If I had both the £500 and the Walker I would get the Nikkor, no question: it would still be giving good service long after I was :-)
I'm no analogue bigot: I think that digital cameras are fantastic, but IMO they have so far to go (not so much in pixellage/detail, but in dynamic range) that in the long run you'd be throwing the money away if you spent it on a digital. Sometimes you just have to dip your toe in the water or get left behind, but as you already have the best, non-stratospherically priced dSLR on the market...
I use an FM3a and Nikon's withdrawal from film cameras, manual focus and large format lenses saddened me more than it should have done. But why should I worry? Zeiss is making F mount lenses, and Voigtlander goes from strength to strength. My tastes may be niche rather than mainstream, but plenty of smaller players think they can make a living catering for them.
As for your last question, so far I've encountered 4 ages of photography:
1). I need another camera
2). I need another lens
3). I need more film
4). I need more time to spend taking photos
I need enough, and good enough gear that I don't get frustrated trying to make shots that are too difficult because of the limitations of my equipment. Other than that it's all just about taking pictures.
Maybe this is not your problem, but I've found it very envigourating to buy stuff that you would never normally look at: an 85 mm lens when you're a wide-angle freak, or the Zero Image pinhole camera my family got me for Christmas. Both forced me to look in a new way and cost a fraction of £500...
|
