Re: Used DSLR prices
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:46:04 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:22:29 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch > > > > space on a different physical drive [...] > > > > > > Different than what? The one that PS is installed on? The one the OS > > > is installed on? The one that the photo is stored on? > > > > Ideally, different from all the above - I've know people use a > > dedicated drive just as a photoshop swap device. > > > > Basically you don't want the disk heads to have to [move] ... > > Oh, I understand that, but let's look at it realistically. I've got my > OS on one drive. My swap file on another drive (don't want it on the > same drive as the OS). Photoshop on another (don't want, well, > anything on the OS and swap drives). Photoshop scratch space on > another (like you were saying). And my photo storage on another. > That's five physical drives. AFAIK, you can't even do it with regular > old IDE (or -66 or -100). You have to have SCSI or Serial ATA or > something. For me, it might happen. I'm a computer geek. For most > people it won't. For a four-physical-drive setup, I'd suggest: o One drive for OS and software (read once at process startup) o One drive for OS swap file (and data backups, etc.) o One dedicated for photoshop scratch space o One (large) drive for image storage. Sharing one drive for the OS and software installations isn't going to be a problem; anything there will only get touched once. In fact I'd even consider putting the photoshop scratch space on the same physical drive (although on a separate partition) if pushed. The usage patterns don't overlap all that much; the OS/Software gets read at process initialisation time, and the photoshop scratch space is only used once you've got everything started up and have read in some image files. Put the OS swap file & the photoshop scratch disk on separate disk controllers, though. That way you can overlap I/O transfers.
Re: Used DSLR prices
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:46:04 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:22:29 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote: > > > > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch > > > space on a different physical drive [...] > > > > Different than what? The one that PS is installed on? The one the OS > > is installed on? The one that the photo is stored on? > > Ideally, different from all the above - I've know people use a > dedicated drive just as a photoshop swap device. > > Basically you don't want the disk heads to have to [move] ... Oh, I understand that, but let's look at it realistically. I've got my OS on one drive. My swap file on another drive (don't want it on the same drive as the OS). Photoshop on another (don't want, well, anything on the OS and swap drives). Photoshop scratch space on another (like you were saying). And my photo storage on another. That's five physical drives. AFAIK, you can't even do it with regular old IDE (or -66 or -100). You have to have SCSI or Serial ATA or something. For me, it might happen. I'm a computer geek. For most people it won't. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Bob W: http://www.web-options.com/nerdkrieg.tif Oh thank you ever so much! I have long wanted to see that particluar strip. As you might know, it is featured in "In The Beginning Was The Command Line", the excellent eassay on computer culture by Neal Stephenson. The essay is available in many places on the net, for example here: http://www.spack.org/index.cgi/InTheBeginningWasTheCommandLine anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Same thing in WinDoze, bill ... "Bill D. Casselberry" wrote: > > Cotty wrote: > > > As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is not > > the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is Photoshop. > > And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors including > > levels of history vs file size etc. I am prepared to stand corrected, but > > I am pretty certain that it works this way. Hard drive speed is not as > > important as some indicate; Photoshop craftily utilises the Scratch > > Disk(s) to enable optimum performance. Using a second drive is very > > important - selecting the startup disk as a Scratch Disk will slow > > performance. > > ah, but Cotty! > > just because PhotoShop for Macintosh has such elegant > interface w/ the hardware is certainly no guarantee that > an equally graceful operation is possible on all other > computer platforms > >
Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Hi, Friday, January 16, 2004, 4:55:51 PM, you wrote: > ah, but Cotty! > just because PhotoShop for Macintosh has such elegant > interface w/ the hardware is certainly no guarantee that > an equally graceful operation is possible on all other > computer platforms http://www.web-options.com/nerdkrieg.tif -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
zoomshot wrote: > There is nothing wrong with the PC interface..lets not have a > PC war not a chance - just funnin' around :^) ... still using PShop v2.5.1 & sys8.1 on a 90mhz PMac 7200 w/ 128meg RAM - 72meg allocated to PShop. Of course, I have no film scanner and just scan in prints on an old 300dpi flatbed only to get pics up on the web. ... "stone knives & bearskins" Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
RE: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Bill, There is nothing wrong with the PC interface...lets not have a PC war Version 8.0 is fine, as Cotty said, certainly 7 and 8 run ok with two disks. In version 8.0 make sure that the level of detail is set to low in the browser. You should run with 512Mb as a minimum for reasonable performance. HTH Regards, Ziggy -Original Message- From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 January 2004 16:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices Cotty wrote: > As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is > not the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is > Photoshop. And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors > including levels of history vs file size etc. I am prepared to stand > corrected, but I am pretty certain that it works this way. Hard drive > speed is not as important as some indicate; Photoshop craftily > utilises the Scratch > Disk(s) to enable optimum performance. Using a second drive is very > important - selecting the startup disk as a Scratch Disk will slow > performance. ah, but Cotty! just because PhotoShop for Macintosh has such elegant interface w/ the hardware is certainly no guarantee that an equally graceful operation is possible on all other computer platforms !;^DBill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Cotty wrote: > As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is not > the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is Photoshop. > And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors including > levels of history vs file size etc. I am prepared to stand corrected, but > I am pretty certain that it works this way. Hard drive speed is not as > important as some indicate; Photoshop craftily utilises the Scratch > Disk(s) to enable optimum performance. Using a second drive is very > important - selecting the startup disk as a Scratch Disk will slow > performance. ah, but Cotty! just because PhotoShop for Macintosh has such elegant interface w/ the hardware is certainly no guarantee that an equally graceful operation is possible on all other computer platforms !;^DBill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space >on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's >far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going >to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transfer speed is still much >slower than main memory speeds. Try to get more memory first; a second >drive is a palliative, not a solution. As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is not the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is Photoshop. And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors including levels of history vs file size etc. I am prepared to stand corrected, but I am pretty certain that it works this way. Hard drive speed is not as important as some indicate; Photoshop craftily utilises the Scratch Disk(s) to enable optimum performance. Using a second drive is very important - selecting the startup disk as a Scratch Disk will slow performance. Fire away! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Used DSLR prices
I asked this question a while ago and was told by leon Altoff that he uses the refconverter A ... refconverter M should also work. Cotty wrote: > John, I use an angle finder extensively. Always when on the tripod (as > I'm taller than it) so viewing is a breeze. Low angle shots no problem. > Is one available to fit the *ist D?
Re: Used DSLR prices
> > On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > John, I use an angle finder extensively. Always when on the tripod (as > I'm taller than it) so viewing is a breeze. Low angle shots no problem. > Is one available to fit the *ist D? I've seen posts here that suggest the refconverter A or M would work. Neither would really help me, though; In many of the cases where I'm trying to get an ankle-height viewpoint I wouldn't be able to kneel down to look through a refconverter. (Kneeling down in front of a race car making a pitstop is frowned upon by race officials :-) The nice thing about the LCD viewfinder is that you can see it from several feet away, at least well enough to check overall framing. An LX with a waist-level finder would work there, but not when I'm holding the camera at arm's length and poking it round the edge of the Jersey barrier or catch fencing. On a totally unrelated note: I happened to be watching a 30-year-old TV show the other day (Lord Peter Wimsey: Murder Must Advertise), and couldn't help noticing just how bad the distortion was on the cameras of the day! Barrel distortion on the wide-angle shots, and pincushion on the others. Zoom lens technology has since made amazing strides. (100x or better zoom ratios, anyone?)
Re: Used DSLR prices
On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >While not disagreeing with your overall conclusion, there are times when >I miss the LCD viewfinder of my PowerShot G1 - trying to take low-eyepoint >shots with the *ist-D means I have to lie flat on the ground. Sometimes >this is merely inconvenient; other time's it's effectively impossible. >A tilt-and-swivel LCD makes things a lot easier. It also works well when >I want to put the camera somewhere where there isn't room for me to stand >behind it, or for over-the-head shots, etc., etc. John, I use an angle finder extensively. Always when on the tripod (as I'm taller than it) so viewing is a breeze. Low angle shots no problem. Is one available to fit the *ist D? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Used DSLR prices
and adjust your Photoshop memory settings. the default is to use half your physical RAM at most before swapping. if you have enough, you should set it to much higher than 50%. i use 80% on my 1G machine. Herb - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:22 PM Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space > on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's > far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going > to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transfer speed is still much > slower than main memory speeds. Try to get more memory first; a second > drive is a palliative, not a solution.
Re: Used DSLR prices
> > I'm using 512 meg of RAM and just upgraded to a faster #2 hard disk (my > #1 hard disk has only the operating system - Win2k - on it; hard disk #1 > has all my applications and data files). I noticed a big speed > improvement with Photoshop after the upgrade. I'm going to upgrade the > other hard disk soon. > > Interestingly, my motherboard only supports ATA 66 and my hard disks are > ATA 100 and ATA 133. I may do the motherboard upgrade next. I'd guess that your new hard disk has a faster sustained throughput rate; either a faster rotational speed, or higher capacity per cylinder, than your original disk. Although an ATA 133 disk can transfer burst data faster than an ATA 100 disk, that only works while the disk cache is providing the data. Image files are far too large for that, so transfer at the throughput rate of the actual disk hardware, which is directly proportional to rotational speed. I'd suggest you do the calculations for your hardware before you consider updating the motherboard - you may find that even ATA 66 is fast enough to keep up with your disks.
Re: Used DSLR prices
Agreed, but not everyone can get more memory into older machines. I can only get 768mb into my P3 (have 512 at present), and now that I'm starting to work with larger files, the extra scratch space is very welcome. I'll probably add a little more memory when I can get around to it. John Francis wrote: > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space > on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's > far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going > to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transfer speed is still much > slower than main memory speeds. Try to get more memory first; a second > drive is a palliative, not a solution. >
Re: Used DSLR prices
Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > While not disagreeing with your overall conclusion, there are times when > I miss the LCD viewfinder of my PowerShot G1 - trying to take low-eyepoint > shots with the *ist-D means I have to lie flat on the ground. Sometimes > this is merely inconvenient; other time's it's effectively impossible. > A tilt-and-swivel LCD makes things a lot easier. It also works well when > I want to put the camera somewhere where there isn't room for me to stand > behind it, or for over-the-head shots, etc., etc. > True enough - swiveling screens are a big plus in certain situations. My friend has a G2, and he can even shoot behind him for candids that catch strangers unawares and often give quite beautiful results. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Used DSLR prices
If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transfer speed is still much slower than main memory speeds. Try to get more memory first; a second drive is a palliative, not a solution. > A very important consideration for running PS is that of using two hard > drives. PS uses a scratch disk when memory allocation is at the limit. > It's highly recommended to use a second disk for this. > > John Francis wrote: > > > > > > o Memory size. 3x - 5x overall image size is a good yardstick. > > A 256Mb machine would be marginal for working with 90Mb files. > > > > o Disk speed. You need to read and save those images, and that > > is critically dependent on how fast the disk transfers data. > > Waiting for image I/O is non-productive time, too, so it has > > a significant psychological impact. > > > > o Memory speed. Your image data won't fit in the data cache, > > so memory bandwidth becomes extremely important. >
Re: Used DSLR prices
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more >> speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop. >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts > >Most of the time Photoshop is not cpu limited. The most important >factors are: > > o Memory size. 3x - 5x overall image size is a good yardstick. > A 256Mb machine would be marginal for working with 90Mb files. > > o Disk speed. You need to read and save those images, and that > is critically dependent on how fast the disk transfers data. > Waiting for image I/O is non-productive time, too, so it has > a significant psychological impact. > > o Memory speed. Your image data won't fit in the data cache, > so memory bandwidth becomes extremely important. > >Once you've got all those taken care of is time to start thinking >of cpu speed. You'll notice this most when running complex filters >(although you will see some difference even on simple filters such >as smoothing, sharpening or resizing). For some of the most cpu- >intensive tasks Photoshop is supposedly able to make use of more >than one CPU in a multi-cpu configuration, although I haven't tried >that myself. I'm using 512 meg of RAM and just upgraded to a faster #2 hard disk (my #1 hard disk has only the operating system - Win2k - on it; hard disk #1 has all my applications and data files). I noticed a big speed improvement with Photoshop after the upgrade. I'm going to upgrade the other hard disk soon. Interestingly, my motherboard only supports ATA 66 and my hard disks are ATA 100 and ATA 133. I may do the motherboard upgrade next. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
> > The P&S produces amazing > pictures, no doubt about it, but the motor skills involved in getting the most > out of it are entirely different and I found that I had to alter my shooting > habits substantially to get good results. Also, I can't seem to think > photographically without me eye to a proper eyecup - looking at a screen > doesn't seem to work well for me. Add to that the fact that you're stuck with > a narrow range of focal lengths, and it just doesn't tally to a good tool for > my needs. While not disagreeing with your overall conclusion, there are times when I miss the LCD viewfinder of my PowerShot G1 - trying to take low-eyepoint shots with the *ist-D means I have to lie flat on the ground. Sometimes this is merely inconvenient; other time's it's effectively impossible. A tilt-and-swivel LCD makes things a lot easier. It also works well when I want to put the camera somewhere where there isn't room for me to stand behind it, or for over-the-head shots, etc., etc.
Shelf Life (was: Re: Used DSLR prices)
> This seems reasonable. BTW, does anyone have any idea or know of any > reference as to how the sensor will age? Hi Steven, this would interest me as well! It would be interesting to know somebody with an early kodak DSLR! I will try to ask at local agencies how their first Nikon D1 were doing now. I think there are few things to look out in aging: 1) colour dyes. Change over time AND change with exposure to light. I really don't know what the mosaic colour filters are made of, although Kodak might have revealed it in one of their technical PDFs. 2) the "transistors" themselves in the CCD/CMOS. In analogy to computers, whose CPUs can develop something like hotspots over time (especially if overclocked or ran at higher voltages). These hotspots are areas of worse conductivity? I am not an expert, and it's been a while since I read that article. So the imaging chip itself could age as well, with hard usage. 3) the chips responsible for the image processing and other "computer" tasks - well, the first computerised cameras (AE1?,T90, F4, even LX has some little chips inside, no?) are still working, so this shouldn't be much of a problem if they are designed properly. 4) the other things are just the same as in film cameras - shutter, AF, ... If somebody with more technical expertise knows about the first two points, tell us please! When things get more comlex, just more bad can happen... I want a Luddite digital!!! :) Frantisek
Re: Used DSLR prices
Tom, I agree with you in certain respects. In particular, I agree that DSLRs will not last forever, and will probably not have the lifespan of, say, an MX or your Crown Graphic. My point (and the one that Mr. Desjardins is also making, I think) is that if you look at the sole tangible product of a camera - a picture - there is a certain level of quality, a combination of objective and subjective factors, that, once reached, will not go away until the camera fails utterly. This is the issue which JCO raised and with which I quarrel - takes the position that build quality is irrelevant for a digital camera because they have the approximate lifespan of a nematode, something I simply reject. I expect my *istD to last me for many years, first as a primary body, perhaps later as a back-up. As someone else pointed out, new technology is nice to use, which is why I kept Z1ps as well as LXs on the go at the same time. If Pentax brings out a new DSLR with substantially improved image quality (nothing else would be enough to coax me), I'll probably buy it. begin really OT editorial part--- I'm still a little miffed at Pentax for being so slow - I bought a P&S because I got tired of waiting for Pentax to get their shit together and give me a digital product that I could use my lenses with. The P&S produces amazing pictures, no doubt about it, but the motor skills involved in getting the most out of it are entirely different and I found that I had to alter my shooting habits substantially to get good results. Also, I can't seem to think photographically without me eye to a proper eyecup - looking at a screen doesn't seem to work well for me. Add to that the fact that you're stuck with a narrow range of focal lengths, and it just doesn't tally to a good tool for my needs. It's not that I didn't like film, but that I simply have not got the time anymore to shoot, process, scan, catalogue and photoshop slides, with the result that my shooting trailed off to a trickle in the several months leading up to the *ist-D's release. Digital fits my needs and my time constraints so much better that I am willing to out up with the difficulties - for me, they are far outweighed by the benefits. If Pentax had waited much longer, you'd have seen a whack of Pentax FA* glass for sale on eBay and I'd be gone to Canon. Quoting graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You are aware that you are talking to a guy whose favorite picture taker is a > > 50+ year old Pacemaker Crown Graphic, right? > > OTOH you are right, the problem with using the old laptop is it won't run > newer > software. But that is analogic to using an old film camera for which film is > no > longer available such as a 116 Kodak folder. So they do compare. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Used DSLR prices
Hi! Now the camera makers have a hook (resolution) to tempt folks who can spend $1000-2000/yr on equipment. Steve, you're so absolutely right. And what if prices go below $1000/yr on equipment level?! It is even hard to imagine . Boris
Re: Used DSLR prices
Hi! Bucky, I am afraid I either misread his post or language barrier played yet another joke on me. All of what you say is true, but the fact remains that the original poster was talking about a given model of DSLR being rendered *obsolete*, not merely somewhat less attractive, by new models. His point was that DSLRs are essentially throwaway cameras because of the rapid march of technology, and hence the purchaser shouldn't worry about build quality. It is highly illogical (or should I say, silly ) to render a technology throw-away no matter how aged it is. E.g. I use Visor Platinum (circa 2000) which is very old, probably even ancient in modern PDA world. But it does *all* I want it to do at the moment. When it would be something that it cannot do that I must have, I will replace it. Or of course it could totally break before that. Then I will be forced to replace it. My ME Super is not obsolete. It is very old and very unattractive for some people. But it is my main camera while ZX-L being a backup or a body which I take if I have to have AF. Anyway, back to the chase ... DSLRs are not throwaway cameras unless it would be discovered that for some technical reason their sensor or shutter cannot work more than given amout of time, say 3 years. Then of course, it would be plain stupid to buy DSLR if it is known that it was used for 3 years. This by they way was my concern some messages ago. It is unclear to me what does it mean "excellent condition" DSLR. State of used sensor is something that would seem to be difficult to judge. Nevertheless, I do think that people would change their DSLRs more often just because fancier ones and cheaper ones would hit the market. Perhaps it will not happen with Pentax but for different reasons ... Ultimately, I think we reached the point that you and I agree on our opinions. It is time to move on to next discussion . Boris
Re: Used DSLR prices
You are aware that you are talking to a guy whose favorite picture taker is a 50+ year old Pacemaker Crown Graphic, right? OTOH you are right, the problem with using the old laptop is it won't run newer software. But that is analogic to using an old film camera for which film is no longer available such as a 116 Kodak folder. So they do compare. Digital cameras are electronic devices. Electronic devices have historically gotten better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. The laws of physics say that can not go on forever. But it is going to be awhile until we reach that point. Basically, a DSLR only has a usable lifetime until it is no longer supported with parts, service, and software upgrades. That is also analogic to computers. They will probably be viable until they are about 5 generations old, but will be crippled compared to new ones from about 3 generations (meaning the model after next). Compare that to the Canon D30 v. D60 v. 10D. Next gen. the D30 will be so obsolete that only diehards won't want replace it. Yes a 3mp image will still be usable, but there are a lot of things besides resolution involved here. Such things as repairs, speed, noise, newer storage devices, etc. will become problems. -- Bucky wrote: Software has gotten more complex and bloated. The images I will want to record with my camera will not (except that my friends seem to swell as they age). The analogy between cameras and personal computers is fundamentally inappropriate. -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13-Jan-04 20:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices Hey, I have a 486/33 IBM Thinkpad. The build quality is supurb, but it is pretty much useless in todays world. Unless of course all you need it for is word processing. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but that doesnt mean I would still want to use them. JCO -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call it, by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera has outlived its usefulness. The *ist-D will continue to produce images of like quality for as long as it continues to function. Better built cameras take more abuse and continue to function longer. Simple, really. Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life due to technical innovations, could someone please explain to me why build quality is important? JCO - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Used DSLR prices
All of these fall in the "new toy" category. If you are the kind of person that is happy with a 20 yr old film camera, then you can hang on to a DSLR for a while. The real difference here (and this is why the camera companies are so excited about this) is that DSLR's have something to improve. The film cameras have long since maxed out on features and the only real improvements were AF speed. Now the camera makers have a hook (resolution) to tempt folks who can spend $1000-2000/yr on equipment. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/14/04 02:28AM >>> Hi, Bucky! >Software has gotten more complex and bloated. The images I will want >to record with my camera will not (except that my friends seem to swell >as they age). > >The analogy between cameras and personal computers is fundamentally >inappropriate. I am afraid I have to disagree. Apart from swelling of your friends , but really. Consider this - speed of auto focus, complexity of flash operation, suitability of matrix metering in wider set of cases - all this is basically pure software with very little addition of hardware. Let's say, in AF the stronger motor would be good, but decision as to where to turn it and when to stop is purely software. Now, notice, I haven't been talking of anything that belongs to digital only. All of the above is valid for film cameras... And unfortunately, it *is* software. Hence it requires more memory, faster processors, better programmers *duh!*, and so on... Naturally, none of these will change the scene you're shooting or your potential ability to click the shutter at the right time with the right speed at the right aperture for the right film/sensor. Cheers! Boris
RE: Used DSLR prices
Hi Boris, All of what you say is true, but the fact remains that the original poster was talking about a given model of DSLR being rendered *obsolete*, not merely somewhat less attractive, by new models. His point was that DSLRs are essentially throwaway cameras because of the rapid march of technology, and hence the purchaser shouldn't worry about build quality. > -Original Message- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13-Jan-04 23:29 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices [some stuff snipped] > Now, notice, I haven't been talking of anything that belongs to > digital only. All of the above is valid for film cameras... And > unfortunately, it *is* software. Hence it requires more memory, faster > processors, better programmers *duh!*, and so on... > > Naturally, none of these will change the scene you're shooting or your > potential ability to click the shutter at the right time with the > right speed at the right aperture for the right film/sensor.
RE: Used DSLR prices
A DSLR is not a PC. The software doesn't have to change and the job doesn't change. Once you have a resolution you find acceptable (Some are waiting; I'm happy now) the camera will function until its breaks, you can't read the cards, or you just want a new toy. IMHO, the last factor is what limits the lifetime of the cameras. It is also equally true for film cameras, which is why I have five of them. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/04 05:02PM >>> Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but that doesnt mean I would still want to use them. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call it, by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera has outlived its usefulness. The *ist-D will continue to produce images of like quality for as long as it continues to function. Better built cameras take more abuse and continue to function longer. Simple, really. Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life > due to technical innovations, could someone please > explain to me why build quality is important? > JCO - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Used DSLR prices
mapson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 12:04 AM 15/01/2004 +1030, you wrote: > >>>Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more >>>speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop. >> >>I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was >>just over 1 Gb, > > >SORRY it was meant to be "just over 1/2 Gb" 500-550Mb ;-) > >>after flattening and saving as TIFF, it is 310Mb now. ;-) I've worked on multi-layer images around 300Mb. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
At 12:04 AM 15/01/2004 +1030, you wrote: Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop. I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was just over 1 Gb, SORRY it was meant to be "just over 1/2 Gb" 500-550Mb ;-) after flattening and saving as TIFF, it is 310Mb now. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Used DSLR prices
Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop. I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was just over 1 Gb, after flattening and saving as TIFF, it is 310Mb now. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Used DSLR prices
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 13 Jan 2004 at 17:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> Im not talking how long its sold, Im talking >> how long you want to use it. I have SLRs I >> still use that are 40 yrs old, I wouldnt use >> any digital camera more than about 5 yrs old. > >We are now approaching the point of diminishing returns. DSLRs will have a >longer service life than earlier ones as the resolution is approaching that of >the taking lenses. You *will* see people using Nikon D1x's when they're 5 years old and older. And I expect they'll be pretty satisfied users. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but >> that doesnt mean I would still want to use >> them. > >Not even as a firewall? > >The analogy does not work in my opinion anyway. After a point (1GHz >PIV for example) you don't really need much more processing power, Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
Hey, I have a 486/33 IBM Thinkpad. The build quality is supurb, but it is pretty much useless in todays world. Unless of course all you need it for is word processing. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but that doesnt mean I would still want to use them. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call it, by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera has outlived its usefulness. The *ist-D will continue to produce images of like quality for as long as it continues to function. Better built cameras take more abuse and continue to function longer. Simple, really. Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life due to technical innovations, could someone please explain to me why build quality is important? JCO - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Used DSLR prices
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices > Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life > due to technical innovations, could someone please > explain to me why build quality is important? Because its nicer to use something that is well built than something that isn't. I wouldn't want to own my friend's Rebel D because it feels like it is a cheap peice of crap. Build quality should also mean better pictures, as the equipment should be better calibrated, and able to hold that calibration for a longer time in the real world. A cheaply built camera won't take very many bumps before it goes out of adjustment. And, some of us actually intend to hold onto equipment for several generations past the shelf life of the product. For myself, there are a few things that Pentax can do to improve the DSLR. If they do make a camera that specs out well enough that I think it is worth opening my wallet for, then my present digital SLR will become a back up camera. At that point, it is nice to know that my back up is a well built camera that I can depend on, in the event that my other camera fails. When I was shooting weddings, my front line camera was a K-1000, but I always had my LX in the bag in case the K-1000 failed. William Robb
RE: Used DSLR prices
One word : PHOTOSHOP! J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices On 13 Jan 2004 at 17:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Im not talking how long its sold, Im talking > how long you want to use it. I have SLRs I > still use that are 40 yrs old, I wouldnt use > any digital camera more than about 5 yrs old. We are now approaching the point of diminishing returns. DSLRs will have a longer service life than earlier ones as the resolution is approaching that of the taking lenses. Your CPU analogy is poor also as PC purchases are mainly new users, there is far less upgrading going on than their used to be. Lets face it unless you are a gamer or running out of HD space what would be the advantage of pushing up the CPU MHz? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Used DSLR prices
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but > > that doesnt mean I would still want to use > > them. ugggh! - I wouldn't have wanted too have to use one of those even when they were "cutting edge" ;^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Used DSLR prices
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life >> due to technical innovations, could someone please >> explain to me why build quality is important? > >Just because a camera is only sold for a short period of time doesn't >mean that it has a short functional life. I'm still using a Sony >DSC-S75 as my P&S camera. This is a 3.3mp camera that came out around >the same time as the Canon G1 (3 or 4 years ago?). Tons of stuff has >been released since then that is better, but that old camera still >does what I bought it for and does it well. > >The *ist D isn't going to take worse pictures in 5 years just because >there are better D-SLRs available in 5 years. The Nikon D100 has been on the market for a year and a half so far. They may introduce a successor at PMA next month but it probably won't be available until summer (which would give the D100 a lifespan of 2 years) and I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be enough of an improvement to make D100 owners even consider trading up. It took two years for the D2h to be replaced. Heck, the D1x was introduced in the summer of 2001 and hasn't been superseded yet! Another PMA announcement? Could be, but it still seems like a healthy lifespan to me. I would expect D1x/D1h-class cameras to be kept and used by their owners just as long as film cameras. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Used DSLR prices
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life > due to technical innovations, could someone please > explain to me why build quality is important? Just because a camera is only sold for a short period of time doesn't mean that it has a short functional life. I'm still using a Sony DSC-S75 as my P&S camera. This is a 3.3mp camera that came out around the same time as the Canon G1 (3 or 4 years ago?). Tons of stuff has been released since then that is better, but that old camera still does what I bought it for and does it well. The *ist D isn't going to take worse pictures in 5 years just because there are better D-SLRs available in 5 years. alex
RE: Used DSLR prices
Not everyone feels the need to replace a perfectly good camera every time a better one comes out. chris On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life > due to technical innovations, could someone please > explain to me why build quality is important? > JCO > > >J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices > > > But I don't really want to shoot faster, so this is a moot point for me. > As an example, the Nikon D2H doesn't tempt me at all, although I think > the D1X is neat. I also suspect that the Baby D won't be built quite as > well as the *ist D. I actually think the final real street price of the > *istD ($1350) is a realistic one. Unless something really neat happens > (like the wheelie granny scenario) I suspect I won't be replacing this > camera for at least 5 years. If they had a really cheap one I might buy > it as a backup. And that very statement goes to show what a bad > influence you people have been on me . . . > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/04 01:13PM >>> > > > > It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more > > megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the > same > > size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be > worth > > the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and > bigger > > CF cards, greater use of hard drive and CD-ROM space). I don't think > it > > would be for me. > > But those are exactly the areas which do get cheaper over time, > rapidly. > > Two years ago even a 1GB CF card or Microdrive was very expensive, and > the 4GB drives hadn't been released. A 250GB hard drive (and a DVD > writer) would have cost more than my entire desktop system. > > In another year or so CF card size will have increased by another > factor > of 4 (at constant price), hard drives will be bigger, and in-camera > buffers will be larger. The in-camera processor will be faster, too. > That 8 (or, more likely, 10) MP camera will buffer more images, and > process them faster, than the *ist-D does today. >
RE: Used DSLR prices
Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call it, by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera has outlived its usefulness. The *ist-D will continue to produce images of like quality for as long as it continues to function. Better built cameras take more abuse and continue to function longer. Simple, really. Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life > due to technical innovations, could someone please > explain to me why build quality is important? > JCO - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
RE: Used DSLR prices
Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life due to technical innovations, could someone please explain to me why build quality is important? JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices But I don't really want to shoot faster, so this is a moot point for me. As an example, the Nikon D2H doesn't tempt me at all, although I think the D1X is neat. I also suspect that the Baby D won't be built quite as well as the *ist D. I actually think the final real street price of the *istD ($1350) is a realistic one. Unless something really neat happens (like the wheelie granny scenario) I suspect I won't be replacing this camera for at least 5 years. If they had a really cheap one I might buy it as a backup. And that very statement goes to show what a bad influence you people have been on me . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/04 01:13PM >>> > > It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more > megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same > size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth > the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and bigger > CF cards, greater use of hard drive and CD-ROM space). I don't think it > would be for me. But those are exactly the areas which do get cheaper over time, rapidly. Two years ago even a 1GB CF card or Microdrive was very expensive, and the 4GB drives hadn't been released. A 250GB hard drive (and a DVD writer) would have cost more than my entire desktop system. In another year or so CF card size will have increased by another factor of 4 (at constant price), hard drives will be bigger, and in-camera buffers will be larger. The in-camera processor will be faster, too. That 8 (or, more likely, 10) MP camera will buffer more images, and process them faster, than the *ist-D does today.
Re: Used DSLR prices
But I don't really want to shoot faster, so this is a moot point for me. As an example, the Nikon D2H doesn't tempt me at all, although I think the D1X is neat. I also suspect that the Baby D won't be built quite as well as the *ist D. I actually think the final real street price of the *istD ($1350) is a realistic one. Unless something really neat happens (like the wheelie granny scenario) I suspect I won't be replacing this camera for at least 5 years. If they had a really cheap one I might buy it as a backup. And that very statement goes to show what a bad influence you people have been on me . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/04 01:13PM >>> > > It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more > megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same > size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth > the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and bigger > CF cards, greater use of hard drive and CD-ROM space). I don't think it > would be for me. But those are exactly the areas which do get cheaper over time, rapidly. Two years ago even a 1GB CF card or Microdrive was very expensive, and the 4GB drives hadn't been released. A 250GB hard drive (and a DVD writer) would have cost more than my entire desktop system. In another year or so CF card size will have increased by another factor of 4 (at constant price), hard drives will be bigger, and in-camera buffers will be larger. The in-camera processor will be faster, too. That 8 (or, more likely, 10) MP camera will buffer more images, and process them faster, than the *ist-D does today.
Re: Used DSLR prices
> > I want to ask veterans of Pentax movement this question - when > MZ-S came out and started to receive favorable reviews - how many > PZ-1(p) owners started to unload their cameras in order to buy the > newest one? Please understand this question correctly - I do not > intend to cause a shift towards PZ vs MZ debate, nor do I intend any > pun. I merely want to know the factual answer to my question. > > You see, it appears to me that the so called gadget factor or > appreciation of thereof is much higher on this list than it actually > may seem to be... I certainly bought the MZ-S as soon as it came out (so early that I ended up with one that didn't have the film-advance firmware fix). But I didn't get rid of my PZ-1p.
Re: Used DSLR prices
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more >> megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same >> size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth >> the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and bigger >> CF cards, greater use of hard drive and CD-ROM space). I don't think it >> would be for me. > >But those are exactly the areas which do get cheaper over time, rapidly. > >Two years ago even a 1GB CF card or Microdrive was very expensive, and >the 4GB drives hadn't been released. A 250GB hard drive (and a DVD >writer) would have cost more than my entire desktop system. > >In another year or so CF card size will have increased by another factor >of 4 (at constant price), hard drives will be bigger, and in-camera >buffers will be larger. The in-camera processor will be faster, too. >That 8 (or, more likely, 10) MP camera will buffer more images, and >process them faster, than the *ist-D does today. Cost isn't the big issue. Power consumption is one and the limited improvement in image quality going from 6 to 8 megapixels is another. I don't expect to see 10 megapixels in an APS-size DSLR for a couple of years, and even then only as a result of the ongoing "pixel wars" rather than any real improvement (bragging rights, in other words). Smaller pixels will always make more noise than larger pixels and a 1 gig CF card will always hold more 6 megapixel images than 10 megapixel images. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re[2]: Used DSLR prices
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >One other thing to consider for us current owners: >I would really like a backup DSLR at some point. If/when a better >body is released, I would be more inclined to keep the *istD as the >backup and then purchase the new body, rather than unload the old >body. > >Also, there would need to be a significant improvement (more than >Canon D60 to 10D) to make me consider buying it (aside from needing/wanting >a backup body). Something like a FF sensor. Right. I expect the trade-up/depreciation statistics for the *ist-D to be very similar to those of the D-60 or 10D: You simply don't see them on the used marked. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
> > It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more > megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same > size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth > the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and bigger > CF cards, greater use of hard drive and CD-ROM space). I don't think it > would be for me. But those are exactly the areas which do get cheaper over time, rapidly. Two years ago even a 1GB CF card or Microdrive was very expensive, and the 4GB drives hadn't been released. A 250GB hard drive (and a DVD writer) would have cost more than my entire desktop system. In another year or so CF card size will have increased by another factor of 4 (at constant price), hard drives will be bigger, and in-camera buffers will be larger. The in-camera processor will be faster, too. That 8 (or, more likely, 10) MP camera will buffer more images, and process them faster, than the *ist-D does today.
Re[2]: Used DSLR prices
One other thing to consider for us current owners: I would really like a backup DSLR at some point. If/when a better body is released, I would be more inclined to keep the *istD as the backup and then purchase the new body, rather than unload the old body. Also, there would need to be a significant improvement (more than Canon D60 to 10D) to make me consider buying it (aside from needing/wanting a backup body). Something like a FF sensor. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 8:56:34 AM, you wrote: SD> I think you might see a sell off if Pentax came out with a reasonably SD> priced (<$2000) FF DSLR. I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD SD> for an 8 mp APS sensor successor quickly unless it was <$1000. SD> Steven Desjardins SD> Department of Chemistry SD> Washington and Lee University SD> Lexington, VA 24450 SD> (540) 458-8873 SD> FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Used DSLR prices
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: >> I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD >> for an 8 mp APS sensor successor quickly unless it was <$1000. > >If such a camera came out the *ist D would probably be worth $500 or >less. At that point I would probably keep it as a second body. The point is that the *ist-D *wouldn't* depreciate much if no one was willing to sell theirs off to buy a replacement. And clearly most people (correctly, in my view) don't see a *major* improvement coming for a couple of years. I think the next one or two DSLRs will be less expensive cameras. The next step *up* will probably not be big enough to get *ist-D owners to feel the need to move up. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD > for an 8 mp APS sensor successor quickly unless it was <$1000. If such a camera came out the *ist D would probably be worth $500 or less. At that point I would probably keep it as a second body. I'm already wishing that I had a second body as a backup, but not enough to spend $1350 on purchasing one. alex
Re: Used DSLR prices
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think you might see a sell off if Pentax came out with a reasonably >priced (<$2000) FF DSLR. And if my granny had wheels she'd be a trolley... >I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD for an 8 mp APS sensor >successor quickly unless it was <$1000. Quite. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Used DSLR prices
Cotty wrote: > Interestingly, I haven't seen many for sale. Not in dealers' > ads in AP, nor on eBay. I think most people buying these > cameras have considered the facts and are not going to > stomach the heavy loss in selling used. If you've bought a > D60 for £1600 (me) then you're (me) hardly going to want to > sell it for a pittance - I'd rather keep it as a second body, > as a few have already said. If I did sell, I would want about > a grand, maybe 900 but who in their right mind would pay that > when a brand new 10D can be had for a little bit more? It > would be insane. I too have made a hefty 'paper' loss, if you look at selling it right now - but that was never the plan from the outset, so it is a non argument. I jumped onto the digital scene, because the *ist D provides an image quality I can live with now and years down the road. The only question I have is wondering if the digital cameras will endure as long as my film cameras. Pretty much like computers, you know that your latest machine will be old stuff in two years time and to keep up to date (if such is your thing) you know that you will be putting your hand in your pocket, to bridge the plummeting value of your old equipment. The real mystery is who buys new cameras (film or digital) and sells them months later. I know lots of people who have cameras but have had them years. > I think all here who bought the *ist D would be very > reluctant to sell in a year's time. Even in two. Or five. Malcolm
Re: Used DSLR prices
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Cotty wrote: > I think all here who bought the *ist D would be very reluctant to sell in > a year's time. Even in two. Yes, but for different reasons than D60 owners. :-P Kostas
Re: Used DSLR prices
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dealers are flogging off the Sigma SD-9 brand new for not much more than that > (anybody actually ever seen one of these??) Seen and touched, but not used. Back in the day, I was about to switch brands to Sigma because they offered a ton of features in their SLRs for a good price. I'm glad I didn't because I never would have "met" you clowns! Christian Not "flogging off" for the record...
Re: Used DSLR prices
A LN- goes for $1079. This is pretty high by comparison to current new prices. Although I don't look at the digital section regularly (as opposed to Pentax lenses, for example ;-) I suspect that there just aren't a lot available. That D30 is already gone. In a few years, there could be more DSLR bodies available. OTOH, E10 and E20's are still commanding more than I would have thought. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/12/04 09:00AM >>> "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I noticed in a KEH flyer that an "Ex" D30 was going for $850. Wow. That's much *much* higher than I would have expected! You can get a 6 megapixel 300D for that price! >Given that the *ist D is starting lower ($1350 US should be the new street >price), the $600 predicition of Cotty seems like a good one. What does a used D60 go for now, do you suppose? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Used DSLR prices
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I noticed in a KEH flyer that an "Ex" D30 was going for $850. Wow. That's much *much* higher than I would have expected! You can get a 6 megapixel 300D for that price! >Given that the *ist D is starting lower ($1350 US should be the new street >price), the $600 predicition of Cotty seems like a good one. What does a used D60 go for now, do you suppose? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Used DSLR prices
I noticed in a KEH flyer that an "Ex" D30 was going for $850. Given that the *ist D is starting lower ($1350 US should be the new street price), the $600 predicition of Cotty seems like a good one. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
