Hi Mike, I guess I'm not arguing the definition of the word as much as I'm arguing about the perceived utility of a so-called 'obsolete' piece of equipment. Like something obsolete was a bad thing. It isn't. Something being obsolete does not mean it's usefulness is somehow been compromised and it's no longer what you thought it was... It still is, but if you now think it's not as good as youo once _thought_ it was, then the ad guys have done their job, and you'll be hankering for the newer model.
keith Mike Johnston wrote: > > > 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 Superceded by something 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 screw mount is obsolete.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
