Jens Bladt wrote: > If I had used film and my MZ-S this figuring would have been very different: > > I would have taken only 33 % of the number of shots = 15.000 shots > I would have been able to use the camera for 29 more months before it got > obsolete, reducing the cost of the camera to 50%.
Jens; I really don't understand your logic here... Obsolete: 1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful <an obsolete word> b : of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED <an obsolete technology> The *ist D can still be in use for many years as long as it works properly (exposure, focusing, etc). The only real difference is the MP count (and 6MP WAS enough to sell images) and the AS (you ARE able to make good pictures without it as shown in your *ist D images). The same logic goes for the MZ-S, even more so: As long as it works and film is available it is useful and therefore NOT obsolete. Some of my film cameras were older than me and far from obsolete (they allowed me to produce exactly the same images as a brand new film camera). I guess my real issue is how do you measure a camera's life in months? Unless it just breaks down and the repair cost is too high, it still has useful life. 4 years for a film camera? 2 years for a DSLR? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
