On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Bob W <p...@web-options.com> wrote: > Why? > > That's just a justification for built-in obsolescence to satisfy the > manufacturers, not the consumers.
While it would be nice for a camera to last forever, I don't see much to complain about in relation to the days of film. My K10D is 4 years old. It still works fine. I want a K-5, but only because the K-5 is better, not because the K10D is any worse than when I got it. In the 4 years I've had my K10D, I estimate that I would have spent about $3,000 in film and processing to take the same number of exposures on film. So if my K10D dies today, why should I complain about the cost of a new body? If periodic replacement/upgrade of digital bodies isn't cheaper than shooting film, then either you're spending too much on the bodies (*cough* Leica *cough*) or you're not taking enough pictures (*cough* collectors *cough*). -- 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.
