>>3922552Probably.
But it's a moot point, none of these digital cameras are going to hang around like old film gear has. If you aren't using a system that's going to be supported for 5 y+, you're sitting on a timebomb of junk.
>>3922553>You buy things you enjoy, not things based off their financial viability1. No, many people, esp professionals, buy based off the financial impact, a system that retains value better is more affordable and cuts into your profit less.
2. How autistic do you have to be for a couple of buttons in different places being the difference between enjoying something and not. You sound like those retard kids that fight over Xbox.
>A $5'000 investment with zero resale value is nothingOh, you wouldn't mind if work paid you 5k less a year? We've seen you're autistic, but to hear you're retarded too is fantastic, I'm proud you can manage sentences, even if it is nonsense.
>>3922554>You didn't look up revenue\profitsRicoh don't release the revenue\profits on their imaging division, dumbass. You clearly didn't even try to look it up. If you had, you would have seen that when Hoya bought Pentax, their main goal was for the brand to start turning a profit within 2 years... Then after they failed, they sold to Ricoh. Lmao.
>You have a source?! Well I have an opinion!Oh dear.
>My subjective experience says this can't happenExplain pic related
That's a heck of a lot of dead electronics, making up nearly 10% of all listings in the digital camera category. Imagine how many more just end up in the bin.
no you can't "remap bad pixels", your camera can take a best guess, but nothing is being remapped.
>You don't know about processors, look, I can Google nowAwww bless, no citation though.
>gforces on the space shuttleWhat on earth does that have to do with tin whiskers?u didn't read anything did you.
>But EF works on RFLmao, EF works even better on FE.
>Yes mirrorless sensors degradeLol, that was a very fast turnaround.
