Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/08/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't follow Nikon closely enough to know the camera you're referring to. However, if one looks at the current used prices for the high end digital cameras, including medium format backs, they're all holding their own pretty well. The consumer stuff and prosumer stuff drops a lot faster than the more desirable professional bodies and backs. The exceptions are the first and second generation, low pixel count, pro cameras and pro backs - you can get them for postage. If the Nikon D1 falls into that category - it's understandable. A pro must compete in the pixel count to satisfy publishers and clients (even though those low pixel cameras delivered the best available at the time). Reality: In the pro cameras and backs above 10 megapixel the technology has matured to a point where image quality delivered is sufficiently high that a pro can deliver fine image files as long as the mechanics and electronics hold up. You can choose any combination of assets from: burst rate; high ISO; fine micro detail; dynamic range; 10 to 60 megapixel; $1,200 to $42,000. It will require a significant technological or manufacturing "breakthrough" to force used prices for high quality backs and cameras to ridiculously low levels. Another exception may be pro gear that has 100,000 + actuations. could be wrong about all this - but so far that's the way it looks from here Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Aug 26, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Frank Filippone wrote: > > If you dislike that comparison... Nikon D1.... sold new for $5K. I > bought a > used one for $250, last year. > > Worthless? No. Valueless? Almost.