I can't think of a camera made in the last 100 years that is obsolete unless its storage media is unavailable. Good, artistic images can come from any I camera I have ever touched(however, not necessarily taken by me). The added features are upgrades for equipment hobbyists who are primarily interested in equipment for equipment sake but that hobby may or might not have anything to do with imaging and art. I have yet to see a photo at ISO 102k for example that turned a dark scene into daylight that is worth hanging a wall, despite high ISO being the most sought after feature of the newer camera lust. It is not due to noise or other criteria that is of concern to most photographers, (although not to viewers). So, there will be ever increasing demand for features from the equipment hobby perspective but not from the photography point of view. I can't say my photos from 35 years ago are inferior as communications objects or better than those using my D800. In fact, they were licensed for a lot more income than I would expect today. Two photos alone, in 1983, earned $23,000 in royalties in 6 months. They were just snap shots technically, but were seen by far more people than anything I have done since. Millions of people bought the albums the photos were on. Many modern technologies, when applied to a craft or skill, end up developing into a separate and divergent hobby. When I first got into photography, the image was everything and few people cared to ask what tools were used. Now it is the first question because of the number of people with equipment hobby surely outnumbers those with the photography/imaging hobby. I see the same bifurcation of hobbies in every field where technology and commercial products are foundation of a hobby aspect, separate from the activity process.