Digital cameras hold value?

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

On 5 Mar 2004 16:19:50 -0600, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Hi rafe,

fortunately for me, the slide projectors are so out of favor that I got
one MF projector (with leitz optics) for $30 in original box (camera store
folded) and another garage sale leitz pradovit model for 35mm for even
less. So depreciation isn't much of an issue with slide projectors at
today's prices. Bulbs continue to be available, thanks to so many users of
such technology, even in the latest DLP projectors ;-) I also have a lot
of unmounted slides that I can simply put the sheets up on a white light
table and view too.

I still disagree about the cost of accessories for photography vs.
consumer computing. Lots of folks have modest cost machines for word
processing and internet access (e.g., $299 and up). When you start to do
high end photowork, you need lots more memory and horsepower. I am doing
some digital movies, and the G5 mac loaded up costs ten times more than my
mini-DV digital camera. My home machines cost (used) less than sales tax
on the G5 alone ;-) Similarly, I see folks noting they have $600 in memory
cards and so on to store all their quick-pick images, which they then have
to sort thru later ;-) I'm starting to build up a set of DV tapes and
DVDs and manuals and ... well, you know the drill ;-) it all adds up in $$
and time spent mastering this stuff.


How high end do you need? I don't have a G5.
I work on a pieced-together PC with a gig of SDRAM.
Memory prices are inching up, but that gig of SDRAM
is still under $200, and for that matter a motherboard
plus 1.6G Athlon can be had for $99.

For typical digicams, memory requirements are
minimal -- a 10D image is 18 Mbytes as a TIFF, or
a bit over 6 MBytes in RAW format. Small change G.


I agree with you that emailing photos is going to be really BIG, more than
now. But that's going to be done with cellphone cameras up to 4MP or so,
yes? If you take away this mass market base, what is left for digital
camera sales is the higher end range, where costs are higher (lower yields
of key larger sensors and lower sales volumes, higher promotion costs
etc.) It may be that what digital photography transitions into will
surprise those who have been thinking in terms of 35mm still photo models.
High end digital may end up a lot more of a niche market, and more like MF
than 35mm (e.g., less than 1% upgrading).


IMO, 2002-2003 were watershed years in that
semi-affordable digicams arrived that could,
for most applications, rival the quality of 35 mm.

Oh, I know that sentiment isn't universally shared,
but the enormous popularity of the 10D, D100,
Digital Rebel, etc. can't be denied.

I do believe the digicam market is maturing and
will eventually saturate, precisely in the same
way that the 35 mm SLR market has.

I don't expect that cameras in the 1Ds class will
ever be cheap. OTOH, not many folks need
or appreciate the incremental improvement
of the 1Ds over the 10D.

Speaking for myself I can "appreciate" the
difference but am by no means ready to pay
for it. When I feel I "need" that level of quality,
I get more bang for the buck with my MF and
LF gear, and forego the convenience of digital
capture.


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

Raphael Bustin wrote:


I doubt the "typical consumer" thinks in terms of
depreciation when buying a camera.

Of course they don't. If they did, all these people wouldn't be buying
digicams, that's kinda the point don'tcha think?
--

Stacey

In article ,
Stacey wrote:

Raphael Bustin wrote:


I doubt the "typical consumer" thinks in terms of
depreciation when buying a camera.

Of course they don't. If they did, all these people wouldn't be buying
digicams, that's kinda the point don'tcha think?

The Federal government allows up to something like a $100,000 in deductions right
now the first year after purchase on tangible items. You don't get all the money back
of course but there is no depreciation schedule for business based camera's
beyond about 40% of the total cost regardless of what you buy after the first year.
This is Federal and state combined then you pay property taxes on it.

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.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Raphael Bustin wrote:


I doubt the "typical consumer" thinks in terms of
depreciation when buying a camera.

Of course they don't. If they did, all these people wouldn't be buying
digicams, that's kinda the point don'tcha think?
--

Stacey

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

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:58:47 GMT, "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.


Stacey is a relentless seeker of facts, factoids,
rumors and half-truths to justify her loathing of
anything digital in the realm of photography.
Best to ignore her, the tune never changes,
and her mind is made up.


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

Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:

Stacey is a relentless seeker of facts, factoids,
rumors and half-truths to justify her loathing of
anything digital in the realm of photography.
Best to ignore her, the tune never changes,
and her mind is made up.

I'm sure Stacey will present her own rebuttal. However, just from this
thread, your statement seems to be incorrect, Rafe.

* Stacey claims to use digicams where appropriate:
"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. "

* Stacey prefers to shoot 4x5 when image quality is important:
" 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. "

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. ;-)

Neil

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"....

--

Stacey

BEllis60 wrote:


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.

Why is that? I'm not going to hang onto a camera that is hard to use or
doesn't produce the quality I want or expect. Most of this stuff doesn't
show up until you're in the field actually using it. I envisioned a baby
graphic being easier to use but in practice it proved to be about like
using a 4X5 with it's limitations.


I went through three 210mm lenses on my 4x5 till I found one that met my
needs, light weight with enough coverage and reliable. The others I didn't
keep for more than a few months to maybe a year so you continual "do you
take inflation or the time value of money into account?" doesn't matter.

I'm not saying I'm making money off this. It's that I can afford to "trade"
for different stuff at no real loss. I don't have to even think about that
part of this (Or dump more money into this hobby), as the stuff I'm trading
for hasn't escalated with inflation either and mine hasn't depreciated.

--

Stacey