Originally posted by Freed
Not really... good or not good can be relative. Something can be good... until something better comes along.
Of course, if it is still able to serve you well, it 's still good.
But with digital, there's always the threat of being obsolete.
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)
