Jens Bladt wrote:
I know. Old cameras were operative for 20 years or more. New ones aren't. This is something we just have to get used to. The speed in wich electronics i evolved.
No we don't.
I bought my first home computer in 1998. I am about to exchange second one. The same thing with cameras, which are really small computers with a lens.
There is an alternative.........
I'd be satisfied if my D is still alive and well in four years. Then we'll probably have faster everything a twice as many MP's - at half the price, of course.
Something will give. How about half the present life expectancy for the lower price?
It gets obsolete when there's to many hot spots in the CCD or when it's just not up to date anymore. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. august 2005 12:48 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: What Would Make a DSLR "Obsolete"? As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about these cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my mind. As a user of older film bodies, which don't become obsolete and which continue to make good pictures and use a wide variety of lenses, it's hard to consider that in six months or a year a new DSLR will have become "history." It seems that, unless there's a camera malfunction, these new techno-marvels should continue to make decent pics for years to come, yet I keep hearing about how models just a few years old (or less) are dated and need to be upgraded. Am I missing something? Is it just the techno-buffs who are saying this - those who must have the latest and greatest, or are there hidden issues, like software compatibility, lack of peripheral equipment (such as a memory card type being discontinued), and things of that sort? Maybe I've answered my own question. What's the reality of getting 10 years of use from now current Pentax DSLR? Shel
