I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough. Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake.
And also, it doesn't improve image quality generally, only with slow shutter speeds. John On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:36:13 +0100, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
