Tom C wrote:
Hi Keith,
If we're talking about film cameras I'd agree with you. I perceive it's
going to be different in the digital world though. Who here expects
their *ist D and derivatives, to be the camera they're shooting with 5
years from now, 10 years from now? I don't.
Based on what I've read, nor do I.
Will service be available
for the older digital bodies 5/10 years from now? If so, at what price?
Considering the bulk of the mechanics of a digital camera is purely electronic
or electromechanical, probably not. "Repair" is more like "replacement" and
that depends on the manufacturer having stockpiled a sufficient number of
spare parts for distribution to their dealer/repair depots.
No, I suspect not. Not with the level of profit they're said to be operating
on today.
I'd think very little money has been put aside for spares...that's not the way
one makes a return on investment.
Digital camera life cycles and viability is heading down the same path
as home computers. Darn, if buy one today (PC, that is) and it lasts
2-3 years and breaks, is it worth repairing, or is it better to purchase
a new more powerful one at a lower price?
Depends on what breaks, of course, but if my personal record is any
indication, purchase new is by far the wiser course of action.
This is a replacement society, and the fix-it philosophy has been set aside or
abandoned.
People want instant satisfaction, and increasingly refuse to wait for repairs
or replacement.
Will 35mm film and processing be available 5/10 years from now and at
what price?
I'd say yes it will. Of course, the cost is yet another thing, isn't it.
Will it be cost effective? For most die-hard film addicts/amateurs, I'd say yes.
But, for any sort of professional, probably not.
Today you can still buy old film sizes, and have them processed, but you're
going to have to accept impediments put in the way of your fun!
You'll have to mail order film and wait for it. No more drop in to the local
camera store.
And processing will become increasingly difficult to find, if you can ever
find one who will satisfy your needs, at even a moderately reasonable price.
No, I think "at what price" covers a lot of sins, and will lean toward the
unacceptable, for many reasons.
I hear where your coming from and wish I believed it to be true in the
future, but I sorta don't. :)
Tom C.
Yeah, I understand, much as I wish it would be different.
keith
From: keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 11:05:37 -0700
Tom C wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem buying another lens or lots more lenses.
The question is whether I feel it wise to invest in more K-mount
lenses when I'm not sure Pentax is going to be around in a couple of
years, or if they will be producing the camera I wish to purchase.
Tom C.
Seems you're falling for that ol' marketing trap, Tom...
I have and use cameras that are more than 30 years old, some over 50
years old, with lenses that are even older than that, as well as
lenses that are still made today!
Pentax has done a good job of keeping old customers needs in mind, so
far as I'm concerned.
Many who are using the very latest top of the line digital offerings
from Pentax won't agree with me at all, but a careful look at their
products belie claims they are ignoring their faithful...
In truth, who cares if Pentax isn't around in another couple of years?
If they disappeared from the face of the earth tonight, I'd _still_
have all my older 35mm bodies, some fine digital cameras, and ALL of
my lovely older lenses. THEY won't disappear!
I continually shake my head at those comments that come from the folks
who actually believe that crap about present day cameras becoming
"obsolete."
What's obsolete, but feeding a rampant quest for more and more new
products.
If you WANT new and can afford to keep refreshing your supply of
equipment, have at it, and good luck to you. Seriously!
But to believe that the slightly older stuff is well on it's way to
becoming decrepit, well...that's just not true!
*I* probably am, but my camera gear isn't! <g>
IMMHO,
keith whaley
