Professional Web Applications Themes

Cost of Digital Cameras - Photography

Todd, just a word of warning ... be sure to read the fine print on those "deals". Doing a lot of research over the last few weeks on what I was going to buy, I found a few of those deals. Seem to remember reading on one such site it was for "Camera Body Only". While I know you do not get a lens with even the $1499 price, seems to me those $1339 prices were for open box item with nothing but the body and/or gray market cameras. No way did I feel comfortable thinking I'd be giving them ...

  1. #21

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    Todd, just a word of warning ... be sure to read the fine print on
    those "deals".
    Doing a lot of research over the last few weeks on what I was going to
    buy, I found a few of those deals. Seem to remember reading on one
    such site it was for "Camera Body Only". While I know you do not get a
    lens with even the $1499 price, seems to me those $1339 prices were
    for open box item with nothing but the body and/or gray market
    cameras. No way did I feel comfortable thinking I'd be giving them my
    money for a deal not even "authorized Canon Dealers" could give. It
    could be just me but ...

    I ended up going with a reputable (I hope?) dealer that had everything
    I needed at one place at decent prices ... Talking with them this AM I
    got the impression it was shipping today/tomorrow morning ... here's
    hoping!

    Todd Walker <com> wrote in message news:<jam.rr.com>... 
    >
    > Nope, $1369:
    >
    > http://www.bestpriceaudiovideo.com/products/product_detail.asp?
    > Inventory=2295 (add it to your cart to see the $1369 price.)
    >
    > and holy cow, this one was $1369 just yesterday and now it's $1337:
    >
    > http://www.dbuys.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dby.proPage&product_id=2109
    >
    > At these prices, my 10D trigger finger is getting mighty itchy...
    >
    > --
    > ________________________________
    > Todd Walker
    > http://twalker.d2g.com
    > Olympus E20
    > Canon G2
    > My Digital Photography Weblog:
    > http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    > _________________________________[/ref]
    JohnO Guest

  2. #22

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    "Charlie Self" <combleah> wrote [/ref]
    take a [/ref]
    price 
    >
    > I'm not sure the "how many photos" part relates too solidly, but the uses[/ref]
    of 
    disassembled, in 

    manuals, 
    just 

    Okay, but it sounds like you don't fit into the "most people" group. For
    you, the value of a digicam would be a lot higher than someone who just
    shoots vacation and family shots.

    I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a better
    value than a compact 35mm film camera, for most people's needs. Digital
    cameras are getting much better in terms of picture quality and function
    (ease of use and printing), but they still serve a niche market. I think it
    will be another 3-5 years before they overtake the 35mm film camera.

    (Personally, I hardly ever use my 35mm camera now, and much prefer shooting
    digital. But, I think I'm part of the niche market, along with just about
    everybody else reading this newsgroup.)


    gr Guest

  3. #23

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    >net

    Wrote:>

    I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a better 

    I just read in a business article somewhere that the sale of digital cameras
    has exeeded the sale of film cameras in the last quarter of 2002.
    Rosita


    HRosita Guest

  4. #24

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    "HRosita" <comnet> wrote 
    >
    > Wrote:>
    >
    > I'll go a bit further, and state that I don't believe digicams are a[/ref]
    better 
    >
    > I just read in a business article somewhere that the sale of digital[/ref]
    cameras 


    Could be, but is that in numbers of units or in total revenue? Digicams are
    a lot more expensive per unit than film cameras. Regardless, there are a lot
    of film cameras out there, and it will take a lot of digicam sales to
    replace all the existing 35mm cameras in use. (I have a feeling I'll still
    be occasionally using my 35mm Nikon SLR, long after I'm on my 4th or 5th
    digital camera.)


    gr Guest

  5. #25

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras


    "Paul H." <net> wrote in message
    news:wKUSa.1$news.pas.earthlink.net... 
    > >
    > > Prices peak when demand outstrips supply.[/ref]
    >
    >
    > You have, as they say, a firm grasp of the obvious. The question being
    > considered, though, is whether such digital camera supply-demand cycles[/ref]
    are 

    I disagree. My comments were meant to include the demand that comes with
    the release of new digital cameras. With the quick release/short
    model-life, most digital camera pricing rises and falls most significantly
    in line with the times that either the same company updates their camera, or
    the competition updates theirs. While these releases often occur around
    February due to the big announcements at PMA, the actual releases also
    happen well before and well after.

    Pricing fo digital cameras is far more sensitive to supply and demand of NEW
    models, and for this reason, my comment wasn't simply the obvious answer
    that applies to all of teh capitalist system of sales/exchange. Christmas,
    graduation and etc. seem to have far LESS effect than when the camera was
    released, and what the status of "upgrades" are, or when they are
    anticipated. 


    Mark Guest

  6. #26

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    gr responds:
     

    Oh, I dunno. I shot about 110 photos Saturday of a family reunion. I don't even
    like to think of what film and processing would have cost.
     

    More'n likely.

    Charlie Self

    `I don't care how little your country is, you got a right to run it like you
    want to. When the big nations quit meddling then the world will have peace.'
    Will Rogers






    Charlie Guest

  7. #27

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras


    "Paul H." <net> wrote in message
    news:x5ZSa.30$news.pas.earthlink.net... [/ref]
    > Christmas? 
    > >
    > > I disagree. My comments were meant to include the demand that comes[/ref][/ref]
    with [/ref]
    significantly [/ref]
    camera, 
    > NEW 
    > Christmas, [/ref]
    was 
    >
    > If you're talking about the kinds of digital cameras sought by aficionados
    > such as people in this newsgroup, I would probably agree with your
    > assessment. However, the general market for digital cameras of all sorts[/ref]
    is 
    all 
    all 


    I understand what you're saying...about the ignorantly blissful buying
    public.
    But I can also say with confidence that camera manufacturers' pricing drops
    are DIRECTLY in line with the release of either their own new models, or new
    competitor's models of similar sector. Take the 10D and D100 for example.
    It wasn't Christmas that drove the price of teh D100 down...it was the
    release of Canon's 10D that did it.

    This is also true with run-of-the-mill point-and-shoots.
    Competition is fierce, and new models lead to price drops by many companies
    to compensate. They are perhaps more aware of competetive moves than any
    other sector (opinion).
     
    right, 

    I think what you're saying may apply more to stores having sales rather than
    pricing set by manufactures. But here still, new models have the greatest
    demand nearly accross the board, since the specs increase so quickly still.
    Whether it's Christmas or not, the specs keep moving upward, and prices
    reflect this.


    Mark Guest

  8. #28

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    RB wrote: 
    > the 
    >
    > I assume your idea of quality predominantly means technical quality.
    > Cartier-Bresson "created images" with a pencil, a brush, a Box Brownie and a
    > Leica. Whether you would achieve his quality in a more valid sense with his
    > pencil, his Leica or the finest Japanese electronics money can buy is open
    > to question. I get dozens of pictures sent to the website I run every week
    > and some of those of the greatest value are produced with a point-and-shoot
    > snapshot camera. If the OP wants to relate his budget to what makes sense to
    > him then why not? The tools he uses are a minor part of the equation though
    > many pretend otherwise.
    >
    > Ray[/ref]


    I could not agree more with this post.

    A teacher of mine once said: "Amateurs buy expensive equipment to try to make up
    for their lack of skill. A professional can often produce better results with
    poor worn out equipment, than an amateur with brand new expensive equipment."

    He was talking about the jewelry field, and I am certain that the same is true
    for photography, digital or og.

    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
    Abrasha Guest

  9. #29

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    HRosita wrote:
     

    Well, as surgeon would not use a kitchen knife, but maybe in a poor country a
    surgeon would have to use a very old scalpel, that needs to be sterilized
    (because presterilized use-once blades are not available) in an autoclave that
    he does not have. If the surgeon in question is in fact "the best surgeon in
    the world", he would most definitely achieve better results than any other
    surgeon operating with better tools.

    "The tools used by any craftsman ...." I strongly disagree. I have many tools
    that are very old and worn. All of my needle files are at least 25 years old,
    and some of my hand files are older. I use a mouth n torch, which is 30
    years old, and in design it is more than 300 years old. My milling machine is
    more than 40 years old and has backlash on both the lead s. I achieve far
    better and accurate results with that equipment than most of my colleagues with
    the "best" and "newest" and "most expensive" equipment.

    In fact, in my field, I have somewhat of a reputation for it.

    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
    Abrasha Guest

  10. #30

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    >Subject: Re: Cost of Digital Cameras 
    >with a 
    >
    >Well, as surgeon would not use a kitchen knife, but maybe in a poor country a
    >surgeon would have to use a very old scalpel, that needs to be sterilized
    >(because presterilized use-once blades are not available) in an autoclave
    >that
    >he does not have. If the surgeon in question is in fact "the best surgeon in
    >the world", he would most definitely achieve better results than any other
    >surgeon operating with better tools.
    >
    >"The tools used by any craftsman ...." I strongly disagree. I have many
    >tools
    >that are very old and worn. All of my needle files are at least 25 years
    >old,
    >and some of my hand files are older. I use a mouth n torch, which is 30
    >years old, and in design it is more than 300 years old. My milling machine
    >is
    >more than 40 years old and has backlash on both the lead s. I achieve
    >far
    >better and accurate results with that equipment than most of my colleagues
    >with
    >the "best" and "newest" and "most expensive" equipment.
    >
    >In fact, in my field, I have somewhat of a reputation for it.
    >
    >Abrasha
    >http://www.abrasha.com[/ref]


    As Steiglitz said, "The simplest camera has capabilities far beyond that of the
    greatest photographer".

    Arthur Kramer
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

    ArtKramr Guest

  11. #31

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    Abrasha <com> writes:
     
     

    Your teacher was talking about the difference between a relatively
    inexperienced amateur, and a skilled and experienced professional. In
    that context, it's right.

    But in photography, and probably jewellry too, there will be amateurs who
    are very experienced and skilled, and capable of excellent work on old
    equipment. They're amateurs because they earn their living some other
    way, and don't sell their work.

    Similarly, there are "professionals" who really aren't very skilled, and
    aren't capable of really good work no matter what the equipment.

    I suspect your teacher is saying that what matters is knowledge and
    skill and artistry, not the equipment - and the amateur/professional
    status is just a red herring.

    Dave
    Dave Guest

  12. #32

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    ArtKramr wrote:
     

    I couldn't have said it better.

    --
    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
    Abrasha Guest

  13. #33

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    Dave Martindale wrote:
     

    Yes, that is exactly what he was talking about.
    --
    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
    Abrasha Guest

  14. #34

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    RB wrote: 
    >
    > I assume your idea of quality predominantly means technical quality.
    > Cartier-Bresson "created images" with a pencil, a brush, a Box
    > Brownie and a Leica. Whether you would achieve his quality in a more
    > valid sense with his pencil, his Leica or the finest Japanese
    > electronics money can buy is open to question. I get dozens of
    > pictures sent to the website I run every week and some of those of
    > the greatest value are produced with a point-and-shoot snapshot
    > camera. If the OP wants to relate his budget to what makes sense to
    > him then why not? The tools he uses are a minor part of the equation
    > though many pretend otherwise.[/ref]

    When he said $2 a week camera, I assumed he meant a cheapie digital camera,
    rather than a DSLR. If you're talking about film, then we most certainly
    agree.
    Unfortunately with digital, you tend to get what you pay for as far as
    technical image capabilities. Technical issues play a major role with
    digital since color rendition is directed entirely electronically. Also...
    While with a crummy film camera, one can still produce very technically nice
    images using smaller aprtures, etc., with digital, you've either got pixels
    to take advantage of your lenses or you don't. After all the technical
    part, THEN you get down to the real skill that makes a great photog. You
    will never hear me claim that it's the tool over the skill. I will say,
    though, that there are dfinitely photograpy sectors that are technically
    intensive--where a body's abilities are key (action, sports, bird panning,
    etc.).


    Mark Guest

  15. #35

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras


    "Dave Martindale" <ubc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bfp2t0$q7a$cs.ubc.ca...
    | Abrasha <com> writes:
    |
    | >A teacher of mine once said: "Amateurs buy expensive equipment to
    try to make up
    | >for their lack of skill. A professional can often produce better
    results with
    | >poor worn out equipment, than an amateur with brand new expensive
    equipment."
    |
    | >He was talking about the jewelry field, and I am certain that the
    same is true
    | >for photography, digital or og.
    |
    | Your teacher was talking about the difference between a relatively
    | inexperienced amateur, and a skilled and experienced professional.
    In
    | that context, it's right.
    |
    | But in photography, and probably jewellry too, there will be amateurs
    who
    | are very experienced and skilled, and capable of excellent work on
    old
    | equipment. They're amateurs because they earn their living some
    other
    | way, and don't sell their work.
    |
    | Similarly, there are "professionals" who really aren't very skilled,
    and
    | aren't capable of really good work no matter what the equipment.
    |
    | I suspect your teacher is saying that what matters is knowledge and
    | skill and artistry, not the equipment - and the amateur/professional
    | status is just a red herring.
    |
    | Dave

    Yes, you're correct and right, Dave.

    I'd add just one more term to the equation, one that is consistently
    left out (or folded into others), and which is really the most likely
    to spur "equipment-compensatory syndrome":

    Knowledge, skill, artistry, and . . . industry.

    That means _working_ at it. The greatest natural eye is useless unless
    the tools are mastered. Mastering even the most rudimentary tools
    requires application of effort over time.


    Frank ess


    Frank Guest

  16. #36

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    "Frank ess" <com> writes:
     
     

    Aww. You mean I can't just leave the camera set on AUTO all the time?


    :-)

    Dave
    Dave Guest

  17. #37

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras


    "Dave Martindale" <ubc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bfq2tn$4sg$cs.ubc.ca...
    | "Frank ess" <com> writes:
    |
    | >Knowledge, skill, artistry, and . . . industry.
    |
    | >That means _working_ at it. The greatest natural eye is useless
    unless
    | >the tools are mastered. Mastering even the most rudimentary tools
    | >requires application of effort over time.
    |
    | Aww. You mean I can't just leave the camera set on AUTO all the
    time?
    |
    |
    | :-)
    |
    | Dave

    You may, but the reaction will more likely be Despair, than Awe.

    Frank ess


    Frank Guest

  18. #38

    Default Re: Cost of Digital Cameras

    In article <A1XTa.15290$Bp2.7606fed1read07>, net says... 

    Well said Mark. This is precisely why the film argument that "the camera
    doesn't matter" can't be applied to digital. With film, the camera is
    pretty much nothing more than a box to hold the film and lens. With
    digital, it is MUCH more.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D ON THE WAY!
    Canon G2
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Guest

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Contrast with digital cameras
    By Scottie_G.@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Photoshop Mac CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: May 10th, 11:59 PM
  2. new digital cameras
    By Not in forum Photography
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 20th, 11:15 PM
  3. New digital cameras?
    By Kyle Peterson in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 12th, 06:13 PM
  4. Vibrations and digital cameras
    By John in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 21st, 01:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139