Interesting Article By Jason Schneider

[ed_balko3]

I ran across this article today and pass it on the forum - more fuel

for the "end of the world as we know it" discussions.

 

http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/03-22/features/editor_at_large.html

[christopher_moss]

Let's all focus on this part:

 

"Optical-mechanical classics like rangefinder Leicas and top-quality limited or out-of-

production collectibles like the Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex Rollei 35, Minolta CLE and

rangefinder Canons and Nikons will hold, and they may possibly even increase in value in

the face of the digital onslaught."

[ed_balko3]

Just the reason I called attention the article Chris.

 

Perhaps we can build a fishing reef off New Jersey with second-hand digital point-and-shoots.

[bret_williams]

So possibly Leica's present "back to the past" marketing strategy for the M is pure prescient genius!

[bret_williams]

Luddites unite!

[Alex_Es]

Thanks of the information Ed.

 

Jason Schheider said everything I've said or felt like saying.

Digital Cameras are like computers. They become obsolete quickly. A

Leica or an Exata from the 30s is a collectable camera and a first

rate photographic tool, a DSLR c. 1999 isn't. Nice to know that our

Leicas will endure as our DSLRs become fishline sinker material.

 

The good news maybe that an $8000 Canon EOS DSLR will be had at a

bargin in a few years. And if it can take professional quality

pictures now it will do so for quite a while yet.

 

Too bad about the Minolta Alpha 9000. Had Minolta not changed its

mount it would be fetching a bit more now and be good as an MF

camera.

 

Anyway, I'm not tossing $3000 on an Epson RD-1 right now. It will be

surpassed soon.

[ben z]

I don't think it's complicated.

 

If there's film to be bought, most film cameras will have some value regardless of whether they're Leicas or not. Some will be worth more than others, just like it's always been, only adjusted for scale in the digital world.

 

If there isn't film to be bought, then the only reason anybody would want film cameras is for collecting and display, in which case most likely only the ones in mint to near-mint or else very rare types, will have any value.

[max_fun]

Alex, just as you mentioned that the Canon 1Ds can take professional photos now and in

the future when it's in the bargain bin, so will the R-D1 even if it gets surpassed in the

future.

 

Digital cameras become 'obsolete' quickly because companies cannot upgrade and replace

them fast enough. Each replacement is suposedly better than the previous one, and so

people looking for biggest and shiniest toys will just keep buying up whatever they get

served.

 

Film cameras on the other hand, have very limited avenues to improve. Apart from

heaping on electronics and a camera with a good lens from decades ago will give

comparable results to cameras today. Digital cameras on the other hand are quite

different. You can make it tiny and pretty to attract the ladies, or you can make it big with

a 12x zoom for the bird watchers, and all with increasing 'quality' with each additional

megapixel they add. This is the way the camera manufacturers try to get people to keep

buying cameras. But the fact is, if you're happy with your digital camera, there's nothing to

prevent you from using it many years down the road.

 

Of course mechanical cameras have a longer 'lifespan' than other cameras, by virtue that

they have simple, repairable and replaceable parts, so as long as you can find spare parts

and people able to fix the camera, you'll always be able to use your camera. However, this

is the same with all cameras with electronics, and not just digital cameras, except that

because the parts are more complex, spare parts and know how will get scarce once the

manufacturer decides not to support it. But interestingly, nobody talked about how

electronic film cameras are 'disposable', the way they diss digital cameras.

 

I can't say that my digital cameras will still be functioning in 10 years the way they are

now, but they're still really useful now and continue to be the sam for the next few years.

[al_kaplan1]

Max, the disposable aspects of electronc film cameras have been discussed. It's one of the points of discussion between the Minolta CL and the CLE, and it's been discussed to death about the Leica R series and most recently the M7.

[abufletcher]

A friend of mine put over 200,000 frames on his D100 (in about two years)

and the last photo was every bit as good as the first. I would imagine quality

DSLR's are good for at least as many "cycles" as the non-pro film bodies --

and that's plenty for me.

 

My friend did, finally, trade in his D100, while it still had some trade-in value,

and got a D70 because of the colors and exposure are better straight out of

the camera, i.e. less post-processing. Considering his hasn't spent a dime on

either film or processing in over two years, I'd say he's well ahead on what

he's spent on digital bodies.

[mike_elek]

... and I'm sure all 200,000 frames were keepers. I'd hate to be the unlucky sucker to end up with that D100, which most certainly has a tired shutter by now.

[mike_elek]

And I'd also not like to think how much time was spent post-processing 200,000 images. But time is cheaper than film, I suppose.

[jonathan_reynolds]

I had to borrow a digital yesterday (made by Suzuki or Mitsubishi or some such), and discovered that - being over 45 - I couldn't actually see where the buttons were, or read the words on the LCD. True, I can't read the numbers on my Summicron either, but I know where they are. Maybe old farts of every generation will always be condemned to use mechanical cameras? Mind you, I succeeded with the digital OK, without any instruction.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<i><<a href="http://4020.net/">4020.net</a>></i><p>

 

<i>how much time was spent post-processing 200,000 images. But time is cheaper than

film, I suppose.</i><p>

 

Precisely! If you shoot digital RAW then the amount of Photoshop colour-balance fiddling

can be every bit as long as that required by a film scan. Yes you can get the image onto

the computer in under a minute, but what about the time required to get to the

final end-product image?...<p>