If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:26:19 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: You've just proven why *MOST* photographers fail in their business. They might be great photographers but know very little about business and the economics behind it. All of the successful photographers (making real money) strictly adhere to the 18-month rule. I very, very seriously doubt that. Can you provide any sort of proof? Neil No, she can't. I was, I can only assume, late to the party; Rita's a troll. -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! John Edwards' campaign records showed Monday that he paid eight hundred dollars for two haircuts in Beverly Hills. There's no shame in what he did. John Edwards represents the downtrodden and the powerless in America, and they deserve the very best. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: Right! Using to the proper tool to get the job done is key to one's success. Sure, you can dig the ground with a tablespoon to make room for a foundation, but a backhoe is more efficient, quicker, and more economical. The same photographer, as you put it, can use an old 1 MP P&S instead of a dSLR. Keep going! You seem to have missed the point of what Bill said. In racing much depends on the machine, and competitors are constantly striving to get the nth degree of performance out of the machine. In photography that simply isn't true. Yes, the technology continues to advance, but there's no need to have hardware that's a fraction of a percent faster or otherwise better than the competitor's hardware. That's the difference. No point missed, even if Bill were trying to make one. It certainly is true in photography. You do realize that Canon has superior high ISO performance over Nikon? The new Canon Mk III's ISO performance is enough to lower the D2x's value to zilch. Oh, and now all those photographs made with the D2X aren't so good anymore? I don't see how any photograph, which is after all what the pro photographer is selling (he isn't selling his camera model), becomes less valuable because there's a newer camera model out with marginally better specs. What relevance does "an old 1 MP P&S" have to any of this? The more relevant issue would be whether it's worth it to any photographer to trade his D2X for a new D2Xs simply because he's owned the former for 18 months. Same as any other tool that is used to get the job done. Most kinds of tools remain useful for many years, including cameras. In the '50s and '60s I believe professional photographers kept the same Rolleis and Leicas for a decade or so. I knew a pro where I worked (he did various kinds of photography for the hospital, and had his own business as well). In all the years I knew him he changed cameras exactly twice -- first when he went from a 4 x 5 to a Hasselblad, and again when he went from that to a 35mm Pentax. Another pro that I knew very well managed, and did all the photography in, a local studio. He got into 35s for his own use as a hobby, but in the studio the only change he ever made (in the decade or so I knew him) was from a large-format camera to a 70mm camera. As far as I know they were still using that 70mm after he retired. With digital obviously it was very different in the early years because the technology was changing so fast. After all, it's only eight years ago that Nikon introduced their first pro digital camera, and that was less than 3 megapixels. So in the early years of digital there were reasons to upgrade hardware pretty often. But now? What reason is there to change cameras often, other than blind devotion to some invented "18 month rule"? You've just proven why *MOST* photographers fail in their business. They might be great photographers but know very little about business and the economics behind it. All of the successful photographers (making real money) strictly adhere to the 18-month rule. I very, very seriously doubt that. Can you provide any sort of proof? Can you tell me and prove how many carpenters and bricklayers went belly up in 2006? No, but however many did, I doubt it was because they didn't have the latest hammer or trowel. Neil |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:09:37 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote: Bill Funk wrote: You've just proven why *MOST* photographers fail in their business. They might be great photographers but know very little about business and the economics behind it. All of the successful photographers (making real money) strictly adhere to the 18-month rule. I very, very seriously doubt that. Can you provide any sort of proof? Neil No, she can't. I was, I can only assume, late to the party; Rita's a troll. LOL! So, everyone that proves you wrong is a troll? That's comforting to know. So far, yu've proven nothing. And everyone sees it. If you *could* prove that professional photographers operate on an 18 month buying cycle, you'd have done it. But, you haven't. -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! John Edwards' campaign records showed Monday that he paid eight hundred dollars for two haircuts in Beverly Hills. There's no shame in what he did. John Edwards represents the downtrodden and the powerless in America, and they deserve the very best. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
BTW, I did finally get in touch with my friend who works at United
Technologies, and while she doesn't know about any "24 month rule" she does confirm that they're getting new computers all the time. Neil |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: BTW, I did finally get in touch with my friend who works at United Technologies, and while she doesn't know about any "24 month rule" she does confirm that they're getting new computers all the time. Have her dig deeper and you'll get your confirmation of the 24-month rule. Think about it, most business applications can run exceptionally well on a Pentium III or lesser machine. There is a reason for the constant upgrades and most of it isn't for a "better or faster" machine. One reason just might be that the latest software demands state of the art machines. That hardly applies to cameras. DP |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: BTW, I did finally get in touch with my friend who works at United Technologies, and while she doesn't know about any "24 month rule" she does confirm that they're getting new computers all the time. Have her dig deeper and you'll get your confirmation of the 24-month rule. Think about it, most business applications can run exceptionally well on a Pentium III or lesser machine. There is a reason for the constant upgrades and most of it isn't for a "better or faster" machine. BTW I just checked that waterlogged D2x and it's up to $960. http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472 Amazing. Neil |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
Neil Harrington schrieb:
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: BTW, I did finally get in touch with my friend who works at United Technologies, and while she doesn't know about any "24 month rule" she does confirm that they're getting new computers all the time. Have her dig deeper and you'll get your confirmation of the 24-month rule. Think about it, most business applications can run exceptionally well on a Pentium III or lesser machine. There is a reason for the constant upgrades and most of it isn't for a "better or faster" machine. BTW I just checked that waterlogged D2x and it's up to $960. http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472 Amazing. IMHO this can only mean that someone didn't read the description and will be VERY surprised. Lots of Greetings! Volker |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington schrieb: "Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: BTW, I did finally get in touch with my friend who works at United Technologies, and while she doesn't know about any "24 month rule" she does confirm that they're getting new computers all the time. Have her dig deeper and you'll get your confirmation of the 24-month rule. Think about it, most business applications can run exceptionally well on a Pentium III or lesser machine. There is a reason for the constant upgrades and most of it isn't for a "better or faster" machine. BTW I just checked that waterlogged D2x and it's up to $960. http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472 Amazing. IMHO this can only mean that someone didn't read the description and will be VERY surprised. Lots of Greetings! Volker ___________________ That's what I would think too, but it's hard to imagine more than one person bidding something up to this price level without fully understanding what they're bidding on. Oh well, I suppose stranger things have happened. Neil |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: That's what I would think too, but it's hard to imagine more than one person bidding something up to this price level without fully understanding what they're bidding on. Oh well, I suppose stranger things have happened. Some people know the true value of an item while others don't. One's negativity and shortsightedness is usually what hold a person back from being successful. Isn't that exactly what the last fellow said who sold the Brooklyn Bridge to somebody? ("Don't be negative or shortsighted! Think how much money you'll make on the tolls!") Neil |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
Rita ? Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the 18-month rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR investment and have a piece of magnesium that you'd be lucky to get $75 for. By using your $5,000 tool and selling it off at the proper intervals and buying into the next model you are economically and technically way ahead. [...] I held onto my Canon FD lenses way too long and my investment of several thousand dollars was converted into several hundred last year. I knew the value was dropping but I refused to sell them because I liked them. On the other hand, my old Nikkors have increased in value. I now keep a keen eye on the market and sell off what will cost me money to keep or some of the classics that will net me several times more than what I paid for them. That's great! However, I have a day job which often runs 10 hours a day. Photography is one of my recreations. If I have to watch the market like a hawk, deal with selling cameras and lenses on a timely basis, I might just as well go into business doing that and give up my day job. I evaluate my purchases on the basis that the camera body will last somewhat over five years and the lenses fifteen. That is, their worth will be almost zero after that time. If I can't afford them on that basis, I don't buy them. Of course the value isn't zero after those times. Bodies can be used as backup bodies on trips. And lenses (such as Canon L glass) *might* be still valuable after that time. But technology marches forward so fast that in 15 years the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS might have both built in global positioning and a refrigerator for beer, be radar stablized, and automagically focus on what I am thinking about, and weigh 7 ounces. And my old glass will be totally worthless. -- --- Paul J. Gans |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D40X ? | louise | Digital SLR Cameras | 25 | April 12th 07 04:01 AM |
Nikon D40X? | louise | Digital Photography | 22 | April 5th 07 11:29 AM |
Nikon Announces D40x | C J Campbell | Digital SLR Cameras | 33 | March 10th 07 05:44 AM |
New Nikon D40x and a new lens | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 56 | March 9th 07 10:52 AM |