Keith wrote: > I'm continually amazed at people's use ~ and perception ~ of the word "obsolete." > It seems they think of anything called 'obsolete' as just next to worthless. > Last week, before the introduction of the new super-thing, what they > had or hankered for was top of the line, and WELL worth having! > Now, in a week or less, it's relegated to the rubbish pile because > some ad man called it obsolete. > > How absolutely absurd! If it was very good last week, it's just as > good this week, and will probably be just as good next year, and maybe > 10 years from now if you take care of it...
By that logic we would still be driving T Fords. If it was good enough back then etc... > Most of my collection of Pentax bodies, and lenses too for that > matter, could be considered obsolete by someone, just for age alone! > In fact, ONLY because of age. But I'd put the raw quality of my best > negatives up against those produced by any one-hour-new Nikon, Canon > or whatever, and unless you _knew_ what took it, you'd find it > impossible to tell the body was 50 years old, and the lens 35 years > old. > > That, my friends is not obsolescence. It's attitude and directed mindset... > I love my 'obsolete' cameras! I think you love affair the obsolete products would have been somewhat different if, say, the lens you bought today could have been had with 40% higher resolution at half the price in six months. Or the Pentax MX you bought in july 1978 could have been had for half the money in 1979. This is the reality of DSLR. P�l
