>This is where the idea of pixel peeping has harmed creative >output much more than aided. Pixel peepers are almost alway >equipment hobbyists, not photo art hobbyists.
Stan, I certainly agree in spirit, and that was a fine rant. Thank you.
However, I think that the equipment hobbyists are good for something: without their infusion of market capital, Nikon et al would probably not develop so many new products that permit us to express our creativity. So in a sense, they make an invaluable contribution to creative output.
It's just other's creative output that gets the help.
I'm truly thankful for this. When film pretty much died, I moved to a point-and-shoot camera. It seemed like, no matter which brand I used, they broke after about 12-18 months - usually the little motor that moved the lens in and out.
After replacing 4 or 5 of them, I wondered about making the move to DSLR. I thought I'd get something that didn't break under normal use as frequently (I hoped) and obviously would enjoy greater flexibility in creating my images. I was delighted to find that I could purchase an entry level D5000 that floored me with its capabilities at what I thought was an incredibly great price.
When my pictures started to be shared more with others, and I was invited to do some assignments, I needed a second body, and some additional flexibility. So I sprang for the D7000s. Again, I was delighted to find such an incredible instrument at such a reasonable price.
18 months later, as much as I'm affected by the dreaded NAS, I'm having a blast exploring making images with my dreadfully outdated D7000. I'm glad that there're better cameras available; someday I might outgrow my D7000, and it's nice to be able to upgrade.
Some of my favorite landscapes, however, were shot with those old point-and-shoot cameras.