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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Then why would you even read a thread about the subject? ;-)
I read all of your messages when I see them, especially when they involve digital photography. I often find them amusing. I've bought at least a dozen cameras over the years that I found out later I didn't really like and was able to sell then with no loss. You've bought at least a dozen cameras and didn't like any of them? And you've never taken a loss on the resale of even one? That's remarkable. When you figure gain or loss do you take inflation or the time value of money into account? To sell a $500 camera at no loss say ten years after the purchase would require that it appreciate to roughly $800 - $1000 in value. Not many cameras do that. But if all 12 of yours have then I congratulate you, you're a very astute buyer of camera equipment. But what's more intriguing is the question of why you have such apparent difficulty figuring out in advance of a camera purchase whether you'll like it or not. I mean buying at least 12 cameras only to discover after the purchase that you disliked all of them is a bit unusual, wouldn't you say? Right now that isn't going to happen with a digicam. Just a fact, sorry if you don't like it. I haven't said anything about my likes or dislikes of resale values. What I've said is that I don't worry about resale values of cameras because I buy them to use, not to sell. But then if I had a history of buying at least a dozen cameras and then finding out that I didn't like any of them I'd certainly share your concern. In fact if I didn't have a better grasp than that on what cameras would be suitable for my needs I might think about finding another interest. "Stacey" wrote in message ... BEllis60 wrote: Of course they don't. If they did, all these people wouldn't be buying digicams, that's kinda the point don'tcha think? Actually the point is that most people buy photography equipment to use it. They don't share your obsession with what it can be sold for five, ten, or twenty years down the road. Then why would you even read a thread about the subject? ;-) It's not an "obcession", it's just nice to be able to sell something I don't use as much as I used to or thought I would and be able to buy something I will use with the money. Like my 6X9 baby graphic. It looked like an interesting camera but proved to be too much of a hassle for the quality, so I sold it and used the money to buy something I would use, a couple of lenses for my 4X5. It is about -using- gear and not being forced to continue to use -something- that is substandard because it's also now worthless to anyone else. I've bought at least a dozen cameras over the years that I found out later I didn't really like and was able to sell then with no loss. Right now that isn't going to happen with a digicam. Just a fact, sorry if you don't like it. -- Stacey |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Neil Gould wrote: I don't think there is *anyone* in this group that will claim that there is a digital camera capable of achieving 4x5 image quality. ;-) No, but they will claim there is no reason to use it unless you're making billboard sized prints. Otherwise digital is "good enough".... 95% of "photographers" think 35mm with either consumer color print film or ISO 400 or higher film is "good enough", and the dSLRs are clearly better than that cr@p. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 8 Mar 2004 19:55:05 -0600, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: in short, depreciation is the major cost for most DSLR/digicam buyers, and often more than off-sets the savings from film/developing at typical amateur usage volumes (i.e., under 100 rolls/yr)... This might have been appropriate in rec.photo.digital. You want me to start posting this same crap to every post -you- bring up digital photography here? That would be almost every post you make! Just because he makes some sense and points out that the "savings" with digital isn't reality, you start this BS. -- Stacey |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Good point. In the past, rapid tax depreciation for photographers has meant something like 5 or 7 years, given most of the pro gear was retaining its value and not obsoleted by newer MF designs on a ten year or longer time frame (cf. Bronica ETR series from 1970s, Hasselblad 50x series from 1957 compatibility of lenses/backs/etc., and so on). Moreover, in the past, pros could buy from cherished overseas contacts or on deductible trips to far east, return to USA, use gear for 2-5 years, then resell to amateur shooters for about what they paid in dollars. So actual gear costs for pros were quite modest. This continues to be the case with many traditional kits, although prices for orphaned or older items (hassy C lenses) have declined in the last few years (a buying opportunity? ;-) If you buy used, most of the depreciation is already taken into account, so you have even less depreciation with used gear. The problem with digital is that each new generation does offer significant improvements for pro and advanced users, not just more megapixels but other features and conveniences. And each generation is only 18 months or so. The result has been a much more rapid depreciation cycle, unlike previous new MF pro camera gear. A $25k back of a few years ago may now be $5k, a $5k DSLR around $1k. My point is that the major cost of high end digital ownership _IS_ DEPRECIATION. If today's $1k DSLR is as good or better than your three year old $5k DSLR, you have lost significant sums to faster depreciation. It is easy to calculate the cost of film and developing for various classes of users (avg household, 4 rolls/yr; active photographer, roll(s) per month; shutterbug subscriber (1/3rd pros), 4 rolls per week, less than one roll per business day etc.). For most of these folks, depreciation on a DSLR when they sell to buy the latest and better DSLR is a real loss and cost which often exceeds the cost of traditional film/developing at amateur usage volumes over the same 1-2 year or longer time frames. This will change, as DSLRs become equal to film cameras in cost (still a big difference, eg, $300 canon film vs $1k DSLRs) and the DSLRs are retained for the same user timespans (currently over 10 years for film cameras, which implies a mature DSLR market, which seems a long way away). Most of us build up an investment in lenses and related gear over time that is very substantial. If that investment is tied to a system that is obsolete in 2 years, and economically unrepairable in 3 or 4 years as with some of my digicams, then it isn't convincing to argue that depreciation should be ignored, or that limited lifespan shouldn't be a factor in consumer and pro user evaluation of cameras as picture taking tools. I have bought a number of digital cameras, each a generation or two behind the latest, and I have yet to pay more than the sales tax on the original purchase price. For the sellers, that's gotta hurt, and is a 90%+ loss. Saying it isn't important is hardly going to convince those sellers either. Moreover, I think that getting buyers with a digicam to buy another new DSLR or digicam or videocam is going to be increasingly difficult, largely due to this rapid depreciation. This is worse than most computer depreciations, which at least often involve computers at work more than home based units ;-) in short, depreciation is the major cost for most DSLR/digicam buyers, and often more than off-sets the savings from film/developing at typical amateur usage volumes (i.e., under 100 rolls/yr)... regards bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
On 8 Mar 2004 19:55:05 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote: in short, depreciation is the major cost for most DSLR/digicam buyers, and often more than off-sets the savings from film/developing at typical amateur usage volumes (i.e., under 100 rolls/yr)... This might have been appropriate in rec.photo.digital. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On 8 Mar 2004 19:55:05 -0600, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: in short, depreciation is the major cost for most DSLR/digicam buyers, and often more than off-sets the savings from film/developing at typical amateur usage volumes (i.e., under 100 rolls/yr)... This might have been appropriate in rec.photo.digital. It might be *useful* in rec.photo.digital. However, that group is so chock full of blithering idiots that I unsubscribed and won't go back, so I'm glad that BobM posts such thoughts here. Neil |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Digital cameras hold value?
Just because he makes some sense and points out that the "savings" with
digital isn't reality, you start this BS. He didn't say that the "savings" with digital isn't reality. He said that depreciation "often" more than offsets the savings. I don't know how he knows this, presumably he's commissioned a statistically accurate survey of digital camera owners and reaches this conclusion on the basis of the survey results. Otherwise he doesn't really have a clue, he's just casting a guess in the form of a definitive statement, in which case he doesn't really even make much sense. But regardless of the validity of the statement, he didn't point out "that the savings with digital isn't (sic) reality." The fact of the matter is that neither film nor digital is inherently more or less costly. The cost of either depends on a large number of variables. "Stacey" wrote in message ... Raphael Bustin wrote: On 8 Mar 2004 19:55:05 -0600, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: in short, depreciation is the major cost for most DSLR/digicam buyers, and often more than off-sets the savings from film/developing at typical amateur usage volumes (i.e., under 100 rolls/yr)... This might have been appropriate in rec.photo.digital. You want me to start posting this same crap to every post -you- bring up digital photography here? That would be almost every post you make! Just because he makes some sense and points out that the "savings" with digital isn't reality, you start this BS. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | Digital Photography | 17 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |