OTOH you are right, the problem with using the old laptop is it won't run newer software. But that is analogic to using an old film camera for which film is no longer available such as a 116 Kodak folder. So they do compare.
Digital cameras are electronic devices. Electronic devices have historically gotten better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. The laws of physics say that can not go on forever. But it is going to be awhile until we reach that point.
Basically, a DSLR only has a usable lifetime until it is no longer supported with parts, service, and software upgrades. That is also analogic to computers.
They will probably be viable until they are about 5 generations old, but will be crippled compared to new ones from about 3 generations (meaning the model after next). Compare that to the Canon D30 v. D60 v. 10D. Next gen. the D30 will be so obsolete that only diehards won't want replace it. Yes a 3mp image will still be usable, but there are a lot of things besides resolution involved here. Such things as repairs, speed, noise, newer storage devices, etc. will become problems.
--
Bucky wrote:
Software has gotten more complex and bloated. The images I will want to record with my camera will not (except that my friends seem to swell as they age).
The analogy between cameras and personal computers is fundamentally inappropriate.
-----Original Message----- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13-Jan-04 20:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
Hey, I have a 486/33 IBM Thinkpad. The build quality is supurb, but it is pretty much useless in todays world. Unless of course all you need it for is word processing.
--
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but that doesnt mean I would still want to use them..... JCO
------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices
Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life,"
as you call
it, by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the
build quality
allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera has
outlived its
usefulness.
The *ist-D will continue to produce images of like quality for
as long as it
continues to function. Better built cameras take more abuse
and continue to
function longer. Simple, really.
Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life due to technical innovations, could someone please explain to me why build quality is important? JCO
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
