Roger,
That quick assertion that the question isn't an attack made me laugh -- isn't that just the way of the Internet now, where any kind of a question, however innocent, is often treated as an attack?
[Too bloody right!]
The fact is, when I upgraded from an F3 to F4 to F5 to D1x to D2x to D3 (and D300), I did at each step become somewhat better as a photographer, mostly because I wasn't all that good to begin with. I believe a better camera helps a no-more-than-competent photographer more than an excellent photographer. Each of those F upgrades was significant -- much more significant, I would argue, than any M upgrade after the M3 -- especially for my use, which was mostly journalism. I was a writer, not primarily a photographer, though I was good enough and interested enough in the photography that I wound up publishing quite a few photographs in both newspapers and (scholarly) magazines and now in online publications.
[I fully accept what you say. People often imagine that a newer, better camera won't benefit a mediocre photograher. But living up to the camera can indeed be a hell of a kick up the bum.]
I once had the privilege of working for an entire year on one project (as a writer) with a truly excellent photographer, and his ability to "see" actually altered the way I wrote; his pictures forced me to notice and to deal with things that I hadn't seen on my own, and made the stories much better. That's the difference between competence and excellence.
[A fascinating illustration. Thanks.]
By the way, I've taken a good deal of instruction from you and Frances, and your books remain in my collection...
[You are very kind; thanks. As I say, it's a poor teacher who does not want his pupils to be better than he is.]
JC
