To me, the degree to which the camera's is utilized doesn't enter into it. jks could shoot the school programs with a digicam, a used 20D, a 7D, or a 1D4. Each option is more expensive than the last. The more the camera, the less its features are utilized. But even so, the resulting photos will be better. The 1D4 will focus faster, have less noise, and achieve more accurate focus than any of the other options. For most people, improvements in just autofocus and noise will not be worth spending $3,000 over the 7D, or $4500 over a used 400D. But if the money is no problem, then I say go for it.Originally Posted by bburns223
Let's take another example. Someone with huge disposable income is trying to decide which 50mm prime to buy. Their needs are very simple. All they want is something with a nice manual focus ring and the Canon brand. They don't care about fast f-numbers (they only use f/2.8), they don't care about bokeh, autofocus, flare, or anything else.
Based on those requirements, they should get the 50mm f/1.2. Of course, they wont take advantage of any of the features that make it cost $1500: the fast f-number, bokeh, autofocus performance, flare, etc. They're only using it to get the nice manual focus ring. Of course, they could adapt an old $300 Nikon 50mm lens that would have a manual focus ring that is just as good. But they want Canon brand. They could get the $100 Canon 50mm f/1.8. It would be just as sharp as the f/1.2 when both are stopped down to f/2.8. But it has a terrible focus ring.
So the only time I think that a camera is "too much" is when the camera causes actual disadvantages, such as being too heavy or bulky.
That said, most people do not have unlimited disposable income. So instead of worrying about how much camera is too much, we try to get the most value for our dollar. In your case, you could afford the 1D4, and it would provide you with better results than your 7D, but not enough extra value to make it worth paying $3300 more. Same with me.