Cost of Digital Cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Simon Marchini, Jul 20, 2003.

  1. 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 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. 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.

    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.

    I would welcome other's views
    Simon Marchini, Jul 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon Marchini

    Pat Chaney Guest

    On 20/7/03 10:05 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.


    For me the price and performance of the 10D did make it the right time to
    buy into digital (also in the UK). I don't think the price of the 10D will
    drop again for quite some time though, judging by the rate at which they are
    currently selling.

    > 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. 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.


    Firstly, you (obviously) don't buy a digital SLR (or indeed any item
    dependent on technology) as an investment. Secondly, I suspect that the
    performance of digital bodies will continue to improve (and the prices drop)
    for many years before levelling off - although the rate of change has slowed
    considerably from 2-3 years ago. The PC market is still doing that now; you
    can buy the fastest PC available, and get it home just in time to open a web
    site and read about the launch of the next generation of processor.

    Ultimately the choice is between buying and using something now, or waiting
    until technological advance has stopped and prices stabilised. The trick is
    not dying in the meantime :)


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
    Pat Chaney, Jul 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Simon Marchini

    Mark M Guest

    "Simon Marchini" <> wrote in message
    news:bfdm0l$j0d$...
    > 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 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.


    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...
    :)
    Mark M, Jul 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Simon Marchini wrote:
    > 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.


    While you are waiting for the "perfect" moment to buy a digital camera I
    will be using mine. I paid $1999 for my D100 and of course the price
    has dropped since I bought it. Do I care? Not really. I have some
    great shots I would not have had if I kept waiting.
    Andrew McDonald, Jul 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Simon Marchini

    Wayne P Guest

    I had been waiting for a nice digital to hit the market. I decided the 10d
    was it . . . You can wait for the right performance at the right price, but
    there will always be something newer/better/cheaper on it's way to market.
    Sometimes you just have to say the waiting is over and jump.

    wayne



    "Simon Marchini" <> wrote in message
    news:bfdm0l$j0d$...
    > 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 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. 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > I would welcome other's views
    >
    >
    Wayne P, Jul 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Simon Marchini

    MarkH Guest

    "Simon Marchini" <> wrote in
    news:bfdm0l$j0d$:

    > the point that when buying a
    > digital camera you have to be very careful of the time to do this.
    > 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.


    The thing is that photography is about taking pictures. You need a camera
    to do that. I’ve had my 10D for about 6 or 7 weeks now and the price is
    still the same. If I had bought a film SLR and taken the same number of
    pictures, then I would have spent more than the 10D cost. So I am now
    ahead, even if the price next year is under $1000US for the same or better
    camera.

    I didn’t buy my 10D as an investment, I bought it to take pictures. It is
    living up to my expectations very well, so I am happy.




    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jul 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Simon Marchini

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    What is the value of a new car when you drive it off the dealer's lot? how much
    does it lose in value?

    If you are so worried about a 17% drop, wait 6 months and buy it used (if you
    can find one)..
    Rosita
    HRosita, Jul 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Simon Marchini

    Bill Karoly Guest

    It's like the person who keeps intending to buy the latest PC but holds off
    because the price keeps dropping. I have not seen the 10D really drop in
    price at all - it's still around $1499 here in the US. It's a great camera.
    Buy it now because digital cameras will continue to increase in resolution
    and performance and if you sit around unable to decide to buy now you'll
    miss out on the fun.

    Bill

    "Simon Marchini" <> wrote in message
    news:bfdm0l$j0d$...
    > 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 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. 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > I would welcome other's views
    >
    >
    Bill Karoly, Jul 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Simon Marchini

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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.


    If you post the same question next week it will still generate a huge number of
    responses with the same replies (usually by the same people :) Digital vs
    Film is the number ONE topic on rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    Actually, if you *really* want to start a huge thread, crosspost to both
    groups.

    > 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 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. 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.


    If saving money is important, then wait at least ten years before you buy a
    digital camera..

    Right now, invest the $1500.00 you would have spent on a 10D. By that time the
    return on the investment will be enough to buy a quality digi with double the
    features for half the price.

    You'll be laughing all the way to the bank.


    > 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.
    >
    > I would welcome other's views
    Jim Townsend, Jul 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Simon Marchini <>, with thought and
    calculation, said in rec.photo.digital:

    > 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. 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.
    >


    I go through this thought process every time I buy any technology. It
    all changes practically every day, so if you're going to wait for a
    price fall, you'll get it when the next new thing you want comes out at
    a higher price. Then that price will fall, because a couple of month
    later there's something new. You just have to hold your nose and dive
    in. Get what you want or what you need at a price you're willing to
    pay and be happy.

    --
    Brandy  Alexandre®
    http://www.swydm.com/?refer=BrandyAlx
    Well, would you?
    Brandy Alexandre, Jul 20, 2003
    #10
  11. 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
    Stefan Patric, Jul 20, 2003
    #11
  12. Simon Marchini

    Abrasha Guest

    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
    Abrasha, Jul 20, 2003
    #12
  13. Simon Marchini

    RB Guest

    "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, Jul 20, 2003
    #13
  14. Simon Marchini

    Mark M Guest

    "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, Jul 21, 2003
    #14
  15. Simon Marchini

    RB Guest

    "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, Jul 21, 2003
    #15
  16. Simon Marchini

    Mark M Guest

    "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, Jul 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Simon Marchini

    RB Guest

    "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
    RB, Jul 21, 2003
    #17
  18. Simon Marchini

    gr Guest

    "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.
    gr, Jul 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Simon Marchini

    HRosita Guest

    >"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
    HRosita, Jul 21, 2003
    #19
  20. Simon Marchini

    Paul H. Guest

    "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.
    Paul H., Jul 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    895
    (Pete Cresswell)
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. Boch

    decent cost image stabilized digital cameras?

    Boch, Apr 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    295
    Michael Meissner
    Apr 8, 2005
  3. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    425
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  4. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
    Ken Lucke
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. news.xtra.co.nz

    NZ Cost vs US Cost...

    news.xtra.co.nz, Dec 29, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    860
    MarkH
    Jan 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page