Lets be honest...

For me, the process of going out and taking photographs is the most important part, regardless of the kit I'm using. I'm in my element when alone in the wilderness somewhere, not that I get to do this very often, but when I do everything's right with the world.

I've spent some money on kit, not the highest end stuff, but decent kit, the newest of which is now 3 years old. I might buy a K-1 some day, but it's not important to me.

I don't want to go back to film, but I can understand the appeal of this to those who love using it. I agree this is a great thread, it illustrates exactly what photography is all about.

David

Delighted but not surprised that this excellent photograph of yours, Alistair, has been shortlisted. Like I said then the clear winner for me is Number 9. It is stunning!. Like you, I do enjoy the Q even though it lacks a viewfinder - I'm adapting to this missing element! Just need to up my skills level now.

All the above posts make for a really thought provoking read, and even if they represent a diverse range of opinions, they all make sense to me. Big thanks to everyone who has posted here.

I agree although I would say it also depends on what you are shooting and why. If someone wants a professional portrait, I won't be reaching for my film camera...

I still put prints into my club competition taken with my first digital camera, a Pentax Optio 330GS compact. Using Lightroom Its 3.2 megapixels can do an A4 print no problem.

I'm a combo of both perspectives.

I'm all about the final image, and to that end I don't care how you processed it etc. I don't subscribe to that Photography must be straight out of the camera type angle, and I actually like the concept of 'developing' my photos, much as you would have done in the B&W film days. (I never saw colour film development, that was always handled by a shop).

On the flipside, I think there are two aspects to consider.
The first is that MP size doesn't always mean you want to print big. I totally get why someone would prefer a newer style of camera/larger sensor etc, EVEN if they are going to downscale the final image to web use size.
The second is where newer cameras offer abilities that weren't on older cameras. Examples for me would be lower light abilities, with low noise and tracking autofocus. I think it's a bit narrow minded to say you don't need a new camera, when your existing camera's limitations may be preventing you from getting a particular shot.

In short, I'm all about using your gear, getting out and shooting, and ideally ensuring you have the gear to help you capture the shot you want. From there you can develop it to create the image you envisaged and can be proud of. Tech, settings and vision all have parts to play in the creative process.

My thoughts are it's nice to have the latest technology, as Richard says above good low light abilities etc certainly help, however great photographs have been taken for well over 150 years with all sorts of equipment (some of it of course would have been the latest technology at the time) so we don't always need the latest super camera/lens to get a fabulous shot.
It's great to have good gear but I bet we all have favourite photos we too took ourselves years ago on equipment we wouldn't consider using today.

In times of yore cameras were updated in terms of facilities, such as TTL metering, AF, built in motors, etc. To an extent lenses also developed with zooms becoming possible and wider aperture primes. But the core quality of the film after the 1970s was pretty much the same. If we wanted to use Kodak Technical Pan film (ISO 16) for the ultimate in resolution then we could. Did we? Probably not.

What's different now is that whereas said Kodak film could be put in any camera to reap its benefits (providing we are talking about SLR lens quality) whereas now not every DSLR or CSC will produce the same quality. If we spend more, if we upgrade, then we can get better images technically. Changing an MX for an LX would not have affected quality in the slightest. Changing an *istDS for a K-3 II certainly will.

What's also different is that virtually nobody used the finest grain, sharpest films, but far more want to shoot RAW and ISO 100 in the belief that it will be the minimum requirement for good images. What camera we use can change the way we shoot images.

This has been a terrific thread with some excellent points made. Nice to have something that could have been controversial not degenerating into stupid arguments .
David

Yes it's interesting to see how previous early dslr sensor technology limitations have driven practises that still exist today. Useable ISO levels have continued to improve with successive models, to that point that continuing to limit your ISO may result in say motion blur, as a consequence of the too long a shutter speed required to compensate for the lower ISO cap for example. Hopefully that reads right.

You could argue now that the sensor technology has improved to the point that many newer cameras are once again very similar in core capabilities. That stance is pretty easy to take really and we once again are seeing developments more in external capabilities such as AF tracking, pixel shift and everyone's favourite aspect video. Pentax will need to react to this fact at some stage.

The big thing nowadays is once again many cameras are fine for the run of the mill use cases. If you find yourself regularly in the extremes of this, either fast/small action uses such as sport/birding, or low light but can't use flash type uses, or heaven forbid a bit of both, then I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that your use case is on the fringe, and that technological improvements will definitely be of use to you.

I think it has taken a while for digital cameras to reach the same quality as film but the extra variable of ISO is a real breakthrough. I am guilty of using ISO 100 whenever I can but looking back on some earlier I was amazed to find a really good photo with ISO 10,000! I confess to following my Dad's advice of buying the best you can and it will give the most pleasure. Not a great one for the iPhone mania of updating with every new model launch, I tend to keep stuff until there is a really good reason to replace it, and I do tend to get attached to things.

I kept my K-100d for many many years, and sold it in fully working condition.
I purchased a K-30 and it failed, luckily within the warranty period for me, but I must say that changes your perspective on things, when you feel like you're sitting on a ticking time bomb waiting to fail.