> Except that the REAL capability of the original piece has not > deteriorated, has it? > So the obsolescence is in the mind, not the camera. Not so? > The fact that those cameras in direct line have increased their > capabilities is really beside the point. > If you WANT those new features, great. Have at it, mate!
I think you should read the definition of "obsolete": "No longer in use because replaced by something new. Superceded by something newer, though possibly still in use. Outmoded in style, design, or construction." It doesn't mean that something no longer works. You can still wear bell-bottom pants (or Zoot suits, or your ruff and a powdered wig). The M42 screw mount is obsolete. Cars with wooden frames are obsolete, even though you can still buy a new Moggie. Radio dramas are obsolete (but the Shadow still knows, muwah-HAHAHAHAHA!). So are digital cameras from five years ago. Film, manual-focus lenses, Leica M6's, and enlargers are merely obsolescent (in the process of becoming obsolete).... --Mike
