I used 1999 because I was making the point of what 5 years means to digital cameras. 2009 digital cameras may just make the *istD obsolete if the resolution keeps increasing and prices keep falling like they have. If we have full frame and 20Mpixels for $500 in 2009 why would you stick with the *istD? You wouldn't, just like you wouldn't stick with an old 486SX computer even if it still worked fine when you can get a pentium 4 for only a few hundred dollars....
You can get plenty of nice recent glass for M42, Tamron most notably, they produced a lot of good stuff for adaptall2 which there is a M42 mount. If you want most modern glass the only way to go is canon because their AF mount is way bigger and better... There is a silver M400 battery available for spotmatics that works fine. the fact is that film cameras are not locked in in terms of capture like digital cameras are. If a spotmatic could only use 1964 vintage film & processing it would be obsolete, but it can use 2004 film/processing so its not. regarding cars, they buyers wouldn't buy 20 year paint jobs if they were available when the car is trashed at seven. I don't see how a stereos or comfort items like uphostery compares to durable finish. JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DS ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: DS > WRONG, the spotmatic isnt obsolete like the > 1999 vintage digital cameras are because it > still can use modern 2004 film, 1999 digital cameras > are stuck with crappy 1999 digital capture technology. > Can I buy new lenses for a Spotmatic? Well, no, I can't. Can I buy the correct (mercury) battery for it? Well, no, they outlawed them, I guess I can get them if I want to be a criminal. The istD, BTW, is not 1999 technology. I suspect it is closer to 2004 technology. > A huge part of the reason for the fine finishes on the > old SLRs was durability and aging immunity. You don't > need either with digital cameras because you wont > be using them in 40, 30, 20, 10, or probably even > 5 years.... Thats bullshit. As long as the image quality coming off the camera meets my needs, I will continue to use it. And because the camera has a nice fit and pleasing finish, I will enjoy using it. I give you another example to educate you. This example comes from the automotive industry. People tend to buy new cars fairly regularly, I think the average is every 7 years or so, and at that point they are devalued to the point of having almost no residual value, as compared to new. The common automobile is, therefor, almost a disposable commodity. Sort of like what you are saying DSLRs are. And yet people buy upgraded upholstery, nice stereos, bright clear coat paint finishes, fancy wheels and tyres, and all sorts of other niceties that make the thing a pleasure to look at and own. I like nice tools. They tend to be more pleasurable to use, and I am of the opinion that if you enjoy the tool you are using, you will use it more, and will probably also do nicer work with it, if for no other reason, you are in a better frame of mind. I expect your milage will vary, it generally seems to. William Robb
