Keith, I understand most of what you are saying, but generally, with computers, once they cannot be upgraded, they DO become obsolete. Let me tell you why. I could be using WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS on a 286 IBM computer (which I have downstairs) yet I do not. Or the old Lotus 1-2-3. It was fine then, it still accomplishes the same task if I wanted to write an essay, but why am not using it? There could be several reasons, but generally you want bigger and better. I guess that is why I use Windows XP Pro. and Office XP and have a sorta decent computer to support them. Are the DSLRs out there upgradeable besides memory and some sort of firmware? If the ISO range is from 25-1600, and I want to shoot 3200 or 6400, how would I do that? I couldn't. With my 35mm SLR I have a whole range of possibilities with film and with darkroom techniques and certain film I can create anything. To me, digital cameras, or DSLR are mere replacements for Point and Shoot. They are sometimes handy, but I'm not going to spend $1000 or more for something that will suck compared to a model they put out the next year.
Anyhow, maybe I got off track, and sorry, but I do believe that DSLRs are very akin to computers. We all know that unbelievable digital cameras exist at an enormous cost for certain industries. Same with computers, like mainframes and such. (Oh ya, I don't want to learn how to use Photoshop or any other program, and while I have it, I don't own it. Expensive. I don't want to tinker with photos on the computer and then have the HD crash and lose them.) Bah, too much typing :) Brad Dobo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 6:28 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S users and the speculation on DSLRs > > > 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 >
