PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Medium Format Photography Equipment (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Digital cameras hold value? (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=3198)

Stacey February 29th 04 10:24 PM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
Was $4995 new, now no one has bid at $29 with a hour to go...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=48 532
--

Stacey

BCampbell March 1st 04 02:51 PM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
Maybe the fact that it isn't a fucntioning camera has something to do with
that.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Was $4995 new, now no one has bid at $29 with a hour to go...


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=48 532
--

Stacey




Stacey March 1st 04 09:06 PM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
BCampbell wrote:

Maybe the fact that it isn't a fucntioning camera has something to do with
that.



Find ANY film camera that sold for $5000 new that wouldn't bring $29.

BTW he doesn't say it isn't functional...
--

Stacey

Stacey March 2nd 04 12:27 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
BCampbell wrote:

Stacey said:

BTW he doesn't say it isn't functional.

Read it again. The listing says as follows: "The lucky person who wins
this auction will have something worth putting on display in a trophy
case. . . . You are bidding on this for its historical signficiance rather
than as a digital camera."

Doesn't that tell you it isn't a working camera?



So a $5000 camera isn't worth getting fixed? I'm willing to bet a $5000 film
camera would be worth fixing no matter how old it was.

--

Stacey

Christopher Bush March 2nd 04 01:23 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Was $4995 new, now no one has bid at $29 with a hour to go...


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=48 532
--

Stacey




I love how it's called *VINTAGE* :)

--
Christopher Bush
http://www.christopherbush.com
(213) 925-2492



Stacey March 2nd 04 01:39 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
So a $5000 camera isn't worth getting fixed? I'm willing to bet a $5000

film
camera would be worth fixing no matter how old it was.


I think you're just being daft. The $5000 didn't pay for solid mechanicals
or optics. It paid for the pioneering R&D. My father bought one of the
first TI SR-50 calculators when I was in high school. Today, simple four
function calculators are trade show throw aways; nobody even wants them,
let alone are willing to pay for them. By way of further analogy, how much
would you pay today for an original brick car phone?



I'm being daft? Of course the $5000 wasn't buying solid mechaincals or
optics. You think the $1000+ digicam you buy today is any different? People
are raving about those digital rebels but in 6 months to a year will be a
"dinasour" that people will laugh about anyone trying to -seriously- use
one.
--

Stacey

Stacey March 2nd 04 03:55 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
I'm being daft? Of course the $5000 wasn't buying solid mechaincals or
optics. You think the $1000+ digicam you buy today is any different?

People
are raving about those digital rebels but in 6 months to a year will be a
"dinasour" that people will laugh about anyone trying to -seriously- use
one.


Or just stubborn. :-)

I get 8x10s cleaner than 35mm. That's a meaningful and lasting hallmark;
it won't be obsolete any time soon.


Time will tell. I've been listening to the "It's as good as 35mm" for years
and every new batch of cameras people keep claiming the same thing so
either the cameras aren't getting any better or someone is jumping the gun.

OTOH I hate watching something I pay $1000 for end up being worth $20 in a
few years. Most of my film cameras are worth more than I paid for them and
digicams sure don't seem to hold any value, hence the name of the thread?

BTW are your "cleaner than 35mm" digishots done vs scanned film?
--

Stacey

BCampbell March 2nd 04 04:46 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
Stacey said:

BTW he doesn't say it isn't functional.

Read it again. The listing says as follows: "The lucky person who wins this
auction will have something worth putting on display in a trophy case. . . .
You are bidding on this for its historical signficiance rather than as a
digital camera."

Doesn't that tell you it isn't a working camera?

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
BCampbell wrote:

Maybe the fact that it isn't a fucntioning camera has something to do

with
that.



Find ANY film camera that sold for $5000 new that wouldn't bring $29.

BTW he doesn't say it isn't functional...
--

Stacey




Nick Zentena March 2nd 04 04:51 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
BCampbell wrote:
Stacey said:

BTW he doesn't say it isn't functional.

Read it again. The listing says as follows: "The lucky person who wins this
auction will have something worth putting on display in a trophy case. . . .
You are bidding on this for its historical signficiance rather than as a
digital camera."

Doesn't that tell you it isn't a working camera?



No. He's trying to imply that the camera is worth something to a
collector. Sort of like buying an early PC. You might buy it because an Apple I
excites you. You'd pay for that not because it's the latest greatest computer.

Nick

MikeWhy March 2nd 04 06:10 AM

Digital cameras hold value?
 
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
So a $5000 camera isn't worth getting fixed? I'm willing to bet a $5000

film
camera would be worth fixing no matter how old it was.


I think you're just being daft. The $5000 didn't pay for solid mechanicals
or optics. It paid for the pioneering R&D. My father bought one of the first
TI SR-50 calculators when I was in high school. Today, simple four function
calculators are trade show throw aways; nobody even wants them, let alone
are willing to pay for them. By way of further analogy, how much would you
pay today for an original brick car phone?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com