> Pentax DSLR buyers, take note. I doubt seriously you will be keeping such > a camera for only 6 months, and if you do, i wish I had your income! > > .02
Cotty, More like a shilling than two pence (I have no idea what I'm talking about). You're right, is what I'm trying to say. My brother's a medical doctor, and bought a 2-mp Nikon 950 when they were being closed out--he got a good deal. Only recently has he been making noises about maybe replacing it, and that's because it's been malfunctioning intermittently. Meanwhile, the 990, 995, and 4500 have all been introduced. My bro still raves about the quality of his prints, although they don't seem that great to me. I don't have any figures for digital camera ownership (anyone here a member of PMA?), but over the years I've seen various numbers for various kinds of consumers, numbers mostly provided by PMA. The average ownership period for an SLR user has crept down over the years. If memory serves, it was 15 years in the 1970s, 11 years in the '80s, 8 years by the time AF Wunderplastik became prevalent. Digital is probably just too much in a state of flux to compile meaningful numbers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesize that DSLR buyers would keep their cameras for 2-5 years as long as they aren't among that rabid (and rich) minority that simply has to have the latest thing the instant it comes out. I mean, supposedly Canon is coming out with a 4-mp "D40" DSLR at PMA that will cost ~$1500. The D30 has 3 mp and cost $3k when it was brand new, $2k by the end of its run. So the new camera has a fair bit larger sensor and costs a fair bit less. But how many D30 owners will be rushing to dump their D30s for D40s? Not very many, I'd say. The two are still too close. Some number will want D80s, but that's significant upgrading, like an MX owner springing for an LX. It doesn't mean the MX is outdated or incapable, it just means the person would rather move up. Same deal with your D60 and the new D80. 2 megapixels don't amount to all that much that you'd have to upgrade. You can continue to get good use out of your D60. If someone here buys a 6-mp Pentax "MZ-D" for $1,700 next summer, chances are pretty good that in three years, a Pentax 8-mp DSLR, say, will be available for $1,400. But that still won't necessarily mean that the "MZ-D" buyer can't proceed to continue getting his or her money out of their 2003 purchase. And of course--yes, MIKE'S POINT AGAIN--it depends on how much film you would have shot in the interim. The more you normally shoot, and the longer you can keep your first DSLR, the more film and processing costs you save. I have to admit that the idea of the Canon D40...a 4-mp CMOS (assuming it's CMOS) for $1,500 is the first time that the notion of a DSLR has sparked any real interest in my brain. I've always been a big fan of the D30's image quality. Just lovely color purity, I think. Assuming the D40 is as good or better, at $1,500 it starts to look tempting. If it moves to $1,200 or $1,300 any time in the near future it will start to be something I'll have to start contemplating carefully. I think my own jumping-in point might be getting nearer. Of course, naturally, I'll want to wait to see what Pentax does. And I'll probably wait to see the successor to the Sony D-717, too. I've heard it rumored that Sony will be intro'ing an 8-mp chip at PMA, and that it will finally be coming out with the larger-capacity Memory Sticks. The idea of an F-717 but with an 8-mp chip and, say, a 512MB Memory Stick is mighty, mighty appealing. Such a camera might not match the image quality of the D60, but it might come pretty close. --Mike
