Actually if the Anti Shake works the way Pentax claims it is a breakthrough. It may not be apparent in any flashy way but it's there.
John Forbes wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>> I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a >>>> >>> camera >>> >>>> company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and >>>> >>> buy >>> >>>> more >>>> of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be >>>> supported, and be worthless. >>>> >>>> Tom C. >>>> >>> Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes >>> Pentax >>> down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of >>> which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that >>> will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. >>> >>> If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody >>> will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. >>> >>> So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them >>> lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. >>> >>> Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture >>> quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely >>> worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the >>> next >>> few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. >>> >>> So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall >>> buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some >>> other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will >>> actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical >> situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane >> dead-end >> street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a different >> street or get a different vehicle. >> > > If money were no object, one could choose any option. I am interested in > finding the most cost-effective one. > > >> I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become >> worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. >> > > Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail > that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses > could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there > would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > > >> Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology >> in 5 - 10 years? >> > > Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two > years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The > K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break > any new ground technologically. > > John > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
