«

On Sunday 20 July 2003 09:05 am, Simon Marchini wrote:

> Last week I posted a questions about digital v film. This seemed to
> generate a large number of responses - some of them useful others
> not so. Anyway, one of the questions I was asking was about the
> whether now was the
> right time to buy as the cost of digital cameras was falling and
> their
> performance was rising. The camera I was using to test this was the
> Canon
> 10D - a camera that will probably be known to most people. Well I
> have just discovered that since its launch in the UK its price has
> fallen by 17% - not bad in under 6 months.

Now's as good a time to buy as any. I doubt that the price of the
10D will change much until its replacement debuts. Too much demand.

> Now there will no doubt be a lot of reasons why this is - however, I
> do believe that this does illustrate the point that when buying a
> digital camera you have to be very careful of the time to do this.

Yes, timing your purchase IS everything. If you're willing to wait 2
or 3 years -- and buy it used, I'm sure you can get a 10D for about
$300 US. However, if you need a digital NOW, you're going have to
pay the going rate or buy something else. If you don't need
interchangeable lenses, the Nikon Coolpix 5000 would be a good
alternative (5.0 megapixel effective, 28 - 85 zoom equivalent) at 1/3
the price ($500 US +- on eBay) of a new 10D.

> This also, I
> feel, illustrates that digital photography is a branch of personal
> computing and so as soon as you hand over your hard earned cash the
> cherished piece of equipment will devalue rapidly in a very short
> period of time.

So, do automobiles; and just about everything else that's mass
produced. Such things don't becomes "investments" until they are
antiques.

> I think it should be clear I am not arguing whether you would be
> able to tell the difference between a 5mp or 6.3 mp camera or that
> this is the only
> aspect of digital photography. It is just that I feel that we are
> entering an era when the real value of digital equipment will
> collapse compared to the performance being offered.

Such is the way of most manufactured goods be they electronics or
tinker toys. At least to a point that relates to supply, demand and
profitability.

--
Stefan Patric

Simon Marchini wrote:
>
> Last week I posted a questions about digital v film. This seemed to
> generate a large number of responses - some of them useful others not so.
> Anyway, one of the questions I was asking was about the whether now was the
> right time to buy as the cost of digital cameras was falling and their
> performance was rising.

"NOW", is never the right time to buy anything related to computers and
technology in general, because the next best, faster, and cheaper thing is
always just around the corner. So, you should just wait until the day you die,
at which you can say to yourself, "Maybe I should have bought that camera, I
could have had a good time with it. Nah, I saved $255." (17% of $1,500.-)

It must be hard to live the life of a bean counter.


> The camera I was using to test this was the Canon
> 10D - a camera that will probably be known to most people. Well I have just
> discovered that since its launch in the UK its price has fallen by 17% - not
> bad in under 6 months.
>

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Mark M" <> wrote in message
news:ypvSa.11733$Bp2.7708@fed1read07...
>
> Wait...and "time" your purchase to your heart's content.
> Meanwhile...I'll be out creating images and memories with the camera you
> still haven't gotten around to buying.
> -How much is the loss of photographic opportunity worth to you?
> -It's worth a lot more than 17% to me...
>

But 17% of what Mark? I think the man has a valid point. Makes no sense at
all not to have some idea of the cost of ownership. If a $1000 camera falls
by 40% in a year, $8 a week, then for some people a $250 camera depreciating
at around just $2 a week might closer meet their needs. Will the pictures
really be 4 times worse? If someone wants to wait a few months until the
camera of their dreams becomes affordable then why not? Maybe even suffering
the indignity of owning a cheap one in the meantime.

Yes I know there are idiots out there who must have a 3.0GHz processor and
will pay 3 times as much as for a 2.4GHz chip because that wouldn't be
nearly fast enough for them or their egos and that's what makes Intel rich.
But all grown-ups know that it's a choice and you can't spend your money
twice.

Perhaps more interesting is whether there's a seasonal pattern for
pricefalls. Do prices peak in the summer months and around Christmas?

Ray

"RB" <> wrote in message
news:bff27s$g6u$...
> "Mark M" <> wrote in message
> news:ypvSa.11733$Bp2.7708@fed1read07...
> >
> > Wait...and "time" your purchase to your heart's content.
> > Meanwhile...I'll be out creating images and memories with the camera you
> > still haven't gotten around to buying.
> > -How much is the loss of photographic opportunity worth to you?
> > -It's worth a lot more than 17% to me...
> >
>
> But 17% of what Mark? I think the man has a valid point. Makes no sense at
> all not to have some idea of the cost of ownership. If a $1000 camera
falls
> by 40% in a year, $8 a week, then for some people a $250 camera
depreciating
> at around just $2 a week might closer meet their needs. Will the pictures
> really be 4 times worse?

You've missed the point entirely.
While you're busily saving $8 a week (whoopie), I'm making images that same
week. You're basically selling your opportunity to create images for 8
bucks a week. No thanks.

But to each their own...

> Perhaps more interesting is whether there's a seasonal pattern for
> pricefalls. Do prices peak in the summer months and around Christmas?

Prices peak when demand outstrips supply.

"Mark M" <> wrote in message
news:c0LSa.13081$Bp2.8036@fed1read07...
>
> You've missed the point entirely.
> While you're busily saving $8 a week (whoopie), I'm making images that
same
> week. You're basically selling your opportunity to create images for 8
> bucks a week. No thanks.
>
> But to each their own...

Nope. If all you want to do is "create images" you can do that with a $2 a
week camera. If you believe there's a direct correllation between how much
you spend and the value of your work then you've missed the point. Some
things can't be bought.

Ray

"RB" <> wrote in message
news:bfgcsp$9bj$...
> "Mark M" <> wrote in message
> news:c0LSa.13081$Bp2.8036@fed1read07...
> >
> > You've missed the point entirely.
> > While you're busily saving $8 a week (whoopie), I'm making images that
> same
> > week. You're basically selling your opportunity to create images for 8
> > bucks a week. No thanks.
> >
> > But to each their own...
>
> Nope. If all you want to do is "create images" you can do that with a $2 a
> week camera. If you believe there's a direct correllation between how much
> you spend and the value of your work then you've missed the point. Some
> things can't be bought.

Oh brother.
I'm sure you understood my point without having to get into nitpicking my
choice of words. BTW... If that $2 a week digital camera doesn't allow the
quality/control needed, then you have again lost an opportunity. If, by
chance, you're talking about film, then the costs go up as soon as you
process.

"Mark M" <> wrote in message
news:ZLOSa.13100$Bp2.11850@fed1read07...
>
> Oh brother.
> I'm sure you understood my point without having to get into nitpicking my
> choice of words. BTW... If that $2 a week digital camera doesn't allow
the
> quality/control needed, then you have again lost an opportunity. If, by
> chance, you're talking about film, then the costs go up as soon as you
> process.

I assume your idea of quality predominantly means technical quality.
Cartier-Bresson "created images" with a pencil, a brush, a Box Brownie and a
Leica. Whether you would achieve his quality in a more valid sense with his
pencil, his Leica or the finest Japanese electronics money can buy is open
to question. I get dozens of pictures sent to the website I run every week
and some of those of the greatest value are produced with a point-and-shoot
snapshot camera. If the OP wants to relate his budget to what makes sense to
him then why not? The tools he uses are a minor part of the equation though
many pretend otherwise.

Ray

"Mark M" <> wrote
>
> I'm sure you understood my point without having to get into nitpicking my
> choice of words. BTW... If that $2 a week digital camera doesn't allow
the
> quality/control needed, then you have again lost an opportunity. If, by
> chance, you're talking about film, then the costs go up as soon as you
> process.

I think the point is that the "lost opportunity" you mention is not
priceless. There is a value associated with it. Most people would not get
value for their money if they bought a $10000 digital cam. Many people would
not get value for their money for a $1500 digital cam. For example, my
current 1.5 MP camera, which I bought almost 3 years ago, satisfies most of
my needs. You could probably buy a similar one today for $100-$200. Sure,
I'd like a 6 MP camera, but it's simply not worth the cost at this point in
time. I may upgrade when compact 10 MP cameras get under $1000 (which is the
sweet-spot when I bought the digital camera I have now). In the meantime, I
am missing out on some photo opportunities. But, I'm not willing to pay any
amount of money to get those opportunities. I can still get most
opportunities on the camera I have now. And, if I care to bring along my
35mm SLR, I can pretty much capture all those "missed" opportunities (from
not having a $1500 digicam) at a much cheaper price-per-photo than the
amortized cost of the $1500 digicam.

So, the answer to "should I buy a digicam now" really depends on what you
plan to use it for and how many photos you plan to take. If you don't take a
lot of photos, a 35mm SLR will serve most people's needs at a cheaper price
and give better quality.

>"RB" wrote:

>Cartier-Bresson "created images" with a pencil, a brush, a Box Brownie and a
>Leica. Whether you would achieve his quality in a more valid sense with his
>pencil, his Leica or the finest Japanese electronics money can buy is open
>to question.

Granted, there are a few (very few) individuals so gifted that no matter what
media they choose their images are a work of art.
However, for the majority that muddle along, trying our best to come up with
acceptable images, using the best tools available helps.
When Minolta came out with the autofocus Maxxum (1985), it prolonged the career
of quite a few photographers whose eye sight and reaction was slowing down.

In general, if the "masses" did not embrace new equipment but stood on the
sidelines, the price of such equipment would be prohibitive.

>If the OP wants to relate his budget to what makes sense to
>him then why not? The tools he uses are a minor part of the equation though
>many pretend otherwise.
>
>Ray

Well, how would you like the best surgeon in the world to operate on you with a
kitchen knife? The tools used by any craftsman are a major part of the
equation.


Rosita

"Mark M" <> wrote in message
news:c0LSa.13081$Bp2.8036@fed1read07...
>
> > Perhaps more interesting is whether there's a seasonal pattern for
> > pricefalls. Do prices peak in the summer months and around Christmas?
>
> Prices peak when demand outstrips supply.


You have, as they say, a firm grasp of the obvious. The question being
considered, though, is whether such digital camera supply-demand cycles are
predictable and/or regular in nature.

I would guess that digital camera prices begin to peak sharply in May and
June in North America, when many people are buying graduation gifts,
Fathers' Day gifts, and cameras to take along on summer vacations.
Conversely, I would think prices would begin to fall in August/early
September when most summer vacations are but dim memories of unfulfilled
hopes and pointless wretched excess, when consumer dollars start being
applied to pay off the ill-conceived vacations and to make genuine
back-to-school purchases.

I'm sure one can think of many other instances of cyclical camera pricing:
after-Christmas inventory adjustments, pre-inventory tax sell-offs, etc.
Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Scotch whiskey sales lead or lag
digital camera sales. I would guess that they lag, since both buyer's
remorse and happy celebration often result in a desire to view the world
through a smoky, amber haze.

Which leads me to the photo tip of the day: Three fingers of an excellent
single-malt Scotch before a photo shoot can add a jaunty tilt to most of
your exposures.