They *are* disposable in a sense, in the same way computers are. Several years after model introduction (if not sooner) both devices are eclipsed by better, faster models. At that point resale value is next to nil. If it breaks it likely makes more sense to buy a new model as opposed to repairing the old.
If my *ist D breaks it's going in the dumpster. Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:33:22 -0600 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "J. C. O'Connell" >Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > > > Correct. Nothing has changed since then and I think > > you are wrong on the date, I said that in 2006. The DSLR BODIES > > are still in the early evolving stage and they ARE > > "disposable" in that sense. > >Lets see if I have this right. > >You are saying that DSLRs areabout high image quality for the few willing >to >pay for it, but they are disposable cameras. >I'm seeing a tinge of inconsistency here. > >I am right about the date, it's right at the top of the linked page. >You have proven your arrogance once again, by showing that you can't be >bothered to look at facts when presented to you. > >Here, I've cut and pasted the post for you, including the date it was >recieved. >" >RE: DS >J. C. O'Connell >Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:26:06 -0700 > >Does the finish really matter on a camera that will >be obsolete in 5 years time? I know I would not want >to pay for better finish on temporary (dare I say disposable?) camera... >JCO >" > >William Robb > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
