A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital cameras hold value?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old March 7th 04, 11:03 PM
BEllis60
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 7th 04, 11:23 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #94  
Old March 9th 04, 02:55 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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*************************
  #97  
Old March 9th 04, 02:19 PM
Vladamir30
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.