There is another aspect of digicams that should be driving their prices
lower than they have been so far:
Shutter cycle life. The best shutters in the world have a theoretical cycle
life of around 300,000 cycles. Practical shutter life spans are closer to
150,000-200,000. So on a $2000 digicam, that works out to be around
$0.01-0.02/shot. Digital has a tendency to encourage 'blaze-o-matic'
approaches to photography because of the perception that 'film is free'.
So what are the life expectancies of the D-30s, D-1's, 1D's and D60s/D100s
that are being sold on EBay today? If you figure the first buyers of these
expensive cameras where journalists and volume portrait photogs, a
reasonable estimate is that at least 50% of the shutter life on these
cameras is gone.
Yet the pricing on the Ebay cameras doesn't reflect that loss of
functionality.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Basically, cameras have become electronic devices with lenses. They are
following a similar curve in depreciation, not only because of the
perceived fact that they are obsolete more quickly, but because of the
fact that they are not repairable, or cost a fortune to do so, and are
basically not as reliable as they used to be. Rolex watches still fetch
a good price because pretty much any of them can be repaired. In this
"make it so it can be tossed away when it breaks" mentality with most
goods, including cameras, people are just not willing to pay big bucks
(or pounds for that matter) for used electronic gear that can't be
tested fully and can't be trusted against catastrophic failure. It used
to be you could have a mechanic test a camera and if it test good you
were 80% sure it was a worthwhile investment that, taken care of, would
give you years of value. Today, even one that's been tested, can fail
suddenly and put you back more that its value in a repair, if it can be
repaired.
Also, a well made mechanical camera body could be had for $250 US 15-20
years ago in NYC, today, expect to pay $1500 for a similar quality
"electronic" model.
Anyone have a suggestion about whether I should keep my hardly ever used
Hasselblad or just sell it now?
Art
Tony Sleep wrote:
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>
>>That is not true with film cameras.
>>
>
> Oh yes it is! About 4yrs ago I bought a pair of EOS1n's. One was s/h and
> cost 875GBP, the other was new and cost ~1100GBP. Both are now worth
> ~500GBP s/h. Depreciation of ~12% pa. The same goes for my Rollei 6000 MF
> kit, £3k evaporated down to <£1k. I don't even bother to insure kit now,
> the depreciation is about equivalent to getting burgled annually by the
> time I add in the premium: why add self-abuse to injury?
>
> Previous generation Canon FD cameras took about twice that long to lose
50%
> of value. My enlarger, bought 1982, is still worth 80% of what I paid for
> it according to dealer prices (tho' GOK who buys darkroom kit now).
>
> Hah, those days are long gone, unless you buy Leica M's (not Leicaflexes
> though, they're as disposable as Nikons and Canons - see eBay!).
>
> Cameras, scanners, computers, digicams, software, printers are all now
> worthless, superceded junk faster than you can say 'I just made the last
> finance payment today'.
>
> Worst of all, bleedin' clients don't pay any more than they did c.1985...
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep -
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
