Hi guys, I was just wondering.. what do people mean when they say that they have outgrown a camera? I currently own a D40 and at what stage would I/any owner of the D40 say they have outgrown it?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
camera's functions are not sufficient for the user anymore.
let me raise my own personal example for you; i started off with a sony h2, after a while i realised that f/8 maximum aperture wasn't good enough, and the limitations of the noise handling made it a little hard to do some street shots that i wanted when the lighting condition wasn't quite so good. also.. not wide enough with 35mm equivalent 35mm perspective only.
so i got the k100d. that was better, i could use the sigma 10-20mm on it without breaking the bank. high iso was really clean, much cleaner than i expected. size is good, handling is better.. but then now, base iso is 200 (i.e. lowest possible iso). thus ended up having limitation for long exposures, have to forego a bit of image quality via diffraction. dynamic range also a tad clipped.
that said, i admit that the upgrading to k20d was in part a bit of gearheadedness. k200d is actually fine for me too, but the price difference was relatively little for me to choose the slightly more expensive option.
to be honest, i am going to say that maybe only 5% of people really need the features of top-end cameras like the nikon d3 or canon mark d3. but the percentage of people having these cameras is far higher than that. even then, who really cares? no one should ever be faulted for having money. it is only when they are "wasting" the camera by not making use of it (note, not even improper use), and buy to keep, then you should fault them.