Ohh Ohh! I am not a good photographer unless i have the best hardware!

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera, and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera, but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

That should have read nearly totally MANUAL camera in the 717. Not automatic.

--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Steve, I think most feel the same you do. When I got my 707 the 717 was still a VERY hot topic and still new. But the extra features of the 717 over the 707 did not justify the extra $350 (at that time) so I chose the 707 and have been VERY happy with it.

Just a few months ago I got a Canon D60 just after the 10D was announced. I could have gotten the 10D, but I got a pretty good deal on the D60 with a lens. Im very happy with my D60 and I chose it because of the MUCH MUCH longer shutter speeds I can get out of it. Not the 6 MP, not the 1/4000 shutter speed or better burst mode. I got the D60 to use for Astrophotography and night exposures.

The 707 still kicks but, even though I have not used it in the last 2 months except to take pics of the D60

James

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

You said it steven ! 10% of it is camera 90% is the man/woman behind the camera

just like a chef doesnt get the newest pot as soon as it comes out he can work just as well with the ones he has now

Nothing wrong with upgrading every few years but it seems some people here go 505 505v 707 717 V1 D10 well I guess if you have the money why not. but dont complain about it every thing has faults especialy when u get the newest as it hasnt been tested

Some people have the money for a new DSLR every year and some of us live with our 707 for a few years and make a good living with it.

I guess the people who upgrade to the next modle every 9 months are the same who get a new car every year cuz this years model now has a leather stearing wheel and last years didnt

the reason I didnt get the 717 is cuz the 707 is good enough i can do histograms on the pc and i cant aford pro sticks any ways maybe ill go with a 909 or somthing when big changes are made

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

Steven -

Creativity/Art versus Science/Technology - one of the oldest battles ever fought. You can achieve technical perfection using a Quaker Oatmeal Box Pinhole camera, or you can achieve it with the priciest Hasselblad (sp). Same goes for the creative side.

It's nice to have the skill to be given an assignment "photograph object A in Light B" and be able to do it in one shot. It's nice to know the rules of composition, and how to achieve just the depth of field you want. But, I also know that some of the best photos I've ever seen are those taken by children given disposable cams. There's something beyond technique in photography and I think that's, in part, why it holds its fascination even in an era where technical perfection can be achieved without a human involved in the process at all.

Anyway with a camera in hand...I will never be a technical photographer. With a paintbrush in hand, I will never be a Wyeth. My muse is insane and far too fond of the quirky and the odd and the out of step to have perfection as my goal.

For the most part, I tend to agree with you Steve. Someone who takes bad pictures with a 7x7 is going to take bad pictures with a 10d. If a person can’t get the 7x7 right they’re not going to find a miracle in a more complex camera. And I’m only on 48 hours with my 10d, but it is definitely more complex. Now, on the flip side, advanced cameras can make your photography better. The changes from the AE-1 incrementally weren’t near the changes we’re seeing in digital photography today. Analog photography has been around a very long time, so obviously it’s technology has stagnated.

Speaking from my own experience and recent decisions, theoretically, my decision should make my photography better. There were specific things I wanted, not just “better pictures”. I wanted less shutter lag primarilly. I shoot a lot of kid portraits, and I can’t tell you how many shots I miss. It costs me money. THat doesn’t have anything to do with picture quality, only makes it more likely to get the shot I want. Also, higher ISO’s with less noise really don’t improve the shots I CURRENTLY take with my 707, only they give me the opportunity to take shots that I COULDN’T take with my 707. It’s like a whole new world of opportunity and creativity.

I really don’t expect any of my clients to say “wow, these are better than your photos last time!” but I would expect to hear “Jim, you’re starting to do some different things, and I like seeing some larger prints”.

I had the 717 and sold it and went back to my 707. There just wasn’t enough there to make me a better or more rounded photographer. If I don’t see that happening with the 10D, it would be sold too. But I fully expect to have the 10D for a very long time. Well… umm… er…. At least until the 20D comes out. ;-)

Jim

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

--
Jim Fuglestad

Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. -Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

Sparky, like you I'll hold off on "upgrading" my F717 until the 909 or its competition (possibly DSLR) comes out in a couple of years. Until then, lack of cash and lots of guilt would prevent me from upgrading so soon after getting the F717 and accessories. Besides, I don't think I've sufficiently developed my photographic skills to justify a $3k camera set.

But, I would not be categorically critical of those getting the 10D. Each has different reasons, and for some it's because they want the additional flexibility or features that the 10D has, or (maybe the same thing) they've outgrown their Sony DSC. And they can afford it.

Joe

Sparky_ca said:

Nothing wrong with upgrading every few years but it seems some
people here go 505 505v 707 717 V1 D10 well I guess if you have
the money why not. but dont complain about it every thing has
faults especialy when u get the newest as it hasnt been tested

Some people have the money for a new DSLR every year and some of
us live with our 707 for a few years and make a good living with
it.

I guess the people who upgrade to the next modle every 9 months are
the same who get a new car every year cuz this years model now has
a leather stearing wheel and last years didnt
the reason I didnt get the 717 is cuz the 707 is good enough i
can do histograms on the pc and i cant aford pro sticks any ways
maybe ill go with a 909 or somthing when big changes are made

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens
cap on.

Click to expand...

You're concepts are correct. However....

Steven C. said:

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

Click to expand...

You're going to have some issues with some users over some things in the above paragraph because it's not specific enough.

For example, the F717 isn't "nearly completely automatic". It's got all the major manual functions you need to raise it above the level of a point-n-shoot.

And there are some significant differences between the F707 and the F717 both in color rendition and in accessory usage, specifically flash.

But in CONCEPT, you're right. A good photographer can work wonders irregardless of camera choice.

Steven C. said:

Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Click to expand...

That's a very good opinion. It helps the photographer to be less gear-centric, even though we definitely have our fun talking about the gear when new stuff arrives.

--

Ulysses

This was the closest I came today to shooting the milk through my nose.

We do like to read the new announcements, don't we?

Shutter said:

But I fully expect to have the 10D for a very long
time. Well… umm… er…. At least until the 20D comes out. ;-)

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Steven C. said:

That should have read nearly totally MANUAL camera in the 717. Not
automatic.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh... that's going to make the F717 users happier. ;-)

--

Ulysses

It isn't fair to directly compare analogue cameras with digital ones in a situation like this. Sure you can grab a 20 year old film camera and get the same results as a current film camera, but that's partly because the film you use in either is the same type of new film being created now.

CCDs are totally different. They are constantly changing and evolving. You can't replace the CCD in your camera with a new one with less noise/grain like you can with film. In the film world there are a million options and they're interchangable in every camera, even ones from 20+ years ago. Some film types produce more grain than others, some produce a grain with a different appearance. You pick what you want. As long as you have a sharp lens on both film cameras you're going to get the same results because the method of capture is the same, the film. In 20 years from now the method of capture on a digital camera will be totally different.

The next Sony will probably offer lower noise, better autofocus and a host of other features which, yes, will allow people the ABILITY to produce "better" pictures. Will it give them the TALENT to produce "good" pictures to begin with? No.

And a little wrench in the pots and pans analogy that is always going around. Do you think world class chefs use pots and pans from K-mart? No, they use the super expensive ones for the simple fact that they are better. Can they still produce something good with a cheap skillet? Sure. Could they do it better with a more expensive skillet? Yep.

-Dan

Steven C. said:

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

That should have read nearly totally MANUAL camera in the 717. Not
automatic.

--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

Ulysses said:

Steven C. said:

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

Click to expand...

You're going to have some issues with some users over some things
in the above paragraph because it's not specific enough.

For example, the F717 isn't "nearly completely automatic". It's got
all the major manual functions you need to raise it above the level
of a point-n-shoot.

Click to expand...

I meant to say manual. I corrected myself in the second post in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

of course that is not to say that you cannot produce good pictures with less advanced cameras. but at the other end of the spectrum things aren't absolute either. everything is relative. sometimes talent can only take you so far and the rest will depend on the equipment. of course the reverese is also true.

DanSmith said:

CCDs are totally different. They are constantly changing and
evolving. You can't replace the CCD in your camera with a new one
with less noise/grain like you can with film. In the film world
there are a million options and they're interchangable in every
camera, even ones from 20+ years ago. Some film types produce more
grain than others, some produce a grain with a different
appearance. You pick what you want. As long as you have a sharp
lens on both film cameras you're going to get the same results
because the method of capture is the same, the film. In 20 years
from now the method of capture on a digital camera will be totally
different.

The next Sony will probably offer lower noise, better autofocus and
a host of other features which, yes, will allow people the ABILITY
to produce "better" pictures. Will it give them the TALENT to
produce "good" pictures to begin with? No.

And a little wrench in the pots and pans analogy that is always
going around. Do you think world class chefs use pots and pans
from K-mart? No, they use the super expensive ones for the simple
fact that they are better. Can they still produce something good
with a cheap skillet? Sure. Could they do it better with a more
expensive skillet? Yep.

-Dan

Steven C. said:

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

That should have read nearly totally MANUAL camera in the 717. Not
automatic.

--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the following:

Steven C. said:

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

Click to expand...

It simply is not true the camera is inconsequential most of the time--there are many times when it takes the right camera to get the right shot; this is especially true with moving objects because you also have take into account the "shots missed" factor, where by "shots missed" I am talking about all of the photos you miss either because the camera buffer is full or it won't fire when you want it to because of the shutter lag.

What if you want to print a picture at 20x30? Surely it is not inconsequential whether you are using a 1Ds or a f505 when it comes to viewing that print, but owing a 1Ds is not going to mean you produce stunning images that someone other than yourself or your mother would want to hang on their walls at 20x30. This could go on and on.

What I agree with is the sentiment that the new, top of the line cameras are neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of being a great photographer. If you are a bad photogapher, buying the latest and greatest is not going to turn you into Ansel Adams. Heck, they may even make you worse. That said, if you take a great photographer and put them in control of a better, more responsive camera, I would not hesistate for a moment to say they will produce significantly better images than they would with a disposable camera, and that they may even grow as a photographer even faster because of the camera may open up new avenues they could not have traveled down with an older, less-capable camera.

Just my $0.02.

--Mike

Oh I wasnt I think its a great cam i just find it odd people will buy so many cameras in such a short time

JoeSchmoe said:

But, I would not be categorically critical of those getting the
10D. Each has different reasons, and for some it's because they
want the additional flexibility or features that the 10D has, or
(maybe the same thing) they've outgrown their Sony DSC. And they
can afford it.

Joe

Sparky_ca said:

Nothing wrong with upgrading every few years but it seems some
people here go 505 505v 707 717 V1 D10 well I guess if you have
the money why not. but dont complain about it every thing has
faults especialy when u get the newest as it hasnt been tested

Some people have the money for a new DSLR every year and some of
us live with our 707 for a few years and make a good living with
it.

I guess the people who upgrade to the next modle every 9 months are
the same who get a new car every year cuz this years model now has
a leather stearing wheel and last years didnt
the reason I didnt get the 717 is cuz the 707 is good enough i
can do histograms on the pc and i cant aford pro sticks any ways
maybe ill go with a 909 or somthing when big changes are made

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens
cap on.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Sparky_ca
I have a photographic memory, but I always seem to have the lens cap on.

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

Click to expand...

I do tend to agree. Of course the digital realm is still evolving and even lower end cameras will get much better in the near future in terms of noise etc. Picky stuff. I was reading the specs of the 1ds the other day and yikes! the next thing you know digitals will have full version of Photoshop running inside them. I think you will probably see DSLR's getting simplified in the years to come(one can hope). Before I bought my 707 the last cam that I bought and still used(though rarely) was my Nikon F-2. Now there was a high tech camera. Has TTL metering. Capable of stunning images and a true pro camera in that it just keeps on going and going and going(my definition of a pro camera-one that can take the daily hammering and keep working and I don't think it is there yet in the digital world. In the pots and pans analogy having worked in many restaurants over my years I can tell you the pros use equipment that can take the beating, nothing pretty nothing fancy just durable). You can drive nails with the thing. I also have/had a lot of glass but the 85mm f1.8 was what stayed on 90% of the time. My first camera was an old used(very) borrowed Leica range finder, no meter. With both of those cameras the cameras did not get in the way of taking photos. The photographer that inspired me most when I was first getting into it was Cartier-Bresson http://www.photology.com/bresson/

and for the most part he used a Leica. Simple cameras with great optics(that is they didn't get in the way of capturing what the photographer saw)

Is the 10d or another DSLR capable of taking better images then a 7x7? Nah. Define better. Less noise may be better maybe not. Is a DSLR more flexible can it give you more opportunities to shoot where say a 7x7 or lesser cam can? Of course. Some folks need that flexibility. Some think they do. And some can actually use it.

I prefer simplicity and a camera that will do what I ask it too with out getting in the way. Will I look with great interest at the next generation? You betcha, but I won't be upgrading for quite awhile because I can take great pictures now(to me at any rate and since I don't do this for money anymore that is all that matters) with what I have and no camera is going to change that. What will eventually get me is high ISO no noise, faster lenses and less obscene prices. But I can work with what I have now with out feeling inadequate...

--
Anorfir
http://www.anorfir.imntb.com

Steven C. said:

...

Just the feeling i have gotten around the net. It seems that unless
someone owns the newest camera that came out just yesterday, he/she
often times seems to feel they are somehow inferior to others
shooting with a newer model.

Iets get one thing straight. Something that i have come to realize.

The camera you are using is rather inconsequential most of the time
to the final results you obtain.

35mm film is a good example of this... Someone using a 20 year old
Canon AE-1 can get the same results as someone using a new Canon
EOS Rebel system, granted that they know how to use thier camera,
and how to get the most of thier equipment.

Yes, there is a difference between a $700 nearly completely
automatic camera (the 717) and a $300 point and shoot, but there
isnt that much of a difference between the 707 and 717, now is
there?

I used to wet myself over news of the latest and greatest camera,
but i have come to realize (after watching the same few ppl on
usenet post boring and plain photos shooting with the 10d) that it
doesnt matter really. Its about 85% whats behind the camera (the
photographer) and 15% equipment.

Just my opinion though.

Steven.
--
My gallery, for your perusal.

http://calgary-steven.deviantart.com/thumbnails/?PHPSESSID=0e1df2609361a0bf3ad66db20e71ffe6

Click to expand...

--
Greg Gebhardt Nikon D1 & D1x. Sony 717, V1! , Epson 2200 & PS7
Jacksonville, Florida