Yes and no.
I might accept the quality and process, but I'll invest to gain efficiency in
using the digital, gains in quality and process will be extras.
Here are a just few areas where I expect progress to make this camera obsolete
for me, viewer(ing) as LCD is next to useless outdoors, precision, exposure
(less need to run shots everything through software), storage, low light
autofocus, flash, ...
I don't expect the my next digital will be less expensive. Depends on what
happens on the SLR front.
M42 limitations aren't quite the same when it comes to achieving quality shots.
There is no easy way to compensate for few pixels, the lack of lens options,
etc.... If M42 deficiencies were of this nature, I'd have turned them in long
ago and moved on to new designs.
That's the view from here anyway.
Otis Wright
"Frits J. W�thrich" wrote:
> > I expect to recover all my costs in a couple of
> > years --- with a lot of added benefits on the archiving side ---
> > just as the
> > camera becomes obsolete and I have to buy a new one.
> Why would a camera become obsolete? If it is still doing what you want it to
> do, then it's not obsolete. Just like people using M42 systems. The fact
> that a newer system is available, offering more for less investment, doesn't
> make it obsolete.
>
> Frits
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
