Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
From: telyt at earthlink.net (Douglas Herr)
Date: Tue Nov 9 13:34:30 2004

B.D., perhaps you missed the point I tried to bring up, that your  blanket 
statement "Of course digital saves money - if you buy film" needed 
qualification.  As a blanket statement, as you presented it, it's misleading 
and ignores the realities of many photographers.  When each of us tries to 
decide whether film or digital is a better choice from an economic point of 
view, the variable costs are not the only costs involved.  Econ 101.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com


-----Original Message-----
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Sent: Nov 9, 2004 11:18 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org>
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron

First off, interesting that you should site the Kodak "pro" cameras as
your example, which have been stinkers from the word 'go' and which have
probably sold to no one but Kodak execs ever since Nikon and Canon began
producing digital pro cameras. (And you might note that I specifically
mentioned the Canons and Nikons)...and for many working pros, Doug,
particularly in photo journalism - an SLR may be ready to send to grave
yard after 18 months to two years of hard wear and tear.

Second, Nikon D1H bodies in Excellent Plus condition are selling at KEH
for just under $1800. I may be wrong, but I think this is very close to
50% of the new price. And these days, pro film cameras in that shape are
selling for...just about 50% - of the new price.

But as you and I will apparently never agree on anything - unless I
suddenly proclaim that Leica produces the best line of SLR bodies every
to grace a camera bag ;-)- this exchange is pretty pointless.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
telyt@earthlink.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 1:59 PM
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote (with snide remarks snipped):

> the top of the line digital cameras have not been depreciating to 
> nothing; they've been holding a surprising percentage of their value.

Hom much is an early top-of-the-line Kodak DCS camera worth now, and how
much was it when new?  I don't know the model numbers but IIRC "new" was
on the order of $20,000.  Perhaps 5 years is a reasonable useful life
for a top-of-the-line digital while top film cameras' useful life is
often measured in decades.  What do you consider a few years?  3?  10?

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] WAS: Summilux vs. Summicron NOW FILM COSTS.)