[rc]

Canon G10 gets a glowing review that makes a 'Moore's Law' point on general trend in quality/price of digi gear.
So have we nearly arrived at the plateau, like with audiophile equipment, where it takes larger amounts of money to achieve smaller incremental (becoming humanly unrecognisable) gains in quality? That basically at the top end it will soon be simply gear-geeking, with only the guy who bought the kit convincing himself it has made a difference? 

[bigd942]

I'd have to say I agree, I've a friend who's a good photographer, has a good few snaps published in books and mags, mostly about motorcycles (Isle of Man TT, North West 200 etc). Anyway, he has a 350D and says in reality it should see him to the grave, when he meets up with other snappers it nearly allways turns into a "mine is bigger than yours" thing. Think too many people get caught up with "buying ability", owning a Trek 5900 with a full SRAM Red group won't make you go any faster up the hills.

Also find it a bit strange that by the time your able to own this high end kit (£10k amps etc) your most likely in your 40's, eyesight and hearing are in decline so in reality, you are the weakest link.

Dom

[dontfollowme]

Reading reviews of the G9 (I know you posted about G10) has made me question if I need a DSLR, specifically whether I would actually purchase additional lenses. Plus the G9 less bulky that an DSLR.

[rc]

I almost bought a dslr a year or so ago, and in the end went for a decent compact (which is no longer an oxymoron imo).  Reason being I realised the biggest obstacle I had encountered in trying to take decent photos is not having my camera with me cos I couldn't be arsed lugging it around.
But that just shows how much of a photographer I am...