What are the pros and cons of buying an older higher-level camera if the price is about the same as a new entry-level one?
As a fairly generic answer, I'd go for an older higher level camera every time. To me, higher spec cameras tend to have a longer life span (in terms of shutter actuations), and more solid build than entry level ones. Although saying that it is more likely that they have had heavier use before getting to you. I reckon also that features and specs of high end cameras tend to take a long time to filter down to lower end cameras, so they may balance out over time. You pay a premium for using a large retailer for second hand kit, but at the same time you usually get a warranty (some in the UK offer a whole year's warranty on second hand cameras and lenses). I took a chance and used eBay and got a great deal but it isn't as safe.
To put in context and give my reasoning for this answer, I upgraded from a Canon EOS 350D to an EOS 40D when the 40D had already been out for 6 years, and what a leap it was for me. It was also cheaper than almost any current entry level Canon DSLR.
In my opinion it boils down to two factors (assuming you mean DSLRs in the low- and mid-range):
- Higher level cameras give you more features and more control than entry level cameras.
- Newer cameras have better low-light capability than older cameras (and generally better image quality due to technological advancement).
Given an amount of money you balance the two based on your current and predicted use of the camera and your capabilities as a photographer.
The pro features are: more buttons giving you direct and quick access to parameters that you might want to set manually (ISO, aperture/shutter speed if you choose between having one or two control wheels, additional LCD panel on top and many more). With these features you can choose the settings you want easier and faster. And for some shots time is crucial.
On the other hand the technological advancement (i.e. a newer camera) gives you better quality of your photos in low-light conditions, better live-mode etc. With a new camera you can easily shoot in a pub with a cheap lens. With an older one it's more tricky and it's good to have a wide-aperture lens.
There are also other non-pro features like adjustable LCD (you can hold your camera above your head or just above the ground for unusual perspective and still frame the shots on the adjustable screen) that also increase the cost.
Another one is having a built-in auto-focus motor so that you can use older lenses that you can buy used cheap (this depends on the actual system you're using so check what is available on e-bay before going with this argument).
So you need to choose between having the features that you need and the performance in low-light conditions. Just don't confuse image quality with photo quality. You can take crappy photos with the best, high quality camera and great photos at low quality with an old camera.
In one sentence, based on my opinion: if you can use the features to get better photos, buy the older camera that has these features.
Otherwise get a cheaper or a newer one with better image quality. Or a smaller one that you can have on you all the time.
For me it was a choice between D5100 with a great sensor (at the time) and an older D90 with the additional LCD and all the important settings easily available with their own buttons. I've chosen the latter, although I do miss the adjustable screen of D5100.
And I still use my old compact TZ8 camera that fits in the pocket - a great feature on its own, sometimes surpassing the low image quality. It's better to take a low quality photo than miss the opportunity altogether.
You can take amazing photographs with any camera. The trick is to know and understand your equipment. An older professional camera might be more rugged and durable, but might have lower resolution or light sensitivity. It really depends on the specific cameras you are comparing.
A few years ago I was dead set on buying a used 5DMk2 because I wanted a full-frame camera. Just to be sure, I checked it and a brand new 7D out in the store, and fell in love with the ergonomics of the 7D. It had a better AF, grip, and view finder than the 5DMk2.
One final thought: A professional camera might be more rugged than a prosumer camera, but if it was USED by a professional, its probably seen a lot of wear. The new, cheaper camera will be brand new and undamaged.
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a used camera, just keep it in mind. I would buy used lenses if you are careful about what you are getting.
So to summarize: I wouldn't worry about what your equipment is as much as I would worry about knowing how to take advantage of the equipment.
I had to decide the same thing a short time ago, whether to go for a D7000 vs any other camera. The only restriction was that it had to be Nikon because I owned a couple of Nikon fit lenses that I wanted to reuse. First of take a look at:
The D7000 is Nikon's most advanced camera at any price. The fact that it sells for under $1,000 in 2012 make it a no-brainer, which is why it's sold out. The D7000 is Nikon's best DSLR ever.
Yes, the D800 and D4 are more expensive, but also a lot more clumsy. The Nikon D7000 handles better than any Nikon DSLR, regardless of price.
In summary, if you ask me whether to get a D7000 vs d3300 or d5200 my recomendation is going to be every time to go for the D7000. I own both a d5100 (which my girlfriend uses) and a D7000.
Here're the highlights:
- D7000 has autofocus builtin. That may look like something that is not that important because of all the AFS lenses but in reality it offers a lot of possibilities in the second hand market. For example you can get a relatively unexpensive AF-D 2.8 80-300 which is an extraordinarily good lense and still get autofocus. With an entry level camera you're going to get limited to the AFS lenses.
- Image quality is about the same and you even get near the same ISO perfornce, except you get more megapixels in the new lenses but you're not really going to need them 99% of the time unless you're going to do extreme cropping or panoramas or similar and even that is not such an improvement (from 16MP to 24MP is good but not impressive).
- Entry level Nikons do have only one dial for both apperture and shutter speed. While this is not a huge problem the D7000 has sepparate dials for aperture and shutter speed. After you get used to it it's difficult to go back to having just one dial.
- Better viewfinder. The viewfinder of the D7000 is significantly better than any entry level. In addition to having a 100% coverage you also get gridlines (which were dropped in the d5000 to d51000 evolution nobody knows why...)
- Wheater sealed. Only relevant if you plan to shoot on rainy conditions but still worth noticiing.
- More programable / preprogrammed buttons. I shoot a lot with the D5100 and I can tell you this is not SUCH a big issue, but it's a nice to have on the D7000. You get more control to change properties like WB, braketing, flash properties, etc without having to take your eye off the view finder, as opposed to the entry level cameras in which you have to go through menus to change anything other than the tree exposure values ha
The only real benefit for getting a D5200 over a D7000 would be because of the flip out LCD which allows you to record videos easily and allows for some pictures to be composed easily in some situation without having to get on your knees or lay in the ground. In addition the D5200/D3300 weight a little less and are a little smaller although the difference is not really that big (about 200g and the D7000 being a little bigger).
In summary, go for the D7000 if you can afford it, and specially if you're in doubt between d7000 and a new entry level for the same price...
My first DSLR was a used Canon 30D. I was considering something like this vs. a new Rebel, and I'm convinced I made the right decision. The 30D was so much better in build quality and durability, and it had extra controls for all the settings I found I needed to change regularly (vs. finding a setting in a menu somewhere). It served me well until I traded up to a 40D and later, a 7D.
I can't tell you for certain that I wouldn't have found a lower-end camera suitable to learn with, but on the occasions I've had to pick up low-end Canon & Nikon cameras since I've been shooting, the difference in quality and features is striking. I'm very glad I made the choice I did when I started.
The new, entry level camera will likely have better hardware and software than the older, higher level camera. But the higher level camera will likely have a bigger sensor. The higher level camera will be built with a professional or pro-sumer in mind.
It is not easy to find an older higher-level camera (new OR used) at a price that is even close to a new entry level camera.
If you are an entry level photographer, you cannot go wrong with an entry level camera. It is a great learning device and the cost to own it is a very good deal.
The biggest questions are what are your required features, and what are the generational differences.
Feature requirements can help make it easy to decide what to buy. Deciding between an old pro camera and a new entry-level camera, but want an integrated vertical grip? The pro camera is the only sensible choice. Require a camera the other half won't mind carrying? The entry-level camera is almost definitely a better choice.
Generational differences in digital SLRs can have significant image quality differences. Resolution, dynamic range, and ISO, in particular, advance a little with every generation of camera. Compare the D7000, D5200, and D3300 and you can see that the oldest camera (D7000) is bested by the newer D5200. The D3300 is a mixed bag in that it's a step back on dynamic range but a step forward on color depth and high ISO. These differences are minor (and likely not visible without significant comparison), but each of these are only one generation differences. Compare the D3300 against the D90 (the D7000 predecessor) and there's a big jump in performance that will be visible under a variety of circumstances. If image quality is an ultimate goal then a newer camera will, in general, be the best choice.
It is in the nature of design to make compromises. In the context of Camera selection, your purchasing potshot is at a moving target. Until now, the buyer was always forced to compromise - even with the currently "top-rated" camera - and that kept them coming back for more. But first things first.
Beyond the drip-drip of advancing specs, there's the customizations nightmare. Custom peripherals cabling. Custom batteries (cost: as much as a solid third of the camera itself). Custom memory cards. Custom flash. Custom Lenses.
Where too would we be without software that -even after more than a decade in development- leaves the latest and supposedly famous brand camera's lenses locked and useless?
Then there's that unintentional (but inevitable) physical damage. Electronics trashed and guarantee voided by the first encounter with hill mist. Creeping pixel errors. Lense bloom. Scratches.
Obsolescence and perception: resolution too low, sensor not fast enough, blurry telephoto, flash not strong enough.
Finally, the inevitable supply limitations. Even max-possible-sized memory card (or cards of the precise type supported) are at some point simply no longer produced.
The good news? Given the (let's be honest) perfectly acceptable resolution and speed of almost all current offerings (including 2nd-hand), you can relax the technology fetish and concentrate on MINIMIZING YOUR WORRIES.
Concentrate on surprisingly few characteristics and these days you will generally get a decent photo: battery life, card capacity, robustness and waterproofing. All else is either overkill, weight and/or liability.
New lower cost cameras can have impressive credentials. My Sony A55 focuses faster, has higher resolution, and takes better pictures in low light than my "higher end" Sony A700. The A700 has features that I like better than the A55. But the A55 clearly wins the comparison.
The new camera will have a warranty. On the old camera wear and usage can vary from user to user. Really old digital cameras are like really old computers, full of obsolete parts and not really relevant in the fast evolving camera world.
If you are uncertain about what camera model is best for you, how about looking for a used, newer, lower end camera? Spend a few months shooting, and you will better understand what you want in your camera, not what others suggest.
The main tradeoff between a newer entry-level camera and an older prosumer camera are those of sensor/processor vs. UI hardware.
As cameras tier upwards in a product line, they tend to have more usability features: harder wearing bodies, faster burst rates, more sophisticated AF, more menu settings, autofocus adjustment, better viewfinders (pentaprism vs. pentamirror), the possibility of full-frame, dual wheel controls, top-plate LCDs, more programmability, and more buttons.
As cameras are "refreshed" in a lineup, they sometimes inherit hardware UI features from the higher tiers--but typically they do not, as there has to be price and feature differentiation between the higher and lower models. The main change between generations in the same tier are sensor and/or processor updates.
Because features that may be important to you can be either sensor/processor or hardware based, you may have to pick and choose depending on the individual model. But most experienced shooters trend to getting an older prosumer body over a newer entry-level body, because a lot of us feel that sensors have reached sufficiency of performance for most uses, and a lot of new firmware/processor features (new in-camera processing setups) may not be important and hardware UI and handling are always going to be important to how one relates to the camera, or are simply used to features at the prosumer level and are unwilling to give them up (e.g., dual wheel controls).
There is also the fact that entry-level bodies tend to depreciate more rapidly than higher-end bodies, because of their tighter release cycles (typically once a year, while prosumers may have 18 month-to-3 year release cycles). A Canon dRebel body that has a $800 MSRP at the time of its introduction may only go for $500 new within a year or two.
If, otoh, there's a trend in hardware design that means a brand new feature (say, 4K video shooting) is of paramount importance to you, then possibly getting the newer entry-level body makes more sense. As with any gear purchase decision, it all comes down to "it depends" on what and how you shoot and your budget.
One cannot surely say that older higher level camera is better than newer entry level in terms of image quality. High level cameras give you dedicated buttons to set parameters like WB (white balance), ISO, metering, etc, for which you have to dive into the menu in entry level cameras (but they usually do provide each of these, just through a menu). First ask yourself what is convenient for you. Secondly, high level camera gives you a durable and whether sealed body for a high cost and more weight. Ask yourself how frequently you take pictures in rain, snow, or sea splashes.
With the advancement of technology a newer entry level can give you better image quality as compared to older higher level. Find Nikon D3300 vs D7000 in this regard. One thing to be kept in mind is that each camera has a predefined shutter life. So before buying an older camera first think about the fact that you are not knowing that how many shots are already taken with it and how many are left. Such researches are a must before a second hand DSLR deal.
My new, entry-level D3200 seriously blows away my older, more expensive D200 in terms of image quality, especially in less than optimal lighting conditions. But, when you grab the D200 it feels like a well-built machine whereas the D3200 feels a bit like a toy. (Although, most people do like smaller.) Myself, I like quality build over size and weight. If you're looking for image quality, a mid-range model like the D5300 or a D7100 may provide the compromise you are looking for.
Don't at first look at the cameras. First, try to find out what's important for you, then look for cameras which meet your requirements.
Things to consider:
Will you be making large prints, regular prints or just pictures for the web?
Will you shoot in low-light conditions (without flash)? How important is that the noise looks good in such cases? How much AF do you need in such circumstances? (older models may have only very few AF spots working under low light conditions)
Will you need a built-in flash? (many pro models don't have one)
Are you trigger happy, or are you one of the photographers who always manually dial in the right aperture, exposure time and ISO setting before each shot? (entry level cameras often have "convenience features" which pro cameras lack, but pro cameras will allow for much quicker and convenient adjustment of parameters - more buttons, dials, joysticks, additional LCDs for a streamlined approach to the parameters a pro requires).
Is the appearance of the camera important for you? (an old 1D will make look like a pro (even though this is really too outdated by now...), but a Rebel will not).
Which burst rate/sustained rate do you need? (pro cameras will often allow you to shoot more photos per second than consumer models, but as technology marches on, a seriously outdated pro model might be left behind by a recent consumer model).
Do you need RAW support? (I think everyone needs it, but some consumer models don't offer this).
Do you need special flash features?
Can you cope with a smaller LCD screen?
Do you need an optical viewfinder with special features?
What kind of AF do you use? Just the one spot in the center, or full AF coverage, perhaps with automatic depth-of-field estimation/adjustment?
What about lenses? With a larger crop factor (smaller sensor), the choice of available lenses for given situations might be less than optimal, from both a performance and a price perspective. Or it might be the other way around. It depends on what you want to shoot, how you want to do it, which lenses you already have and how much money you can spent on additional lenses you need. You can easily spend times more money on lenses than on the camera body, and it really sucks when you find out that the lenses won't really work for your situation, or are incompatible in some way with the camera. Sometimes the incompatibilities are subtle, but still show stoppers.
Of course, everyone wants to flexible. You might say "I mainly do photographs of architecture and cars for web pages, but it would be nice to sports photography every few years, should the need arise, and perhaps print out a really large picture of some animal in case I ever move into a really big house". Well...in such a a case, try to think what your immediate needs are. Spending an excessive amount of money or accepting the wrong compromises, just for the vague option of being "more flexible" in the unforeseeable future, might not the best way for everybody.
On the other hand, the future is unforeseeable.
It also helps if you have friends or colleagues which have compatible camera systems. Borrowing lenses or bodies for the "one special occasion" could be an option. And it helps if you know the specific camera system (not the specific model), even if your model is outdated or just semi-pro .