Selling panic...

I probably won't be spending $1000 on an F6. I don't even seem to want one. But I just picked up an FA for $140.00. Now THERE is a CAMERA!
 
My first "modern" digital was a Nikon D70 (I had Kodaks before) and it was great in 2004. I went on to the D2x, D300, and was about to pull the trigger on a D700 when I realized that I haven't used digital for anything more than a modest brochure photo, a quick 8x10 headshot, family snapshots, or internet use. And most of the images only exist on the internet, under 1000 pixels... So I compared my 2004 RAW files to my 2008 RAW files and truth be told, once I get a final 1000 pixel jpg you can't tell which camera was used to make it.

So instead of buying a new D700 for $3000 I went out and bought a "new" mint D70 for $300. It does everything I need a digital to do -- it's fast enough for kids and portraits -- and a $100 50/1.8 gives me short depth of field portraits when I want that.

Even better, the conversion software and my skills using it are much better than in 2004, so even those 6mp RAW files are looking better than ever.

Paying your bills and saving money on photography is a good feeling.
 
Last edited:
Canon and Nikon are expected to announce across-the-board price increases in the new year. If used equipment pricing is based on the value of the equivalent new gear, maybe we'll see used prices increasing?
For now, Nikon dropped the price of the D90 by $100 and Canon has a whole lotta rebates out there. May be next year there'll be price increase, but...

How about a Nikon D40 plus lens(refurbished) for $375?

http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html?searchinfo=nikon d40&item_no=39

Kiu
 
"I buy the least expensive Nikon dSLR bodies"

I do the same. I've seen very nice 12"x18" prints from 6mp files. Just this weekend I picked up an MB-20 grip for my F4 from a photographer for one of the Washington newspapers. He showed me his main workhorse, a D2h (4mp). And two weeks ago I got a barely used D40 out of the local craigslist for $390; the seller had upgraded the 18-55 kit lens to the VR version and added a split-rangefinder screen. It will have to tide me over until rich amateurs dump their D700's for $500 or less.
 
My first "modern" digital was a Nikon D70 (I had Kodaks before) and it was great in 2004. I went on to the D2x, D300, and was about to pull the trigger on a D700 when I realized that I haven't used digital for anything more than a modest brochure photo, a quick 8x10 headshot, family snapshots, or internet use. And most of the images only exist on the internet, under 1000 pixels... So I compared my 2004 RAW files to my 2008 RAW files and truth be told, once I get a final 1000 pixel jpg you can't tell which camera was used to make it.

So instead of buying a new D700 for $3000 I went out and bought a "new" mint D70 for $300. It does everything I need a digital to do -- it's fast enough for kids and portraits -- and a $100 50/1.8 gives me short depth of field portraits when I want that.

Even better, the conversion software and my skills using it are much better than in 2004, so even those 6mp RAW files are looking better than ever.

Paying your bills and saving money on photography is a good feeling.

And here we have the phenomenon that I believe will define digital photography over the next few years.
A great many people will realize that every digital SLR made by every manufacturer is adequate to their needs. We're on the verge of DSLRs becoming commodized...as far as the largest segment of the market is concerned anyway.
 
Like someone already said, If it gives you acceptable results, then don't fret over it not being the latest and greatest.
There's something to be said for using older gear, especially on the street and in some nabes that are less than stellar. You don't tend to fret as much over losing or getting wet a digital SLR that's worth less than $200 than a $5000 one. I used my Oly E-10 up until last year then upgraded to the E-410. The E-10's slowness just all of a sudden got to me. Digital geeks almost laughed that I was still using that old, 4MP dinosaur. Then when I'd show them a print or two, they'd get quiet, having forgotten what that generation could achieve. I still miss it sometimes when I go out and its raining.
But I get consolation in the fact that my $899 E-410 entire kit is now worth $250! :eek:
"I buy the least expensive Nikon dSLR bodies"

I do the same. I've seen very nice 12"x18" prints from 6mp files. Just this weekend I picked up an MB-20 grip for my F4 from a photographer for one of the Washington newspapers. He showed me his main workhorse, a D2h (4mp). And two weeks ago I got a barely used D40 out of the local craigslist for $390; the seller had upgraded the 18-55 kit lens to the VR version and added a split-rangefinder screen. It will have to tide me over until rich amateurs dump their D700's for $500 or less.
 
Consolation is sticking a roll of film in a 1958 vintage M2 that I paid $100 for in 1972. It still works just fine. Another photographer I knew bought it used to cover the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. He sold it to an Associated Press photographer that I knew. She covered the 1972 Democratic and Republican conventions using it for her 21mm Super Angulon. Then I bought it. It's well trained and knows how to take great pictures.
 
I have plenty of money and I like full frame DSLR's.

I have the most excellent Kodak 14n, SLR/n, Canon EOS 5D and I just bought a Nikon D700.

The 14n makes the best images at low ISO, hands down. The D700 is the best for all lighting conditions.

I have a couple of hundred lenses.

I've got an R-D1 and film Leicas too, and plenty of lenses.

By all means, keep panic selling your stuff. I'll see you on eBay.
 
Don't worry. When the world starts sobering up, the dollar is going to tank to what it's really worth, which is nothing.

In the mean time, make hay while the sun shines.

Yup, against the Norwegian kroner: The dollar is up about 45% in less than 6 months. Basically, a $1500 M6 earlier this year would have cost me less than a $1000 M6 now. Sobering, if nothing else.
 
I have plenty of money and I like full frame DSLR's.

I have the most excellent Kodak 14n, SLR/n, Canon EOS 5D and I just bought a Nikon D700.

The 14n makes the best images at low ISO, hands down. The D700 is the best for all lighting conditions.

I have a couple of hundred lenses.

I've got an R-D1 and film Leicas too, and plenty of lenses.

By all means, keep panic selling your stuff. I'll see you on eBay.

May be it's time you went into some panic buying, mean old man :D
Valdemar is our bail-out :D:D

Kiu
 
A bit like 35mm SLRs in the last decade, then?

Cheers,

R.

I think so. A bit different in that you chose your "film" when you chose your camera. But with the differences in digital "film" being somewhat academic, since it's all better than most of us need.
We can go back to buying cameras based on feature set and our need to compensate for physical shortcomings...wait, that's what big lenses are for. :D
 
The digital camera market by nature will always have prices falling quite fast, but the film camera market is different it seems to be gaining some momentum.
Especially the rare quality film gear as the price of film scanners come down and people realise how much fun and how easy it is to develop and scan negatives.
Digital cameras with their instant and simple operation have been a great entry point for many who mistakenly thought that film was too complicated and time consuming.
Did I see that voigtlander are now producing new film cameras?, may be a sign of things to come.
Manual digital cameras such as canon G9 are a great way to check exposure etc.
It would be great if a company could produce a hybrid film/digital camera, combining the best of both worlds based on an xpan or m6/m8 for example.
 
<Laugh>

Well, I can say that I believe I am at least within the top 5 of procrastinating to sell personal items of any sort.

When I get around to posting all these items in the near future, you'll see why perhaps.

Deciding to do it , finally, recently, amazing how a week has already passed just trying to type the ads and reduce the size of images...

It had taken me over a year simply to make images of the items!

Ah, it's the memories, not the items I continue to tell myself. I am a fine art painter, not a photographer...it is time to move on...I tell myself. Why did I become so involved...?!

But, well, all arts help the other. I do enjoy it and have learned a great deal about light, color, composition, but they are two completey different mediums..

Ah, maybe next week...
 
Back
Top Bottom