rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't see that as that surprising at all. Photography is about recording images on a medium, and the medium is at least as important as the rest of the photographic system. If we look at the history of photographic technology, gear geeks tend to view advances in camera technology as the driving force - a 1985 Summicron is so much better than a 1935 Elmar. However, advances in film technology matter at least as much, if not more - it makes a real difference to have ISO 1600 vs. ISO 32 colour film, to get much better colour fidelity with slide film, or to get 800 lpm out of a 25 ASA microfilm. I don't see why this should be any different with digital media. OK, the back is more expensive now, but that's why you buy it only once and let it amortise itself. That's no option for hobbyists, of course, because there is no amortisation except for the cost of film, and that's why hobbyists like us complain about prohibitive pricing of professional gear, but let's face it, that's like a hobbyist photographer with a Paxette in 1959 complaining that the Nikon F body is so expensive.jlw said:
It's more like that everybody is now using electric cars with all the engine equipment in the wheels and a big battery, so when checking out the window sticker on the new electric Porsche you find that the wheels that used to cost $1000 each are now $10.000 each, and the battery that used to be a $100 item now costs $25.000. And now the drivers of old combustion-engine Porsches point their finger at that and saying "Look at the weird wheel and battery prices these days." 🙂jlw said:
Philipp
