Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 615969" data-attributes="member: 43545">I have only been tempted by the D500 as a second camera for events, very interesting camera but never got one.  My D800 has been flawless as have the only two other Nikon's I have owned. My Canon A-1 film camera was flawless also until switching to digital with a D90 when it first came out. I still use it if I can get it away from my GF. No complaints about Nikon except for lens prices but the f/1.8g lenses are superior performers and reasonable.  Even though I shoot theater, ballet and other lighting challenges, high ISO has become less important to me, and I think a lot of people are expecting a camera to be more nightscope than camera. The DR even on the best cameras is not good at high ISO, 6db above the noise is pretty limited DR, where native ISO is usually pegged.Every camera I have ever owned was better than I am, and even the 12mpx D90 is capable of shooting any image in any photo art gallery. I tend to think most people upgrade way too often which slows down improvement in technique and creative advancement. Of all the elements of creating a compelling image, the camera is at the bottom of the priority list, or equal to the camera bag in contribution to the significance of an image. All the  other elements are more difficult to learn and requires more individual creative input which can be  a scary thought fraught with unknowns self doubt compared to new hardware warm fuzziness of spec sheets and feature lists.It is the same in any art form that has technology component, such as music production. When advances hardware to record became very low cost in digital specs and features became selling points in endless cycles of updating....yet music never got better, in fact much less interesting because everyone could record with technical competence cheaply for the first time but music worth listening to was never pleasing due to technical traits. Someone with creative skills and applying them to something that touches others trumps technical traits every time. A generation of quiet, technically competent recordings poured out yet almost all of it was of no interest to listeners. Boring but technically OK. I see the same with photography with so much focus on tech details and pixel peeping, specs etc and so little on concept, message and composition. Maybe cameras are too good so insignificant traits have become very important, like sharpness and low light noise. But being a technical sort of guy,an electronic engineer, the tech stuff is fun to discuss and see advances, all the while realizing it has no real impact on whether an image is compelling. My advice, seldom acted on, is to only upgrade when your skills in lighting, composition, post processing, and posing far exceed the limitations of the camera.....but then again my advice in recording to avoid focusing on technical specs of equipment is ignored also despite 25 years of recording and a studio with close to 200 gold and platinum records. Specs are easier to compare and rank than concepts and vision so that is why so many people focus on specs and so few visit photo art galleries.</blockquote>

Verification