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.

"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

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.

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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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