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

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

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 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

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

I understand that he was selling it for its historical interest. But if the
thing was working don't you think he would have said that instead of saying
to buy it to display it? A working old Leica (or anything else) is worth
more than a dead old Leica (or anything else) even though both may otherwise
be identical and have the same historical interest. It doesn't take a genius
to read the ad and see that he's got a dead camera on his hands that he's
trying to get rid of by playing up its interest as a display item having
supposed historical interest.

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
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

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

"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?

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.

Ah, the old debating technique of advancing a new position when the original
one has been proven wrong. We weren't talking about getting it fixed, your
claim was that the seller didn't say the camera wasn't functional.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
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

"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