[Wheatfield]

Arguably, we're already there. For a couple of hundred bucks / pounds / euro (occasionally less), you can pick up a decent Pentax K-5 with plenty of shutter life remaining and enough resolution, high ISO performance and features to satisfy all but the most demanding photographers. It's silly low money for what you get. I still have my K-5, and if I had to, I'd happily depend on it for everything I do. Equally, there are inexpensive gems to be found from all the other brands.

It's easy to believe photography is an expensive hobby when we see all the posts about new equipment, but anyone prepared to buy older, used equipment is spoiled rotten for more economical choices these days...

^^^^^This^^^^^

Any ILC made in at least the last decade is capable of excellent results. Low ISO noise floors have dropped from invisible to invisible, and while high ISO has gotten better, all that means is that we can now use ridiculously high ISOs. If your stock in trade is photographing black cats in coal bins, definitely a new camera will suit you better, but if your needs are more moderate, a K20 era camera should do just fine.
The best camera I have had for studio was the K7. Something about that sensor made for delicious flesh tones. It's high ISO was pretty bad. I didn't like it much above ISO 400. The K5 had excellent high ISO properties, but not quite the low ISO colour pallette that I was used to in the studio.

[biz-engineer]

but anyone prepared to buy older, used equipment is spoiled rotten for more economical choices these days...

Ah yes.... things are starting to be really really interesting. Just because it's an "old" model and not a mirrorless makes it cheap in the used market.
In one of their videos, photography-online made a side by side comparison between the Canon 5DSr and the Canon EOS R5, the 5DSr came images came out with slightly more fine details.
Since the mirrorless revolution took place from 2016 onwards, used DSLR gear can now be had cheap, with plenty of excellent lens choices.
One could buy a D810 for well under 900 euros, and a bunch of Tamron SP lenses (G2 zooms, or SP primes) for no much more. Image quality didn't drop over time.

[reh321]

Arguably, we're already there. For a couple of hundred bucks / pounds / euro (occasionally less), you can pick up a decent Pentax K-5 with plenty of shutter life remaining and enough resolution, high ISO performance and features to satisfy all but the most demanding photographers. It's silly low money for what you get. I still have my K-5, and - if I had to - I'd happily depend on it for everything I do. Equally, there are inexpensive gems to be found from all the other brands.

It's easy to believe photography is an expensive hobby when we see all the posts about new equipment, but anyone prepared to buy older, used equipment is spoiled rotten for more economical choices these days...

In June 2015, I purchased a K-30 with a shutter count of 3 from KEH for something like $300.
I thought then that I had gotten a really good deal.
In retrospect, although I was unaware of “Dark Image Syndrome” back then, they were aware of it.
By summer of 2018, this K-30 was suffering from “Dark Image Syndrome”.
On Black Friday 2018 I purchased a KP for $700 from B&H, but by then I had purchased several aperture-ring equipped AF lenses.
I still use the K-30 sometimes, but now I limit myself to ‘Av’ and ‘M’ modes, exactly as I used my “ME/SE” when I started with Pentax in 1979.
I still think I got a great deal!!

[Wheatfield]

Ah yes.... things are starting to be really really interesting. Just because it's an "old" model and not a mirrorless makes it cheap in the used market.
In one of their videos, photography-online made a side by side comparison between the Canon 5DSr and the Canon EOS R5, the 5DSr came images came out with slightly more fine details.
Since the mirrorless revolution took place from 2016 onwards, used DSLR gear can now be had cheap, with plenty of excellent lens choices.
One could buy a D810 for well under 900 euros, and a bunch of Tamron SP lenses (G2 zooms, or SP primes) for no much more. Image quality didn't drop over time.

While Sony and the others are trying to convince people that mirrorless is the next big thing, they are failing to mention that changing the viewfinder isn't changing the imaging sensor.
All these flavor of the week mirrorless cameras are using the same sensors, or very similar ones, to the DSLRs that they are replacing.

[reh321]

If your stock in trade is photographing black cats in coal bins, definitely a new camera will suit you better, but if your needs are more moderate, a K20 era camera should do just fine.

I photographed Leila a few minutes ago in our bedroom - shades closed. lights off.
I didn't need a coal mine for my KP to be useful.

added: The KP photo was taken at 1/250 sec.
My K-30 only goes to ISO=12800, so I had to use 1/15 sec and then hope she would be still {one of of two was OK - see second shot}.

[Serkevan]

Arguably, we're already there. For a couple of hundred bucks / pounds / euro (occasionally less), you can pick up a decent Pentax K-5 with plenty of shutter life remaining and enough resolution, high ISO performance and features to satisfy all but the most demanding photographers. It's silly low money for what you get. I still have my K-5, and - if I had to - I'd happily depend on it for everything I do. Equally, there are inexpensive gems to be found from all the other brands.

It's easy to believe photography is an expensive hobby when we see all the posts about new equipment, but anyone prepared to buy older, used equipment is spoiled rotten for more economical choices these days...

A friend of mine says she's interested in getting into photography and she wants my advice on kit.

Since I'll probably be able to visit them this summer, my idea is to go to a store with cameras, see which kind of ergonomics and viewfinder she likes, and then I will 100% suggest to her an used APS-C flagship from 2010-2012 that fits the bill, probably with a 2-lens kit (standard zoom + tele zoom). Maybe toss in a nifty fifty, they go for like 50€. Doable for around 400€, tops, and that's assuming one throws in a tripod and probably some accessories. Like you said, you get a lot of photo out of such a setup.

(I feel tempted to just put my K-1 (plus FA 43) in her hands and let the problem sort itself out, but I'd be a terrible friend if I did that )

---------- Post added 06-11-21 at 09:24 AM ----------

The best camera I have had for studio was the K7. Something about that sensor made for delicious flesh tones. It's high ISO was pretty bad. I didn't like it much above ISO 400.

I wasn't quite putting the finger on why I was miffed by a lot of my K-1 portrait shots until I stumbled upon you mentioning this one year ago or so. I grew super frustrated with the K-7's low light (even at ISO 100!) and assumed that anything after that camera would have been a straight upgrade. And looking back, it's true that the K-7 had fantastic colours. The K-1 consistently needs red channel tweaking in my experience... although it 100% was a straight upgrade everywhere else.

[biz-engineer]

Digital displays keep camera expectations low. That's especially true for smartphones that display photos on a small high density , high brightness display. My expectations are high for ILC cameras because I print, and barely met with the K1. It occurred to me that I spotted on physical print some fringing that I didn't see on display. More recently, I received a 24x36" print where I had apply a red filter (digital way), I have to re-print it because the red filtering created some white halo between sky and other parts of the image, this isn't visible on a small display. I can see that electronic displays create low expectations, otherwise with "fine art" prints there is virtually no limit to how good one want a camera image quality and resolution to be.

[BigMackCam]

Digital displays keep camera expectations low. That's especially true for smartphones that display photos on a small high density , high brightness display. My expectations are high for ILC cameras because I print, and barely met with the K1. It occurred to me that I spotted on physical print some fringing that I didn't see on display. More recently, I received a 24x36" print where I had apply a red filter (digital way), I have to re-print it because the red filtering created some white halo between sky and other parts of the image, this isn't visible on a small display. I can see that electronic displays create low expectations, otherwise with "fine art" prints there is virtually no limit to how good one want a camera image quality and resolution to be.

Straying a little OT here, but...

With fine art, I'd assume all components in the production line are important in consistently delivering end results that satisfy the demanding artist and clients. The camera and lens are only at the very earliest stages of the process.

It seems like the photographer who regularly produces larger, fine art prints could easily justify a bigger, better display for post-processing; something like the Dell UltraSharp 32 8K monitor, for example? It's not cheap (around US$4,000 currently), but then neither are the prints they're selling. The cost of the monitor would be recouped by the first few print sales, no?

Another way of looking at it... A premium quality 24 x 36" fine art re-print (due to unforeseen artefacts in the original) could cost the photographer around $200, right? Twenty of those and he or she could have bought the monitor instead

Even for someone not selling many high value, fine art prints, if their primary consideration is best possible quality for larger prints then I should think a large, high-resolution, wide-gamut monitor is as vital as the camera and lens; perhaps even more so...

[biz-engineer]

something like the Dell UltraSharp 32 8K monitor, for example?

Even 32" isn't large enough for 24x36"prints. Print and displays don't show the same things. Even with larger screen, I'm not sure if I would notice all things that become visible in full size print.

Example: on a print I could see some organic element (small tree leaf or somthing) floating in mirror-like water plane. On the display, it's not something that caught my attention, but on the print it looks exactly as if the print surface has been scratched. After I made one print, I figured that detail out, then I cloned it out of the digital photo, and it looked great again both on print and display.

Other example: fringing, not from the lens but from an ND filter and directional light. software usually correct lens aberrations based of radial distance from lens optical axis, but that's not the way square filters produce fringing. Before I printed, I forgot to check in all areas of the frame... I only saw it too late on the print. So in prints, the first annoying things showing up aren't due to pixel count , but more often due to aberrations, motion blur, things that become visible once we're in front of the full size print. Pixel count is overrated, lens quality is never good enough and shooting conditions are often non-ideal when the photographic subject is. The highest possible image quality and resolution is on tripod with electronic shutter or a strobe, typically studio conditions, no the case of photography on the go. There is the max performance of a camera system and how often that max imaging performance practically happens.

[BigMackCam]

Even 32" isn't large enough for 24x36"prints. Print and displays don't show the same things. Even with larger screen, I'm not sure if I would notice all things that become visible in full size print.

Sure... but it would be worlds better than a phone screen, and still way better than, say, a QHD 24" monitor. No display is going to match a high-resolution fine art print, but a 32" 8K wide-gamut monitor is getting much closer to the dimensions (if not the resolution) of a 24 x 36" print, allowing the photographer to see an awful lot more than they would on a less-specialised display. Magnification of the images on-screen will be necessary to check for the smallest aberrations, so it's more work than simply looking at the complete images on paper, but will catch many more issues before they get to print.

My point being, the better each element in the workflow, the better the chances that the end result will satisfy the demanding professional fine art photographer. Those publishing photos on social media can safely use a smartphone or tablet for post-processing. Hobbyists can use a decent 15.6" or 17" laptop, or 24" dedicated monitor. But those with even higher demands such as yourself will surely want every opportunity to catch as many problems as possible before print. Still, there'll be issues that creep through - but far fewer.

[biz-engineer]

No display is going to match a high-resolution fine art print, but a 32" 8K wide-gamut monitor is getting much closer to the dimensions (if not the resolution) of a 24 x 36" print

That's a good idea :-). Yes, 8K 32" is something like 7680 pixels / 72cm, close to 300ppi of the prints. I'd just have to zoom in to match the width of the monitor and scroll up / down to cover the entire image at its final print size. My graphic card doesn't support 8K, arrhhh, only a small detail. But... I got the idea, uploaded the picture to my phone, and zoomed in to equivalent print size, with the high density OLED display of the phone we see every detail without being limited by the display.

[BigMackCam]

I got the idea, uploaded the picture to my phone, and zoomed in to equivalent print size, with the high density OLED display of the phone we see every detail without being limited by the display.

Nice! Now you're cooking

I guess almost any size of display - even that of a smartphone - is useable, so long as (a) the photo viewing software allows for sufficient magnification, and (b) you don't mind moving the image around to examine each area of it in detail. And yes... high pixel density will help in minimising the rendering differences between displayed pixels and printed dots. The only other issue I can potentially think of is the gamut, calibration and colour profiling of the phone's screen and viewing app, and therefore its ability to reproduce details - especially in shadows and highlights - which you might otherwise miss. My phone is pretty decent in this respect (for a budget mid-range model), but far from perfect...

Although I very rarely print anything, like many photographers I always magnify my photos when carrying out certain aspects of post-processing (dealing with CA, noise reduction, sharpening, cloning out spots etc.). My applications and demands aren't the same as yours, and I'm more than happy to accept some aberrations and minor artefacts as part of the rendering character; but still, I like to get the best result I can, given the capabilities of camera and lens - even if the final product is only going to be viewed on my HD 17" laptop or QHD 24" monitor. So, even though my target media may typically be IQ limited compared to a fine art print, I do have fairly high expectations for the processed image...

[biz-engineer]

ny ILC made in at least the last decade is capable of excellent results.

What happens, in absolute terms, image quality of a specific camera / system doesn't diminish when a newer model is being released. I reckon most of my camera and lens purchases came from my needs and wants having changed over time. If my needs / wants wouldn't change, I would have kept using the same gear for many years and eventually just buy something new after one element of my camera kit would stop working. Turned out, Pentax being late in the full frame "game" actually saved me a lot money, while others (Canikon) had purchased three full frame upgrades, I was still using apsc, but I was having an eye on the D800E / D810. When Pentax went straight to the D810 equivalent K1, I bought it, without needing to go through the 12Mpixels D700, 24Mpixels D600 and 36Mp D800E/D810. With Pentax I skipped 2 camera upgrades compare to if I was having F mount lenses.

[reh321]

What happens, in absolute terms, image quality of a specific camera / system doesn't diminish when a newer model is being released. I reckon most of my camera and lens purchases came from my needs and wants having changed over time..

As I have already documented, most of my purchases have occurred because technology has continually improved what is available {I don't consider increase in mp as 'improvement in technology'}.
Although my K-30 has suffered from "Dark Image Syndrome" it is still usable in 'M' and 'Av' modes, which is good enough for me,
but I purchased a KP because of the usable higher ISO range.
If Pentax releases a camera below $1000 with their new AF system, they may separate me from even more of my cash.

[lesmore49]

As I have already documented, most of my purchases have occurred because technology has continually improved what is available {I don't consider increase in mp as 'improvement in technology'}.

In the film days, my main camera for about 25 years was a Pentax K1000. Two reasons, except for AF, the KK1000 did all I needed and even though it was a simple SLR...most other SLR's even the much more expensive ones did the same basic things...meter, manual focus, hit the shutter button, take a pix. The lens that was almost permanently attached to the K1000, was my Pentax A 35-105 Zoom , Macro. What more did I need ? And for me, this was when our kids were young and budgetary concerns were an issue.

Fast forward to now. I've bought a K10D, Km, K5, K1, Ricoh GR ll, Canon G12. Mostly because I can (budget better, kids grown up ), and increasing technology.

But in the film days I could of got by from '68 to 2007, with just my Pentax S1a and a few screw mount lenses.