NO NEED TO UPGRADE

Bronica SQ-A. Haven't seen the need to upgrade for 10 years now.

Any of nikon's D3××× series since D3200.
Brilliant cameras.

>>2948900
Xpan and this desu, with the 40, 80 and 150 I don't even feel the need for new lenses.

Mamiya 7ii i couldnt think of any other medium format camera i would ever replace it with.

>>2948941
These are great cameras. I don't understand people who get into photography with these cameras and want to upgrade few months later.

Nikon F5. Basically an endgame for electronic 35mm film camera.

Fuji xt10. Basically a xt1 that's a third of the price.
So unless I'm going to be in heavy rainfall, there is no need to buy one. 16mp is also plenty, and it just werks.

OM-4. Small, durable, takes button cells, auto TTL flash, none of the quirks of the Nikon F2 or F3. Glass is nice and cheap.

File: Canon_EOS_5DMarkII_image01.png (150KB, 365x271px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 365x271px

5D 2, i dont shoot video or anything that moves, so the upgrade to the 3 or 4 is just a waste of money

>>2948899
Sigma DP Merrill are the ultimate no-upgrade digital cameras.

Resolution on the DP2 + DP3 are limited by the sensor, not the lens from f/4 onwards (and that's saying something.) Aperture is wide enough for some bokeh if that's what you look for in a picture. If all you care about is the IQ of the finished image and the enjoyment of composing and taking an image, once you've got one or two there's no concievable upgrade. Also you can use the DP3Q converter lens on the DP3M, it's also possible to use converters from other camera manufacturers entirely on the DP1+DP2. There's no downside for anyone besides photographers for whom speed is an issue. (Who are these? I've never met one personally. A6500 users?)

Also >>2949231.

>>2949253
But will it blend?

>>2948899
>bought a5100 new for cheap
>can sell it used for a profit
>can't buy anything new because everything went up in price.

>>2949202
My OM-1 will pretty much never be obsolete for my film needs. Love it.
>>2949231
This is my digital no-upgrade body. Still does exactly what I want.

>>2948899
>no need to upgrade
In terms of accessories or buying a whole new system?

I'd have to say the RZ67. I've had it for about 10 years now. It's a very inexpensive system and the lenses are excellent. I get some new furniture for it every so often but there's nothing wrong with the camera which I'd want to change or upgrade.

It is heavy, and if weight is ever a consideration for shoots I just bring the Rolleiflex instead. Which is my second no-upgrade camera.

Canon EOS-1n
>Peak of 35mm bodies imho

>>2948899
I have a Bronica ETRS and my photography skills aren't nearly developed enough to warrant the use of LF (and neither is my budget), so I'd say this is my no upgrade required camera for the foreseeable future

>>2950423
This. I use an OM-1 for my day to day shooting and it has everything I want out of a 35mm camera. I fear the day my mercury cell will run out though. 1,5v button cells give a metering of ca 1 stop over, which is easy to live with if you know about it but I'm too autistic to accept that.

>>2950454
What is Nikon F-5 or F-6
Canon had a brief spurt where their AF beat Nikon, but Nikon is film king.

>>2948899
X-Pro2. After years of Leica for personal, and Nikon for professional, finally can do both with one camera. First camera I feel just as happy using personally, as I do using professionally. Only upgrade I see myself doing would be a newer version (X-Pro3 or like X-Pro2s) that fixes the small amount of things I do have issues with.

>>2950937
I shoot negative film in mine so there is plenty of exposure latitude. Use the sunny 16 rule outside and "as much as I can get away with" indoors. Works fine without the meter even turned on.

>>2950454
I have one of these too and I do enjoy it occasionally. It's a bit big and clunky for my tastes.

RB67
maybe slight possible chance i might go for the RZ just for the 110 2.8

>>2951075
Yeah I've used the rule to guess/estimate exposure, but I've never 'beaten' the meter. I use the meter all the time and it's quite accurate. I only use my own guess/opinion when I want partial (over)exposure like with silhouettes against the sun vut that doesn't happen often.

>>2951074
What issues? I'm thinking about trading my X100T and LEica M8 for an XPro2.

>>2950937
Just set the ISO one stop up (i.e. double it). This will compensate.

>>2951171
I know, but I'm autistic like I said. I have the luxury of a working mercury cell, but I'll have to compensate somehow, someday. I like to complain about things, as you will surely have noticed. Sorry about that

Sony A7R2 is the most I'd ever want.

>>2951269
What if they upped the dynamic range to 40 stops?
and colour depth to a true 16 bit?

>>2951269
Is that what you said when the d800 came out?

>>2951271
>dynamic range to 40 stops
That would be more than your eyes see, at least for day light.

>>2949106
F6 is better in every way.

>>2948899
D800