I got into digital photography with a Canon
A40. I held off as long as I could since I did field service for IBM
for what seemed like since I was born. (I retired in '06 after 40
years.) I couldn't see any relaxation in sitting in front of a
computer when I got home after eight or more hours of that at work.
There was something neat about dropping film off at Costco or ??? and
sitting back an hour or so later with a Bass Ale in one hand and a
bunch of photos in the other. A friend loaned me his 10D and I still
wasn't hooked. Then, since the kids were all on their own and my wife
and I started traveling a bit, I saw an advantage to a digital camera.
No carrying Ektar 1000 or Fuji 1600 just to get the film hand checked.
The 10D was just about at end of life, marketing wise, and I held out
till the 20D was available. Comparing the 20/30/40/50D to either the 5D or 1Ds is like comparing a Focus to a Fusion. The 5 and 1 are full frame which adds another factor. After a lot of thought and listening to some of the pros I know, and even the shop owner, I went from my A2e to an EOS-3 instead of one of the 1 series because I wasn't a pro and could better spend the money on glass. I have not sold any of my work, but I did some stuff for my branch office and region office while working. No one specified that I use any certain brand or model. So I don't understand the part about art directors getting caught up in the rat race. As long as the results are what they want and expect do they care what you shoot it with? I don't know so this is a serious question. And the dollar vs life thing I can agree with. When I became a Ham Radio Operator I bought the best equipment I could afford. Some time it took a while to collect the funds, four kids.... 8^), but it was well worth the wait. The ham gear, like my -3, serve me well beyond what I see happening with less expensive gear that is soon outgrown. Not to mention replacement costs. My "need" to get a 40d or 50D may be realized when prices get better since one of my grand kids keeps eyeing the 20D and using it and hinting that she likes photography. Maybe I'll give her my OM-1md first..... My wife and some her friends yank my chain and act surprised that there were cameras and radios when I was kid! Have good holiday season, Bob Mark Blackwell wrote: Well Bob I agree with you to a point, but its not always photographers that get caught up in that. Art directors and buyers of photography are just as likely to get caught up in the same rat race. I never had the desire for a 20D. My 10D was close enough that I never considered the upgrade. The 6 vs 8 wasn't enough of a gain to even consider for me at the time and put what money I had elsewhere where it could do more good. The 30d wasn't really considered seriously.I wanted the 5D, but a couple of extra thousand bucks just wasn't laying around. The 40D is a very significant increase and the 50 is over double the resolution. That starts to make sense for an upgrade, if the price is right. Yet the more you spend the longer you can get buy with it. Spend the $8000 for a body and you likely will get a longer useful life out of the body. Checking out KEH, you don't see that many of the older bodies show up used very quickly after a new body comes out. Yet even at that level, yesterdays 15 mp $8000 body is todays 20+mp $8000 body with $1600 bodies now at the level of the old $8000 variety. It never ends. A few years ago an EOS 1V was $1600 or so used, and now I see them available at the cost of a new digital rebel or less. Hmmm Guess its just part of an unavoidable condition. That's getting old. At the wife's office I am referred to as the same age as dirt, and they aren't far off. lol --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Something I wonder if anyone else is considering To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 12:58 PM Photographers, like many others, are caught up in the NNBNDNHI loop. *_N_*ot _*N*_eeded _*B*_ut _*N*_ext _*D*_oor _*N*_eighbor _*H*_as _*I*_t It started with, maybe, personal computers and moved on to HD TV, cell phones, PDAs, everything with electronics in it. I have a P3-6ooEB processor but the guy next door has a P3-4 800 , he has a cell phone that takes pictures so I need one too, and on and on. I have a 20D that I got quite a while ago and now I "need" a 40D or 50D because they're there! I haven't reached the point where the 20D doesn't do it for me any more, BUT the 40D and 50D are out there and the "guy next door has one"...... 8^) Bob mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:You know, I have to wonder about something, Mark...Maybe you're the guy who can answer this for me. I wonder why it is that photographers CAN'T use a digital camera for longer than a year or two? Why is it that we feel we have to have mind-crushing amounts of maga-pixels when a 6mp camera will produce excellent results for most print work? Why is it that we have to have THE latest gear? I'm not fussing at you, just kind of wondering out loud here. I have a D100 and a few D200's and I am perfectly content to use them and WILL use them for several more years. My clients are happy with the images they receive and quite honestly, I just don't see a need to upgrade to a D3x when what I have does the job and does it very, very well.Just remember too that if you DO go back to film thatthe "digital" image you get from your scanner and the digital image generated within a camera are two very different beasts. Good luck with this and let us know what you've decided.-- ///// ( O O ) --------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@xxxxxxxx------ I plan to live forever. So far, so good...... -- ///// ( O O ) --------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@xxxxxxxx------ I plan to live forever. So far, so good...... |