I agree. My digital maxim has been that I will buy new for a
revolutionary change, but not for an evolutionary change. For the
latter, I'll buy used, or just wait it out. And even for the
revolutionary change, I'll wait a few months while the Internet
beta-tests it for me.
But I'm beginning to think that I should buy new 'for the model *after*
the revolutionary change. I bought the E-M5, maybe I should have waited
for the E-M1. I bought the Leica M8, maybe I should have waited for the
M9. I bought the E-1, maybe I should have waited for the.... ???
The problem is that then I'd lose out on a year or two's pictures that
relied on having the features of Revolutionary Model 1. Maybe the above
is just life in the brave new world where expensive cameras are
disposable commodities. It just ticks me off when the Revolutionary
model has a flaw that is not well-known in the first few months of it
being out there, and that flaw noticeably impacts my photography.
--Peter
Ken Norton wrote:
> 2. A camera body should be viable for four years, at which point, the
> upgrade is worthy, you've avoided the incremental changes, and you get
> a similar design camera because the manufacturers are on a four-year
> product adventure where they can't figure out what they want to
> produce so they cycle through several designs and it takes four years
> to get back to what you like again.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|