Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.
These threads have gone on for 7 years and yes I'm as crazy as the next guy, because I've participated in way too many of them.
The truth is if you take a potato chip, poke a hole in it, hold a unexposed piece of film in one hand, your thumb over the hole, count to 1 close the hole and if you're proud of the result . . .
that potato chip just may be the right camera for you.
Now if you shoot for commerce, have the world 6 inches from your back trying to set you ass on fire and you don't own one of these electronic marvels like the Nikon or Canon, then you're probably making a mistake.
On the flip side if you don't explore other alternatives than what everyone else is using, you might be missing something that's hard to quantify on paper or charts.
But whether your shooting with a crew of 20 or on a mountaintop by yourself, then you should enjoy it because whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours, that's time your not getting back and enjoying as many seconds as possible is damn important.
We talk about cameras like a crumb of noise is sinful, or anything that doesn't shoot at iso twenty billion is antiquated and sometimes it's true, usually it's not.
We talk about cameras like they really will give us magical talent, or a more accurate eye and that's never true.
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made by cameras and receptors that won't go over 400 asa, require manual focus and shoot about a frame every two seconds at best. (iso, or asa I don't even know if these are real standards).
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made when the photographer says, hold it, that's beautiful, don't f*****g move because I'm shooting at 1/8th of a second.
A trillion beautiful photographs that haven't been made yet will be taken with all kinds of cameras, hopefully some will do things we can't even imagine.
The last line I have my doubts, because other than pixel count and the ability to shoot in low light, nothing is that much different with cameras today than they were 7 years ago when this discussion started.
The Nikon is a $3,000 wonder, sure I guess, though it wasn't long ago that $3,500 bought a lot better camera than a small Nikon. The Hasselblad is overpriced. Maybe, but if price decided value, then BMW wouldn't be rolling in money and GM wouldn't have needed a bailout the size of Ireland's GDP.
This is the running from the bear story. You know, don't try to be faster than the bear, just be faster than the guy running next to you.
That'll work and you can brag you were faster than a bear, but that's not true. You just faster than the poor guy that stubbed his toe.
What you really want to do is be really faster than the bear, because in this context the bear is the final photograph.
No matter how you get there do something your proud of .
Do it the thoughtful, less easy way because even is easy is as good, it's not as rewarding.
Do it and enjoy it.
Then you've outrun the bear.
This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d. Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680
Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable
Melvin can outrun the bear.