Bucky, I am afraid I either misread his post or language barrier played yet another joke on me.
All of what you say is true, but the fact remains that the original poster was talking about a given model of DSLR being rendered *obsolete*, not merely somewhat less attractive, by new models. His point was that DSLRs are essentially throwaway cameras because of the rapid march of technology, and hence the purchaser shouldn't worry about build quality.
It is highly illogical (or should I say, silly <g>) to render a technology throw-away no matter how aged it is. E.g. I use Visor Platinum (circa 2000) which is very old, probably even ancient in modern PDA world. But it does *all* I want it to do at the moment. When it would be something that it cannot do that I must have, I will replace it. Or of course it could totally break before that. Then I will be forced to replace it.
My ME Super is not obsolete. It is very old and very unattractive for some people. But it is my main camera while ZX-L being a backup or a body which I take if I have to have AF.
Anyway, back to the chase <g>... DSLRs are not throwaway cameras unless it would be discovered that for some technical reason their sensor or shutter cannot work more than given amout of time, say 3 years. Then of course, it would be plain stupid to buy DSLR if it is known that it was used for 3 years. This by they way was my concern some messages ago. It is unclear to me what does it mean "excellent condition" DSLR. State of used sensor is something that would seem to be difficult to judge.
Nevertheless, I do think that people would change their DSLRs more often just because fancier ones and cheaper ones would hit the market. Perhaps it will not happen with Pentax but for different reasons <wink>...
Ultimately, I think we reached the point that you and I agree on our opinions. It is time to move on to next discussion <BigFriendlyGrin>.
Boris
