aellman wrote:
------------------
The Kodak Instamatic has been greatly underrated. Seriously, I have no argument with your position. Well taken. The problem I see is a morphing of the craft into rank consumerism. A good friend, who has never gone beyond a snapshot, wants to get onto photography. So he bought a full frame camera and a couple of lenses for an investment of about $6000. We met a few weeks later so he could show me his new stuff. He said "This is a wide angle lens. What does that mean and what do I do with it?" I suggested he look online for examples of wide angle images to see the unique characteristics of that type of lens, and that I could show him in person when we took out his equipment for a "test drive."
My opinion refers to the many members who ask the question, "Should I upgrade?" We see it all the time. Most of those people appear to be talking about technical capability. They're afraid they don't have adequate hardware support for the photography they want to do. However, in many cases, if they have to ask that question, from a purely technical point of view, the answer is probably "no."
But, as I said, your point is well taken. My opinion reflects my personality, photographic and life experience, and financial status. Upgrading is a personal decision. If you have the most expensive model of BMW sedan, do you need to upgrade? Maybe; there's always something "better" and more expensive. For myself, I avoid being drawn in by "the next shiny thing, but thats' because of my personality and the fact that my 9 year old Sony DSLRs have every technical capability I need. On the other hand, if an expensive upgrade is what makes a person happy, s/he should go for it.
Alan
------------------ br br The Kodak Instamatic has... (
show quote)
OK. You explanation here makes sense now. I cannot desagree with it. It's a pretty common phenomenon in a consumerism society; regardless of actual need or not, too many people want the latest/greatest that they can get (even if they can't, they do).