«

Todd, just a word of warning ... be sure to read the fine print on
those "deals".
Doing a lot of research over the last few weeks on what I was going to
buy, I found a few of those deals. Seem to remember reading on one
such site it was for "Camera Body Only". While I know you do not get a
lens with even the $1499 price, seems to me those $1339 prices were
for open box item with nothing but the body and/or gray market
cameras. No way did I feel comfortable thinking I'd be giving them my
money for a deal not even "authorized Canon Dealers" could give. It
could be just me but ...

I ended up going with a reputable (I hope?) dealer that had everything
I needed at one place at decent prices ... Talking with them this AM I
got the impression it was shipping today/tomorrow morning ... here's
hoping!

Todd Walker <> wrote in message news:<>...
> In article <AexSa.51184$>,
> says...
> > I have not seen the 10D really drop in
> > price at all - it's still around $1499 here in the US.
> >
>
> Nope, $1369:
>
> http://www.bestpriceaudiovideo.com/p...ct_detail.asp?
> Inventory=2295 (add it to your cart to see the $1369 price.)
>
> and holy cow, this one was $1369 just yesterday and now it's $1337:
>
> http://www.dbuys.com/index.cfm?fusea...roduct_id=2109
>
> At these prices, my 10D trigger finger is getting mighty itchy...
>
> --
> ________________________________
> Todd Walker
> http://twalker.d2g.com
> Olympus E20
> Canon G2
> My Digital Photography Weblog:
> http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
> _________________________________

"Charlie Self" <> wrote
> gr states:
>
> >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.
>
> I'm not sure the "how many photos" part relates too solidly, but the uses
of
> those photos may. I shoot a lot of photos of tools, assembled,
disassembled, in
> use and static, for manuals and magazine articles. The mag articles aren't
a
> problem, normally, with longer times to get fewer things finished. The
manuals,
> though, could drive you nuts with processing and re-processing film to get
just
> that right shot.

Okay, but it sounds like you don't fit into the "most people" group. For
you, the value of a digicam would be a lot higher than someone who just
shoots vacation and family shots.

I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a better
value than a compact 35mm film camera, for most people's needs. Digital
cameras are getting much better in terms of picture quality and function
(ease of use and printing), but they still serve a niche market. I think it
will be another 3-5 years before they overtake the 35mm film camera.

(Personally, I hardly ever use my 35mm camera now, and much prefer shooting
digital. But, I think I'm part of the niche market, along with just about
everybody else reading this newsgroup.)

>

Wrote:>

I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a better
>value than a compact 35mm film camera, for most people's needs.

I just read in a business article somewhere that the sale of digital cameras
has exeeded the sale of film cameras in the last quarter of 2002.
Rosita

"HRosita" <> wrote
> >
>
> Wrote:>
>
> I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a
better
> >value than a compact 35mm film camera, for most people's needs.
>
> I just read in a business article somewhere that the sale of digital
cameras
> has exeeded the sale of film cameras in the last quarter of 2002.
> Rosita


Could be, but is that in numbers of units or in total revenue? Digicams are
a lot more expensive per unit than film cameras. Regardless, there are a lot
of film cameras out there, and it will take a lot of digicam sales to
replace all the existing 35mm cameras in use. (I have a feeling I'll still
be occasionally using my 35mm Nikon SLR, long after I'm on my 4th or 5th
digital camera.)

"Paul H." <> wrote in message
news:wKUSa.1$. ..
>
> "Mark M" <> wrote in message
> news:c0LSa.13081$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 disagree. My comments were meant to include the demand that comes with
the release of new digital cameras. With the quick release/short
model-life, most digital camera pricing rises and falls most significantly
in line with the times that either the same company updates their camera, or
the competition updates theirs. While these releases often occur around
February due to the big announcements at PMA, the actual releases also
happen well before and well after.

Pricing fo digital cameras is far more sensitive to supply and demand of NEW
models, and for this reason, my comment wasn't simply the obvious answer
that applies to all of teh capitalist system of sales/exchange. Christmas,
graduation and etc. seem to have far LESS effect than when the camera was
released, and what the status of "upgrades" are, or when they are
anticipated.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

gr responds:

>
>Okay, but it sounds like you don't fit into the "most people" group. For
>you, the value of a digicam would be a lot higher than someone who just
>shoots vacation and family shots.

Oh, I dunno. I shot about 110 photos Saturday of a family reunion. I don't even
like to think of what film and processing would have cost.

>
>(Personally, I hardly ever use my 35mm camera now, and much prefer shooting
>digital. But, I think I'm part of the niche market, along with just about
>everybody else reading this newsgroup.)

More'n likely.

Charlie Self

`I don't care how little your country is, you got a right to run it like you
want to. When the big nations quit meddling then the world will have peace.'
Will Rogers

"Paul H." <> wrote in message
news5ZSa.30$ ...
>
> "Mark M" <> wrote in message
> news:iAWSa.13142$Bp2.8495@fed1read07...
> >
> > "Paul H." <> wrote in message
> > news:wKUSa.1$. ..
> > >
> > > "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?
> > > >
> >
> > I disagree. My comments were meant to include the demand that comes
with
> > the release of new digital cameras. With the quick release/short
> > model-life, most digital camera pricing rises and falls most
significantly
> > in line with the times that either the same company updates their
camera,
> or
> > the competition updates theirs. While these releases often occur around
> > February due to the big announcements at PMA, the actual releases also
> > happen well before and well after.
> >
> > Pricing fo digital cameras is far more sensitive to supply and demand of
> NEW
> > models, and for this reason, my comment wasn't simply the obvious answer
> > that applies to all of teh capitalist system of sales/exchange.
> Christmas,
> > graduation and etc. seem to have far LESS effect than when the camera
was
> > released, and what the status of "upgrades" are, or when they are
> > anticipated.
>
> If you're talking about the kinds of digital cameras sought by aficionados
> such as people in this newsgroup, I would probably agree with your
> assessment. However, the general market for digital cameras of all sorts
is
> a large one and most members of this larger camera-buying community have
> absolutely no idea about PMA, new model releases, or anything else which
all
> of us holds near and dear. From my extensive yet desultory experience,
all
> most people seem care about is a) megapixels and b) will the camera fit in
> my pocket or purse? Because of this, digital cameras have become largely
a
> commodity no different from blenders or electric toothbrushes in terms of
> the forces which drive gross sales.

I understand what you're saying...about the ignorantly blissful buying
public.
But I can also say with confidence that camera manufacturers' pricing drops
are DIRECTLY in line with the release of either their own new models, or new
competitor's models of similar sector. Take the 10D and D100 for example.
It wasn't Christmas that drove the price of teh D100 down...it was the
release of Canon's 10D that did it.

This is also true with run-of-the-mill point-and-shoots.
Competition is fierce, and new models lead to price drops by many companies
to compensate. They are perhaps more aware of competetive moves than any
other sector (opinion).

> This, however, is only my 'umble opinion. I may be wrong or I may be
right,
> but neither circumstance is of moment in the grand history of the
> cosmos--such is the nature of the universe we inhabit. And since all
> tickets list Oblivion as our ultimate destination on this short, bumpy
> railway line, passion-filled arguments over such trivialities seem, well,
> unseemly. Nevertheless, I've told my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I think what you're saying may apply more to stores having sales rather than
pricing set by manufactures. But here still, new models have the greatest
demand nearly accross the board, since the specs increase so quickly still.
Whether it's Christmas or not, the specs keep moving upward, and prices
reflect this.

RB wrote:
>
> "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


I could not agree more with this post.

A teacher of mine once said: "Amateurs buy expensive equipment to try to make up
for their lack of skill. A professional can often produce better results with
poor worn out equipment, than an amateur with brand new expensive equipment."

He was talking about the jewelry field, and I am certain that the same is true
for photography, digital or analog.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

HRosita wrote:

>
> 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

Well, as surgeon would not use a kitchen knife, but maybe in a poor country a
surgeon would have to use a very old scalpel, that needs to be sterilized
(because presterilized use-once blades are not available) in an autoclave that
he does not have. If the surgeon in question is in fact "the best surgeon in
the world", he would most definitely achieve better results than any other
surgeon operating with better tools.

"The tools used by any craftsman ...." I strongly disagree. I have many tools
that are very old and worn. All of my needle files are at least 25 years old,
and some of my hand files are older. I use a mouth blown torch, which is 30
years old, and in design it is more than 300 years old. My milling machine is
more than 40 years old and has backlash on both the lead screws. I achieve far
better and accurate results with that equipment than most of my colleagues with
the "best" and "newest" and "most expensive" equipment.

In fact, in my field, I have somewhat of a reputation for it.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

>Subject: Re: Cost of Digital Cameras
>From: Abrasha
>Date: 7/24/03 9:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <>
>
>HRosita wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>
>Well, as surgeon would not use a kitchen knife, but maybe in a poor country a
>surgeon would have to use a very old scalpel, that needs to be sterilized
>(because presterilized use-once blades are not available) in an autoclave
>that
>he does not have. If the surgeon in question is in fact "the best surgeon in
>the world", he would most definitely achieve better results than any other
>surgeon operating with better tools.
>
>"The tools used by any craftsman ...." I strongly disagree. I have many
>tools
>that are very old and worn. All of my needle files are at least 25 years
>old,
>and some of my hand files are older. I use a mouth blown torch, which is 30
>years old, and in design it is more than 300 years old. My milling machine
>is
>more than 40 years old and has backlash on both the lead screws. I achieve
>far
>better and accurate results with that equipment than most of my colleagues
>with
>the "best" and "newest" and "most expensive" equipment.
>
>In fact, in my field, I have somewhat of a reputation for it.
>
>Abrasha
>http://www.abrasha.com


As Steiglitz said, "The simplest camera has capabilities far beyond that of the
greatest photographer".

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer