[RANT] And the more camera technology advances, the more complaints we seem to hear. Going back not that many years, there were no auto-focus lenses, image stabilisation was non-existent, film speeds were measured in figures less than 800 ASA (as it was in those days) in B&W, film 'noise' at film speeds of 400 ASA would be unacceptable nowadays, film frame rates on the most expensive cameras could be numbered on one hand, and so on. The funny thing is, no one in those days, from what I can remember, complained about technology at all. Medium format photographers looked down at 35mm photographers, large format photographers looked down at medium format photographers, while Leica photographers looked down at everyone (nothing changes). The biggest debates revolved around how you processed B&W film and subsequently B&W prints and what paper and chemicals you used. And in the coloured world, it was sometimes about whether Fujifilm provided better tones for portraits and landscapes than Kodak. We now have cameras that cost $50 that can produce results that photographers of the 70s would have fallen over themselves had something like that been given them in those days. We have cameras that effectively cost way less (taking inflation into account) than they ever cost back in the 70s, that do things that photographers of the 70s wouldn't have even dreamed could be possible and produce images that exceed most photographer's gear of those days. Yet we still complain that we don't have enough, it's not good enough, it's not small enough, it's not plentiful enough, it's not cheap enough. Exactly what 'is' enough? [/RANT] Disclosure: I started photography in a serious way at the beginning of the 70s.