Doe wrote: > IMHO, it will be the same with digital. At some point a "good enough" level will be >reached that one can stay satisfied with a DSLR for six-eight years. Since I don't >know enough about cameras, for me the telling sign will be when 60-80% of most >good/experienced/professional/etc. photographers say the resolution is "very close to >or as good as film." Right now it still seems to be a pretty divided issue with a lot >of photographers claiming, no, it really does reach that level yet. But some day it >is bound to be reached. > > Not too far off now.
I don't but that argument either. Most people who go digital have camera already. The point is when to switch and what it will cost you. It is just like with computers; if you really don't need a new computer right NOW!!!!, it pays off to wait. Incidentally, the computer I was looking for 2 months ago is now so for half the low price it was sold for back then. To tell the truth, I would have been pissed off now if I had bought that computer back then. Sure, I would have had two months enjoyment out of it. However, I do have a perfectly functioning computer right in front of me right now. It is same with my cameras. With a digital camera, you'll know whatever camera you buy today can be had for significantly less money in maximum six months time. Or you can buy a significantly bettter camera for the same money in six months. P�l
