How can the life-expectancy of a piece of equipment be "irrelevant" to its value?
I believe that a piece of equipment which will last 30 years is of immensely superior value to something that will need to be replaced every two or three years. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <godd...@mac.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Nick Wright wrote: > >> His LX lasted nearly 30 years. I'd be surprised if any digital camera >> available today would be operational half that long (other than museum >> pieces that never got used). > > This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether to repair old, low > value equipment. > >> If the repair doesn't cost too much and he can get another couple >> decades of service out of it, why not? > > If he loves shooting with them, indeed: why not? > Other than cost, and cost vs the value of the gear. > Love trumps cost, but I don't love equipment very much. > > My experience is that once I obtained digital cameras that surpassed the > quality of what I could do with 35mm film, the film cameras I owned ceased > to be of any importance at all. That's why I sold all the 35mm system > cameras, and would put no money into fixing broken ones: that money is > better spent acquiring whatever new equipment might be advantageous to use. > > Godfrey > "Equipment often gets in the way of photography." > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
