> > 1. It's good that those with some discretionary funds buy early, They > partially finance the better camera everyone else will buy in 3-5 years
That already happened, of course. The original DSLRS (such as the Kodak) were horrendously expensive - I believe the high-end model was $25,000 Then came the second generation, exemplified by the Nikon D1. Cheaper, because much of the development cost was born by those earlier cameras. Now we're into the third generation, with street prices around $1500. (And, apparently, just at the start of the sub-$1000 fourth generation). It's just that different folks jump onto the train at different times. > 2. One interesting point is that many have indicated that they shoot a > lot more with a DSLR. This skews the "you must shoot a roll a week to > justify it economically" argument. Quite. That's why I didn't buy a $5,000 digital camera outfit, but am prepared to pay 1/3 of that amount. I calculated my payback cost based on the film & processing costs measured over the previous two years, and the *ist-D is justifiable. I'm sure I'll shoot more frames than I would have done on film, but that's not the basis I calculated with. > 3. I'd like a full frame sensor if it has the same pixel density as the > current APS sensor. You would then still have the "magnification > effect" with telephotos, just that you could achieve it by cropping. That's what the current full-frame sensors in the Canon 1Ds & Kodak 14N are.
