> Tom C wrote: > Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that > because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our > parameters for measuring them should also be changing.
Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
