One point that you did not make, Shel, is that Digital cameras and printers are "disposable"
I'll continue to keep the LX and MX in good repair because essentially they are mechanical marvels with little in the way of electronics. I'm sure you feel the same about your Leicas, etc. Digital cameras on the other hand are electronic nightmares and if they stop functioning and are not under any kind of warranty are discarded for a new one. I don't think they are economically repairable. Same for printers. Christian Skofteland > -----Original Message----- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Yes, it does - as do all consumables. Perhaps the point to be > considered is not so much monetary depreciation, as > obsolescence. Thus > far, even old cameras, while ~maybe~ not being worth as much as when > new, are still able to function well and make good photographs. IOW, > it's a mature technology. > > Digital cameras are still experiencing growing pains. What's > available > now will soon be superseded by cameras able to capture more detail and > information, printers are evolving, paper, I suppose, is evolving and > going through changes, as are inks. So, while a digital > camera may work > well for a while, better quality products will evolve, and the current > cameras and equipment will be found lacking even more than > they are now. > > I can sell my Leicas and Leica lenses for what they cost me, or even > more. Older Pentax bodies and lenses also command high-end prices, as > do certain Nikons and other "obsolete" cameras. When a digital camera > is "old", it's history. > > Let's look at printing for a moment. Old enlargers are just > as good as > new enlargers, assuming no damage. There are, essentially, > no parts to > wear out, although light sources may have to be changed or checked at > times. OTOH, ink jet printers do wear out, and, like digital cameras, > they, too, become obsolete. This is not to say that one > can't continue > using an older camera or an older printer, just as one can continue > using an older computer, but at some point technology will advance far > enough that, in order to remain creative or competitive, > newer gear will > almost be required. Meanwhile, it's almost impossible to tell the > results from the latest wonder cameras from a 35yo SLR or rangefinder. > > While newer cameras may have more features, they do not take better > pictures, and so the only reason to upgrade your old Spotmatic is > because you want AF or a certain type of metering, etc. However, the > quality of the photographs won't change appreciably. OTOH, > upgrading to > a new digital camera or printer seems like a good way to get better > quality images, or make larger sized prints. > > Well, that's the "digital dunce's" morning comment. > > William Robb wrote: > > > Hmmm, doesn't a conventional camera depreciate as well? > > William Robb > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
