 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007Nikon D40 vs D40x at the same price
I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth $200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which camera would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I ordered and paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be jumping up and down because I got a bargain or am I missing anything from the D40, sharpness, etc. Thanks >I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth $200 >for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which camera >would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I ordered and >paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be jumping up and down >because I got a bargain or am I missing anything from the D40, sharpness, >etc. Thanks They both sound like good value cameras from what I have read, so I would not worry too much. People might say you should be "honest" and tell them they have sent you a more expensive camera, but if this were my first dslr I would want to start shooting ASAP and would not wish to wait while they sent me the correct model! cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk >I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth >$200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which >camera would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I >ordered and paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be >jumping up and down because I got a bargain or am I missing anything >from the D40, sharpness, etc. Thanks Congratulate yourself for getting a bargain. >I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth >$200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which >camera would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I >ordered and paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be >jumping up and down because I got a bargain or am I missing anything >from the D40, sharpness, etc. Thanks Not to be a killjoy. But you didn't pay for say a US D40 and get an import D40x, did you?  SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth >> $200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not to be a killjoy. But you didn't pay for say a US D40 and get an import > D40x, did you? Both US Versions. So, same price which is the better camera. Less noise 6mp vs higher 10mp more noise? FPS no big issue. But the D40x does ISO 100. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Both US Versions. So, same price which is the better camera. Less : noise 6mp vs higher 10mp more noise? FPS no big issue. Last year at Costco I bought the "student" version of Microsoft office and when I handed the clerk the ticket he handed me a copy of Microsoft Office Professional. You should solve your ethical dilemma in the same way I solved mine. > Last year at Costco I bought the "student" version of Microsoft office and > when I handed the clerk the ticket he handed me a copy of Microsoft Office > Professional. > You should solve your ethical dilemma in the same way I solved mine. My dilemma isn't right or wrong - but which camera is better (both being the same price) > > Last year at Costco I bought the "student" version of Microsoft office and > > when I handed the clerk the ticket he handed me a copy of Microsoft Office [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My dilemma isn't right or wrong - but which camera is better (both being > the same price) Keep the D40x. The noise is similar and you can crop if needed and retain good image quality. >> Last year at Costco I bought the "student" version of Microsoft office >> and when I handed the clerk the ticket he handed me a copy of Microsoft >> Office Professional. >> You should solve your ethical dilemma in the same way I solved mine. > My dilemma isn't right or wrong - but which camera is better (both being > the same price) I have the D40 myself and I love it. I wouldn't spend the usual $200 extra for the D40x, but at the same price, based on reviews I've read I'd say on balance the D40x is the better camera. Neil >I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth >$200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which >camera would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I >ordered and paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be >jumping up and down because I got a bargain or am I missing anything >from the D40, sharpness, etc. Thanks You got a bargain, so jump up and down. > I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth > $200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which > camera would you buy, any advantage to either. I'm curious because I > ordered and paid for a D40 $549 and received a D40x. Should I be > jumping up and down because I got a bargain or am I missing anything > from the D40, sharpness, etc. Thanks I have read (and you know what that means) that the controls on the D40 are a little better. OTOH, you are getting 10Mp instead of 6Mp. You pays your money (or not) and you takes your choice. I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put the D40X in the same category. It will be obsolete in twelve months so the less money you blow on it the better. SignatureRobert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] >> I know some discussions have been made on the D40 vs D40x, is it worth >> $200 for 10mp vs 6mp. My question is, if they were both $599, which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > D40X in the same category. It will be obsolete in twelve months so the > less money you blow on it the better. Everyone talks about the *hardware* becoming "obsolete", but I never see anyone claim the pictures that were *taken* with that hardware become obsolete... Interesting question there, considering we have to upgrade our gear every year or so. DP > I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a > couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put the > D40X in the same category. It will be obsolete in twelve months so the > less money you blow on it the better. Pshaw! Neither the D40 nor the D40x will be obsolete in twelve months or anything like that, unless you define "obsolete" as "not the latest model with all the newest gimcracks." Neil >> I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a >> couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything like that, unless you define "obsolete" as "not the latest > model with all the newest gimcracks." Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and less for prosumer and starter models. Rita >>> I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a >>> couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That may be true for retail store shelves, but most pros I know either pass their last generation on to relatives/staff at a fair price (in which case it keeps going) or keep it around as back up (ditto). Every digital SLR and consumer cam I've bought in the last five years - everything after 5 megapixels became affordable and good enough - remains in use. They all have their jobs to do. I'm reaching the point where one may be knocked off the end of the chain soon, my neighbouring business owner was asking about shifting from a film Minolta I sold him ten years ago to a digital SLR. It could be time to part with a 6 megapixel and acquire another 10 megapixel, just because there's someone out there wanting a used DSLR. David >>> I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a >>> couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and less > for prosumer and starter models. <quote> Nonsense </quote> My almost 8 year old Coolpix 880 (ok, it's a point-and-shoot, not a SLR) is still doing great and taking great pictures. Of course there have been and there are _many_ newer models. But that doesn't mean that it is 'obsolete'. It still serves my needs for a P&S just fine. jue Have you checked it for dead pixels? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : My almost 8 year old Coolpix 880 (ok, it's a point-and-shoot, not a SLR) is : still doing great and taking great pictures. Of course there have been and : there are _many_ newer models. But that doesn't mean that it is 'obsolete'. : It still serves my needs for a P&S just fine. : : jue > Have you checked it for dead pixels? > > "Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> My almost 8 year old Coolpix 880 (ok, it's a point-and-shoot, not a None obvious jue On 14-Apr-07 23:50:24, Rita Ä Berkowitz said >>> I bought a D40 in February. I figured I would need to replace in a >>> couple of years and I didn't want to spend too much. I would put the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> anything like that, unless you define "obsolete" as "not the latest >> model with all the newest gimcracks." >Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and less for >prosumer and starter models. Shelf life? Obsolete? Not the same thing, surely? I'm confused by all this. If you buy a camera in 2007 and it takes good pictures for you, why should that not be the case in 2017? We're talking about tools rather than fashion accessories, or at least we would be if the marketing of digital cameras hadn't been so successful for the companies selling them. I come from a film background, and obviously with digital cameras the technology in say 2002 was at a pretty low standard. I'd suggest we're past that, and that 35 mm quality is now readily available and medium format quality is arguably here too. At what point does it become a proper tool which will not be "obsolete" in 12 months? When 5x4 standard is achieved? All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html >> Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and >> less for prosumer and starter models. > > Shelf life? Obsolete? Not the same thing, surely? For the original owner it is since the dSLR body is a throwaway item. > I'm confused by all this. If you buy a camera in 2007 and it takes > good pictures for you, why should that not be the case in 2017? We're > talking about tools rather than fashion accessories, or at least we > would be if the marketing of digital cameras hadn't been so > successful for the companies selling them. By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the 18-month rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR investment and have a piece of magnesium that you'd be lucky to get $75 for. By using your $5,000 tool and selling it off at the proper intervals and buying into the next model you are economically and technically way ahead. > I come from a film background, and obviously with digital cameras the > technology in say 2002 was at a pretty low standard. I'd suggest we're > past that, and that 35 mm quality is now readily available and medium > format quality is arguably here too. At what point does it become a > proper tool which will not be "obsolete" in 12 months? When 5x4 > standard is achieved? Same here. I held onto my Canon FD lenses way too long and my investment of several thousand dollars was converted into several hundred last year. I knew the value was dropping but I refused to sell them because I liked them. On the other hand, my old Nikkors have increased in value. I now keep a keen eye on the market and sell off what will cost me money to keep or some of the classics that will net me several times more than what I paid for them. Rita >>> Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and >>> less for prosumer and starter models. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > tool and selling it off at the proper intervals and buying into the next > model you are economically and technically way ahead. It's hard to see how. If someone has your hypothetical $5,000 camera and buys a new one every 18 months just out of sheer dread of its becoming "obsolete," then in six years he'll have spent $20,000 on new cameras and recovered only a fraction of that amount on the cameras sold or traded in. For example, the $5,000 D2x you were raving about 18 months ago is now worth $2,000 or so used. If the user started with a D2x that would have still suited his purposes in six years, he certainly would not be "economically . . . way ahead" for all that camera trading. I think it's somewhat like buying new cars. I like to buy new cars more often than necessary because I really enjoy a new car. But I don't kid myself that this puts me "economically ahead." On the contrary, it costs me a good deal more over the long run than if I drove the same car until the wheels fell off and *then* bought a new one. That would be more sensible financially, though less enjoyable. You may feel the same way about dSLRs and trade 'em or sell 'em more often than it makes financial sense to do so, and if the pleasure of a new $5,000 camera is worth it to you I suppose that's all that matters. But I doubt very much it's putting you "financially ahead." As for getting "technically way ahead," while there's no question that technology in this area will continue to advance as it does in every field, the slope of that advance has surely been flattening out. It's really hard to imagine that that old D2x of yours would be in any way inadequate for your purposes in six years. What do you do with a camera, other than eBay photos and various fun or hobby type pictures? Neil >>> Nonsense! The average shelf life of a pro dSLR is 18-months and >>> less for prosumer and starter models. >> >> Shelf life? Obsolete? Not the same thing, surely? > >For the original owner it is since the dSLR body is a throwaway item. ... >By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the 18-month >rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR investment and have a >piece of magnesium that you'd be lucky to get $75 for. By using your $5,000 >tool and selling it off at the proper intervals and buying into the next >model you are economically and technically way ahead. Here you are expressing a very basic conflict in ideas. If the body is a "throwaway item", it can't be an investment. And this is why your argument falls apart; the body can be either an throwaway item, or an investment, but not both. If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, make a choice, pick one or the other, then base your argument on that choice. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Don Imus met with the Rutgers women's basketball team Thursday and apologized to them for hours. It left a sour taste. Don Imus just got a telegram from the Stetson showroom in New York saying if he's going to grovel he will have to give back the hat. >>By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the 18-month >>rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR investment and have a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, make a >choice, pick one or the other, then base your argument on that choice. Are you familiar with the concept that means of production depreciate, and that for any investments in such items, you have to make sure that you use them enough to at least recover the investment? I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth in 2017. That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some money, thus making it (potentially) a worth while investment. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Here you are expressing a very basic conflict in ideas. >> If the body is a "throwaway item", it can't be an investment. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > depreciate, and that for any investments in such items, you have to > make sure that you use them enough to at least recover the investment? I think Bill is still stuggling with "Card Not Present" issues. That's true to a point. The issue I'm trying to stress is if I held onto a $5,000 dSLR body for 10-years and was lucky enough sell it for $75 in 2017; I would have wasted $4,925. Now, if I sold the same $5,000 camera for $4,500 on eBay 18-months later I would have wasted $500. If I did this every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and technologically ahead of staying emotionally attached to a worthless dSLR body. Keep in mind that pro rentals for the same dSLR body will be about $200-$250 a day. > I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth in > 2017. Yes, basically nothing. > That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some > money, thus making it (potentially) a worthwhile investment. That's true, but I'm primarily trying to address the hardware value in itself for this argument and not revenue potential it has. It's also true that the maintenance costs of supporting a legacy box will dramatically add to the devaluation. It's simply not worth holding onto the body past 18-months. Rita >>> Here you are expressing a very basic conflict in ideas. >>> If the body is a "throwaway item", it can't be an investment. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > mind that pro rentals for the same dSLR body will be about $200-$250 a > day. Wrong. You're forgetting to factor in the cost per picture. On that basis, you're losing your shirt. DP >>> Here you are expressing a very basic conflict in ideas. >>> If the body is a "throwaway item", it can't be an investment. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >$5,000 dSLR body for 10-years and was lucky enough sell it for $75 in 2017; >I would have wasted $4,925. Only if you don't use the camera. But you do realize that if you buy a $5,000 DSLR body, and sell it one week later for $4,950, you've wasted $50? The idea of a camera as an investment only works if you expect it to appreciate. >Now, if I sold the same $5,000 camera for >$4,500 on eBay 18-months later I would have wasted $500. Oh, you *do* understand. Good. >If I did this >every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and technologically >ahead of staying emotionally attached to a worthless dSLR body. Keep in >mind that pro rentals for the same dSLR body will be about $200-$250 a day. Forget what a rental costs; it has no connectiopn with what a camera is worth after purchase. The technology part is right; technology marches on. The investment part remains wrong. >> I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth in >> 2017. > >Yes, basically nothing. No, you very specifically spoke of an 18-month p[eriod, not ten years. But so what if the camera has little cash value? Do you shoot photos with the cash value of the camera, or with the idea of making money with the camera? >> That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some >> money, thus making it (potentially) a worthwhile investment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to the devaluation. It's simply not worth holding onto the body past >18-months. I don't think you have anything to back up this 18-month period, as you simply state it, then talk bullshit about it. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Sunday that President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is a tragedy of historic proportion. That's fine with her. The more unforgivable the president, the more Hillary Clinton seems to get out of it. >> That's true to a point. The issue I'm trying to stress is if I held >> onto a $5,000 dSLR body for 10-years and was lucky enough sell it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The idea of a camera as an investment only works if you expect it to > appreciate. Goddamn! You're pretty sharp Bill. I'm going to have to get your name changed to Charles Schwab. For Christ's sake why would you even buy a dSLR other than to have it make money? Have you ever bought a used dSLR and flipped it for $1,000 profit? >> Now, if I sold the same $5,000 camera for >> $4,500 on eBay 18-months later I would have wasted $500. > > Oh, you *do* understand. Good. But, I would get to use the camera for 18-months for only $500. >> If I did this >> every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Forget what a rental costs; it has no connectiopn with what a camera > is worth after purchase. BULLSHIT!!! > The technology part is right; technology marches on. The investment > part remains wrong. NONSENSE! Just because *YOU* don't know how to make money that's not my fault or problem. >>> I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth >>> in 2017. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with the cash value of the camera, or with the idea of making money > with the camera? Are you functionally illiterate? It's the timeframe past 18-months that is the key focal point. After 18-months your investment falls into the abyss and exponentially loses money >>> That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some >>> money, thus making it (potentially) a worthwhile investment. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't think you have anything to back up this 18-month period, as > you simply state it, then talk bullshit about it. And I'm sticking to it! Rita >>> That's true to a point. The issue I'm trying to stress is if I held >>> onto a $5,000 dSLR body for 10-years and was lucky enough sell it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But, I would get to use the camera for 18-months for only $500. The fly in that ointment of course is that the hypothetical doesn't work. You're not going to buy a $5,000 camera and sell it 18 months later for $4,500. If you sell it 18 months later you'll probably be lucky to get half the price you paid for it. Again, even as we speak Cameta is selling Nikon D2x factory demos for $2,500 with a one-year guarantee. >>> If I did this >>> every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > BULLSHIT!!! Then what is the connection? I don't see any connection either. >> The technology part is right; technology marches on. The investment >> part remains wrong. > > NONSENSE! Just because *YOU* don't know how to make money that's not my > fault or problem. I doubt very much that anyone, including you, does "know how to make money" buying a $5,000 camera and selling it for half that price 18 months later, and repeat over and over. If that's making money I wonder what losing money might look like. >>>> I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth >>>> in 2017. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the key focal point. After 18-months your investment falls into the abyss > and exponentially loses money HOW? It's the HOW part of your theory that you don't seem able to explain. >>>> That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some >>>> money, thus making it (potentially) a worthwhile investment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And I'm sticking to it! <guffaw!> Yes, that you are. I'm still really curious as to what kind of photography you DO, other than photos for eBay. Selling your old $5,000 camera and buying a new one every 18 months to do THAT seems sort of extravagant, unless you just have a lot of money and nothing better to do with it. Neil > The fly in that ointment of course is that the hypothetical doesn't > work. You're not going to buy a $5,000 camera and sell it 18 months > later for $4,500. If you sell it 18 months later you'll probably be > lucky to get half the price you paid for it. Again, even as we speak > Cameta is selling Nikon D2x factory demos for $2,500 with a one-year > guarantee. Post a link to one of Cameta's closed auction where he sold a D2x for $2,500? I'll bet you can't. It's easy to do if he actually sold one for under $3,000, which he hasn't. You really think you're stringing me along, don't you? >>>> If I did this >>>> every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Then what is the connection? I don't see any connection either. To maximize use with minimal loss. >> NONSENSE! Just because *YOU* don't know how to make money that's >> not my fault or problem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > months later, and repeat over and over. If that's making money I > wonder what losing money might look like. LOL! I'm really glad you think that way. You are the type of person that makes one very rich. >> Are you functionally illiterate? It's the timeframe past 18-months >> that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > HOW? It's the HOW part of your theory that you don't seem able to > explain. It's been explained numerous times. >>> I don't think you have anything to back up this 18-month period, as >>> you simply state it, then talk bullshit about it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one every 18 months to do THAT seems sort of extravagant, unless you > just have a lot of money and nothing better to do with it. Puppy pics. Rita >> The fly in that ointment of course is that the hypothetical doesn't >> work. You're not going to buy a $5,000 camera and sell it 18 months [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > along, > don't you? No, I'm not trying to string you along. But I was in error there: I looked at that Cameta ad only quickly and thought it was one of his Buy It Nows -- as you probably know, he sells tons of Nikon stuff that way. But checking now I see it's actually an auction and the price is up to $2,550 with one day to go. And remember, that's a factory demo with one-year guarantee, not a camera that a pro used for 18 months. There's another D2x on auction "New, never opened" with a BIN of $2,900 -- http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-D2X-SLR-12-4-Megapixel-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ3201047 18027QQihZ011QQcategoryZ43456QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Which makes me doubt Cameta's factory demo will go much higher than it is now. >>>>> If I did this >>>>> every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > LOL! I'm really glad you think that way. You are the type of person that > makes one very rich. If you can get "very rich" by buying equipment to sell at 40-50% off 18 months later, more power to you. You must be one of the very few people who can do that. BTW, you never did answer my question, Did you sell your D2x when you'd had it for 18 months? >>> Are you functionally illiterate? It's the timeframe past 18-months >>> that is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's been explained numerous times. No. What's been "explained" is some vague, airy stuff about producing revenue, with no real numbers for example or other connection to the alleged benefits of selling your camera every 18 months. >>>> I don't think you have anything to back up this 18-month period, as >>>> you simply state it, then talk bullshit about it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Puppy pics. Oh, you're a puppy photographer? That sounds good. Neil > And remember, that's a factory demo with one-year guarantee, not a > camera that a pro used for 18 months. And what exactly is the difference between refurbished and used? > There's another D2x on auction "New, never opened" with a BIN of > $2,900 -- > http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-D2X-SLR-12-4-Megapixel-Digital-Camera_W0QQitemZ3201047 18027QQihZ011QQcategoryZ43456QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem This person is highly suspect and most likely not an authorized Nikon dealer so you can correctly assume this camera to be used if it really exists. > Which makes me doubt Cameta's factory demo will go much higher than > it is now. It will close at $3,000 - $3,200. Rita >>> That's true to a point. The issue I'm trying to stress is if I held >>> onto a $5,000 dSLR body for 10-years and was lucky enough sell it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >other than to have it make money? Have you ever bought a used dSLR and >flipped it for $1,000 profit? You don't actually understand the difference between *buying* something and *using* it, do you? You specifically were speaking about buying the camera, thjen flipping it, calling that an *investment*. Now, you're changing your tune, trying to say you really meant buying the camera as a tool. Sorry, but there is a distinct difference between this, and what you said earlier. If you meant something else, you shouldn't have defended what you said earlier, and made yourself clearer. >>> Now, if I sold the same $5,000 camera for >>> $4,500 on eBay 18-months later I would have wasted $500. >> >> Oh, you *do* understand. Good. > >But, I would get to use the camera for 18-months for only $500. See? Again, now you change your tune. >>> If I did this >>> every 18-month for 10-years I would be economically and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >BULLSHIT!!! No, honestly. If you actually consider rental costs to be a reflection of the purchase price, you know precious little about the rental industry. >> The technology part is right; technology marches on. The investment >> part remains wrong. > >NONSENSE! Just because *YOU* don't know how to make money that's not my >fault or problem. I understand very well the difference between a depreciating investment and an appreciating investment. The pickup truck a contractor buys is a depreciating asset. The investments he makes with the money he earns using the truck are (he certainly hopes!) appreciating investments. The camera a photographer buys is a depreciating asset. >>>> I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth >>>> in 2017. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the key focal point. After 18-months your investment falls into the abyss >and exponentially loses money Accordinmg ot youy, and so far you have only been able to make that statement, with absolutely nothing to back it up. You can't even come upo with a definition of "shelf life" that would match your use of the term. You may fool some of the rubes, but your lame attempts to call those who see through your idiocies don't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. >>>> That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some >>>> money, thus making it (potentially) a worthwhile investment. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >And I'm sticking to it! Why not? It's all yours, and yours alone. Of course, that's all you can do, isn't it? SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged white guy for humiliating them in front of the entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to collect her royalty check. >> Goddamn! You're pretty sharp Bill. I'm going to have to get your >> name changed to Charles Schwab. For Christ's sake why would you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you meant something else, you shouldn't have defended what you said > earlier, and made yourself clearer. LOL! Still trying to split hairs and grasp straws, Bill? >>>> Now, if I sold the same $5,000 camera for >>>> $4,500 on eBay 18-months later I would have wasted $500. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See? Again, now you change your tune. Huh? Quote me where I said anything different? >>> Forget what a rental costs; it has no connectiopn with what a camera >>> is worth after purchase. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you actually consider rental costs to be a reflection of the > purchase price, you know precious little about the rental industry. Right! And you do? >>> The technology part is right; technology marches on. The investment >>> part remains wrong. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > investment and an appreciating investment. > The pickup truck a contractor buys is a depreciating asset. And ask that same contractor and he'll tell you that truck, or any other tool, is an investment to him. He's not so anal retentive to want to split hairs in petty pissing contests since his goal is to generate revenue. > The investments he makes with the money he earns using the truck are > (he certainly hopes!) appreciating investments. > The camera a photographer buys is a depreciating asset. Split the hair any way you like since it is still depreciating. This is why the 18-month rule is so important. > Accordinmg ot youy, and so far you have only been able to make that > statement, with absolutely nothing to back it up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who see through your idiocies don't change the fact that you don't > know what you're talking about. LOL! I'll let you figure it out. You will catch a clue one day. Rita >>>By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the 18-month >>>rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR investment and have a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >that for any investments in such items, you have to make sure that you >use them enough to at least recover the investment? Are you aware of the fact that this is not what Rita's talking about? >I take it that Rita was talking about what a $5000 camera is worth in 2017. No, Rita was very specific in giving an 18 month life, not ten years. >That gives you plenty of time to write off the camera, and make some money, >thus making it (potentially) a worth while investment. If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I have an old car to sell you. :-) SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Sunday that President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is a tragedy of historic proportion. That's fine with her. The more unforgivable the president, the more Hillary Clinton seems to get out of it. >If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I >have an old car to sell you. :-) That's funny, because old cars usually depreciate much less than new cars. I'll just leave you with your definition of 'investment'. I guess there a whole world of finance you know nothing about. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I >> have an old car to sell you. :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll just leave you with your definition of 'investment'. I guess > there a whole world of finance you know nothing about. LOL! Bill's been struggling with a lot of topics these days. Rita >>> If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I >>> have an old car to sell you. :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >LOL! Bill's been struggling with a lot of topics these days. Especially the ones you come up with. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged white guy for humiliating them in front of the entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to collect her royalty check. >>If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I >>have an old car to sell you. :-) > > That's funny, because old cars usually depreciate much less than new cars. They do indeed, as do other kinds of machines, and that's part of what's wrong with Rita's theory. If a $5,000 camera loses half its value in a year or two, which seems to be the case judging by current D2x prices, it's not going to lose the remaining half in the next year or two. Every year it should depreciate by a smaller amount, just as your observation implies. So by selling after 18 months and buying another $5,000 camera, and so on, you're just ensuring that you take the steepest hit in depreciation and keep doing so again and again. As a way of getting rid of unwanted cash I suppose that works fine, but as an investment strategy it really sucks. Neil >> That's funny, because old cars usually depreciate much less than new >> cars. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > year or two. Every year it should depreciate by a smaller amount, > just as your observation implies. And amazingly some cars have a nasty habit of appreciating in value. > So by selling after 18 months and buying another $5,000 camera, and > so on, you're just ensuring that you take the steepest hit in > depreciation and keep doing so again and again. As a way of getting > rid of unwanted cash I suppose that works fine, but as an investment > strategy it really sucks. See, by following the 18-month rule you are guaranteed a surplus of cash. Rita >>> That's funny, because old cars usually depreciate much less than new >>> cars. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And amazingly some cars have a nasty habit of appreciating in value. Oh, probably ALL cars do, given enough time and if kept in perfect condition -- at least they do if you don't adjust for inflation. Even something as unassuming as a 60-year-old Chevy if in near-mint condition would bring a lot more dollars today than it did when new. It's much harder to make a case for cameras appreciating, though -- probably because unlike cars, most of them don't rust out and end up as landfill. Nothing enhances value as much as rarity. >> So by selling after 18 months and buying another $5,000 camera, and >> so on, you're just ensuring that you take the steepest hit in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See, by following the 18-month rule you are guaranteed a surplus of cash. Again: Did YOU sell your D2X after 18 months? Neil >> And amazingly some cars have a nasty habit of appreciating in value. > > Oh, probably ALL cars do, given enough time and if kept in perfect > condition -- at least they do if you don't adjust for inflation. Even > something as unassuming as a 60-year-old Chevy if in near-mint > condition would bring a lot more dollars today than it did when new. Geez, Carol Shelby's Cobra was recently sold for $5,500,000 at auction. I'm not sure if it was adjusted for inflation. > It's much harder to make a case for cameras appreciating, though -- > probably because unlike cars, most of them don't rust out and end up > as landfill. Nothing enhances value as much as rarity. Who said anything about dSLR bodies appreciating? The sole reason for the 18-month rule is to minimize loss. > Again: Did YOU sell your D2X after 18 months? Has it been 18-months already? Rita >They do indeed, as do other kinds of machines, and that's part of what's >wrong with Rita's theory. If a $5,000 camera loses half its value in a year [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doing so again and again. As a way of getting rid of unwanted cash I suppose >that works fine, but as an investment strategy it really sucks. Your theory assumes that after 18 month you buy again exactly the same model of camera. The underlying assumption of replacing the camera after 18 months is that by them there is a new model that is better for making money than holding on to the old camera. (The 18 month schedule is a bit too frequent for Nikon. Nikon introduced its first camera in 1999 and is now at its third model (D1, D1X, D2X). That is much closer to three years per model. (I don't know if the D2Xs is different enough from the D2X to be considered a new model). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>They do indeed, as do other kinds of machines, and that's part of what's >>wrong with Rita's theory. If a $5,000 camera loses half its value in a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > model > of camera. No, not at all. I'm assuming the idea is to buy the latest model every 18 months. > The underlying assumption of replacing the camera after 18 months > is that by them there is a new model that is better for making money > than holding on to the old camera. That may very well have been true a bit earlier in digital photography, when technical advances were much more rapid than they are now. Nikon's D1 for example had less than 3 megapixels, and that was only 8 years ago. I'm sure there are other reasons too why a pro using a D1 would want something more advanced, and want it as soon as possible. But a pro with a D2X today? > (The 18 month schedule is a bit too frequent for Nikon. Nikon introduced > its > first camera in 1999 and is now at its third model (D1, D1X, D2X). That is > much closer to three years per model. (I don't know if the D2Xs is > different enough from the D2X to be considered a new model). I don't know either, but I'd certainly agree that 18 months seems "a bit too frequent" in any case. Neil >No, not at all. I'm assuming the idea is to buy the latest model every 18 >months. Selling a D2X after 18 month and then buying a new D2X diesn't make any sense unless you use it enough that already after 18 month you reach the end of its economical lifetime. As far as I can tell, the age of a camera model hardly affects the second hand value. You will get almost the same amount of money for the first one in a series as you get for the last one. >> The underlying assumption of replacing the camera after 18 months >> is that by them there is a new model that is better for making money [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >But a pro with a D2X today? You think that pros will continue to use the D2X if Nikon comes out with a 20 Mpixel full-frame model? And then 3 years after that, Nikon will have a 30 Mpixel model. And again after 3 years Nikon will 're-invent' removable finders. Or somebody will 'invent' removable backs with different sensors. I see plenty of opportunities to get people to upgrade their cameras. Oh, and in ten years time we will have 3d monitors, so there is also a future for digital stereo cameras. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>No, not at all. I'm assuming the idea is to buy the latest model every 18 >>months. > > Selling a D2X after 18 month and then buying a new D2X diesn't make any > sense unless you use it enough that already after 18 month you reach the > end of its economical lifetime. Which seems extremely unlikely to me. > As far as I can tell, the age of a camera model hardly affects the > second hand value. You will get almost the same amount of money for the > first one in a series as you get for the last one. Yes. >>> The underlying assumption of replacing the camera after 18 months >>> is that by them there is a new model that is better for making money [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And then 3 years after that, Nikon will have a 30 Mpixel model. You're assuming that such advances in resolution go on forever. I don't think so, or if they do I doubt there'll be enough interest to support them. Beyond a certain point increases in resolution become meaningless and therefore just wasteful. The equivalence of 35mm should be enough to satisfy the vast majority of users including professionals, just as 35mm itself did. And arguably we already have that equivalence in digital, and better than that. > And again after 3 years Nikon will 're-invent' removable finders. > > Or somebody will 'invent' removable backs with different sensors. > > I see plenty of opportunities to get people to upgrade their cameras. Eventually, of course, everything gets upgraded. I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying that the idea of doing it according to some set-in-cement 18-month cycle is ridiculous. > Oh, and in ten years time we will have 3d monitors, so there is also a > future > for digital stereo cameras. As a stereo enthusiast for many years, I'm surprised we don't have digital stereo cameras already. For lots of reasons, stereo would actually be far more practical now than it ever was in its Kodachrome heyday. I have a couple of Pentax 750Zs that I use for stereo (not together, one is a backup) because that's one of the few digital cameras that can put a stereo pair on the same frame. That makes Holmes-type stereo cards as easy as the nearest Wal-Mart machine. But of course the 750Z is limited to slide-bar or similar methods, which is a severe limitation. Neil >> And then 3 years after that, Nikon will have a 30 Mpixel model. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > professionals, just as 35mm itself did. And arguably we already have > that equivalence in digital, and better than that. You're intentionally overlooking the main point that all following models dramatically reduce the previous model's value whether these "improvements" are real or imagined. >> I see plenty of opportunities to get people to upgrade their cameras. > > Eventually, of course, everything gets upgraded. I'm not disputing > that, I'm just saying that the idea of doing it according to some > set-in-cement 18-month cycle is ridiculous. How is the 18-month cycle ridiculous? This is the standard used in the industry. Rita >> And then 3 years after that, Nikon will have a 30 Mpixel model. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And arguably we already have that equivalence in digital, and better than >that. I think the statement that 35mm performance is enough for just about everybody is false if you don't take cost into account. There is a big difference between 35mm film and medium format film. And even then, huge numbers of professional photographers as well as amateurs used medium format. Increases in pixel density (keeping the sensor size constant) are almost for free (which Nikon demonstrates with the D40x). The only reason not to buy a high resolution sensor is when noise becomes a limiting factor. However, I don't think that more than 30 Mpixels on 35mm fullframe is going to work. >> And again after 3 years Nikon will 're-invent' removable finders. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >just saying that the idea of doing it according to some set-in-cement >18-month cycle is ridiculous. Yes, a 18-month cycle doesn't make sense for Nikon cameras, because Nikon doesn't introduce a new model every 18 months. Just tracking the introduction of new cameras is enough. >> Oh, and in ten years time we will have 3d monitors, so there is also a >> future [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stereo cameras already. For lots of reasons, stereo would actually be far >more practical now than it ever was in its Kodachrome heyday. Very few people have the equipment to print/view stereo images. Digital electronics is a mass market. You can't you introduce a new model for a few hobbyists. >I have a couple of Pentax 750Zs that I use for stereo (not together, one is >a backup) because that's one of the few digital cameras that can put a >stereo pair on the same frame. That makes Holmes-type stereo cards as easy >as the nearest Wal-Mart machine. But of course the 750Z is limited to >slide-bar or similar methods, which is a severe limitation. At a recent car exhibition I saw a Philips LCD TV that had a quite realistic 3d image. It is quite surprising to see a car rotating in front of what looks like an ordinary television screen. When those things become standard computer monitors, there will be a huge market for all kinds of 3d imaging. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I think the statement that 35mm performance is enough for just about > everybody is false if you don't take cost into account. Good point. > There is a big difference between 35mm film and medium format film. > And even then, huge numbers of professional photographers as well as > amateurs used medium format. I don't know if you remember the old debate we had in this group years back about digital never having as much resolution when compared to film? These are the very same people that tried to prove their point by comparing an image from an APS-C sensor against a scan from medium format film. Well, duh, of course there's going to be a big difference in resolution. For some reason these people never wanted to compare a scan from 35mm film. If I remember correctly Bill was one of these characters that argued against digital at that time. >> Eventually, of course, everything gets upgraded. I'm not disputing >> that, I'm just saying that the idea of doing it according to some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nikon doesn't introduce a new model every 18 months. Just tracking > the introduction of new cameras is enough. See, you're catching on and just solved a perplexing mystery at the same time! Maybe this is why a lot of pro Nikon shooters are dumping Nikon in favor of Canon. I know they aren't switching camp for the glass. The 18-month rule is so engrained in the industry that it can be the sole cause of shifting brand loyalty. Nikon is against the ropes since they are falling behind the rule by failing to introduce a viable upgrade path. Rita >>> And then 3 years after that, Nikon will have a 30 Mpixel model. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > even then, huge numbers of professional photographers as well as amateurs > used medium format. Well, "huge numbers" is relative of course. There are millions of people in the world with cameras. I don't know what percentage of them use medium format, but it must be exceedingly small. Even before digital came along, checking the film shelves of almost any photo store showed pitifully small stocks of 120 compared to what they carried in 35mm. > Increases in pixel density (keeping the sensor size constant) are almost > for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going to > work. I doubt there'll ever be any real need for 30 megapixels, but I suppose if 30Mp cameras can be made cheaply enough they'll sell handily to the more-megapixels-must-be-better buyers. >>> And again after 3 years Nikon will 're-invent' removable finders. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Very few people have the equipment to print/view stereo images. Almost everyone has access to a Wal-Mart, CVS or whatever where they can pop in a card and get 4 x 6 prints. Put a stereo pair on one of those, add a cheap plastic prismatic viewer and that's all you need for 3D. For those who don't want to bother with prints at all, the inexpensive Pokescope is available for viewing stereo right on your monitor. So everything is already in place. All that's needed is for someone to make a true stereo digital camera. Why no one is doing this yet I cannot understand. > Digital > electronics is a mass market. You can't you introduce a new model for a > few > hobbyists. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the Stereo Realist, but that camera turned your "few hobbyists" into a worldwide fad that sold an awful lot of stereo cameras by various manufacturers, American, German, Russian, French, et al. It only lasted a couple of decades, but what camera manufacturer wouldn't want to be part of something that popular? The Stereo Realist of course did not invent stereo photography -- that's been around almost as long as photography itself. It just made it accessible to the masses for the first time. But using Kodachrome (only ASA 10 in those days) and the nuisance of mounting stereo pairs did limit its popularity somewhat and perhaps led to its eventual demise. Digital has changed all that. Stereo photography today would be easy and trouble-free, if only there were digital stereo cameras. And EVERYONE who sees stereo for the first time is impressed. I'll bet you 18,000 zorkmids that if a stereo digicam were produced today and adequately promoted, it would start a new popular stereo movement -- and almost all the camera makers would jump on the bandwagon, since they are so eager to imitate each other. >>I have a couple of Pentax 750Zs that I use for stereo (not together, one >>is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When those things become standard computer monitors, there will be a > huge market for all kinds of 3d imaging. That sort of thing is bound to be prohibitively expensive for some time to come, though. We don't really need such highfalutin' stuff. All we need is a real two-eyed digital camera. The world is ready for it, even if it doesn't know it. :-) Neil >> No, not at all. I'm assuming the idea is to buy the latest model >> every 18 months. > > Selling a D2X after 18 month and then buying a new D2X diesn't make > any sense unless you use it enough that already after 18 month you > reach the end of its economical lifetime. You got it. > As far as I can tell, the age of a camera model hardly affects the > second hand value. You will get almost the same amount of money for > the first one in a series as you get for the last one. Actually, the age and new model releases play a dramatic role in a camera's depreciation. Rita >>> No, not at all. I'm assuming the idea is to buy the latest model >>> every 18 months. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Actually, the age and new model releases play a dramatic role in a camera's >depreciation. Please provide reliable statistics for that. As far as I can tell (from watching 2nd hand prices for years) a model 'X' camera fetches a certain amount. What influences the price is wear, etc. Both the sellers and the buyers are usually unaware of the precise production date of the camera. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Actually, the age and new model releases play a dramatic role in a >> camera's depreciation. > > Please provide reliable statistics for that. Follow pricing trends on the used market and eBay. > As far as I can tell (from watching 2nd hand prices for years) a > model 'X' camera fetches a certain amount. What influences the price > is wear, etc. Sure, wear can be a major and "sole" deciding factor during the pre-digital film age, but dSLRs of today are time stamped for obsolescence at predetermined intervals. Most people, especially on eBay can't determine or care about the level of wear and tear a camera has since it isn't obvious till after they receive it. > Both the sellers and the buyers are usually unaware of the precise > production date of the camera. This goes back to being a smart consumer and doing research. Watch market trends and pay accordingly for items nearing their "End of Life" phase. Rita >>They do indeed, as do other kinds of machines, and that's part of what's >>wrong with Rita's theory. If a $5,000 camera loses half its value in a year [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >is that by them there is a new model that is better for making money >than holding on to the old camera. This sounds suspisciously like the idea that a better camera makes you a better photographer. Rita's proposition (and note that it's changed from the body itself to what that body can do for a pro) assumes that every 18 months, a new model will be introduced that will make a marked difference in the earning power of a pro; that's an assumption she has made absolutely no attempt to back up. She's all talk. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged white guy for humiliating them in front of the entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to collect her royalty check. >> Your theory assumes that after 18 month you buy again exactly the >> same model of camera. The underlying assumption of replacing the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no attempt to back up. > She's all talk. What, you aint making any money? So sad! No wonder you're so bitter. Rita >>> Your theory assumes that after 18 month you buy again exactly the >>> same model of camera. The underlying assumption of replacing the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >What, you aint making any money? So sad! No wonder you're so bitter. Bitter? You mistake reality for bitterness. Just because someone sees through your absurd claims doesn't make them bitter. But your attempts trying to make me look bad for disagreeing with you are noted. Can yoiu back up your claims that an 18 month buying cycle is normal for the photography industry? Or are you going to continue to ignore calls for some sort of ability to back up your claims? And remember, that a few companies do this is not evidence of an industry-wide cycle. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Rudy Giuliani will address students at Pat Robertson's university next week. He is for gay rights, abortion, gun control and divorce. Pat Robertson plans to hand out sticks and marshmallows to the students to take advantage of the fire surrounding the podium. >> What, you aint making any money? So sad! No wonder you're so >> bitter. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But your attempts trying to make me look bad for disagreeing with you > are noted. LOL! You don't need me to make you look bad or like a clueless fool, you have a track record of doing that just fine by yourself. Your last feat of monumental stupidity was not knowing what is in your wallet and "Card Not Present" transactions. > Can yoiu back up your claims that an 18 month buying cycle is normal > for the photography industry? Or are you going to continue to ignore > calls for some sort of ability to back up your claims? It has been proven over and over. Just because you continue to ignore the calls of reality and hard evidence that is on you. > And remember, that a few companies do this is not evidence of an > industry-wide cycle. Oh, stipulations! And what if these "few companies" are major players in the industry? Rita >>> What, you aint making any money? So sad! No wonder you're so >>> bitter. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >monumental stupidity was not knowing what is in your wallet and "Card Not >Present" transactions. I certainly know what a card not present transaction is; I make enough of them, as well as having done them from the other end. What you still fail to realize is that your transaction with PayPal is a CNP trasnsaction, while PayPal's transaction with the seller doesn't even use your card, so it can't be the same CNP transaction. But you keep on truckin' with yiour absurdities. >> Can yoiu back up your claims that an 18 month buying cycle is normal >> for the photography industry? Or are you going to continue to ignore >> calls for some sort of ability to back up your claims? > >It has been proven over and over. Just because you continue to ignore the >calls of reality and hard evidence that is on you. Youi keep saying this, but you offer nothing. If you did indeed prove tjhat an 18 month cycle for professional photographers is the industry standard, I haven't seen it. If, as you say, you've proven it already, it should be trivial to do so again; of course, so far, you haven't done so, and that's why I seriously doubt you could do it again. It would be very easy to prove me wrong. So, why don't you? >> And remember, that a few companies do this is not evidence of an >> industry-wide cycle. > >Oh, stipulations! And what if these "few companies" are major players in >the industry? What major players in the photography industry are you talking about? Sears? The Easter Bunny concession at your local mall? You're very good at evading; if you were only as good at being right. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Rudy Giuliani will address students at Pat Robertson's university next week. He is for gay rights, abortion, gun control and divorce. Pat Robertson plans to hand out sticks and marshmallows to the students to take advantage of the fire surrounding the podium. > What major players in the photography industry are you talking about? > Sears? > The Easter Bunny concession at your local mall? > You're very good at evading; if you were only as good at being right. LOL! You're telling me your cameras didn't come with an 18-month pop-up timer to remind you that it has reached its shelf life? The new Canon Mk III has a digital timer for this purpose. Rita > (The 18 month schedule is a bit too frequent for Nikon. Nikon > introduced its first camera in 1999 and is now at its third model > (D1, D1X, D2X). That is much closer to three years per model. (I > don't know if the D2Xs is different enough from the D2X to be > considered a new model). The difference between the D2x and D2xs is so miniscule that it's not that drastic to warrant an upgrade for the sake of upgrading, but the newly revised model does have great impact on the deprecation of the D2x. The latest firmware brings it up to par with the D2xs for important features and improvements. You just don't get the slightly larger chimp screen. Rita >>If you seriously coinsider a depreciating item as an investment, I >>have an old car to sell you. :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'll just leave you with your definition of 'investment'. I guess there >a whole world of finance you know nothing about. I really like those who think they know, and try to get the last word with stuff like this. You think a depreciating asset is an investment? Like I said, I have this old car... SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged white guy for humiliating them in front of the entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to collect her royalty check. >> By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the >> 18-month rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, make a > choice, pick one or the other, then base your argument on that choice. No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the dSLR body is basically sold as salvage for as much as the market will bear. That's not to say that the dSLR dody can't still be considered an investment if following the 18-month rule. Obviously your dSLR would have paid for itself within the first 3-months of ownership and use. And, of course, it would still be producing revenue for the following 15-months. So, I guess you can look at is a way of maximizing profits or minimizing losses. I'll let you decide which fits your circumstances best. As for the lenses, they are the only things in your kit that is considered a constant and should appreciate in value during your career/lifetime. If you are a smart consumer when purchasing your lenses new or used you should be able to sell them at a future date for a decent profit or in a worse case scenario break even, which would suck. Trust me, nothing sucks more than selling a lens for what you paid for it after 10-years of use. Again, Bill, tell me what dSLR body is a keeper? Rita >>> By holding onto a single model till 2017 and not adhering to the >>> 18-month rule you will have effectively taken your $5,000 dSLR [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the dSLR > body is basically sold as salvage for as much as the market will bear. Now you've got me really curious. Did you sell your D2x "as salvage" after 18 months? > That's not to say that the dSLR dody can't still be considered an > investment > if following the 18-month rule. How can anything possibly be an investment if you buy it planning on selling it "as salvage" in 18 months?! > Obviously your dSLR would have paid for > itself within the first 3-months of ownership and use. And, of course, it > would still be producing revenue for the following 15-months. Why would it stop producing after 18 months whatever revenue it produced during that time? Other than photos for eBay (which don't even require an entry-level dSLR; any reasonably competent photographer can do such photos perfectly well with a decent digital compact camera), what kind of revenue-producing photos do you do? Neil >> No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your >> lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now you've got me really curious. Did you sell your D2x "as salvage" > after 18 months? Bookmark the page, watch, and learn. <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472> Rita >>> No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your >>> lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472> Is that your camera? >>> No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your >>> lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ260107941472> Well, so far the price for that D2x is $102.50 and since it's a dunked and non-working camera I'll be surprised if it goes much higher. So what am I supposed to be learning from watching this? Neil >>>> No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your >>>> lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Neil That Rita must search long and wide for anything that even remotely looks like it will support her pronouncements. Or, maybe that this is how Rita treats her investments. SignatureTHIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Sunday that President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is a tragedy of historic proportion. That's fine with her. The more unforgivable the president, the more Hillary Clinton seems to get out of it. >>>>> No conflict at all since you note that I said the only thing in your >>>>> lens/body kit that will depreciate is the body. After 18-months the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > looks like it will |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message