[rollei_list] Re: Comparison: scanned Rolleiflex Slide vs. 100 ISO ditigal...
- From: Brad Slade <bradslade@xxxxxxx>
- To: "<rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:22:07 +0000
I have a Canon 5d mk II. I just had the sensor cleaned and as part of that
service was told that the shutter has completed 172,000 cycles. I've never had
a problem with it in the three years I've had it. It cost 3,500 us dollars
new, but you could get one a lot cheaper now. I love film and still shoot with
my Rollei 2.8 D and Hasselblad 500CM, but not because its cheaper.
Bradley Slade
Photographer
Publications & Graphics
Brigham Young University
On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:00 AM, David Sadowski wrote:
> 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 digital camera is outdated as standards have changed and improved.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
>
---
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:
