larryepage Loc: North Texas area

In the two and a half years that I have been a member of this forum, there have been countless discussions around the importance of equipment, the relative importance of equipment, the non-importance of equipment, the serviceability of pinhole cameras, and other similar questions. There is currently an active discussion of this subject which is rapidly approaching 300 posts, has completely disrupted the dispositions of some of our normally calmest members, and has driven some of the rest of our number completely (or at least mostly) off the rails.

It is clear that a consensus on this topic is almost certainly unattainable, but the idea for an at least somewhat objective experiment to quantify (or at least qualify) a smidgeon of objectivity around this subject has come to mind.

The premise is really quite simple. It involves making the commitment to put away your latest, greatest, most favorite camera for three weeks. Instead, pull out your oldest operational camera (in my case a Fuji X3 Pro), and commit to using only that camera for the next three weeks. NO MATTER WHAT! At the end of the three weeks, you will be allowed to make an informed comment on the topic.

A couple of important notes here:

1. If you have sold or otherwise gotten rid of your older cameras, you have already voted.

2. If you refuse to try, or if you don't make it through all three weeks, your vote is automatically cast.

Of course, this works as well as a thought exercise as it does as an actual challenge. Have fun if you are willing. For the curious, I surrender right now.

BebuLamar

My only DSLR is over 5 year old. I don't have an older camera except film camera which I often used. 3 weeks with the film camera is no problem for me. But for me equipment IS important.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Some of us will have 'work' in the next three weeks, me included. But, my oldest DSLR is my current DSLR that is 5.5 years old. How does that vote register in this survey?

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

LOL, Our main tools have been replaced with a D7500 but it is unavailable when several personnel needs to shoot at the same time. So we still pull out the D90's in our workplace and its still doing well enough for our needs.

I believe that this will never be consolidated at both sides have valid reasons & opinions. They both count

My only input in this is that if we put a taxi driver on an F1 car, he wont be able to race it . We can put a race car driver in any cab and it will fly to its full speed potential but he will never win an F1 race.

Good gears have advantages but if the operator has no skill, it wont do much. They both count but skill is above tools. Skill will maximize a tools' potential but tools do not ensure skill.

That is why i always recommend to buy the tools when someone have found its limit. When he is frustrated that he could not shoot an idea because the tools he has at the moment can not do it.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I must have missed the discussion you are referring to. I also see no point in your proposed exercise. What difference does it really make what gear someone has. I know there are lots of people who have a need to defend their gear and diss others because they need to justify their choices or are the kind of people that regardless, are always right. My oldest digital camera is a twenty year old Sony Mavica CD-300 and although it still works, I have absolutely no intension of using it for the next three weeks. Why on Earth would I want to when I've got a perfectly good Canon 5D mk IV and about $20,000 worth of lenses to choose from.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Where you said, taxi driver on an F1 car, is probably fairly accurate since from my observation, your average taxi driver wouldn't fit in a F1 car.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I shoot film regularly and I get some great results using film.

I also shoot digital and I get good results there too. The feedback is instant and I can do my own adjustments without owning or paying a chemical darkroom. However, with digital, IQ is more dependent on the camera body than it was with film.

My older digital cameras have all been replaced by newer versions, and digital IQ has improved with every update. I have no interest in going backward with digital technology.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I don't need three weeks of struggle to remind me what my P7700's limitations were.

As design progresses and specifications improve, not only does digital IQ improve, failure rate falls as well.

Ollieboy

Don't underestimate a NYC cab driver😁😁

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I can tell you without a 3 week test that my 1Dx2 is vastly superior to my old 1D MkIII in most every way. The current value or cost difference is probably 8 to 10 times though. Is the new camera that many times better. Probably not in most shooting situations. But the old one doesn’t get used much since the new one arrived. Technology moves forward and trickles down making all newer bodies better than the previous ones in virtually all cases. But people can only shoot with what they have available...

Photoguy120

Do Brownie Hawkeye’s qualify as “your old camera’l

cdayton

It doesn’t sound like you’ve ever ridden in a NYC cab! I’ve driven on several race tracks and I’d never bet against a NYC cabbie.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The digital cameras of the past belong in the past.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

My oldest camera is an Olympus OM-1 film camera which I no longer use. Like BebuLamar and CHG_CANON, my only DSLR is over 5 years old. Figure all of that in your vote total. Besides that, I think your exercise is silly.