I, for one, am very grateful of "ungrateful photographers", for it is in the pursuit of these "ungratefuls" quest to have the latest wiz-bang gizmo that they sell-off their nearly new gear for far less than they paid, and I add still perfectly usable gear to my bag!

Niko - lawyers don't lie, they just occasionally voice erroneous beliefs.

It is an interesting concept, and a hard one to wrap our minds around. Part of it is marketing, and another part of it is the mindset of, the grass is always greener on the other side. That is nothing new, and the way technology advances, we don't like to be left in the dark, or out of touch with others who are moving on with it. Does that make us ungrateful of what we have? I suppose it does make us ungrateful to some degree, but it is also human nature to want to be the same as the people around us. So when the pros get fancy gear, amateurs with deep pockets get the same thing.

If we can get cleaner, less noisy images from a new camera, what's wrong with that? Photography has two primary purposes, as far as I can tell, first to record a moment in time, and secondly to record a moment in time in an artistic or creative way that people around us can relate to. If that means you need a D3s to get the job done, what does it matter? If a D40 is good enough for you to achieve your goals that's great, but that does not mean it works for what I want to capture.

But I thought all lawyers were naturally good liars? Or at least they all know how to stretch the half-truths far enough. That's how they graduate from lawyering school :^)

ithurtswhenipee said:
Yeah, too many people think that the camera is what makes a good photograph.

Hey, ithurst - we don't need comments like this on the forum ... my wife might read them, and then what excuse do I have to keep buying stuff !!?

Yeah, too many people think that the camera is what makes a good photograph. Sure the nicer feature laden camera makes it easier to get consistent results, but a photographer worth their salt should be able make good photographs with any camera analog or digital. From the Holga to the latest $40,000 digital MF. In the end it is really just light and a capture medium.

warprints said:
When I got my Minolta SRT-101, I was absolutely thrilled with it. It had IN CAMERA metering !! No longer would I have to carry around a light meter, or guess at exposures. Bliss ! I don't think I'm as ungrateful as some for the cameras that are available now - probably age related - and like the guy from Kenya, I know what taking photos used to involve compared to what you can do now. Damn, you don't even have to focus any more. What's up with that ??

Same with my x-700. I thought "program" mode was cheating and now look at what photographers use it for...

@lenswork - My situation is that I bought all my Oly stuff brand new full price in '79 but have been very careful/lucky to get my Nikon stuff very cheap indeed.

When I got my Minolta SRT-101, I was absolutely thrilled with it. It had IN CAMERA metering !! No longer would I have to carry around a light meter, or guess at exposures. Bliss ! I don't think I'm as ungrateful as some for the cameras that are available now - probably age related - and like the guy from Kenya, I know what taking photos used to involve compared to what you can do now. Damn, you don't even have to focus any more. What's up with that ??

I think that everyone should watch a movie called "The Century of Self" by the BBC. It was a documentary about Edward Bernays and Sigmund Freud, and their affect on American culture etc.

Foofie, it is nice to dream, but my point was that too many people are worried about why the camera doesn't have a built-in feather duster, instead of using the damn camera. Again, it's not their fault, that is just the way the market and society has told us to act.

I took my DSLR for granted until I made the backwards progression into shooting E-6 on a Leica M3 (i learned on digital and then learned film) ... I realized that all those features like were gone and I had to do it all on my own and hope I didn't blow my shot ... now when I hold a DSLR i'm thankful instead of complaining that it doesn't do "x" ... though I am patiently waiting for a d700 replacement

spraynpray said:
You know, I think my OM1, winder1 and QA310 flash cost more than my new D5000 stuff by far bearing in mind the value of money now being so much less than then.

I paid $589.95 + tax for a brand new F2A (black, of course) plus another $300 for a USED MD-2 back in '79. It took me a long time to save that much from my $2.90 hour after school job. With inflation, and the value of the dollar now as compared to then, that F2A with the MD-2 costs about the same as a D700 does today.

You know, I think my OM1, winder1 and QA310 flash cost more than my new D5000 stuff by far bearing in mind the value of money now being so much less than then.

I just shot a load of pics of the moon just to see how many stops apart the clouds and the moon face were (12 stops).

I want wireless image transfer though. Built in.

Ya got me thinking here... I bought a NIKON FM back in the day... Then got a motor drive for it.... Even purchased a 85mm F2.0 lens and that was a great setup. Fast Forward to today and I am just as GEEKED with some of the new stuff that is coming out. Got to love technology... Just Sayin!

spraynpray said:
That is a good point. When I first started it really p'd me off when 50% of the money I spent on prints went into the bin. It got better when got better at making shots count and again when I started processing my own, but the wasted time/chemicals/paper still p'd me off. To be able to take pics knowing you are trying something out at no cost is huge and something I am grateful for.

Although the financial aspects of film photography (i.e. more photos equals more cost) really is no longer a concern to me, I get the warm and fuzzies every time I think about being able to take unlimited pics for "free". Now, of course the camera cost a fortune, but ...

That is a good point. When I first started it really p'd me off when 50% of the money I spent on prints went into the bin. It got better when got better at making shots count and again when I started processing my own, but the wasted time/chemicals/paper still p'd me off. To be able to take pics knowing you are trying something out at no cost is huge and something I am grateful for.

I wonder how much of the quicker updating during the digital age is due to growth of markets and new markets. There's no question that more people are willing to buy an SLR now that they are digital and you can fiddle around with settings with essentially free 'film' and find out how to use the camera. That's the growth part, and the new markets are new parts of the world where the general population could never afford photography before digital.

No matter what the reason, it must make the camera manufacturers money to update quickly like they do or they wouldn't do it. ;-)

defunk said:
Yes, most people do take it all for granted. Especially the younger generation, but that is not their fault, it is their parents fault ... the marketing world ... the television ... the list goes on.

One day, I hope, that people are just going to finally say "let's start all over again" ... and break this house of cards.

While technology is fun, and I enjoy what it has given me, I hate the waste that goes along with it.

Really, who cares about the D9000, who cares if the next camera will have HDx2 video, with 78 microphones built-in ... I have a camera in my hands, right now, and I am using it.

I guess I just don't see where they become mutually exclusive. What is wrong with loving what you have (and I do) and also saying, wow it would be great if it could do "x" as well. If you want simpler, then shoot on old slr's (I do, and I do), but complaining about the speed of development (being too fast, or pointless) at the forefront makes no sense to me.

yeah it's a little addicting. . .I agree, $5k is nutty, hell, even $2.5k is nutty, but if you can make it back, then it's worth it. . .

my hands usually feel better "spread" on the D3 than on the D90. . .but I still keep the D90 as my sole vacation body and as a backup in case something happens with the D3 at a shoot. . .

shivaswrath said:
You'd be surprised. . .I was under the same impression until I started using my D90 alongside a D3, and it's a pretty substantial difference.

I might be wrong, but the D3 feels like the F5 in how it might've plateaued the field for a bit. . I think D4 and D5 iterations (that's 8 years of cycle) will simple alter MPX and minor features. . .nothing earth shattering like the D3 was to the D2. . .

I actually tried the D3s yesterday and fell in love with it so much. The control layout and basic tools were surprisingly pretty similar to the D90 if you were to compare it to the competitors equivalents. It felt as If I were to take my D90 with a grip(which mine wears perpetually) and make it much better. Between the 100% full frame viewfinder, the layout being slightly more useful (no crapdial and the LV button not competing with the AF lock), and the increased tonality, and frame buffer I found out why pros don't think the D3s is comparable to the D90.

I also forgot how fast the AF was as I rarely use it even on a D700 I sometimes use. Now the problem is that I don't have 5 grand to drop on the camera... :(

I still find the build on my D90 to be very solid (and Ive tested that to the limit!) but the D3s was solid to the max and felt unbreakable

kyoshinikon said:
Half the pros I know and meet in CA can't afford a D3 and are doing jobs with their D200's ,D70's, and D80's. I very happy with my D90 and feel that there is little missing in comparison to the D3 in terms of what tools on the body I would use...

Except a 100% viewfinder :P

You'd be surprised. . .I was under the same impression until I started using my D90 alongside a D3, and it's a pretty substantial difference.

I might be wrong, but the D3 feels like the F5 in how it might've plateaued the field for a bit. . I think D4 and D5 iterations (that's 8 years of cycle) will simple alter MPX and minor features. . .nothing earth shattering like the D3 was to the D2. . .

Bravely spoken, defunk. Now where's my D90 replacement? ;-)

Yes, most people do take it all for granted. Especially the younger generation, but that is not their fault, it is their parents fault ... the marketing world ... the television ... the list goes on.

One day, I hope, that people are just going to finally say "let's start all over again" ... and break this house of cards.

While technology is fun, and I enjoy what it has given me, I hate the waste that goes along with it.

Really, who cares about the D9000, who cares if the next camera will have HDx2 video, with 78 microphones built-in ... I have a camera in my hands, right now, and I am using it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdJWKbdBxo

I myself rarely use more than the Aperture, Shutter speed, ISO, and the WB tool where you set the wb by kelvin. Af, Live view, Flash, etc is mostly for "off" days...

ChrisLange said:
just cause you're a pro doesn't mean you even need any AF on your bodies. there are tons of 'pros' still shooting manual hasselblads and leicas.

we don't really hear complaints from that side of the field now, do we.

people have been lulled into the idea of dependency on camera companies based on the perception of 'crippled' equipment.

Most of my colleagues have always been rather skeptical of new technologies. It is generally consumers that are always in search of the next great camera, lens, etc. in hopes that the equipment alone could take their efforts to the next level.

When the F3 came out in 1980, most pros, myself included, were quick to distrust a battery dependent camera. Sure it had a back-up mechanical release at 1/60, but who wanted to have only 1/60 available in the event of battery failure?

With the introduction of the F4 in 1988, no one I knew believed that it could focus faster, or as accurately, as they themselves could.

If you need further evidence that pros are typically slow to adopt new tech, a quick check of the production dates for the F3 will bear me out: 1980-2000. That's right, Nikon was still building, and pros were still buying F3's 12 years after the F4, and 4 years after the F5 hit the market. Those are the active manufacturing dates. The F3 remained in the Nikon product catalog until 2003.

Chris, you are entirely correct, many pros still use manual focus Leica's. I laugh whenever I read someone post "Who would want to spend $7,000.00 on an M9 when it doesn't even autofocus". Pros that earn their living shooting in environments where the discreet size of an M9 and it's near silent operation are a necessity. That's who.