On 13/04/2011 12:36 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Bob W<[email protected]> wrote:
While it would be nice for a camera to last forever, I don't see much to complain about in relation to the days of film. My K10D is 4 years old. It still works fine. I want a K-5, but only because the K-5 is better, not because the K10D is any worse than when I got it. In the 4 years I've had my K10D, I estimate that I would have spent about $3,000 in film and processing to take the same number of exposures on film. So if my K10D dies today, why should I complain about the cost of a new body? If periodic replacement/upgrade of digital bodies isn't cheaper than shooting film, then either you're spending too much on the bodies (*cough* Leica *cough*) or you're not taking enough pictures (*cough* collectors *cough*).
Everyone who feels the need to justify digital trots out that canardy old nag at least one in the discussion. It really has no bearing on how long a camera should last if you buy a good one.
Out of curiosity, what have you spent on computers, storage media and software (be honest, what would you have spent if you hadn't stolen your software, for example) How much of your life have you wasted squinting at a computer screen when you could have just picked up a box of slides?
-- William Robb -- 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.
