Why do we have to buy a camera body everytime ?

Thanks guys for your valuable comments.In film days (when there was nothing but films) we bought

pro bodies (Canon EOS 1V or Nikon F5) and keep clicking for 8-10 years comfortabley.The films

are upgraded by their manufacturars form time to time.

The professional level films available today are absolutely wonderful Rashed. If you have a film body hanging around you should really give the Kodak Portra stuff a spin... it's fantastic! The 400 ISO films have very low grain and the colors with the VC are bright and with the NC are just perfect for skin tones.

Patrick,I would love to use bromides or transparencies.I have a Bronica ETRSi in a very good condition.

Unfortunately,our local Fuji dealer stopped processing all kinds of films.Kodak is not strong in Dhaka, Bangladesh.So,my Bronica is an antic camera now and digital backs are not affordable eighter.

Patrick, have you seen the recent camera announcements? Canon 50D with 15MP in 1.6X crop. Last year's 1DsMkIII is 21MP full frame. I never shot at f16 or f22 with FILM because of diffraction so I avoid them on digital as well. Most of the people who spend $8000 on a 1DsMkIII are professionals who hopefully understand diffraction. The one person I know who has one also has a Hasselblad H2D. His opinion is that the 1DsMkIII is 90% of the camera that the H2D is for 1/4 the price. Many of the studio photographers taking pictures of models for magazines need the resolution but I doubt they are shooting at f11 or smaller.

<i>..when the Loch Ness monster surfaces (just a few miles from where I live) it will matter not a whit that I use my 1DsMk2 or my shirtpocket Canon point 'n'shoot.</i>

<p>

From analysis of previous photos it seems pretty clear that Nessie, Sasquatch and the other cryptozoological wonders have an uncanny sense for the presence of high-quality photographic equipment, and avoid it like the plague. I'd suggest carrying only a pinhole camera made from an oatmeal box, loaded with whatever 10-year-old 3200 ISO film stock you can get your hands on. It should increase your odds of getting a shot markedly.

Your camera's only as good as it's lenses, so invest in those if you have to chose. That said, the recent DP inovations are to great to ignore.

Good point, in this particular context.

 

As lens design is not evolving as fast as DP sensors and software, and excellent lenses represent a major part of cost,

choose the absolute best lens line you can and don't worry about the camera body (versus upgrade or not), as the change

of body (say, every 5 years or longer) is not going to be a major element of your cost.

Mark Ci - The ability of cryptozöomorphs to avoid high quality photographic equipment is undoubtedly simply

another example of the "skeptic" effect.

 

It is a well-known _fact_ that scientific or controlled (as opposed to anecdotal) research suppresses all

spiritualistic and esp phenomena. It's (as we used to say) all those "negative vibes".

This is why I refuse to spend a lot of money on a DSLR. I do use DSLR's and know that they are for all practical purposes "Disposable." Now I have no problem throwing money at my medium format cameras because if the Digital back gets out dated I can simply buy a new one without tossing out the entire camera (e.g. Mamiya) For the cost of 2 modern DSLR's I can buy one medium format camera system with a whopping 22 megapixle back that is useful for many times longer than any DSLR. If 22 megapixles isn't enough, there's a 39 megapixle back available too. I really can't see the logic of shelling out $4,500 for a DSLR that you will be sick of in 3 years. Want a nice camera system that you can upgrade sensors when as needed? Stop throwing money away and go medium format.