Jealous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[c.cloudwalker]

You can get a Good Speed Graphic with a couple of lenses, a darkroom, the chemistry and paper and film and go shooting every day for 10 years and never approach the $8K mark.

Your prints will be as good or better than the D3x, have selective focus and be something you can hold in your hands. And with the money you save by not having to buy all of that extra glass/software/computing power, you can build an addition onto your house.

If you need one then by all means get one. Just remember that there is more than one way to scratch a cat.

:thumbup:

Not that I've explored the digital world for a while I'm seriously considering returning to film.

 

[IgsEMT]

There is ALWAYS room for improvement and new gadget. But will it make your pictures any better? Probably not a whole lot.

 

[Derrel]

Noted photojournlist David Burnett covered the 2004 United States presidential campaign with a 4x5 graphic and vintage lenses...he made some very interesting photographs with the camera. Interesting mostly because a larger capture format provides shallower depth of field and more subject isolation than the me-too APS-C digital cameras that 99.99% of other photographers were using to cover the campaign. And, many of the lenses of that era were not quite so bland and perfect as modern lenses.

Read about it here, for starters. Camera Works: Photo Essay (washingtonpost.com)

 

[jbylake]

Back to your post....and others have posted something similiar...
I get asked this question all the time..."j..when is my computer obsolete?"
My answer is...always...when it won't do what you need it to do anymore.

Same with digital camera's. Do you need a $5K body, just because it's there? Will your old body not do the job you need it to anymore?....

Guess that's why my film camera's are Canon A1's, and AE-1's. They and all the glass I have for them are near mint. Should I buy a "new" film camera, since these are old?....Not hardly, and with all of the glass I have for them, should I buy all of these in their digital "sister's"...say 4 or 5K in glass...? Not hardly.

My suggestion is to buy what you wish, if money is no object...heck, I would...but back to the question you first asked....???

J.:mrgreen:

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'd keep the D90 and buy glass and lighting with that kind of cash. Unless of course I had a LOT of disposable income.

 

[yogibear]

Until my D80 limits my ability to capture what im going for, It will suffice. At 8k a pop, Id rather buy a nice lens and a ticket to someplace interesting to photograph.

Granted its a nice camera, but just having a nice camera wont make you a better photographer... well unless you start with a P&S then you should upgrade

 

[usayit]

Glass is more useful and interesting... it opens more doors to opportunities than a camera upgrade. $7000 is a lot of glass.

 

[molested_cow]

I've been using my F501 for 9 years and I think I am just at about the point of maxing out its capabilities. I don't understand why some people keep "upgrading" their equipment every 6 months.

 

[Garbz]

Well, sorry Garbz, but properly exposed D3x captures look nothing like D90 captures. Why? The sensor in the D3x is 2.5 times larger in area than the D90's APS-C postage stamp sensor.

Well we could oooh and aaarh again at the superior camera shooting at it's limits. But notice that I didn't mention we were shooting at the limits? Shallow creamy DOF is all good and fine if you want it, however what difference would a D3x shooting in daylight at a reasonable ISO without stretching dynamic range (a very tiny difference by any measure) say at f/8 have compared to a D90 shooting at f/5.6, when the resulting picture is still only a standard size picture? None.

And my point is that it would make even less of a difference if the photographer is running around using it in program aperture mode without holding it properly producing the same all snapshots that my sister pulls off her point and shoot. That's the real crux of my argument. A D3 won't make your photographs better. They will just give you a bit of a higher iso and a bit of a shallower DOF, and not correct all your compositional mistakes.