I was familiar with cameras from earlier in life (had a Minolta SRT-101, didn't get a lot of use). But, you can blame the Wilkinsons for my current interest in photography.
I went to see them at a BlockBuster Video (just the three of them, and Steve's guitar, 2 tiny speakers, and about 40 people) when they went on a little promo-tour of their first album release. I had just gotten an el-cheapo digital camera at the time (Aug, 1998) -- $800 and I think it did 640x480. LOL.
We went to see them a few more times, and the first pictures we really got of them was in Corpus Christi in 1999. That was with a fixed 35mm Olympus Stylus.
After that experience (front row), I wanted something with a longer range to it, but also something where the flash would reach out more than 10 feet. That let me to my Olympus IS-3 + accessories, currently on Ebay (shameless plug --
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3333&item=2911094439&rd=1 ).
In January of 2000, I went on a cruise with them. On the cruise, there was no flash allowed during the performances (though most didn't pay attention to that). After I got back home, I realized that the IS-3 (f/5.6 max aperture) wasn't going to cut it without flash, and that I was beginning to really hate flash (red eye, didn't look like the actual concert lighting, etc), and that I needed something better.
I dropped by a Ritz store in the mall, and saw Nikon's 80-200/2.8 ASW and an F-1. Wow -- no noise on the AF, and a FAST lens. I also saw the D1 at that time. Thought "what kind of fool would spend $5,000 on a digital SLR if he could get the film body and the fast zoom for less money" -- ROFLMAO.
Did a lot of reading, and soon settled on the Canon system and the EOS-3. Got the 70-200/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, 1.4x TC, and I think the 550-EX flash (just in case).
Spent countless hours scanning negatives on my HPS20xi negative scanner. Got addicted to message boards and IM while waiting for the stupid things to scan, etc.
In November of 2000, I saw the D30, and KNEW that I had to have one. Even if it didn't focus as well as an EOS-3 (hey, it couldn't be THAT bad, right? -- rofl), it would be SO much better than scanning roll after roll (and it was).
In March of 2003, the 1D had finally become available to mere mortals, and the banding issues were solved, so I took the plunge.
In the meantime, have added WAY too many lenses, accessories, etc. to my system.
One day, I'm gonna send them a HUGE bill for all my stuff, I swear. LOL.
I'll just say it's payment for all the pictures I gave them over the years. Yes, I've given them about a half-dozen 8x10's (framed), a 20x30 canvas BW print (that hangs over their mantle), and 25 lbs (I'm not kidding) in two HUGE photo albums of all the 4x6's I took with film.
So I've just been reading about them and realised that they had not
been going long.. This got me thinking before you started trying to
get photos at concerts, were you into photography and did you have
the big L lens disease? I'm not being funny I'm just curious if you
were into photography big time before the advent of digital and
your concert photgraphy. If not you've become very knowlegable in a
short space of time, which is very impressive.
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
) ) which was costing a fortune. Having been monitoring digital cameras quite a lot, I finally got to the stage in early 2001 where I found a camera I liked and met my needs, with at the time what I saw as excellent quality. Since then I have learnt a lot about photography with my camera (Canon Pro 90). I've just worked out now that my costs per photo are much less than film now, based on my orginal purchase.