Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/28

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

Subject: [Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals
From: bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Sat May 28 14:59:26 2005

Actually, I'd bet that by then there will be services that can get all sorts
of data off all sorts of "obsolete" storage media. ;-) Great old photos,
though - what fun to have them.


On 5/28/05 5:52 PM, "Max Weisenfeld" <max_weisenfeld@verizon.net> wrote:

> Yes, but I bet if you find your Dad's old hard drive in a closet in 2056,
> you won't be able to do this with the files:
> 
> http://www.leica-gallery.net/max3/image-84250.html
> 
> 
> Max
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg>
> To: <lug@leica-users.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:36 AM
> Subject: [Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from lmc at interlink.es (Luis Miguel Castañeda) ([Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals)
Reply from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli) ([Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals)
In reply to: Message from max_weisenfeld at verizon.net (Max Weisenfeld) ([Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals)