> > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/23 Tue PM 01:56:22 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR "Obsolete"? > > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:49 AM, mike wilson wrote: > > > That would be "us" as in those who have spent the money to get one? I > > certainly haven't and I'm aware of at least two users who are of the > > opinion that they have bought their last camera with a DSLR. > > > > The difference may just be that I am looking at it from a professional > perspective. <snip>
That will make a difference. > > Anyway, once the camera has paid for itself in savings of money and > time, any use I get after that is gravy. So if I replace my DSLR every > two years that works out about right to keep up with technology and get > my money's worth. One thing I don't understand is that everyone talks about cost savings with DSLRs and yet (mostly) they make deskjet prints. I, generally, don't do prints but I fail to see how that can be cheaper unless people are mostly not printing. Especially as most people seem to want to print, when they do, at 10x12" or so. > > I recognize that the equation is very different for an amateur. And most photographers are amateur. m ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
