On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:45:21 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail >> that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses >> could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually >> there >> would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > > All this is hypothetical of course. It's not the path I would take > John. I > understand the logic that gets you there and that's fine for you. I just > think it's short-sighted. Not only might you end up with lenses and > camera > bodies that don't work due to age, you could have an accident and lose a > camera body that way as well. You'll have spent extra money on dinosaur > bodies, when you could have bought into a system that has a future. > > Your last sentence somes up my reasoning. Eventually there will be no > body > to use them on. > >> >> > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture >> technology >> > in 5 - 10 years? >> >> Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two >> years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The >> K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break >> any new ground technologically. >> > > Five years from now, what if you could get a 20+ MP body for around the > price of a K10D? You hypothetical actions are sort of investing in the > past > instead of investing in the future. > > Tom C.
It's just economics, Tom. For hundreds of dollars I could prolong the use of my lovely Pentax lenses for many years. To switch would cost thousands. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
