Will $1K be the magic number for consumer DSLR's?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Lisa Horton, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Lisa Horton

    HRosita Guest

    Well,
    It really depends how much you want the new camera. If you applied the same
    reasoning to televisions you would still watch TV on an old 13" black and
    white.

    Regardless of the fact that at present the digital camera industry is flooding
    the market whith better and cheaper products, once you buy a quality camera you
    can keep it for 2/3 years, enjoy the images and forget the initial cost.

    I just replaced my 3 year old computer with a new one that cost 1/3, is 3 times
    faster and has lots of new bells and whistles.
    I know that 6 months from now there will be new products but so what.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Aug 23, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lisa Horton

    JK Guest

    It depends what it is. A used Olympus C3040 would be a good buy at
    around $250 if it is in good condition. A used Olympus C2000 at around
    $250 would be a horrible buy though.
     
    JK, Aug 23, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lisa Horton

    Charlie Self Guest

    Rosita states:
    Makes sense to me. TV isn't worth the effort anyway.

    Charlie Self

    "I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
    Dan Quayle
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 23, 2003
    #23
  4. Lisa Horton

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Lets take this step by step.
    The argument is that in a year these cameras are not worth anything.
    If they are not worth anythign why are they selling for 2 to 3 hundred
    dollars?
    Considering that for a person who actually takes a lot of pictures a digital
    will pay for itself in film and processing savings in two to three years a
    net value on the camera of zero would be break even.
    Being able to sell the old camera for a few hundred dollars is gravy.
    Consequently the argument that one loses money on digital is horseshite.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 23, 2003
    #24
  5. Lisa Horton

    gr Guest

    One still loses money on digital. Those $200 cameras selling today were
    purchased for $600 or more when they were new a few years ago. Yes, you can
    get some of your money back, but certainly not all. Saving money is not the
    point of going digital (for most people, anyway). It's entertainment value,
    and geek-factor.

    What surprises me is that they can sell old digicams for as much as
    $200-$300 today. Better models today are that price, brand-new!
     
    gr, Aug 23, 2003
    #25
  6. Lisa Horton

    gr Guest

    Sure, but before you got your digital camera, did you shoot 100 rolls of
    film every year? I may shoot about 3000 digital pics a year, but most of
    them are "junk" shots I'd never consider taking with a film camera. Nor will
    I ever print any of these junk pics, so they're really just "filler". With
    my 35mm SLR, I am much more careful about the pictures I take.

    You have to compare what you were spending on film BEFORE you bought your
    digicam. I shot about one roll every couple of weeks. At that rate, it would
    take me several years to "pay off" my digital camera (and I'd never do it,
    because I'd buy another digicam before I paid off my last one).

    Digital cameras are not cost effective for the great majority of people who
    buy them. They're toys for entertainment value. They serve that purpose very
    well and are worth it from that perspective. But film is still cheaper (and
    better quality) for most users.

    The "power photographers" benefit financially from the digital camera, but
    they're a small minority of digital camera owners.
     
    gr, Aug 24, 2003
    #26
  7. Yes, but the ability to shoot junk shots is itself of value. If you make a
    point of making junk shots intelligently, you can learn a lot about
    photography very quickly. From trying out crazy ideas to testing one's
    ability to hand hold at various speeds. Spending time with your digital
    camera is free, and can radically improve your skills as a photographer. And
    when taking informal portraits, one's chance of getting
    interesting/attractive expressions goes up with the number of shots.

    There is, of course, value in working slowly and making every shot count*,
    and a lot of digital users may not make the effort to attempt that as well,
    but there's nothing about digital that _prevents_ you from thinking about
    every shot, whereas the cost of film (and inconvenience of scanning for
    those of us who scan) does prevent you from taking as many shots as you'd
    like.

    *: Working slow is, of course, absolutely necessary, at least some of the
    time: good photographs don't happen by accident, and even candid and action
    shots are a lot more likely to succeed with good planning.

    While accounting all those junk shots at film costs overstates the
    advantage, not accounting them also understates the case. Being able to take
    test, experimental, and additional shots for free makes digital a radically
    different medium than film.
    But the fact that the incremental cost is zero means that the digital camera
    is worth a lot more than the film camera. You can take shots that you
    wouldn't have with film, and some of those will be successful.

    Anyone who thinks about photography, enjoys photography as a hobby, would
    like to improve their photography would be better off owning at least one
    digital.
    Digital is only a toy if you think it is. For the rest of us, it's a
    powerful tool.

    <aside>
    The problem with "film" is that you are talking about 35mm film, and 35mm is
    a pitifully poor imaging system. Even at 8x10, MF looks a lot better, and at
    anything larger, 35mm is quite hopeless by comparison. The reason digital is
    doing so well is that the bar is so low.
    It's only cheaper if you don't use very much, and the only film that's
    better quality than digital is the ISO 100 slide films. Everything else is
    worse*. Since most user just pick up the junk film at the supermarket, most
    users will see better quality with a digital than 35mm. Also, very few
    casual photographers carry use color correction filters, so digital with
    auto white balance can consistently produce shots that look a lot better
    than film. On overcast days or in shade, film's a mess. Flash usually
    obviates that problem, but getting flash exposure right is often difficult.
    Digital allows you to check your shot and reshoot. Only the best
    photographers can get better shots with film.

    *: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 24, 2003
    #27
  8. Lisa Horton

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I still shoot 100 or more rolls of film every year. I don't have a digital
    camera. The last year when I shot less than 100 rolls of film was 1998 - and
    I was quite ill that entire year. Probably only shot about 70 rolls total.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 24, 2003
    #28
  9. Lisa Horton

    Paul H. Guest

    It's because most people don't have a clue about the true value of most
    things and that single fact is also responsible for keeping Ebay afloat in a
    sea of greenbacks. H.L. Mencken said it best:

    "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by
    underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

    --Notes on journalism, Chicago Tribune, [19 September 1926]
     
    Paul H., Aug 24, 2003
    #29
  10. Really just a drop in the bucket for some.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 24, 2003
    #30
  11. Lisa Horton

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I only switched to mostly colour negative shooting recently when I got a
    scanner that was good at scanning that film. I used to spend about 10
    dollars a roll for slides (film and processing) and at about 150 rolls per
    year - there is the price of the 10D.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 24, 2003
    #31
  12. Lisa Horton

    gr Guest

    To a certain degree, yes. But, digital photography also encourages laziness
    in one's photo-taking, simply because the shot is free. If the picture is
    free, there's sometimes a tendency to not bother "working for it". I spent
    much more time composing pictures and finding the right lighting when I used
    film. With digital, it's often snap-and-go and fix it in photoshop later.
    Sometimes that captures an image that is worthwhile, but more often it just
    capture junk and I don't learn anything. I'd say my photography skills have
    gone down since I've gone mainly digital, not up.
     
    gr, Aug 24, 2003
    #32
  13. Lisa Horton

    Mark Roberts Guest

    It's like the old joke: "How do you acquire good judgement? From
    experience. How do you acquire experience? From bad judgement."
     
    Mark Roberts, Aug 24, 2003
    #33
  14. Lisa Horton

    gr Guest

    But if you're taking time to do it right (and hopefully, learn from the
    effort), then you're not shooting off dozens of pictures a day. The whole
    reason why digital is cheaper than film is that you're supposedly shooting
    lots and lots of pictures. If you're taking your time and learning, then
    film is probably cheaper. Okay, you can't get instant feedback with film,
    and that does impede the learning process. IMO, the laziness factor
    overrides the feedback factor.

    I'm not _always_ lazy when shooting digitally. But I don't think I shoot any
    greater number of _good_ pictures than I did with film exclusively. I've
    framed many more 35mm prints than I have digital prints. Digital does have a
    lot of benefits; I just don't believe cost is one of them.
    Agreed. But if I'm shooting for quality, I'll use a 35mm SLR. I just can't
    match the quality with current digital technology. Perhaps in another couple
    of years digital will catch up and pass film for quality.
     
    gr, Aug 24, 2003
    #34
  15. Lisa Horton

    JK Guest

    This thread is making me laugh. it reminds me of the old I Love Lucy
    episode where Lucy says since the dresses are on sale, the more I
    buy the more I save. It also reminds me of a cartoon I saw where the
    charachter says "I can't seem to lose weight no matter how many
    fat free cookies I eat".
     
    JK, Aug 28, 2003
    #35
  16. Lisa Horton

    Lionel Guest

    <shrugs>
    I'd rather have a sexy new lens than a big box full of neg's. ;)
     
    Lionel, Aug 29, 2003
    #36
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.