Economics and Digital Cameras

[ibcrewin]

I have a Rebel Xt that I use from time to time but I'm mostly using my film rangefinder. I thought maybe I should pare down and sell it and use the money to buy an x100.

I started doing some research on pricing and I think I could probably get $125 for my set up. Considering I paid well over $500 is not a very good return. Yet, it's a perfectly good camera; I like the shots I take with it and it works.

I know digital cameras depreciate at an alarming rate, but is there something more specific? My camera depreciated about $125 a year give or take. So i'm guessing in about 3-4 years I can get a x100s for about $200. Also, I know there's room for improvement on sensor size, AF speed, noise reduction, but it's already pretty darn good. Do you think the tech plateaus? Do you think there will be many more advancements in the next 5 years to render today's digicams "RELATIVELY" obsolete?

Curious to see what you guys think.

 

[Bill Clark]

If a person breaks down digital, this is what I have determined:

1. The camera or capture the picture stage. This can include camera(s), lenses, cards, flash equipment and light modifiers and other items like tripod(s).

2. After the capture stage then the process stage begins. This includes computer(s), software and internet connection to send the images to a lab or other spots on the internet which is further expanded in #3.

3. Is the viewing stage. This can include the monitor on the computer or a large monitor for viewing by others and or other devices like a tablet computer, digital picture frame. It can include the internet and a place like here. Finally there is the print media for viewing which can include paper prints and other items like canvas prints, albums and folios.

These three items are present with analog photography but not necessarily with the same equipment. For example a chemical darkroom can be used but also the negs can be scanned.

Changes take place with all three stages. In my mind, digital cameras are at a level now with only incremental changes taking place now. I have Canon 20D that's about 10 years old and a Canon full frame Mark something and they both work just fine, for me at least. I can't believe the 20D has lasted this long!

At any rate, the entire package needs to be examined when using either or both digital and analog photography.

Hope this helps you!

 

[jsrockit]

Well, the Rebel Xt is not exactly a "cool" camera to own (I'm not saying it sucks, just nothing special) and there are so many of them sold, that it's never going to hold any value long term. However, you don't have to feed them film, so you can write off depreciation that way. I'd say the only digital cameras that will hold any type of value are ones that have a cult following (TBD) or ones that are unique (Monochrom). Anything else will just keep going down.

Yes, advancements will make todays digital cameras feel archaic... it's inevitable. We are in the infancy of digital photography. In digital, anytime you think we are getting close to think quality / speed / processing cannot get any better, you'll surely be proven wrong.

 

[Exdsc]

Digital cameras are mini computers and like all computers they live on 'flavor of the month' factor.

Fuji X100s is very hot right now, but similarly OM-D was very hot some months ago. Soon, Ricoh GR heat will pick up and so and so forth.

As much as its cool for a day or two to be part of flavor-of-the-month club, in the larger scheme of things, your photography is the same as it was before and it will be the same even with the new hot X100s - the proof of this is in the fact that since 2010, when X100 was released, there has not been any major photographic achievement in terms of museum exhibition or acclaimed books that was done with X100--and yet everyone thought this camera 'will change' everything... It has changed nothing in photography.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with owning the latest camera release(s), in fact if that is the only true joy, even if momentary, that is left in still photography.


No economics and complex analysis is needed, its simple and dirty consumerism, its fun the same way that junk food is fun - that is - until the next craving.

 

[Al Patterson]

I bought a DSLR for $350 or so a few years back and shot roughly 1200 pictures, so even assuming zero resale value I have saved a ton of money compared to film. The more I shoot, the larger the saving per image.

 

[jsrockit]

As much as its cool for a day or two to be part of flavor-of-the-month club, in the larger scheme of things, your photography is the same as it was before and it will be the same even with the new hot X100s - the proof of this is in the fact that since 2010, when X100 was released, there has not been any major photographic achievement in terms of museum exhibition or acclaimed books that was done with X100--and yet everyone thought this camera 'will change' everything... It has changed nothing in photography.

Uh, major museum exhibitions and acclaimed books aren't slapped together in 2 years... you have to photograph over time before you can do either of those things. 🙄 There are people who use this camera that will have major shows and books...

 

[Exdsc]

Uh, major museum exhibitions and acclaimed books aren't slapped together in 2 years... you have to photograph over time before you can do either of those things. 🙄 There are people who use this camera that will have major shows and books...

Two years is a life time in photography timeline.

In fact, as a digital shooter, I'm fully aware that the last great acknowledged work of photography that excited me was Alex Webb's Istanbul, shot on Kodachrome. Since that there has not been anything else that has excited me, even Salgado's Genesis is disappointing because of terrible digital post-processing.

Maybe its not the fault of X100, the days of great works of photography are over thanks to digital. People no longer believe in photographs, thus photographs can no longer be great works of art.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Two years is a life time in photography timeline.

In fact, as a digital shooter, I'm fully aware that the last great acknowledged work of photography that excited me was Alex Webb's Istanbul, shot on Kodachrome. Since that there has not been anything else that has excited me, even Salgado's Genesis is disappointing because of terrible digital post-processing.

Maybe its not the fault of X100, the days of great works of photography are over thanks to digital. People no longer believe in photographs, thus photographs can no longer be great works of art.

Go to Arles. You'll learn different.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Two years is a life time in photography timeline.

With regard to digital cameras, but not with regard to building a body of work, having someone buy into your vision, getting a gallery or museum to allocate time to your work, and then actually hanging the show... that's not easy in two years.

In fact, as a digital shooter, I'm fully aware that the last great acknowledged work of photography that excited me was Alex Webb's Istanbul, shot on Kodachrome. Since that there has not been anything else that has excited me, even Salgado's Genesis is disappointing because of terrible digital post-processing.

I'm sorry to hear that you've set your standards way too high. There's a lot of great work out there if you are opening minded enough to appreciate it.

Maybe its not the fault of X100, the days of great works of photography are over thanks to digital. People no longer believe in photographs, thus photographs can no longer be great works of art.

People believe enough in it to spend crazy cash on them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1) Will this camera enable me to do what I want?

(2) Will it last long enough to give me some good photographs (at least a few years, preferably many)?

(3) Can I afford it?

(4) Do I actually give a damn if after a few years it's worth little or nothing?

'Yes' to 1-3 and 'no' to 4 means that it's worth buying.

Three years depreciation at $125/year really is pretty trivial. Compare this with the cost of pretty much anything else you enjoy, and then calculate which of them costs you under $3/week (on average). That's under one cinema ticket a week; under two good beers a week; for all I know (it's been a while) very few condoms a week.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Exdsc]

With regard to digital cameras, but not with regard to building a body of work, having someone buy into your vision, getting a gallery or museum to allocate time to your work, and then actually hanging the show... that's not easy in two years.



I'm sorry to hear that you've set your standards way too high. There's a lot of great work out there if you are opening minded enough to appreciate it.



People believe enough in it to spend crazy cash on them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

Its hard to decide on a great photographer so lets take Magnum members, because at least they have been part of an agency where one cannot join without some photographic merit.

Alex Webb, perhaps the best color street photographer, his work a source of inspiration for many, but the sad truth is that his master was Kodachrome. The "look" of Kodachrome was an integral part of his work, after the demise of Kodachrome, he practically ceased to produce anything that even came close to his Kodachrome stuff. This is very sad and tragic actually, for example today he shoots his leftover Kodachrome and processes it in B&W for a project on Rochester New York, home of Kodak.

Was the appeal of photography in the look of film? Maybe, I mean even Salgado, his Genesis work has the same structure as his previous work but that "look" is not there, that Tri-x look.

Photography has to face up to this issue of film vs digital more honestly. I mean digital simply did not replace film, it only offered an alternative.

Until the day sensors and software became sophisticated enough to replicate those classic film looks exactly, from sensor to post, this period that we're in today will be considered a transition. That is of course if photography survives the Google Glass and like that will soon reach the market.



Coming back to the topic, the best strategy is to buy the best image quality camera that has some future proof factor. X100s is not it, because Fuji will releases a camera every six months until its Leica-replacement honeymoon dream is over.

 

[DtheG]

Three years depreciation at $125/year really is pretty trivial. Compare this with the cost of pretty much anything else you enjoy, and then calculate which of them costs you under $3/week (on average). That's under one cinema ticket a week; under two good beers a week; for all I know (it's been a while) very few condoms a week..

It's 2 years since I paid £1,000 for my X100: so, £10 a week. I can spend more than that sitting at a café table for an hour or two waiting for the decisive moment to pass by.

 

[tbhv55]

It's 2 years since I paid £1,000 for my X100: so, £10 a week. I can spend more than that sitting at a café table for an hour or two waiting for the decisive moment to pass by.

Yes, viewed in this way, it's just excellent value for money. I've had the x100 for around the same length of time, and I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

Generally, however, the only decisive moment encountered is when I 'decide' to order another coffee...😀

 

[lynnb]

Also, I know there's room for improvement on sensor size, AF speed, noise reduction, but it's already pretty darn good. Do you think the tech plateaus? Do you think there will be many more advancements in the next 5 years to render today's digicams "RELATIVELY" obsolete?

Curious to see what you guys think.

Ask yourself what sort of pictures you take now and are likely to take in the future. If the current tech meets those requirements, why worry about advancements? Don't forget that as the technology matures, a lot of new models will be mostly feature creep, to keep sales going.

Also think about what size output you need. The main useful thing about more megapixels is print size or ability to crop.

If taking available light photos in very dark conditions is important to you, then low noise at high iso capability is improving all the time. Cameras bought with that purpose in mind will depreciate faster.

 

[GaryLH]

Ask yourself what sort of pictures you take now and are likely to take in the future. If the current tech meets those requirements, why worry about advancements? Don't forget that as the technology matures, a lot of new models will be mostly feature creep, to keep sales going.

Also think about what size output you need. The main useful thing about more megapixels is print size or ability to crop.

If taking available light photos in very dark conditions is important to you, then low noise at high iso capability is improving all the time. Cameras bought with that purpose in mind will depreciate faster.

Well said Lynnb...

Once we moved into the digital world in photography... Like anything else in hitech, u are going to c constant improvements in terms of performance in a lot of different dimensions.

U actually have a couple of ways to attack the situation in terms of keeping cost reasonable.. Since u are looking at depreciation
- know what u need.. Dimensions such as
-- max print size
-- high iso capability
-- lens range/type
Are just some example of things to think about

Once u find a system that can meet your expectations stay w/
- it until it dies or no longer fulfills your needs or no longer repairable
- stay behind the leading edge of the technology curve (last years model)
-- wait for it to be the old stuff and buy new for a lot less or used
- whichever manufacturer u decide to go w/ lens selection is the key.
-- whether third party or the oem
-- normally w/in a given line/family, the cost is spread out over several generations of camera bodies that they will work w/.

Feature creep.. I think Lynnb is being nice here. There are tons of features on these cameras and the list keeps growing every year. The problem is that, I would guess the average person might use 30-40 % of these features. In reality some of these features are just check box items to get your attention.

New gear doesn't take better pictures. Nuf said..

The big question is not the fact that the camera depreciated at xxxx dollars per year, but how many years of enjoyment has it provided you.

Not sure if anything i said helps here. I have never worried about the depreciation aspect, but then I am a gear head anyway.

Gary

 

[noimmunity]

Well said Lynnb...

Once we moved into the digital world in photography... Like anything else in hitech, u are going to c constant improvements in terms of performance in a lot of different dimensions.

U actually have a couple of ways to attack the situation in terms of keeping cost reasonable.. Since u are looking at depreciation
- know what u need.. Dimensions such as
-- max print size
-- high iso capability
-- lens range/type
Are just some example of things to think about

Once u find a system that can meet your expectations stay w/
- it until it dies or no longer fulfills your needs or no longer repairable
- stay behind the leading edge of the technology curve (last years model)
-- wait for it to be the old stuff and buy new for a lot less or used
- whichever manufacturer u decide to go w/ lens selection is the key.
-- whether third party or the oem
-- normally w/in a given line/family, the cost is spread out over several generations of camera bodies that they will work w/.

Feature creep.. I think Lynnb is being nice here. There are tons of features on these cameras and the list keeps growing every year. The problem is that, I would guess the average person might use 30-40 % of these features. In reality some of these features are just check box items to get your attention.

New gear doesn't take better pictures. Nuf said..

The big question is not the fact that the camera depreciated at xxxx dollars per year, but how many years of enjoyment has it provided you.

Not sure if anything i said helps here. I have never worried about the depreciation aspect, but then I am a gear head anyway.

Gary

Man, this post ought to be a sticky!

 

[clayne]

I bought a DSLR for $350 or so a few years back and shot roughly 1200 pictures, so even assuming zero resale value I have saved a ton of money compared to film. The more I shoot, the larger the saving per image.

350 / (1200 / 36) == 10.5$/roll

Hardly a savings there. Haven't even talked about scanners but at the same time hardly have even talked about computers and storage you'll need for said 1200 digipics either.

I'm sorry to hear that you've set your standards way too high. There's a lot of great work out there if you are opening minded enough to appreciate it.

More like you've set your standards too low. You can't tell someone that because they've seen the appreciated quality level go down the drain that it's the viewer's problem and their standards are too high. That's a justification for mediocre output of previously good photographers.

 

[Aristophanes]

2. After the capture stage then the process stage begins. This includes computer(s), software and internet connection to send the images to a lab or other spots on the internet which is further expanded in #3.

This is a stage being skipped more and more as fewer and fewer people will own a desktop PC. Developing will take place in the camera, accessible to a table or even just a screen. Already the majority of cameras sold in the developing world are designed to work with no personal computer. Communications no longer requires a desktop, or even a laptop, PC.

You asked about the 5-year window. The diminishment of the PC as "lab" is the biggest change we are likely to see.

 

[jsrockit]

More like you've set your standards too low. You can't tell someone that because they've seen the appreciated quality level go down the drain that it's the viewer's problem and their standards are too high. That's a justification for mediocre output of previously good photographers.

Perhaps, but I just think there's still great work out there...and there always will be. That said, I've never been the type that singles out the unequivocal best and then dismisses the rest as crap. That seems a bit extreme to me and I'm in no position to dismiss masters of the medium. They've likely forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know.

 

[user237428934]

This is a stage being skipped more and more as fewer and fewer people will own a desktop PC. Developing will take place in the camera, accessible to a table or even just a screen. Already the majority of cameras sold in the developing world are designed to work with no personal computer. Communications no longer requires a desktop, or even a laptop, PC.

You asked about the 5-year window. The diminishment of the PC as "lab" is the biggest change we are likely to see.

What a great invention to move the development from a 27" sceen to a 3" screen 😕