[rollei_list] Re: Comparison: scanned Rolleiflex Slide vs. 100 ISO ditigal...
- From: David Sadowski <dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:00:43 -0600
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Georges Giralt <georges.giralt@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello David,
> I can't really calculate this but I can tell you you have to factor in
> the cost of repair and or replacement.
> As a lot of my friends know me as a photographer, they ask very often
> about who is apt to repair their digital camera.
> And quite every time, they come back asking "which new camera should I
> buy" meaning the previous digital camera is dead or beyond repair.
> some of them having just more than the year... of life and taken not so
> many shots.
> It is a different game if you go the high end DSLR be it from Canon or
> Nikon. But the price tag is not the same...
> And the running cost (be it batteries or electricity for accumulators)
> has to be factored in.
> Just my 2 cents...
In comparison to film, the digital realm is still evolving, which
means you can expect a lot of depreciation. Whereas classic film
cameras such as Rolleis can hold their value well over may years, film
being a fully developed and stable medium, within a few years, your
digital camera is outdated as standards have changed and improved.
There is always a trade-off between cost and functionality when
choosing a camera, and thus in terms of digital cameras, the most
expensive ones are probably not the best investments, since there will
be too short a lifespan to justify the high cost, and resale value
will be low. There will be no chance for it to retain a lot of value
over time.
Since the digital camera is likely to be something that will need to
be replaced a lot more often than a film camera, cost is more like an
ongoing expense, which suggests the choice of a moderately-priced
camera would be the way to go, considering that it is probably almost
as good as a much higher-priced model. In other words, the extra cost
involved with getting a slightly higher quality machine probably
cannot be fully justified.
A corollary would be how, back in the 1950s, Leicas were considered
the best, and yet more and more working photographers ended up
choosing Nikon. Objectively speaking, Leica was better, but a degree
of better that did not necessarily justify the additional cost.
Another example would be how objectively a Graflex 4x5 camera could
take a higher quality picture than a 35mm Nikon, but newspapers didn't
necessarily need all the quality, and there were other advantages to
the Nikon, so within a short period of years, it was goodbye Graflex.
While there may indeed be advantages in getting the most expensive
anything, digital cameras included, since so much of what happens gets
done through use of software after the fact, this tends to diminish
somewhat the importance of the camera itself, as far as imparting a
particular "style" to the image. Whereas before you had your
Kodachrome and your Tri-X and these choices dictated what your
finished product would look like, now the camera is more akin to a
recorder, and you can give the image a certain look in your editing
software.
Just talking cameras here, not lenses of course. The same lenses
nowadays can be used on many digital cameras and film cameras.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
