ok, but I said it recently too. Nothing has changed. Cant see ANY contradictions though, the very fact that they ARE "disposable" is what makes them expensive to buy and "toss" in favor of something much better in only a few years. Cost of ownership is HIGH when you dont get but a few years of them and they rapidly depreciate in value due to rapid evolution. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? ----- 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
