Digital cameras hold value?

Recently, BEllis60 posted:

You and Stacey don't seem to understand that there is a fundamental
difference between stocks, bonds, and other similar investment
properties on the one hand, and photography equipment on the other.
Investment property has value only to the extent of its potential
selling price. Photography equipment has value completely apart from
its potential selling price and what it can be sold for has nothing
to do with why it's bought (except perhaps to a camera collector).

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I don't understand the
difference between investments for capital gain and photographic
equipment. I assure you... I understand that clearly, and even agree with
you that the value of photographic equipment is in its usefulness.
However, even by that criteria, digital cameras do not hold their value,
do they? ;-) So, w/r/t addressing the topic of the thread, you haven't
presented any convincing argument to the contrary.

The fact that you can sell today for $200 a film camera you
bought for $200 twenty years ago doesn't mean it's held it's value.

Once again, you have inadvertently contradicted yourself. There are films
available today that are much better than the films available twenty years
ago. Through their use, that 20 year-old camera has improved, and in that
sense, is now more valuable in its usefulness than it was originally. So,
by your own criteria, the camera has not only maintained its value, but
has become more valuable. ;-)

Neil

Recently, jjs posted:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Computers use microelectronic circuits, but they need only be on or
off. It's not that difficult to design extremely small circuits that
still manage to distinguish clearly between on and off. However,
designing circuits that can accurately produce analog signal levels
at very tiny sizes is considerably more challenging.

Incorrect. They 'detect' differences in voltage, and not zero voltage.

Well, that's a distinction without a difference. While it's true that
there are voltage threshold values for determining 0/1, it is not
incorrect to call 0 "off" and 1 "on". It's common jargon for discussing
logic circuitry.

Neil

In article k.net, "Neil
Gould" wrote:

Recently, jjs posted:

Incorrect. They 'detect' differences in voltage, and not zero voltage.

Well, that's a distinction without a difference. While it's true that
there are voltage threshold values for determining 0/1, it is not
incorrect to call 0 "off" and 1 "on". It's common jargon for discussing
logic circuitry.

1

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Hmm. It's an issue I've heard photographers* complaining about on photo.net,
so it's real issue. That I see that as gouging the client doesn't seem at
all unreasonable.

*: Well, at least one. And he was seriously bent out of shape that this
major source of income was gone with digital.

David its reasonable to charge for film and processing if one does not
overbill and is smart enough to realize that it can easily be checked into
by the client, likewise any post production work on digital files, prints etc.
I have one client that provides my film and processing as well as all thier
freelancers, I personally have no issues with them doing so.

If an individual photographer fails to realize a profit its their own fault and the fault
of those photographer's that give away time or require unreasonable time or added billing
to correct their own mistakes at the clients expense. It happens in all work fields not
just photo.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

the running costs become significant.

Unless your being paid.

Yes. Some photographers used to be able to overcharge their clients
for film and processing (or get a discount from the labs or both),
and can't gouge the cusomers like that any more.

This is a double-edged sword. Photographers are now printing "proofs" on
their inkjet printers without being able to recoup the cost of either
their time *or* the prints. Also, the expectation that working with
digital images is less expensive than working with film has lead to losses
due to the additional editing time required for images that are oversized
for their intended use. It takes less time to scan film or prints to the
final size than it does to resize a digital image without creating
artifacts, but this is so esoteric that some customers just will never
understand it, and therefore not pay for it.

Neil

jjs writes:

Incorrect. They 'detect' differences in voltage, and not zero voltage.

Same thing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MikeWhy wrote:



Multiple chip sensors make sense for video because of the fixed
resolution, standard viewing device. Without that constraint, a single
sensor can do just as well.

I don't buy that.


Not sure what you mean by sensor size and wide angle. Full frame 35mm
sensors have been around for a couple of years, a full generation. I'm
expecting this to come down to a consumer price point in a few years,
essentially killing off 35mm film, but leveraging the lens investment.

But we were talking about cameras that pay for themselves with film savings,
do any full frame sensor cameras come close to that?


In any case, I was referring to a certain level of usefulness that would
be of lasting value, making obsolescense less of a concern. For me, that's
image quality equal to 35mm printed 8x10. 6 MP dSLRs are there already.

In some peoples opinion and 35mm isn't good enough for me after shooting
hedformat :-)


And yes to your question earlier, I'm comparing to scanned film on inkjet.
My inkjet prints better than Costco's Fuji, both color and especially B&W.
I have yet to compare to a "real" pro lab.

Try that, it will change your mind. I print everything at home in my
darkroom and the prints are much better than digitized film IMHO especially
B&W.



Sure it does, it's not there yet. And again you assume film is going to
stand still. My guess in a few years we'll see 800asa film that looks
like todays 100.

Do you think? TMX is a good twenty years old, and I understand that they
shut down emulsion and chemistry research in Rochester some years ago.
That could have been B&W only...

And if kodak does give up on film (the only thing they are making any money
on right now) they will soon be out of business. Fuji is making advances in
film regularly and kodak has been comming out with new color films
regularly as well. The B&W films -are- mature, doubt they will change much.



Is a three stop advantage enough to make the difference for handholdable?
I'm thinking in particular of one handheld that could have been great, but
was shot at f/5.6 for 1/30. It really needed to be f/16 for 1/125; a five
stop difference, or 3200asa. I keep a small version of the blurry scan as
a reminder that there's little point without the tripod.

But shot at f8 1/125 it would have been sharp.


That was never possible at any point in the past.

Sure it was. By the 1950's a good med format camera with "modern" film at
the time was as good as a large format camera was 10-15 years earlier.

OK. But it never could have compared to, let alone surpassed, its
contemporary in the larger format. Emulsion technology is transferable to
the older format, as you pointed out.


But it makes it "good enough" where earlier the smaller format wasn't.
Same could be said for digital. If they come out with a better 35mm sized
sensor, the same technology can be used on a medformat back etc.

--

Stacey

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. Some photographers used to be able to overcharge their clients for
film and processing (or get a discount from the labs or both), and can't
gouge the cusomers like that any more.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

That statement makes you sound like a Bozo.


Oh he's like those people who think a mechanic shouldn't mark up the parts
they buy at wholesale prices either. If someone else is making money it's
gouging or "overcharging". If he's doing it, it's "making a living"..
--

Stacey

BEllis60 wrote:

Through their use, that 20 year-old camera has improved . . .

I'm not sure where you find a contradiction. Improvements in film aren't
improvements in the cameras now, are they?

Well since the results will be better how can you think it isn't improved
from when it was new 20 years ago? I know the images I make today with a 50
year old folder are much better than it did when it was new. 10 years from
now you won't be able to find a machine running an OS that will recognise a
digicam sold today.

In fact it's the
improvements in film (not in the cameras) that helps old film cameras
maintain their value.

Exactly.

--

Stacey

However, even by that criteria, digital cameras do not hold their value,
do they? ;-) So, w/r/t addressing the topic of the thread, you haven't
presented any convincing argument to the contrary.

I haven't tried to present convincing arguments to the contrary. I said in
my previous message that I agreed digital cameras decline in value faster
than film cameras. I explained why that was so - because there haven't been
any meaningful improvement in film cameras for many years, a century or more
in the case of large format cameras, maybe twenty years in the case of 35mm
if you consider autofocus "meaningful."
So why buy a new one when you can buy a used one that will do the same thing
for half the price? That helps older film cameras maintain their value.
Digital cameras, on the other hand, are constantly improving so there are
good reasons for buying a new one, the old ones aren't as good and so the
old ones don't hold their value. That's the nature of new technologies. The
situation will, of course, change as the technology matures
Once again, you have inadvertently contradicted yourself. There are films
available today that are much better than the films available twenty years
ago. Through their use, that 20 year-old camera has improved . . .

I'm not sure where you find a contradiction. Improvements in film aren't
improvements in the cameras now, are they? No, the cameras stay the same
despite improvements in what we run through them. In fact it's the
improvements in film (not in the cameras) that helps old film cameras
maintain their value. Since an old camera can use the new film just as well
as a new camera (assuming the same film format of course), that helps old
cameras maintain their value. That's exactly what I was saying, thanks for
clarifying it.


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Recently, BEllis60 posted:

You and Stacey don't seem to understand that there is a fundamental
difference between stocks, bonds, and other similar investment
properties on the one hand, and photography equipment on the other.
Investment property has value only to the extent of its potential
selling price. Photography equipment has value completely apart from
its potential selling price and what it can be sold for has nothing
to do with why it's bought (except perhaps to a camera collector).

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I don't understand the
difference between investments for capital gain and photographic
equipment. I assure you... I understand that clearly, and even agree with
you that the value of photographic equipment is in its usefulness.
However, even by that criteria, digital cameras do not hold their value,
do they? ;-) So, w/r/t addressing the topic of the thread, you haven't
presented any convincing argument to the contrary.

The fact that you can sell today for $200 a film camera you
bought for $200 twenty years ago doesn't mean it's held it's value.

Once again, you have inadvertently contradicted yourself. There are films
available today that are much better than the films available twenty years
ago. Through their use, that 20 year-old camera has improved, and in that
sense, is now more valuable in its usefulness than it was originally. So,
by your own criteria, the camera has not only maintained its value, but
has become more valuable. ;-)

Neil