> >Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail >that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses >could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there >would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste.
All this is hypothetical of course. It's not the path I would take John. I understand the logic that gets you there and that's fine for you. I just think it's short-sighted. Not only might you end up with lenses and camera bodies that don't work due to age, you could have an accident and lose a camera body that way as well. You'll have spent extra money on dinosaur bodies, when you could have bought into a system that has a future. Your last sentence somes up my reasoning. Eventually there will be no body to use them on. > > > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology > > in 5 - 10 years? > >Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two >years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The >K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break >any new ground technologically. > Five years from now, what if you could get a 20+ MP body for around the price of a K10D? You hypothetical actions are sort of investing in the past instead of investing in the future. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
