Not weighty at all <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I was just wondering, do you find yourself having to continuously upgrade your equipment to stay at the edge of the profession? I know that, as an example, I am rebuilding the components of my computers at home every 12-18 months.

And then, back to my novice photography, and I apologize if you are asked this all the time, but are the point-and-shoots the place to start, or is it better to invest a little more to get into digital SLR?

Haha, Oh man. Pessimistic much? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I'd go for the SLR. The ability to see the actual image through the picture taking lens, and the ability to control manually, and the range of lenses and accessories, makes me say so.

My second line of questioning concerns some of your photos that you share with us. Do you spend hours attempting to obtain the distinctive "moment", or do you tend to capture spontaneously? It's obviously a blend of both, but I was curious what the balance of planned subjectives versus "check that out" opportunities that you explore/capture.

Nope. Just a realist. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for providing the advice, Evo.

I imgaine that the rate of your technological upgrades would be dictated by what you're actually doing. If you're doing landscapes that are sold to be printed at 60 inches across, you need all the pixels you can get, so you'd buy a new camera when the resolution jumps up.... If you're doing journalistic photography, you're probably trying to shoot things in a hurry, so you'd probably be more interested in "smarter" cameras that can do a lot of the work on their own and are easy to use... etc.

Yes? No?