Well I've worked my way up through the ranks if you like, and justified my D300 on several factors (not that I needed to justify it at all really).  I do believe that whilst you can take great photos with any kit (from a pinhole upwards), there are advantages of some kit over others, depending on your type of photography. 

If you find yourself constantly disappointed with the results from your camera despite doing the best that you can with it (or can be done with it), or you find yourself regularly missing/not taking shots because of the cameras limitations, then it's either time to upgrade or accept these limitations.  I decided to upgrade for some of teh reasons below (Olympus E-1 to Nikon D300):

1) Low light ability - focusing is far superior in low light to any of my previous cameras

2) High ISO ability - ok, maybe not superior to ISO 800 film (although I have yet to test this), but far superior than that from the E-1

3) Larger viewfinder - not a selling point on it's own, but something I was looking for over the E-1

4) Faster focusing - my old Minolta was just plain lazy!  The E-1 was pretty good, but the D300 is amazing.

5) Image size - I'm afraid that the E-1 didn't meet my needs for the future.

I truely believe that the low light/ISO/focusing improvements will improve my photography by allowing me to take photos that I have previously had to pass on or be disappointed with the results. 

But that's just for me and my photography.  I'm sure that Jonathan has his reasons, and that everyone else has their own.  My girlfriend is still using a 3 MP Pentax Optio and is very happy with it as all she needs is to document loactions for her reports.  The Pentax does this fine as her pics never exceed 6x4" (usually smaller).  In fact I'm looking out for a new battery for it so we can continue to use it. 

 

---

ABERS:

Jonathan Ryan:

Well I was one of the early adopters who ran out and bought a shiny new D3 in the hope it would improve my photography. It cost me a lot of money (probably £5K when you factor in the new lenses I "had" to have). Fortunately I was right - it can do things I only dreamed of and I believe I'm now taking much better pictures than I did 6 months ago. 

That's interesting, I'm thinking of an upgrade. When you say you're taking better pictures than you did 6 months ago, better in what way? Quality, content, composition, style. What does the new camera allow you to do that the previous one didn't? I'm finding it difficult to justify the expense, (so's the missus).

I guess it's mostly about confidence.

You need to remember that I do a lot of low light hand held work. Being able to use stupid ISOs is huge for me - instead of working against the limitations of the camera I can concentrate on the creative side. When it's dark I can actually choose which aperture I want to use...

The pictures always look fantastic on the screen too which helps in lots of ways. One important one is that I can show people the pics right away and get some enthusiasm going. Once they see amazing captures they loosen up and start to trust me. The new sensor is amazing - when you put the shots on the big screens they always look wonderful.

I love the fact that I can get great black and whites right in camera - sometimes I'll now shoot in raw with a B&W setting - this allows me to see the tones clearly while still having a colour version.

Because I'm using zooms more the composition is changing too - if I'm not allowed to move and can only use a prime then composition is to an extent decided for me. The new zooms really are so good that I'm moving away from primes. I'm trying not to let this make me lazy - sometimes having a variable focal length can be a good thing.

But really - if I wasn't taking better pics that I did 6 months ago then I'd be disappointed. New camera or not. You want to see what I'll be shooting 6 months from now

---

Kidography. It's like photography. But more fun.

I guess I'm one of those people the OP is referring to. I have owned a compact for two years and got bit by the bug, however I only ever used my camera as a point and shoot and then last week I went out and bought a shiny new Canon EOS 400D with two lenses.

It arrived last Thursday, and before this date, I had never even held a SLR or DSLR. I didnt know how to fit the lenses on it, I didnt know what all the differnt shooting modes where, I didn't even know how to fit the camera strap on it! But with help from this forum I soon found out=)  At first I only took a few pics around the house, and found it quite weird to get used to holding the lens (specially the sigma 70-300 macro), so difficult to hold still!

I am really looking forward to learning how to use this camera, and I know that if I need help with anything I can always come here and get help=)

And I really don't see what's wrong with what I did...?

---

please view my pics
I'm driving to Mongolia for charity<-- click to find out more

I used to use slr's in the days of film photography, develop my own b+w,have all the lenses,a tripod,cable releases,filters etc.,and ended up nearly giving myself a hernia carrying it all about.I now prefer to carry a simple compact about with me.The point being,everybody to their own,nobody's right or wrong,as long as you enjoy it.

ABERS - Just to add to what JR has said about the D3 regarding the high ISO for low light, it also great for nature shots where high ISO values allow you to capture shots, with no blurred images. I have taken shots of flying birds were the ISO has gone to 8000 and the picture is perfect. I could never have done this with the D200, as anything above ISO 800 was very noisy.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery