Hello Hampster!
This is pretty much how things generally go. Average Joe will always settle for a lower quality product just to be "in".
I remember when I got a new cell phone. Everybody kept saying "I hope you got the one with a digicam"... They were all so disappointed when I told them I told them I bought the basic model with "nothing on". Why would I pay an extra 200$ for a 2mpx camera that sells for under 50$ in the store? Lets just say there are a lot of people who didn't get it and never will. Yet, all those people come screaming, crying and kicking when their computer that contains the only copy of the pixelated kid pictures crashes (there's a long post on the subject)... yet, they don't get it.
I guess it's pretty hard to show off when you're using a Graflex (ask Ed.) When you say "look at my new camera" and the thing was made in the 1920's... pretty hard to make the point. How new does something have to be to be new?
To me, it comes down to the bases of consumerism run amok. When people define themselves by their belongings, a brand new digicam is a pretty sweet thing. And when the neighbor gets a bigger, faster, better looking model... you just chuck yours in the thrash and get an even bigger, faster, better looking one than his... Its not sustainable for the slightest bit but its the truth.
As for me, I'm pretty happy that people are giving away everything they have to go digital. It means I can get a ton of stuff for extra cheap. Just from doing the Church rummage sales, I have cameras coming out of my ears yet the most I spent on one in the last few years is 4$...
Film users tend to care about quality and long term archiving. In 20 years, probably 90% of all the pictures taken today will have disappeared... only those images shot on film will mostly remain. My enlarger is 100% retrocompatible... something that can't be said from computers.
OK, enough for this (again) ridiculously long post... and Welcome again Hampster!
