On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:49 AM, mike wilson wrote:
That would be "us" as in those who have spent the money to get one? I certainly haven't and I'm aware of at least two users who are of the opinion that they have bought their last camera with a DSLR.
The difference may just be that I am looking at it from a professional perspective. My Canon 10D, bought just over two years ago, paid for itself the first year and then some. I was spending many times what it cost me annually in film and processing, an expense I no longer have. Plus, I was having to scan the film anyway, because my clients had begun to ask for digital files sent to them via FTP. For me a DSLR has been both a cost saver and a time saver, plus it lets me keep full control of my images in house. With film I never knew for sure the job was right until the film was picked up from the lab and thrown on the lightbox. One time one of the lab techs forgot to turn on the heater in the E-6 machine in the morning and didn't notice the problem until late in the day, resulting in a whole day blown and a reshoot. That doesn't happen now. I have learned to judge exposure by looking at the histogram rather than the preview, and get very consistent results.
Anyway, once the camera has paid for itself in savings of money and time, any use I get after that is gravy. So if I replace my DSLR every two years that works out about right to keep up with technology and get my money's worth.
I recognize that the equation is very different for an amateur. Bob
