Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2007/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re: effective life of digital cameras
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Fri Jan 12 08:25:51 2007
References: <200701111333.l0BDUUW5029716@server1.waverley.reid.org> <724FDD310638E147AD8E509D15FFB73183F47F@exchange.microassist.local> <3cad89990701110933ha6362dfkcd2c3db8ba8b61c@mail.gmail.com> <F0F12715-84E4-43C4-8F7F-5D7EA351C8BE@mac.com> <45A6C57A.9030602@gmx.de>
No doubt that some new feature or another may cause one to replace a
digital camera. The same was true of film cameras and lenses. Each
one of us has considered and at times decided to replace a lens or
body or prism with improved versions. However, this speaks to issues
separate from the claim that digital cameras have a life of 3 years. ;~)
Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com
On Jan 11, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Douglas Sharp wrote:
> - the only thing that could make me upgrade to the successor of
> the 5D (whatever it may be called when it comes out) is anti-shake
> and automatic sensor cleaning
In reply to:
Message from snasta at microassist.net (Sanjay Nasta) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 549)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 549)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 549)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 33, Issue 549)