Yes, but the question is "how much better", digital will progress, but there will come a time when the limits are reached and progress stagnates. This has occurred for film cameras, which is why their prices remain stable. However, one should differentiate between actual functionality and perceived value, as the latter bears little consideration unless one intends to swap equipment often rather than to properly use it.
As for the previous point I mentioned, it was with regard to NorthernLights original post:
I believe the comparison is being made between someone who owns a system that has new models coming out, vs someone who has a system that doesn't seem to have replacements.
The key point here is whether the replacements are actually significantly better than the predecessor.
And that if a competing system without new replacements has a decent product or not.
Why should one feel insecure compared to another that has no replacements if he owns a superior product in the first place? He should be happy that the company is continually trying to advance the state of the art rather than to sit back on its laurels.
An owner of a system that has no replacements would feel even less secure if the component he owns is lacking and that there is no replacement coming out.(e.g Minolta) On another note, if the component he has is already very capable both on an absolute scale and also relative to a competing system, then he has nothing to worry.(e.g nikon)
Agree with Zerstorer and Wolfgang. It does not matter what new cameras come along, as long as you have spent enough time mastering the camera that you already have. If you can take good photos with it, then what does it matter if there are new models or not ?
There are many people who take excellent photos with mechanical cameras manufactured 20-30 years ago. So the thing that we can learn from these people is that it doesnt matter how many new cameras come out after the camera you own -- as long as you are completely comfortable with the one you have.
When a product is current. It is still being manufactured, parts are almost readily available.
When a product is discontinued. That means no more manufacturing. No more new parts churned out of the factory. Though the US law specificed that manufacturer must maintain availability of spare parts for at least 6 years after a product is discontinued. It can get pretty expensive as time passes by as inventory diminishes.
Hence, if I were to pay top dollar ($3000) for a product and it was discontinued 6 months later, I would have trouble getting replacement parts let say after 2 years as it would be deemed an obsolete product even though it is a good product and served me well and I wish to continue using it. It would be better off to get a newer product than to replace faulty components. :cry:
Unlike PC where we could salvage parts to be used in a new PC. DSLR body come and go as one.
BTW, aside from shutter openings/closing how many of us knows that DSLR cmos/ccd sensor has a relative limited lifespan depending on usage pattern? By allowing free to shoot away since no flim cost is involved, one would have also reach the 100,000th shutterclicks in a short time. :think: