JChrome
Street Worker
Excellent point.
Quick and dirty:
A7 New at release: $1700
Price on the 'Bay now: $1100
Loss of Value over the Year: $600.
This is a pretty precipitous drop and I was surprised to see those prices on the 'Bay. But the question is - did you spend $600 on film and processing this year?
Disclaimer/Footnotes - of course this is not a perfect calculation and many assumptions are baked in. The price drop in a digital camera will bottom out at some point, the first year a camera is released is probably when it will lose the most value. Also, of course you cannot compare film to digital exactly. I value the film look as well as having the physical negatives and I am willing to pay a premium for it. But if you allow some flexibility in the comparison, then it's safe to say digital costs less if you shoot with the same body/lens for a few years.
Further disclaimer - I only shoot film, and won't be buying a digital RF.
Personally I didn't because I prefer digital. However, let's say color film processing and scanning cost $20 here in NYC, that would be 30 rolls in a year... I could do that in 2 months easily if I was using film.
Ok, so B&W... maybe you can get away with $5 if you bulk roll and process yourself (and I know some of you do it cheaper). That's 120 rolls... or 10 a month. Yes, that's doable easily for me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I paid $1300 for the A7 body, new at release time, and I can sell it now for $1100. That means I've only lost $200 in depreciation value, and the camera has already made 7000+ photographs for me. In 35mm film and processing costs, that would have been about $1500, assuming buying film at $4 per roll and paying $4 per roll for negs-only processing, which is the average of what I actually pay rather than theoretics about bulk loading and processing at home. So all up, my A7 kit has cost me minus-$1300 or so, has returned a couple hundred excellent, finished photos, and is still in perfect shape ready to keep working for years to come.
I've certainly spent vastly more than minus-$1300 on film and processing this year, and have a dozen or two very nice photos to show for it. Most of that equipment continues to work fine too.
I say this only to point out that these kinds of monetary comparisons are completely ridiculous.
G
JChrome
Street Worker
My disclaimer noted that the comparison isn't a perfect one to make. But it is interesting to me nevertheless.
Disclaimers be damned, there's no amount of qualification that can save you from hyperbole and angst on the internet
uhoh7
Veteran
Somebody paid around 7k fro my M9 in 2011. I found it for sale with new sensor etc end of 2013 for 3500.
The glass can hold some value, digital bodies less so.
TY god, because if not, I would not have afforded it.
The glass can hold some value, digital bodies less so.
TY god, because if not, I would not have afforded it.
That's 50%... not bad really compared to many other models.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I bought my M9 as a Leica USA Demo with a year warranty in early 2012, using a bit of found money based on some overpaid taxes in 2011. Cost me about $6300, IIRC.
Every so often, I anguish about whether I use it enough, whether I should sell it, whether I should trade it up for the M typ 240, etc. And then I pick it up again and go shooting with it, and don't want to let it go.
What it cost me is no longer relevant, what I can get selling it doesn't matter if I don't sell it. Assuming that I don't trade it up for an M-P typ 240, I'll just keep shooting with it until it stops working.... And then buy whatever the replacement is. That may take a long time.
"If someone else makes a FF digital RF ...?" Uh, changes nothing. Nobody else makes a Leica. Warts and all, I prefer having a Leica. Now I just gotta figure out what to sell so I buy a Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 for it without bleeding my bank account too dry... ;-)
G
Every so often, I anguish about whether I use it enough, whether I should sell it, whether I should trade it up for the M typ 240, etc. And then I pick it up again and go shooting with it, and don't want to let it go.
What it cost me is no longer relevant, what I can get selling it doesn't matter if I don't sell it. Assuming that I don't trade it up for an M-P typ 240, I'll just keep shooting with it until it stops working.... And then buy whatever the replacement is. That may take a long time.
"If someone else makes a FF digital RF ...?" Uh, changes nothing. Nobody else makes a Leica. Warts and all, I prefer having a Leica. Now I just gotta figure out what to sell so I buy a Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 for it without bleeding my bank account too dry... ;-)
G
k__43
Registered Film User
ha:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1807005251/frankencamera-ii
I'd suppose a Hexar RF or Ikon would be an easier starting point
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1807005251/frankencamera-ii
I'd suppose a Hexar RF or Ikon would be an easier starting point
Scrambler
Well-known
Even if true, see the post above re Leica. He's oversubscribed nearly twice over, he's done something right.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Need to? Nothing wrong with my DMR (2005), Digilux2 (2004) or M8(2006) it is just my GAS that I own newer models....For me the "problem" with digital is you need to be able to replace the camera body every 3-4 years with the updates to the sensors that is going on. I still love my GXR w/Leica Mt. module for my M lenses, but I have added a Sony RX-1 for the FF neither is a RF camera. But I felt both were the best for the least amt. of $$, I did find the RX-1 used at a very good price.
I have been using M cameras since 1971 I still have my first M-3 that was used when I bought it, it is still competitive with the newest film but we can't say that about digital bodies. My M film cameras were a investment, if I took care of them they took care of me we can't say the same thing about digital bodies they have a much shorter life span. Sorry for rambling on I really sound like a old fart..... maybe I am....
wbill
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Need to? Nothing wrong with my DMR (2005), Digilux2 (2004) or M8(2006) it is just my GAS that I own newer models....
Nothing wrong with my E-1 (2003) either. The capabilities of the newer cameras obsolete it, but it still makes very fine photographs.
GAS? For many things, I want those capabilities ... For some, the E-1 is all I need.
G
Pioneer
Veteran
I personally don't believe that most of the older digital cameras are actually obsolete, as long as they continue to work. Electronic components shouldn't wear like mechanical ones do so they should be able to continue producing the same level of image quality that they did when new. In fact, with the increased RAW capabilities of the newer software they are arguably even better.
Obsolete may really be more of a marketing ploy rather than a real issue. Of course, if the camera can no longer be repaired due to a lack of parts then it could be argued that they really are obsolete. But even at that point a lot of this equipment will likely continue to work for a very long time.
Obsolete may really be more of a marketing ploy rather than a real issue. Of course, if the camera can no longer be repaired due to a lack of parts then it could be argued that they really are obsolete. But even at that point a lot of this equipment will likely continue to work for a very long time.