To me, truly obsolete is something that has been replaced
by something else that is equal or superior in EVERY
aspect for same or less money, CURRENT NEW COST.
If the new item has even one shortcoming or costs more than the old
one isnt truly obsolete.
This is based on buying new products of course and
when the old product reaches this defintiion, it
ceases to be made anymore due to marker forces. That doesn't mean if
you already own the old product its still not
useful, it may be, but you couldn't/wouldn't buy a new
old if it died because its been replaced by something
absolutely better for less or equal CURRENT NEW cost.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
This requires a definition of obsolete. The one I use is:
A product is considered obsolete when it is no longer produced, that
is, when it is replaced by something else by the original
manufacturer or by another manufacturer.
By that definition, my Nikon FM was obsolete as soon as the FM2 model
appeared. I bought the FM body, used, after the FM2 appeared on the
market and used it for another 19 years. Someone else bought it after
me and, presumably, is continuing to use it.
Obsolete does not imply not used or not usable.
Usability is gated by battery availability (not a problem), storage
(not a problem) and software compatibility (not a problem). Also by
reliability and durability ... so far (8000+ exposures on the DS
body) I have seen little evidence of poor reliability or durability.
Most people these days seem to think of obsolete as meaning they must
have the latest model or what they are using is unusable. The ramp up
to current DSLR technology has been steep, but my feeling is that the
industry passed a plateau point with the introduction of the Canon
10D three years ago. I consider nearly any DSLR of that generation
and beyond to be just as future usable as any 35mm SLR I've ever
owned. No longer state of the art in speed, possibly no longer the
best in noise, etc, but still perfectly usable for a long time
despite being obsolete.
Regards:
Battery - AA and CRV3 will be with us forever, practically speaking.
Storage - There are already MILLIONS of flash storage cards in the
world, each of which can be used for thousands of write/erase cycles.
Just one represents at the very least 100,000 potential exposures in
its lifetime. It will be a very very long time before there are no
flash storage cards left to use.
Software - The software in use today for the handling of the storage
medium is all standards based ... USB protocol connectivity, FAT16
and FAT32 file system. That's not going to go away any time soon ...
I can still read and write DOS floppies from 1982 (although I haven't
in some years now) ... and new emergent file system standards
generally speaking include compatibility to read older standards.
Image formats like JPEG will be around practically speaking forever.
Decoding and converting the Pentax RAW file format is something now
encapsulated in open source C language code (dcraw by Dave Coffin) so
even if current software products were to disappear entirely, someone
could recompile a RAW converter utility on whatever operating system
was then in place.
Nothing to worry about, in my opinion. This technology is here to
stay, and I warrant will be feasible to use for the remainder of my
lifetime. Advantageous, probably not: advances in camera technology
and my desire to obtain better quality/perform will likely have me
buying something new again at some point. But I do suspect that
today's digital SLR bodies will be just as useful into the future as
film SLR bodies will. When film manufacturers give up their last gasp
and close down production due to lack of profits, and the last roll
of film is consumed, that's it as there is no reusability in film
storage media.
Godfrey
On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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),
