On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
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.
Please, let's not be ridiculous. I like old equipment too, but having an MX just cleaned ... not needing any parts or repairs, just cleaned and adjusted to work as new ... costs more than triple what the damn thing is worth on the marketplace. Unless the camera has tremendous sentimental value to you, and you plan to keep on using it for a very long time because you love using it, it is not worth the money to repair one. If you must have one and yours is broken, buy another one: it's more cost effective.
Never mind the fundamental truth of photography today: film is dead. Spending money to repair film cameras ... well, it just doesn't make sense unless there's something particularly special about a particular camera that you need or want for your photography.
BTW, all of my cameras aside from the G1 are now over three years old. Two of them were made in 2003-2004 (I bought them used a year ago), three in 2006 (two bought new-old-stock in 2007). They're all working very nicely and don't need to be replaced, nor does it look like they will need to be anytime in the foreseeable future.
Nor do they need repair. When they do, I'll do whatever is cost effective between repair and replacement, and considering whether I prefer to keep working with them or want to move on to newer equipment too.
Godfrey -- 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.
