If It Ain’t Broke
Dunno when, yesterday… maybe? Nikon announced its D90 DSLR, causing a flurry of people on the photo behemoth Flickr to comment/argue/announce that they want one. It was the same story with the D300, and kind of with the D700, with threads along the lines of “I have a D40x and am thinking of upgrading to a D300, or should I get a D90??”
Now it may just be me, as I am poor and bitter and can’t afford a D-whatever, but to my warped photographic mind if you are happy with your D40x shooting the kids in the garden, or going out on day trips, what exaclty will buying a brand spanking new £1000 camera give you, apart from the sense of one-upmanship? I was bought up (in the halcyon days of film) to understand that the camera just records light, the light is controlled by the lens, making the lens more important than the box its strapped to.
I use a D200, I bought it new about 2 months after it was released to replace my aging D100 (still going strong) My D200 just works. I know its foibles and how to get the best out of it. I don’t shoot at iso1200, autofocus aint the fastest in the world, but I can work around that too, I’ve never once said…”ooh, if only I had a D-whatever that shoot would be so much better…”
My next purchase? D300? D700? na. Glass. a 24-70mm f/2.8 to be specific. Damn sharp, and in a focal length that I need (only got a slow cheap mid-zoom at the mo) as I shoot portraits and the odd bit of fashion.
Will I ever get a new body? probably, when the D200 dies. As to what, well, we’ll see. Aulthough I’m leaning toward an FX sensor…
Pointless rant over…
