Digital cameras hold value?

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

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:18:11 GMT, Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

As it stands right now there seem to be exactly
two brands to choose from, Kodak and Fuji. This
does not inspire hope and confidence for the future
of this medium.

Then again your exeprience is admittedly shorter
in history, Kodak and Fuji have been "the" suppliers
of 4x5 color materials for sometime. It was Agfa's choice
not to compete.


Would you be happy if your only choice of
car was Ford or Chevy?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:19:08 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Raphael Bustin writes:

Comparing 4x5 to current "prosumer" digital isn't quite
fair now, is it?

Why not? Film can be bought in 4x5 sheets. It's not the fault of film
technology that electronic sensors cannot be made in 4x5 sizes.

One of the fundamental advantges of film _is_ that it can be made so
large, and this advantage can't be ignored.


You can be intensely daft, Mr. Maniac.

Why not? For the same reason we don't
compare jumbo jets to Cessnas, Ferraris
to Ford Escorts, or caviar to snickers bars.

For every view camera sold there are
probably tens of thousands of digicams sold.

View cameras make no sense whatsoever
for typical users of cameras. They are bulky,
unwieldy, heavy, slow, expensive, and difficult
to operate. In short, they serve a tiny niche
market that has almost nothing in common
with what most people need or want from
photography.

And with that, amigo, you're back to the killfile.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Oh I didn't question that it was worth nothing, I just said part of the
reason was the fact that it wasn't a functioning camera. And who knows,
thirty or forty or a hundred years from now it might be worth a lot. Plenty
of things, especially those of historical interest, fluctuate in value, what
is disdained today is often highly prized tomorrow. Just look at the price
of classic photographs as one example of many that could be given. Edward
Weston had trouble selling his prints for $20 each in the thirties and
forties, today an original signed Weston can sell for hundreds of thousands
of dollars. But if we were back in the thirties or forties Stacey would tell
us Weston's difficulties prove that 8x10 contact prints don't hold their
value. : - )

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
BCampbell wrote:

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.



He -didn't- say that, but even giving you that point this still proves it
isn't -worth anything-. If it was worth something, it would be worth
getting fixed correct?

--

Stacey

Raphael Bustin wrote:


But Stacey's oft-repeated complaint is irrelevant to
those of us who actually use cameras as tools

Can't post without tossing insults can you?

Here's an example -maybe- you can comprehend. I figiured out I almost never
use 35mm anymore because medformat is "better". So I sold some of my 35mm
gear for what I paid for it because people still know it's useful and was
able to buy some more medformat stuff with that money. When a "better"
digital camera comes out, the old one is worthless. It's a money pit at
this point, just ask people who jumped in early on how many times they've
replaced their cameras at a major loss every step already.


And yes I actually use my cameras as tools too Rafe.
--

Stacey

Neil Gould wrote:

However, one doesn't have to make that big a leap in
time to see significant improvements in film camera technology. Every
decade has seen new and better film cameras come to the market.

And better film you can toss in the old cameras to improve them as well.



Speaking for myself, an $8000 collector's-edition
Leica (for example) holds zero appeal.

Same here. But, given the choice between my Leica R and a dSLR, I'll stick
with the Leica, thank you. That said, I shoot with both the Sony and Fuji
digitals, and find them to be quite useful and handy for some kinds of
photography.

I use digital for several types of stuff as well. They are fun to shoot with
and handy for e-mailing customers pictures of their projects etc. I'm sure
when digital levels out and gear a couple of years old performs as well as
the "newest", I'll be interested.

--

Stacey

Recently, BCampbell posted:

Oh I didn't question that it was worth nothing, I just said part of
the reason was the fact that it wasn't a functioning camera. And who
knows, thirty or forty or a hundred years from now it might be worth
a lot.

Is this really meant as a rebuttal of Stacey's question about holding
value? If so, I see a few problems with that idea.

* There is no way to predict what might become "collectible" in the
future. It's equally possible that Cocoa Puff boxes will be as valuable a
hundred years from now.

* Potential collectible value is likely not a factor of the functional
usefulness of this camera.

* The devaluation from $5k to $29 *is* a reflection of the functional
usefulness of this camera.

* That same trend of devaluation can be seen with just about every digital
camera, but not with every film camera, which I think is Stacey's point.

Neil

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Stacey" wrote:

Here's an example -maybe- you can comprehend. I figiured out I almost
never
use 35mm anymore because medformat is "better". So I sold some of my 35mm
gear for what I paid for it

But you didn't recoup the money you spent on film: your actual cost of
using the camera was a lot more than just the cost of the camera. Film
cameras have a minimum per-frame cost that you can't get away from.

It's really not that much if you don't print every frame. Also keeps the
"shoot everything that moves without thinking" mentality at bay. :-)

If you
don't shoot a lot, it's nice that your fixed costs are low. But if you use
your cameras heavily, the running costs become significant.

But this also allows the camera to be "upgraded" as film gets better. Pretty
cheap in that regard.



So your claim here is incorrect economics.

You assume that everyone shoots a ton of film. I'm "lucky" to shoot a roll
or 2 of 120 on a full day of shooting.


It's a money pit at
this point, just ask people who jumped in early on how many times they've
replaced their cameras at a major loss every step already.

I went through 3 generations of consumer digital before I went MF, had
lots of fun, relearned a lot of photography I had forgotten over the
previous 15 years. Every penny was well spent. And the total costs for all
that digital were a lot less than the costs for MF.

Depends on what MF you get into. And when you get tired of this MF camera,
you can recoup most of the investment.
--

Stacey

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:42:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


* That same trend of devaluation can be seen with just about every digital
camera, but not with every film camera, which I think is Stacey's point.


It is true of cutting edge digital gear, across the board --
whether it be CPUs, motherboards, memory, scanners,
printers, CRTs, digicams, or what-have-you.

And that's because it keeps getting better all the time --
while also getting cheaper. The same cannont be said
for film cameras, to any comparable degree.

But Stacey's oft-repeated complaint is irrelevant to
those of us who actually use cameras as tools, or to
produce income -- as opposed to being collectors
of objects, and expecting monetary appreciation of
said objects, irregardless of their usefulness.

Speaking for myself, an $8000 collector's-edition
Leica (for example) holds zero appeal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:42:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

* That same trend of devaluation can be seen with just about every
digital camera, but not with every film camera, which I think is
Stacey's point.

It is true of cutting edge digital gear, across the board --
whether it be CPUs, motherboards, memory, scanners,
printers, CRTs, digicams, or what-have-you.

Certainly. And, like those other items, there will come a time when their
cost is more in line with their value. Also, I don't see digital gear as
being "cutting edge", but that's another issue.

And that's because it keeps getting better all the time --
while also getting cheaper. The same cannont be said
for film cameras, to any comparable degree.

I disagree. While I certainly appreciate many things about my mid-50's
Rolleiflex TLR, my 6008i is a significantly better camera in every respect
*except* its bulk. However, one doesn't have to make that big a leap in
time to see significant improvements in film camera technology. Every
decade has seen new and better film cameras come to the market.

But Stacey's oft-repeated complaint is irrelevant to
those of us who actually use cameras as tools, or to
produce income -- as opposed to being collectors
of objects, and expecting monetary appreciation of
said objects, irregardless of their usefulness.

I have little knowledge of Stacey's "oft-repeated" complaints. I will say
that I agree that at this point in time digital cameras do not hold value.
It's a simple matter of being on the steep part of the adoption curve.

Speaking for myself, an $8000 collector's-edition
Leica (for example) holds zero appeal.

Same here. But, given the choice between my Leica R and a dSLR, I'll stick
with the Leica, thank you. That said, I shoot with both the Sony and Fuji
digitals, and find them to be quite useful and handy for some kinds of
photography. I'm also considering picking up an Olympus E-1, despite the
reviews that some have given it. The deciding factor will be whether or
not the 4/3 format takes off. But, the fact remains that for equal money
spent, film cameras deliver better quality, reliability and longer useful
life *today*.

Neil