Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There's only one point you're missing, Kelvin - The person who purchase a 20D and uses it for personal photography really doesn't have to worry about the depreciation for the simple reason that cameras such as the 20D are now at the point in the digital evolution that they do not need to be replaced until they die - the quality is such that in the hands of most amateurs who don't do most of their shooting on a tripod, they will produce images equal in quality to those produced by the best 35 mm film equipment hand held under the same conditions - So why feel compelled to keep trading up, and why worry about depreciation? On 5/28/05 1:36 AM, "kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg" <kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > Digital cameras are best really, for people who actually use their cameras. > Not great for people who otherwise shoot 2 rolls a year, who should then > stick to film. > > What is the real cost of running a film camera? > Assume you shoot 10 rolls of film a week. That's 52 rolls a year. Assume > film+process is about US$5/roll (conservatively). That's US$2600 a year. > > Will your DSLR depreciate $2600 a year? For most people who use a EOS 10D > or 20D , probably not. ... so the savings in film+process often makes up > for > the depreciation. > > Furthermore, I find I shoot more with digitals than I did w/ film. > > You can't do a 1:1 comparison b/n film and digital ... because the running > cost of film camera is actually higher in comparison, for people who > actually > use their cameras regularly. > > > > Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:20:33 -0400 > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Message-ID: <BEBD3191.A48%bdcolen@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Of course $650 was a very low price for a good M3 10 years ago. In fact, it > was low for a good M3 three or four years ago. Had you bought a good M3 > just > 5 years ago, you'd undoubtedly lose money on it if you sold it today. And > certainly that's the case for M6s, M7s, and M4s. Although all have held on > to far, far more of their value than the high-end digital cameras. ;-) > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information