Gurl, you don't know anything about DSLR filming, uh hu. I film at least 8 hours a week with my T2i. You don't know what a warm camera in your hands feels like, mmhmm. My mom has been using a Nikon D5000 since 2009 and it shows no sign of aging or wear and tear.

The only reason I'd buy a new camera is because my current one has either died or there is a camera cheaper and better than what I already have. No sense in buying a better camera that literally does the exact same thing that your last one did. Maybe it has an extra Megapixel and can handle better low lighting, but you can't tell the difference. As long as you buy a new camera nobody will care.

Straight and simple, you don't need a new DSLR every 2-3 years. More like a waste of money if you asked anybody.

Don't need to fix what ain't broke

'Outdated' is a subjective term. Also, 'outdated' does not equal 'need to be replaced'.

Once the iPhone 6 is released, some people will proclaim that the iPhone 5S is outdated. However, the 5S will continue to work perfectly fine and will run the latest iOS for years to come. Heck, the iPhone 4S runs iOS 7 (albeit not as quickly as the 5S runs iOS 7, but it still runs).

Early adopters, professionals and technophiles always want to run/use the latest equipment and proclaim the last version 'outdated' once the new model comes out. If your friends are professional photographers, I think you should take their opinion with a grain of salt. They, most likely, are using their cameras for different purposes or pushing the limits of their equipment more so than your average brickfilmer.

However, DSLR's do eventually break down. I believe Canon rates the shutter life expectancy of their mid-range DSLR's good for 50,000 - 150,000 actuations. It's a mechanical device, it will eventually break down; but only after many, many photos.

Thus, best not to think in terms of years, but rather, total pictures taken when considering the lifespan of a DSLR.

I agree with you bud.
I have been using my iPhone 4 and have no desire to upgrade until it has used it lasts breath.
Anything you own is as good as you take care of it.

At that price, though, I'd rather just buy a new camera for $450-$500.

YouTube | Twitter | Brickfilm Archival Project
Brickfilms Wiki | BiM: The Documentary

It's like the Ti series.

Just because your T4i is "outdated" because of the T5i release, you must get the newest one because it's new. Even though it has the exact same features and has no improvement to it, other than it goes up a number, you should totally buy it because fashion.

"You don't need to fix what isn't broken."

Okay, you guys are practically arguing over two different things. Carroll is obviously coming at this from a filmmaker’s perspective, while Slurping is coming from the photographer’s perspective. For film making, a DSLR can last a lot longer than for photography. To specifically address the 3-5 years argument, Slurping seems to be getting this number from professional photographers, and I'm going to assume he's tell the truth about his sources. If you look at the professional camera market, about every 3-5 years DSLR bodies make a huge leap. The sensor quality is not the only important thing to professional photographers. There's drive speed, processor speed, auto focus speed and accuracy, battery life, and a lot of other stuff. These are details that make a big difference to the working photographer, but not to a mom taking pictures of her kids. These are also things that don't matter to someone primarily using a camera for video. In fact, DSLR video hasn't really improved since the 5D Mark II and the 7D (except the EOS-1Dx C, which I don't think anyone here can afford). If you’re using your camera to film, there's no reason to upgrade as long as it still works; but for photographers, there are a lot of others aspects of a camera body which are improving at a much higher rate than image quality, which are really important. So basically you’re both right. You’re arguing black and white in a very grey field.

This whole argument seems to have started because Carroll belittled the gear of some other members. The camera is not what makes the art, it’s the person behind the camera. The T3 might not be the best thing out there, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t capable of producing good images, I’ve seen it used on a very professional stop motion production. Carroll, the T2i isn’t exactly top notch either, so please don’t scoff at others' cameras. There’s been a lot of negativity in the community recently over some really dumb arguments, and it’s frustrating. Slurping, there is absolutely fashion within photography, far too many people focus on what camera they have instead of what they can do with it. I used to be one of these people, and I’m working very hard to change that. Instead of arguing, go out and make something.

Youtube Channel

I have a Nikon D3100, it takes gorgeous photos but the lenses aren't ideal for shooting minifigs up close.  Right now I'm looking at this lens: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-60mm-2-8G-M … B0013A1XDY

It's expensive, and I wanted to ask the more experienced members on this site if this is a good investment.  Are there other, cheaper options available that would get the job done?  Also, does the 60mm carry any significant advantage over a 40mm?