I peeked at Rage Furby blog to see if anything new was there. No. But one of his mentally challenged fans posted something to marvel at. Chuck was trying to argue that Ben Rhodes could not possibly have seen people on the Williamsburg waterfront taking photos of the Twin Towers on 9/11 because cell phones didn’t have cameras back then.

Absorb that idea, then read this from a commenter named Libby Stack:

As someone who has been involved in the camera world for many years, I can tell you that consumer grade digital cameras were garbage back then and came with a premium price tag. Only semi serious computer and camera nerds bought them back then. A 3MP crap cam at that time would have set you back a minimum of about $250. The only DSLRs available at the time would have set you back around $5k if I remember correctly. The first really affordable DSLR was not available until about 2003, and even that came with a $1600 price tag.

Cell phones circa 2001 - not ubiquitous at all, much less phones with cameras. The only camera phones available at that time has a .35 MP resolution and cost about $400.

I can’t imagine guys, who really hadn’t taken to “man bags” yet carrying around a disposable film camera or even a modest film point & shoot just for fun. For ladies, many more important things occupied valuable handbag real estate. At that time, the only time you worried about taking a camera when you left the house was when you were on your way to your mom’s birthday party. In 2001, there were very few people like me who carried a film DSLR equipped with a modest lens with them everywhere.

Excellent observation Charles. Your other points are also well taken.

However did we take photos before DSLRs and cellphones? You can’t explain that.