Rangefinder Magazine
August 2004

Digital Photography by John Rettie
Upgrade or Keep Your Old Camera?

For the past few years most photographers have assumed a new digital camera is much better than an old one, consequently one has to buy the new one in order to “keep up.” Naturally because a digital camera includes the “film and the film processor,” the internal electronics of the camera have been vitally important. In the old days, internal components of a film camera did not make much, if any, difference to the final quality of the image—that was more dependent on the type of film, lens and processing. Granted, over the years newer film camera bodies were introduced but it was always the mechanical features, such as auto focusing, high-speed film winders, and metering, that made one choose to buy a newer body. If the same lens was used, the final image captured on a 1970 body was identical to one captured on a 1990 body.

	Oldies but goodies. Many pros find the revolving-body Coolpix line are ideal point-and-shoot cameras. Sadly, Nikon no longer produces them.

Take an image captured on a 1994 digital camera, though, and compare it to one produced on a 2004 model, and there’s no comparison: The newer camera will produce a better image. Additionally, the functionality and speed of operation of a modern camera is far better than that of an early digital camera.

However, take a 2002 camera and compare it to a new 2004 model, and you’ll not find as great a difference. Some will disagree, but I have found that new cameras are not always greatly improved over older models. If the camera you own is satisfying your current needs and producing the required quality, there’s no need to upgrade unless the improvements justify the cost of upgrading.

I bring this up as the result of an e-mail I got in June from reader Herb Brand of Simcha Photography in Illinois. Herb said, “On the strength of your review several years back, I purchased a Nikon Coolpix 950. I also purchased several accessories: a slide copier attachment, an external flash adapter and an external 6-volt battery pack. The camera is (as recommended) a good point-and-shoot carry along.

Today, I dropped it. Your advice? To keep the accessories, do I try to find another 950, 990 or 995 (do my accessories fit all these?), or dump the camera and accessories and replace with a current point and shoot and no accessories?”

Here is my response: “I am in the same predicament. I dropped my 995 a few months ago. I’m currently using a newer 4500 on loan, and I don’t like it as much. Nikon is not making any new versions of this line. I’d recommend looking for a used 990 as that’s the best one in the line in my opinion. I’m glad you asked as everyone I know who owns a 950/990/995 loves his or her camera. I have to make the same decision in a few months time.”

Coincidentally, I had been asked similar questions by a couple of my peers a week before. One asked which camera to buy to replace his 990. The other asked what model I recommend as a new camera like the 990, because he had seen so many journalists using one. My advice to the 990 owner was to keep his camera. My suggestion to the other was to check eBay for a used 990. I had a Coolpix 990, which I sold three years ago when I got the 995, but soon after I regretted selling it, since I did not like the 995 as much.

Those who know their Nikon Coolpix models will recognize that these are all in the same line of cameras with the revolving body that started with 900 and progressed through the 900s, 950, 990, 995 and finally the 4500, which Nikon stopped selling at the end of 2003.

Although these cameras have proven very popular with professionals due to their design features, they did not catch on with the general public according to Nikon. Consequently, Nikon could not justify continuing with the design. I also have a suspicion that they were more expensive to make so are not as profitable now that prices have dropped.

All in all it’s a shame since I find the camera has always been my first choice for product shots because it’s so easy to rotate the body to position at different angles and hold steady with two hands. It’s also an effective camera when shooting in crowds as one can hold it up high and hold it steadily with two hands for low-speed shooting. I have used the camera to take many published shots at auto shows over the years.

To me it seems a shame that such a popular design has been shelved. It’s also very frustrating for those people who buy accessories to fit a certain design of camera and then newer, incompatible cameras make those accessories obsolete.

Of course, reaching a plateau in design whereby it is not necessary to always upgrade also applies to computers and software. Not long ago one had to upgrade as soon as a newer computer came out.

More and more, people find they can continue using a computer longer before it shows its age compared to newer models. My Mac G4 is now three years old, and granted I’ve tweaked it, but it’s still fine for my current needs. Previously, I never kept a computer longer than 18 months. Of course, I’d love to upgrade to the recently announced 30-inch Apple Cinema Display—that would be a worthwhile improvement! But I’d have to plunk down $1999 or more for a new G5, plus $599 for the special graphics card, and then $3299 for the monitor. My finances don’t stretch that far at present, but Hollywood’s finances do, and the setup is likely to be very popular with film producers.

Microsoft has introduced a new version of Office for the Mac.

Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac
Talk of upgrading segues to my quick overview and thoughts on the newest version of Microsoft Office for the Mac. We might be photographers first and foremost, but all of us have to write letters and maybe even use spreadsheets at times. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly when it comes to word processing programs since, like it or not, Word is the standard. As a writer I use it every day, although I do not use it for any complicated page layouts. I’d rather use Adobe’s InDesign for that purpose, or even Photoshop.

I’m writing this column on the new version of Word and do not notice any major changes. It does show a quick blue line under a word if the spelling of a word has been auto-corrected, which is useful in case you didn’t want it changed. The biggest improvement is minor, but really good: Finally Word will accept file names longer than 31 characters.

	Many Office users will discover the new junk mail filter in Office is a godsend.

My quick look at Excel shows that formatting menus have improved. Beyond that I don’t see much difference. I am not a PowerPoint user, but it appears several major changes and additions, such as a running clock during presentations, have been made to that program. PowerPoint could be useful for photographers giving presentations or even for producing slick electronic portfolios.

Entourage is the e-mail and scheduling portion of Office, and it appears to have received the most improvements. Spam mail has become the bane of e-mail. All too often spam filters seem to have a nasty habit of intercepting too many genuine e-mails and attachments. I’ve even had trouble getting files through to editors who want my stuff! I tried the junk mail filter in the previous version of Entourage and found it was not efficient.

After a few days of use, I am impressed by the efficiency of the new junk mail filter. I have it set at the lowest level, yet it catches all but a handful of spam mailings and puts them in a separate folder. I check this folder regularly just in case anything I want has gone in, and so far I have found nothing. It’s certainly nice not to have to delete hundreds of junk e-mails manually because of the concern of missing some important correspondence.

Another neat new feature is that a small semi-transparent window pops up in the corner of the screen when an e-mail is received, even if the Entourage screen is buried beneath lots of other windows. It displays the sender’s name and the subject. It only stays visible for a few seconds, but it gives you time to see if it’s something that needs attention right away or can be left until later. Oops, it’s just gonged and shown me a piece of spam that it didn’t catch, oh well! At least I don’t have to open the e-mail screen, and it did correctly catch 10 in the past half-hour.

I’m sure many of you are wondering why I don’t use Apple’s own e-mail program that comes with Mac OS X. I tried it when it first came out two year ago and did not like it. Recently, I was going to switch, as I understand its junk mail filtering is efficient, but instead I decided I’d give the new version of Entourage a try. It’s a big deal switching e-mail programs when you’ve got thousands of messages that need to be referred to quite often. For this reason I am reluctant to switch programs.

Overall the new Office is an improvement. Whether it’s worth paying $239 to upgrade is up to you. It’s probably a must have if you use PowerPoint or are frustrated by the 31-character file name limit and junk e-mail.

KATA’s Elements cover fits all 35mm SLR camera bodies and is not confining in use.

KATA Elements Cover
Water and dust don’t mix well with most cameras. If you get them together, as I have in the past, you end up with mud, and that’s even worse—believe me. All too often many of us tend to just ignore a little rain or dust and hope it won’t affect the camera or lens. Placing a weatherproof cover over the camera and lens is usually a pain as it becomes difficult to work the controls.

KATA (distributed by Bogen in the U.S.) has come to the rescue with a rain cover that seems ideal. It features a black cloth bag that goes over the camera body and lens, with a transparent top and back for looking through the viewfinder and seeing the body. There is a sleeve at each side for putting one’s arms in to hold and control the camera in the normal way. The Elements Cover 702 (E-702), priced at $59.95, is designed for SLR camera bodies.

	Rettie holds his Canon EOS-10D in a KATA Elements cover as he gets ready for an airboat ride through a Louisiana swamp. (Photo by Bryn Rettie)

I got to try the bag out while riding on an airboat on a swamp in Louisiana and found it worked fine and did not cause any problems in taking pictures. Living in California, I shoot in dusty conditions in the desert more often, so I am intrigued to see how effective it is at keeping dust from entering through the arm portals.

KATA also sells an extended sleeve kit for long lenses, which would prove useful for sports photographers who often end up shooting in inclement weather.

John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 34 years, a computer for 24 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for the past 11 years. Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.