> >> getting a DSLR. And that scanner will likely be obsolete in a year or > >> two when you do go digital, but your digital camera will be still > As to your scanner. Scanner technology is basically at a standstill > for a few years. Prices have come down a bit. But if you buy new now, Jim, Your above two statements do not support each other. I quoted first two lines from earlier mail and later two lines from recent mail. You suggest that the scanner technology has not changed but still, if one buys a good quality scanner today, it will be obsolete in one year. On that other hand, digital SLR technology is changing every minute still your dSLR will not be obsolete even in three years. (whereas the proof is that there have been more model changes in dSLR than in scanners). I am not arguing with your core reasonining that, at the moment, buying dSLR makes better sense than scanner (if one has money to spend, or if one is an expert Ebayer to sell old models without much loss). But I am arguing against your arguments to support your reasoning. If money is no problem to keep old dSLR model AND buy a new model, your reasoning makes sense. Otherwise, one can wait a little longer for dSLRs technology to mature to a point that prices drop on models showing quality comparable to film. Today, with 10D, we are not even talking full frame! It matters to me, probably because it has more disadvantage when one is shooting architecture or landscape than when one is shooting birds. >As to HP, I'd never buy anything they make :-) Jim, what's wrong with HP? that it has a woman CEO?? :-) -achal
