I will be one of the last to this party.

I have been organizing my photos and videos from my DSLR. I bought a high-end consumer video camera in 2004. It uses digital video tapes. Each tape holds an hour's worth of standard aspect video. When I'm done creating DVDs from the video, I store the tapes. They are self archiving.

I bought my high-end DSLR a few years ago in hopes that it would replace my older video camera. My DSLR has a few video formats, which work for me. Today, DSLRs have quite a few more video formats. What I am finding is that my DSLR is much harder to use as a video camera because it can't use the view finder when shooting videos. It has to use the live screen in the back of the camera, which, in my case, can't rotate and is inconvenient. Also, it is very hard to view in bright light. Lastly, unless I use my external mic, my DSLR's built-in mono microphone really sucks. My old video camera's built-in mic captures in stereo and it's quality is very good.

Now for my biggest gripe: as I said before, my old video camera used tapes that are self-archiving. I'm finding that my DSLR's video data has to be archived onto Blue-ray discs or external hard drives because of their huge file sizes. I think I have taken a step backwards from my old video camera. Yes, my DSLR takes better still photos than my old video camera (16 Mb vs. 2 Mb images) but my video images have taken a really big hit.

I predict that, someday, DSLRs will take better videos, more conveniently and have more features than the best video cameras, today. At that point, I will get rid of my old video camera and buy a new DSLR, just for the improved video capabilities. Until then, I guess I'm stuck with two cameras.

So our IT guy is rolling out new desktops and laptops at work. This happens about every 3 years. Many have noticed that the new machines are pretty much the same box performance-wise as they're giving up, making the swap-grade that much more painful. Now I realize that my coworkers and I, engineers for the most part, are not rocket scientists and we're not working to solve world hunger or cure cancer. We use our computers for the normal engineering stuff: basic CAD, email, minesweeper, etc. The formula the powers that be use to decide how nice of a PC we get every three years appears to be this: "get them the best PC you can for $2000 and spend $4000 on the guy in the corner who does all the crazy stuff.

Now from a camera standpoint, I can't afford to stay on the bleeding edge of technology. Photography is a hobby, after all. I own a D100, a D90, and a D7000, all purchased used. That said, I window shop and dream quite a bit when I'm not playing minesweeper. To me it seems cameras are still breaking some amazing ground. The D7500 and D500 are sports cars that make my D7000 look like a wheelbarrow, especially from an ISO standpoint. Yet the 7000 and the 7500 didn't have drastically different release prices when they were new. So from year to year, at least when it comes to cameras, it seems the same money is still buying better and better technology. I'm sure this the same for every brand and camera type, DSLR, Mirrorless, etc.

I guess I'm just wondering if cameras can continue this crazy space race for much longer. Does anyone think we're nearing the point where a camera made a couple years from now will not be significantly better than one made today? Oh, and one of you wonderful folks who just have to have the latest and greatest may currently own my next camera, so go ahead, trade that well-cared-for baby in.

So our IT guy is rolling out new desktops and laptops at work. This happens about every 3 years. Many have noticed that the new machines are pretty much the same box performance-wise as they're giving up, making the swap-grade that much more painful. Now I realize that my coworkers and I, engineers for the most part, are not rocket scientists and we're not working to solve world hunger or cure cancer. We use our computers for the normal engineering stuff: basic CAD, email, minesweeper, etc. The formula the powers that be use to decide how nice of a PC we get every three years appears to be this: "get them the best PC you can for $2000 and spend $4000 on the guy in the corner who does all the crazy stuff.

Now from a camera standpoint, I can't afford to stay on the bleeding edge of technology. Photography is a hobby, after all. I own a D100, a D90, and a D7000, all purchased used. That said, I window shop and dream quite a bit when I'm not playing minesweeper. To me it seems cameras are still breaking some amazing ground. The D7500 and D500 are sports cars that make my D7000 look like a wheelbarrow, especially from an ISO standpoint. Yet the 7000 and the 7500 didn't have drastically different release prices when they were new. So from year to year, at least when it comes to cameras, it seems the same money is still buying better and better technology. I'm sure this the same for every brand and camera type, DSLR, Mirrorless, etc.

I guess I'm just wondering if cameras can continue this crazy space race for much longer. Does anyone think we're nearing the point where a camera made a couple years from now will not be significantly better than one made today? Oh, and one of you wonderful folks who just have to have the latest and greatest may currently own my next camera, so go ahead, trade that well-cared-for baby in.

So our IT guy is rolling out new desktops and laptops at work. This happens about every 3 years. Many have noticed that the new machines are pretty much the same box performance-wise as they're giving up, making the swap-grade that much more painful. Now I realize that my coworkers and I, engineers for the most part, are not rocket scientists and we're not working to solve world hunger or cure cancer. We use our computers for the normal engineering stuff: basic CAD, email, minesweeper, etc. The formula the powers that be use to decide how nice of a PC we get every three years appears to be this: "get them the best PC you can for $2000 and spend $4000 on the guy in the corner who does all the crazy stuff.