On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:08 PM, cbwaters wrote: > you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to > impart a > soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but > will > never own for lack of funds).
I don't really care all that much about possessions. I have built nicely customized things for my use time and again. Then sold them when I'd had my fill of them. The fun is in the building, for me. That's the creative aspect, not the thing itself. > I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your > walls as > a teenager. Nope. I had photographs I'd made and printed. Remember: I started doing photography when I was 8 years old. > I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more > importance than > they're really worth. I like gadgets and equipment. Clever devices fascinate me. I just don't like cluttering up my life with them or becoming attached to them. They don't care about me, they just work when I operate them and wear out over time. > I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any > of the > current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have > dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead > and cannot > be repaired. Nonsense. Several millions of these things are sold every year. Someone will have them, they won't just go "poof!" and disappear. Digital cameras got off the ground in a big way about 2001-2002, already there are dozens of people I know who are using the same camera they bought 5 years ago. DSLRs from 2003 and up, particularly pro models, remain in use. Very little has changed since a certain plateau in image quality was reached. But marketing people keep feeding the hunger for new things by telling you about how much better they are, so new things sell and perfectly good old things sit on the shelf. I'm still processing thousands of photographs I made with the *ist DS body, and I still marvel at how nice they are. The K10D represents an improvement, certainly, and has advantages for my work. But I would be stupid if I really believed it was a "necessary" improvement. > And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and > can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is > interesting I sell whatever I don't use for long enough, unless I get lazy. > God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service > or even > a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. I bet that a sensibly used K10D will still be working perfectly and won't require a CLA in 2015. 2037 ... well, I might not be around at that point myself. What someone still capable of being a photographer would like to play with is up to them at that point. Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. The tendency to place things on a pedestal is a subtle way of reaching for immortality. Life is transitory, things stick around. Honoring things with endearment is trying to hold onto something fixed in time, with some permanence. My little am/fm transister radio from 1966 is still working perfectly. It's nice that it still works since I use it every day, but if it breaks I'll hand it to the recyclers and buy something new. What I honor is the function it has served with great economy: to bring news and entertainment to me in my reading chair. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
