A couple of things: 1. I'm not in any great rush to move up to an 8 or 10 MP camera. 6 Mp is working fine for me, although I'll probably buy a better DSLR at some point because it seems I get the bug to buy a new camera every 5 or 6 years. And, since the *istD doesn't take a proprietary battery, it should be alright for a while.
2. Leveling effects do occur, even in electronics. Very few folks I know dump their PC's for memory of disk space reasons. The biggest reasons are software related, especially the accumulation of all that stuff on the hard drive that slows the system down. DSLRs can still get faster with better res., but after 6-8 MP I don' think extra res will be enough incentive. The industry will have to rely on the technophilia of the enthusiasts and the P&S digicams actually stopping working. I do not see my daughter saying "Gee I need more resolution". 4 MP is working fine for her. She could use better AF, but they'd have to convince her of that. BTW, for the record, I agree with Bill. I think that most of the countries that are currently industrializing will skip film and go straight to digital with little kiosks like they have at WallyWorld. Just like cell phones. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 10:25:59 PM >>> Yes, the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate. I had a good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for. When I took it back to the store where I got it from I was told the battery was no longer available. So I had to get a new phone. My Optio 230 is very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of resolution. However, it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more "advance" model because of the cost. Jim A. > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Toralf Lund" > Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) > > > >> But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is > going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely > there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't > practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and > will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still > be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or > money to buy film, in such places? > > We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of > the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford > to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, > it will probably be able to support digital. > Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to > digital, that is where developing markets will be led. > > The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease > of use, or any quality factors. > It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film > because there is no money in it for them. > OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera > every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy, > and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last > years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper. > > William Robb > > >
