RE: [Leica] digitalrebel

["Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>]

Allen,

It does not even take 2 or 3 years, though this is true
only for the body (and perhaps some accessories).  The
upgrade cycle for the lenses are much longer.   In my case,
it helped a lot that I use the same lenses from my film SLR.
I offset the cost of the body within a year from the saving
in film and film processing.

In any case,  I think people (especially on this list) do 
not actually rush out and switch to a digital system.  It 
is more likely that they go thru quite a long period of 
deliberation, of watch and see.  In many cases, even after
they "go serious" with digital, they still retain a sizable
working kit in film equipment, keeping their feet on both sides
so to speak.  

The real cost is the cost of exit, and not the cost of entry.
The frightening, dizzying pace of depreciation allows
for little room for mistake.  If you choose wrong, you can't
expect to recuperate any substantial part of the cost of 
equipment, unlike Leica where you can plunk down $5K for a
body and 3 lenses, try it out and get 80% of it back in 6 months
if you don't like it.

- - Phong


Allen Graves wrote:
> 
> I understand the money-saving allure of digital(no film or 
> processing, just memory cards, ink, new printers,new computers and 
> software,,,) and it certainly DOES make sense for a pro using 
> hundreds or thousands of rolls of film a year.
> 
> the confusing part for me is the way that serious amateurs, who would 
> have balked at the price of a Leica and 3 lenses or a new Hasselblad 
> system just a few years ago will rush out, change to an new system 
> (?Brand C) for 50% more money- all for a camera that may be as 
> "stale" as last week's toast in 2-3 years.
> 
> I don't deny the utility, quality, or ease of digital- I just feel 
> like Moose Peterson and his exclamation point-studded magazine 
> reviews has taken over a previously sane world.
> 
> Allen


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html