There are a multitude of reviews and if you read enough of them you will
find wildly varying opinions.

Yes, but that is anecdotal.  He likes Leica and I like Canon.

The second-hand market value is a different issue.  I would buy a Toyota
automobile if resale was the only issue (or a Honda).  I buy American cars
because they are almost as good as German and Japanese cars and I can get a
better deal and better service.

Pay up front and pay less later ... works only some of the time.

But, my post was about the vagueness of the term "build quality."

Again, what does "build quality" actually mean?  Are you suggesting that
cost is the measure?  I have difficulty equating cost with quality.  It does
not always work out that way.  Bose products are a prime example
(overpriced).

Thanks for your reply ... I don't mean to be contentious.

I know ... that was a snide remark since there have been so many
anti-plastic posts here.

I'm admittedly old-fashioned about such matters, but I have a problem paying
big bucks for cheaply-built equipment that will not stand up to normal use.
One misstep and you can crack a lens barrel.

There sill come a point where DSLRs will have little in the way of room for
improvement, and what do we do then?  Are we expected to keep on replacing
everything every three years, "ad infinitum?"  It is one thing to be on an
upgrade curve while there are significant improvements to be had, but the
improvements in image quality are becoming more marginal as time goes on.
The same thing happened with VCRs--first they had low-fidelity sound, then
they went to near-CD sound quality.  They introduced HQ picture quality.
They introduced automatic clock setting.  They ended up developing the
product as much as they could, and if it were not for DVD-R development
would have come to a halt, and we'd all be buying VCRs at a price of $59.95
with all the latest features.

We saw a similar situation with film cameras.  Once the F6 was introduced,
what more was there that could have been added that would have motivated
photographers to pony up more money to upgrade to a newer model?

So DSLRs are the hot item these days.  I remember when computers were hot,
and when Bag phones were replaced by those Motorola analog handsets, and
later when those Motorola phones were replaced by digital models, and later
when digital voice phones were eclipsed by phones with Internet
connectivity, and now to where they even let you watch TV.  The improvements
taper off, the price drops, and then the electronics industry resumes the
hunt for the next hot product.

Only one problem with cameras being hot products: there comes a point where
consumers won't care about further improvements, because they will have
already been overwhelmed with what they currently have.  Advanced
photography is not a mass-appeal hobby, and it never was one.  Among
amateurs there were, broadly speaking, two types of user: the
Instamatic/Brownie/126/Disk Film consumer--who just wanted to snap a few
pictures of the July 4th picnic and Christmas presents every year.  Then
there were the more advanced amateurs, that spent some bucks in their quest
to produce better and perhaps more artistic images.  Today's consumer is
buying digital cameras (30 million of them last year alone) because in part
of the herd mentality.  Everybody else is getting one, just like everybody
else once bought Camcorders and, later, palmcorders.  And where are all
those users now?  We didn't see a new generation of filmmakers arise out of
all those videocam sales and I predict that we will not see a ton of new
artistic and innovative photographers arise out of these DSLR sales, either.
A lot of those DSLR buyers will still pull their toys off the shelf and USE
them only for July 4th picnics, school events and the Christmas holidays.

Not that there is anything wrong with those folks, but they already have
more functionality than they need with their present digital cameras.  I do
not expect them to be lined up at Best Buy every time the camera industry
releases a new and improved model.

Perhaps manufacturers will rely upon product failure to spur consumers to
replace their aging gear?  They sure won't be getting their cameras
REPAIRED.  And the replacement cost will probably be less than the cost of a
one-time repair of their existing equipment.  After all, the camera makers
have to keep those assembly lines in Vietnam moving at full speed, right?

And, apparently, have "Creamy bokeh."     Can anyone translate?

Blindly accepting horrible quality is an American trait.  The dollar is
EVERYTHING, quality counts for next to nothing.  The driver for this is
the genetic predisposition to have "instant gratification."  For e.g.,
while a European may save his money for a year and spend $2000 on a
mountain bike, Joe Sixpack American runs down to the local cut-rate
sports store and spends
$200-$300 because they just "haaaaavvvvee" to have the product RIGHT
NOW!  A nation that values quality that little is a great target for a
huge big box store that gets 90% of it's product from China...otherwise
know as Walmart.