Upload & Sell: Off
1. The real fear for them must be an Emperors Clothes moment.....suddenly people realizing they already have the gear to enjoy photography...or they can get it s/h for far less than the new stuff. Or...ultimate horror....people realize that the latest and greatest gear isn't actually leading to better photographs being taken unless measured by some minute increase in resolving power or dynamic range.
2. I wonder what is really the most beneficial...a $1000 on that 'better' lens...or $1000 on a quality photo holiday somewhere with the current gear.
1. For the past two years I've been buying and USING some vintage/historical camera gear. I'm talking mostly about cameras from the 1930s and 1940s. I've been finding that my 1942 Leica IIIc, 1928 Voigtalnder Bergheil, and 1951 Rolleiflex MX are GREAT! This year, my best images were captured with my Rollei, not my Nikon DSLRs. The more I photo, the more I learn, and the more I've come to think that really the camera is the LEAST important thing about making good images. I can do about 95% of what I want with a 70 yr. old camera. Keep in mind I shoot at night a LOT, too. Coming to understand just how unimportant the camera is has been very liberating for me.
2. For a long time now I've been saying, "I'd rather have a $100 p&s camera and a ticket to Iceland than a $3,000 camera and a ticket to nowhere."
My suspicion is that for most people, more expensive camera gear only allows them to continue to make crappy, boring shots that are just a tiny bit sharper. Good photography comes from an understanding of how to use light, and you can do that using photo gear from 1906.
Kent in SD