Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >Why? Both are used to take pictures. > > >On Jan 11, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Doug Herr wrote: > >> Nathan Wajsman wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm >>> >>> Since 1993 (i.e. 20 years ago), the CPI in the US has risen about 60%. >>> >>> So a $7000 Leica M10 would have cost about $4300 in 1993-dollars. I >>> don't think the Leica M6 was anywhere near that. >>> >> >> Price comparisons of film and digital cameras fail: apples, oranges. > A digital camera includes the recording medium and the equivalent of basic image processing. A film camera does not. The operating cost for a film camera can vary widely depending on the type of medium and use patterns but in all cases is a continuing expense unless the camera sits on a shelf. The operating cost of a digital camera and its basic processing is negligible no matter how much or how little it's used. It output is qualitatively not the same as the film camera's output. The comparison is valid when these variables can be eliminated: if the cameras are not used the operating expense differences and the output differences go away. But what's the point of that? Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com