at their peak). Post processing these images was extremely time-intensive and many otherwise good images were unusable due to the problem with flickering lights.

Problem: Dealing with Flickering Stadium Lighting

I pay a little attention to forthcoming product introductions, but I'm far from obsessed by them. For years the word of an impending replacement for the 7D had been coming down the pike. By the time the Canon 7D Mark II was officially announced I had little interest in ever buying another APS-C camera. In order to take advantage of the superior AF system of the FF Canon 5D Mark III, compared to the more inconsistent AF system of the 7D, I had begun to use the 5D3 with my 70-200 and an older 5D2 with the wider lens much of the time when shooting under lights at night. This gave me more consistent AF performance, but did nothing for the problem with flickering lights. I also gave up the "extra reach" of the APS-C camera which is a rather significant consideration when comparing the difference in cost between a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/2.8 lens!

Then I read a review of the newer 7D and one word describing a new feature leapt off the screen at me: anti-flicker. Of course the first question I wanted to ask was, "Does it really work?". This was closely followed by my follow-up question: "How good is the new AF system based on the same one in the full frame 1D X and 5D3, but still with the narrower baseline due to the size of the APS-C mirror? After several months of researching those two questions and learning everything I could I decided to acquire a 7D Mark II before the beginning of the next fall's season.

Solution: Canon 7D Mark II with Flicker Reduction

I've been very happy with the upgrade. The single feature for which I purchased the camera has led to measurable improvements. Some of them are related to image quality, while others are related to the efficiency with which I can deliver images. And the AF system in the 7D Mark II is much better than the AF system in my original 7D, although it is still not quite as good as the AF system in my 5D Mark III.

• Because the lights are at their peak when the shutter is released, depending on the particulars of the lighting in a specific venue I can actually shoot anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 to one full stop faster and still get the same exposure levels I got previously when I set exposure based on the average intensity of the lights rather than their peak. In the same stadiums where I once shot at f/2.8 and 1/500 second, I can now shoot at 1/800 or even 1/1000 second at the same aperture and ISO. Many times this is the difference for what I shoot between freezing the action and having the feet/legs and arms/hands of the athlete blurry with their movement.
• By releasing the shutter when the lights are at their peak in the cycle, every image shot in a burst has the same brightness and color. This allows me to apply the same WB and exposure correction to the vast majority of the raw images in post processing. My work flow is no longer bottlenecked by the need to custom color-correct every image separately.
• The consistency between each frame also means jpeg images generated in-camera are also the same brightness and color and much more likely to be usable straight out of camera (when I set the correct exposure).
• With both raw images and jpegs, the entire frame has a consistent exposure level and color. Players on opposite sides of the frame wearing jerseys for the same team actually look like they are wearing the same color!

Answer 2

You should only upgrade when you need to. Chances are good you won't wait that long or be that sensible. ;)

So, basically, to me, it comes down to a few "tipping points" as to when "upgrading" (more realistically you may be sidegrading [e.g., crop to full frame], or expanding [e.g., adding mirrorless to a dSLR rather than replacing it]) has been worth it for me. You will find these reasons not unlike those that decide when it's time to purchase a car. In order of most-sensible to least they are:

• When your current camera dies and you have nothing to shoot with.

• [Personal "worth it" metric--your eventual value may vary] When the sum of the new camera body's tier and generation counts above/after my old one is at least 3, and my old body is getting near that 100k click mark.

• When your frustration level with your current gear makes letting go of money you've set aside more than worth it--and you've done enough research to know how the new gear eliminates (or reduces) the frustration. [May involve discovering previously-unknown/unresearched tradeoffs after purchase that may equalize frustration more than envisioned].

• When you can find a rockin' deal (usually used or refurb)

• Just because you damn well want it that bad.

However. Keep in mind that nearly ANY other piece of gear you can purchase will hold value longer and better than a camera body. Lenses, flashes, and support gear can be used across multiple cameras. They tend not be replaced every 1-3 years, and they also tend to hold value better on the used market. Camera bodies depreciate even while they're still new.

And, in addition, experience and training often count for more when it comes to image quality than any piece of gear. If the goal is to get better photographs, then your money may actually be better spent on airline tickets, or a seminar, or books and training videos than on any camera body.

Answer 3

I am going to answer this from the perspective of "want" rather than "Need" which has been handled really well by Michael Clarks answer.

Unless you are a Pro and the camera is just a tool, the whole feeling of owning a new camera for enthusiasts and hobbyists, is amazing. Its equal to driving a new car straight from the forecourt.

For most enthusiasts, it is more than just a need, it is a want, a desire! A desire to own a new camera. A new camera brings with it renewed motivation. An invigorating desire to play with your new toy! To instinctively start doing those thing once again that you did with your previous camera.

It creates a desire to learn new things, spend hours studying the manual and looking up videos and ultimately opens up your self realisation as to what your potential is and what you can achieve!

It increases your self esteem when others compliment you on your new camera and images produced, and motivates you to produce better content.

The point I am making; although logic dictates, we should only upgrade our camera when there is an absolute need for it, there are times when.

"Need to Buy" has to be put to one side, and make way for, "want to Buy".

A new camera may not necessarily produce better images, but much like your car which feels as if it drives better after a valet, you will feel the same with your new camera and as a result, you will naturally strive to produce better images.

If you happen to be someone who loves photography, always carried your camera, but now seem to be lacking that motivation and in need of some drive, then it may just be time you went and bought yourself a new Camera!

Answer 4

As something of a Luddite, I believe a camera body should be upgraded only when the existing one limits what you can do when trying to take photographs. When upgrading camera kit, other priorities are widening the range of lenses possessed; buying better quality lenses; buying accessories that, with the existing kit to achieve the desired photographic outcomes (tripod, flash, gaffer tape, etc); improving the shooter's skill level by practice and attempting new things.

Answer 5

(I am grouping the bullets, because I think the first group is a more general reason to upgrade than the second group)

Some specific reasons could be:

• Better low light performance, either higher ISO or less noise at the same ISO
• More Megapixels
• More focus points
• You want to shoot video and your currenc camera can not.

---

• More FPS
• Two memory slots
• Ergonomics? Bigger screen? Articulated screen? Aditional button?
• Aditional features, like Micro focusing?
• Sharper images, using a bigger sensor.
• Marketing?

Answer 6

How do I know when I need to upgrade?

If you don't know, then you don't need to upgrade unless the camera body breaks. Besides, when upgrading, you'll find there are multiple camera bodies available that could fulfill your needs, and you need to know which of those bodies is the right for you. If you don't know, then don't upgrade.

I have a complement of "kit" lenses, such as an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and a 55-200mm f4-5.6. Maybe I've even added a 50mm 1.8 to the kit. Flash is only for indoors (right?) and I usually shoot outside, so that means I don't need an external flash.

Those lenses aren't particularly sharp, so if upgrading to a high-megapixel body, you'll find you need to upgrade your lenses too or else you won't get the benefit from megapixels. Some alternative reasons to upgrade could be better autofocus, low-light performance, faster burst rate, etc.

I shoot photos of my family and friends whether out at the park or having a picnic, my kids sports practices and games, vacation photos, as well as some landscapes, flowers, and whatever else catches my eye. Pretty familiar territory. I'm not a professional and don't intend to become one.

It sounds like you don't need the low-light performance or burst rate that better bodies could give you. So, upgrade when something breaks.

About the only indication I found that you might want to consider upgrading at some point of time is shooting sports. Look at whether you can catch the decisive moment in your sports photos. If not, a faster fps body with fast card support (and the fast card obviously, too), could help. Look at whether the sports photos show excessive motion blur. If so, you could benefit from faster shutter speed which in indoor light conditions requires high ISO (and thus a new camera body with better low-light capabilities, perhaps) and fast aperture (and thus perhaps a new fast lens, too). Since your current lenses are zoom lenses, you should have a good idea of what focal lengths you need for sports. But, if the sports you shoot is outdoor sports, perhaps your current lenses and camera bodies are enough.

---

I'll give an example of my crop body upgrades that I think were justified.

I first bought Canon 2000D when starting photography. I found it's an ok camera for many situations, but not for all. In particular, I found I enjoyed bird photography buy found myself limited by slow burst rate (even slower when the tiny buffer is full), poor autofocus and no "stop AF search" option. The higher weight of many of the more expensive crop sensor bodies made me think hard whether an upgrade is what I need.

Then I found a reasonably priced used Canon 70D. The reasons I bought it were "stop AF search" option, 7fps burst speed and 19-point autofocus that can in some cases be used for flying birds too. As a minor improvement, the 97% coverage viewfinder made aiming long glass slightly easier than the 95% coverage viewfinder of 2000D. I also found the button to switch between different counts of AF points very useful, which I couldn't anticipate before buying the 70D and using it in the real life. Testing revealed that with proper technique of carrying and holding the camera, higher weight can be tolerated, and the weight of a reasonable long lens is anyway higher than the weight of the camera body.

However, I also found that even if I attach a fast SD card, when the buffer is full the RAW burst rate is not much faster than one shot per second. Disabling JPEG and shooting only RAW could help, but only in a very minor way. Shooting only JPEG could help at the tremendous cost of low dynamic range in underexposed shots.

The solution which I haven't tested yet was to sell the used 70D (at a loss of bit over 100 EUR, probably less than renting it would have costed -- we don't have a functioning camera/lens rental service where I live), and buy a new 90D. The 90D maintains the autofocus, burst and "stop AF search" benefits of 70D, but has added some crucial features, in the order of increasing importance from first to last:

• Lossily compressed C-RAW support enables 32.5 megapixel resolution at a smaller size RAW that a 20 megapixel camera would shoot
• The buffer is larger than on 70D
• Support for fast memory cards enables fast shooting speed when the buffer is full. The small C-RAW format helps here, too.

There are also some features that weren't the deciding factors for upgrade, but could be useful, in no particular order:

• 10fps as opposed to 7fps
• 45-point autofocus as opposed to 19-point autofocus
• 32.5 megapixels as opposed to around 20 megapixels, although now the resolution is probably limited by glass rather than by sensor
• 100% coverage viewfinder should enable slightly easier aiming of long glass than 97% coverage viewfinder
• Weight has been slightly reduced
• Shutter lifetime has been slightly increased

Soon, when the risk of rain will be lower than it is today, I'll see whether the 90D was a justified purchase.