Brad Dobo wrote:
>
> That was a long message, but I enjoyed it :)
>
> I feel exactly like you, and while I don't have an extensive lens
> collection, I get by, and I love the MZ-S (with grip, almost essential).
> You are SO correct about digital cameras, they do go completely obsolete,
> and I can't see them having any resale value, much like an older computer.
Just an observation on "obsolete."
Obsolescence is usually in the desires and expectations of the user,
not anything wrong or 'no longer works' with the piece of equipment.
For example, I have an Epson PhotoPC 750Z I bought a couple of years
ago. 3X optical zoom and advertised at 1.25 Mpixels, as I recall.
Actually works out to be only 1.228 Mpixels, but that's getting too
technical for this discussion. <g>
It provides me with 7 image quality settings, for B&W and color, from
super fine (1600 x 1200) to 'okay for screen display' (640 x 480.) All
work well.
I have taken a wide range of scenics and close-in objects a foot or so
away, as well as macros to 5" or less, using the fine Tiffen close-up
lenses on the front. All have worked out very well. The AF (down to
8"!) has never failed to work properly, the color balance is excellent
and I've really enjoyed it.
Would I prefer a 4 or 6 Mpixel camera? Oh, if it was as good as or
demonstrably better than I perceive this Epson to be, I suppose I'd
like it. Do I need one? No. I'd sure like a DSLR, so I could use my
Pentax lenses, but that's a while downstream. My Pentax uses my Pentax
lenses very well! <g>
I didn't buy the Epson to be able to take and display 11 x 14 salon
quality prints, get real! I am quite happy with 4 s 6s, or 5 x 7s, or
even for only screen display.
Does it still work as advertised and take fine quality photos that
completely satisfy me? Absolutely! That others Oooo! and Ahhhh! about?
Yes indeed it does.
What's to go "completely obsolete" about that, pray tell?
Who's going to step in now and say I'm less discerning than a
professional photographer, so what do I know?
I know I bought a camera that actually lived up to all it's hype, and
did as it said it would. Still does, if I do my job.
Unless the camera breaks, I will happily continue to make the sort of
photos/images it did when I bought it.
If I get dissatisfied with it sometime downstream, it's because of ME
and perceived increased needs or utility, not because the camera's
"obsolete." It will continue to do what it did when I first became
enchanted with it. We are NOT getting a divorce! ;^)
Do I still use my beloved 35mm Pentax SLR? Sure I do. I now have two tools.
I probably have as many as 7 or 8 other working cameras, my being a
fine camera amasser, Olympus, Retina, etc. SLRs, rangefinders and a
small TLR. All work to the best of their ability and do a fine job.
It's me that is becoming obsolete if anything is...
Sorry for the long diatribe... <g>
keith whaley
Los Angeles
> Just toss it in the garbage one day. I really don't do much with the
> digital execept some family shots that I email away. And it is good for
> that, why I bought a cheap one. I've never printed from digital, I don't
> need to. That why I could care less about increasing MP. My 2MP Pentax
> Optio 230 is just fine, and gets limited use. If I want to show my
> photographs, I have a slide archive, and print binders. I don't need to
> bring people into my room to view a picture on a monitor, and I don't care
> if my pictures are showcased on some photo site. I do have a scanner for
> prints, unfortunately not one for slides, but for it's limited use, it's
> fine. People get too caught up in digital. *End of Rant*
>
> Peace,
>
> Brad Dobo
