Moose,
I base my theory of obsolence on most all PC based tools, toys, programs, etc.
It's only been barely more than ten years ago that we were all using DOS.
What was your storage and memory back then? Would you say that that equipment
is still capable of much of anything compared to todays PC's?
Now fast forward ten years. Can you even begin to imagine what will be state of
the
art then? Do you think it work with todays digital cameras? Not likely.
I need to think about it some more now.
GeoW
On 4 Dec 2003 at 16:12, Moose wrote:
> Obsolete is in the eye of the user. If I buy a camera which meets my
> image production needs, it is not obsolete until it doesn't meet those
> needs, regardless of the capabilities of later designs. If, as some
> listees have averred, the E-1 is capable of producing sharp, clear
> prints with excellent color balance of at least 12x18 and that's as
> big as I want, it doesn't become obsolete when another camera has more
> megapixels. If my need is to have the latest and most 'powerful'
> camera, the E-1 (and other 5-6mp cameras) will soon be obsolete. If it
> is to make pictures it is capable of making, it doesn't become
> obsolete so easily. Then the difference between a camera that will
> continue to function for 2-3 years and one that will last 10 years
> becomes quite significant.
>
> This is not an argument for or against the E-1, just a logical
> response to your question.
>
> Moose
>
> GeoW wrote:
>
> >But why will Olympus build a camera to last ten years when it will be
> >obsolete in two?
> >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|