Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Obsolete Equipment?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
and assorted Nikkor lenses.

Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.

What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
much on the resale market.

It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
unused beside my cd player)?

Thanks for any advice.

- Eugel

More about : obsolete equipment

January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I sold all of my pro 35mm stuff on eBay.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Theydon't sell for much with even the latest pro auto focus Camera
bodies selling for around $300.00. I sold a Canon 1 N for $275. The old
manual focus you will be giving away. I sold a Minolta X700, power
winder 35-70mm f3.5 lens and vivitar 285 flash for $125.00.

if you can use your Nikon lens on the D70 that's a plus. Some autofocus
lens that didn't sell well before sell well now because of the crop
factor. An example is the canon ef 70-210 f4 used to be a $75.00 lens
and now they sell for almost $200.00. They aren't that good of a lens
to begin with.

The film stuff isn't going to be worth more because more and more of
it's going to be coming to the market. Sell now and get what you can.

The other option is to convince a kid in your family to learn
photography the right way with film and give him the stuff. If they
were smart they would say no I will learn it the right way with
digital.

Art
Related resources
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in news:41e7c9f5$1
@news.starhub.net.sg:

> It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
> same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
> unused beside my cd player)?
>

That pretty much sums it up.

Your lenses will be pretty hard to use too, because the D70 will only meter
with the new lenses. The only thing I considered keeping mine for was to
put B&W film into, but in the end even that wasn't a good enough reason to
keep it.

Bob
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You can now conisder yourself a collector of Nikon cameras.

I have a two year old N80 that I hardly use now even though I know that
images made on film and scanned are significantly higher quality than what
comes out of my D70: the D70 is just not in the same league as medium speed
35mm film scanned at 4000dpi.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:32:44 +0800, "Eugel Yeo"
<clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
>and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>
>Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
>I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
>the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
>but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
>
>What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
>to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
>much on the resale market.
>
>It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
>same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
>unused beside my cd player)?

Sell it yesterday before the price drops too far.

OR..

...hold on to it and buy one of those 30Mpixel digital canisters, it's
the shape of a 35mm film canister with a thin flat bit sticking out
that holds the full-sized CCD sensor. It fits into any 35mm camera to
make it digital without any of the cropping factor bullcrap. It has a
large buffer and uses blue tooth wireless technology to dump the
images onto the supplied grip, which itself houses the CF writer,
movable LCD screen, configuration controls, and provides power to the
sensor / canister using an induction coil.

By 2015 these things will only be a hundred bucks.

Next you'll be asking me what to do with your old <10Mpixel DSLRs.

--
Owamanga!
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41e7c9f5$1@news.starhub.net.sg>, clean_uranus@yahoo.com says...
>
>I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
>and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>
>Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
>I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
>the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
>but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
>
>What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
>to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
>much on the resale market.
>
>It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
>same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
>unused beside my cd player)?
>
>Thanks for any advice.
>
>- Eugel

Not to sound trite, but they make great bookends. I have a handful of "
antique" cameras on display in a bookcase, and will probably add my F2, F2s,
Nikkormat EL, and my F4's to it soon. As you state, there is little resale
value, since these are not early Leicas, or something. I'd rather keep them
and recount the memories that these babies shot.

Hunt
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eugel Yeo wrote:
> I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
> and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>
> Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
> I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
> the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
> but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
>
> What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
> to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
> much on the resale market.
>
> It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
> same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
> unused beside my cd player)?
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> - Eugel

If you keep it long enough, it may become a valuable antique.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I kept one Canon 1N film body that is mint with Power Booster. I have
probably 100 rolls of film in the refrigerator. I gave my daughter 15
rolls of B&W film to shoot up. As much as I might think about film and
shooting it again I doubt if I will ever shoot up the film in my
refrigerator. I doubt if I will sell the 1N body only because the
thought of getting $250 bucks for a mint copy distresses me. I already
sold one for $275 a few months ago.

I don't know what model cameras the people have that said film is
better but I like the images I'm getting from my Canon 20D better then
film. I also get a great deal of enjoyment working the images in
Photoshop. Like all photography I guess it's an individual thing.

Art
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> writes:

>It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
>same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
>unused beside my cd player)?

As an aside, I wish I still had my Thorens turntable. I still have a
lot of vinyl records, and I'd play them occasionally if I had a working
turntable. But I "upgraded" from the Thorens to a Micro Seiki, which
uses an unusual belt that I can't find (the belt goes around the outside
diameter of the platter and is thus very long).

If I'd kept the Thorens it would still be working because the belt goes
around a sub-platter and is a more normal length.

I do still have all my film SLR gear, but it sat unused for the last
several years.

Dave
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

THorens! I'll bet you were in the service! :-)
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just bought an Argus C3 on E-bay. It was the first camera that I ever
owned, having bought it on board ship in the Navy in 1953. I also got a C4,
which was the second camera I owned. I bought it in 1954 and don't know
where or when it went.

My advise is to keep it and when you get to be an old man like me, you can
look back and remember some of the moments you had with the cameras. My
other cameras were a Minolta (don't remember the model), which my son has
and a film Rebel, which I still have. Oh yes, I still have an old polaroid
that I boughjt back in the 60's.

Don Dunlap

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e7c9f5$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
> and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>
> Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
> I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
> the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
> but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
>
> What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
> to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
> much on the resale market.
>
> It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
> same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
> unused beside my cd player)?
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> - Eugel
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That's a good idea except I'm already 61.

Art
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message

>As you state, there is little resale
> value, since these are not early Leicas, or something. I'd rather keep
them
> and recount the memories that these babies shot.
>

Give it another 20 years. Any mechanical camera will be a wanted
collector's item!
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:UkSFd.1706$8Z1.1536@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I have a two year old N80 that I hardly use now even though I know that
> images made on film and scanned are significantly higher quality than what
> comes out of my D70: the D70 is just not in the same league as medium
speed
> 35mm film scanned at 4000dpi.
>


Why does it have to be an "Either-Or" proposition? I continue to use my
classic film gear, and I still get much enjoyment from it. And you are 100%
correct when you say that film still results in a better quality image in
most instances.

I am so glad that I did not dump my film cameras. I just put them away for
a year or so, until I got over the initial novelty of digital.
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10ug1u938oaij0b@corp.supernews.com>, physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net
says...
> Eugel Yeo wrote:
> > I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
> > and assorted Nikkor lenses.
> >
> > Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
> > I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
> > the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
> > but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
> >
> > What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
> > to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
> > much on the resale market.
> >
> > It tears me apart to have to sell them but if I don't, will they go the
> > same way as my old Thorens turntable (which, incidentally sits
> > unused beside my cd player)?
> >
> > Thanks for any advice.
> >
> > - Eugel
>
> If you keep it long enough, it may become a valuable antique.
>

As long as there is film available for my SLR cameras they are not
"obsolete"!

OTOH, I dont use them much... To much instant gratification with the
digitals.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marvin wrote:
> Eugel Yeo wrote:
>> I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
>> and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>>

<snip>

>
> If you keep it long enough, it may become a valuable antique.

If you keep it long enough, it may become a valuable (to your
grandchildren) antique
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> writes:

>..hold on to it and buy one of those 30Mpixel digital canisters, it's
>the shape of a 35mm film canister with a thin flat bit sticking out
>that holds the full-sized CCD sensor. It fits into any 35mm camera to
>make it digital without any of the cropping factor bullcrap. It has a
>large buffer and uses blue tooth wireless technology to dump the
>images onto the supplied grip, which itself houses the CF writer,
>movable LCD screen, configuration controls, and provides power to the
>sensor / canister using an induction coil.

You don't mean the Imagek vapourware, do you? The company went bankrupt
years ago, and never produced a reasonable product.

Dave
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1105729737.316132.12110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I kept one Canon 1N film body that is mint with Power Booster. I have
> probably 100 rolls of film in the refrigerator. I gave my daughter 15
> rolls of B&W film to shoot up. As much as I might think about film and
> shooting it again I doubt if I will ever shoot up the film in my
> refrigerator. I doubt if I will sell the 1N body only because the
> thought of getting $250 bucks for a mint copy distresses me. I already
> sold one for $275 a few months ago.
>
> I don't know what model cameras the people have that said film is
> better but I like the images I'm getting from my Canon 20D better then
> film. I also get a great deal of enjoyment working the images in
> Photoshop. Like all photography I guess it's an individual thing.
>
> Art
>

Unfortunately, the depreciation curve is speeding up more than ever with
digital...in about 5 years you'll be lucky to get $250 for a mint EOS-1Ds
Mark II... 5-1/2 years and it'd just be landfill...

George
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:32:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1105753672.633592.163580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> That's a good idea except I'm already 61.
>
> Art
>

Only 61, hell, that's young.

Don
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:17:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e7c9f5$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> I've got some old(ish) Nikon eqpt - Nikkormat, F2AS and F3 slrs
> and assorted Nikkor lenses.
>
> Since I've moved over to digital, I've not touched my film slrs.
> I'm considering buying a D70. The lenses are potential useful (though
> the 1.5X factor makes a mockery of my 20mm lens),
> but I'm torn over what to do with my slr bodies.
>
> What do you guys do with your old slrs after you've switched
> to dslrs? These arent exactly collectible items and so they dont fetch
> much on the resale market.


I've sold off some Nikon film bodies, but just can't part with my F2S, F3HP
and two F4S's. I'll keep them for B+W and slide use, and if I stop using
them for that, I'll build a nice display case for them to put on my wall.
I'll always love them....

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am just about to buy my first digital camera after almost 5 years of using
a scanner to convert film to digital. I think there will be a transition
period, for me at least. I believe Penatx is the most considerate brand
since it really helps me with the transition by not abandoning the lens
mount or stop supporting the use of older lenses on new bodies.

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cATFd.6742$C52.5166@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:UkSFd.1706$8Z1.1536@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> I have a two year old N80 that I hardly use now even though I know that
>> images made on film and scanned are significantly higher quality than
>> what
>> comes out of my D70: the D70 is just not in the same league as medium
> speed
>> 35mm film scanned at 4000dpi.
>>
>
>
> Why does it have to be an "Either-Or" proposition? I continue to use my
> classic film gear, and I still get much enjoyment from it. And you are
> 100%
> correct when you say that film still results in a better quality image in
> most instances.
>
> I am so glad that I did not dump my film cameras. I just put them away
> for
> a year or so, until I got over the initial novelty of digital.
>
>
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 11:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:20:44 -0500, "Don Dunlap"
<dondunlaprove@direcway.com> wrote:

>I just bought an Argus C3 on E-bay. It was the first camera that I ever
>owned, having bought it on board ship in the Navy in 1953. I also got a C4,
>which was the second camera I owned. I bought it in 1954 and don't know
>where or when it went.
>
>My advise is to keep it and when you get to be an old man like me, you can
>look back and remember some of the moments you had with the cameras. My
>other cameras were a Minolta (don't remember the model), which my son has
>and a film Rebel, which I still have. Oh yes, I still have an old polaroid
>that I boughjt back in the 60's.

LOL....and here I thought I was the only one!

I used an Argus C3 in the Navy in the early 60's. Learned that
dropping it in the Mediterranean did NOT help it...LOL

I still have some excellent slides from that era.

I too bought a C3 on Ebay just for the memories.

Moved up to the Minolta SRT 101 with a 50mm f 1.4 or 1.2 lens. That
was traded in on a Minolta X700 and onto the Maxxum 7000.

Now I've gone back to a SRT 101.

Of course I'm doing digital now, but I still remember film fondly.


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cs97su$ju5$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> As an aside, I wish I still had my Thorens turntable.

I've still got mine. A TD150, and still going strong.
January 16, 2005 2:14:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tangwong" <tangwong@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:0cSdnWKcIun173TcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...

> I am just about to buy my first digital camera after almost 5 years of
using
> a scanner to convert film to digital.

Someone that understands these matters better than I has made the following
statement, which may interest you:

"HOW TO GET THE BEST DIGITAL IMAGE

The best way to get a digital image is by shooting film and having it
scanned. I'm not comparing that here; this is a camera discussion."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:01:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

tangwong writes:

>
>I am just about to buy my first digital camera after almost 5 years of using
>a scanner to convert film to digital. I think there will be a transition
>period, for me at least. I believe Penatx is the most considerate brand
>since it really helps me with the transition by not abandoning the lens
>mount or stop supporting the use of older lenses on new bodies.

It takes good pictures, too.

I'm quite happy with my *istD.

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush
January 16, 2005 4:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
> "tangwong" <tangwong@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:0cSdnWKcIun173TcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
>
>
>>I am just about to buy my first digital camera after almost 5 years of
>
> using
>
>>a scanner to convert film to digital.
>
>
> Someone that understands these matters better than I has made the following
> statement, which may interest you:
>
> "HOW TO GET THE BEST DIGITAL IMAGE
>
> The best way to get a digital image is by shooting film and having it
> scanned. I'm not comparing that here; this is a camera discussion."
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
>
>
That is correct when comparing digicams with a large-format camera for very large prints(larger than 8X12. Digicams with 12
Mp or more are fully competitive with 35 mm cameras. Aside from making very large prints, keep in mind that each step in the
process degrades the image to some degree. If you need a digital image, taking it with a digicam will almost always give the
best result.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote

> I still have some excellent slides from that era.

Since I joined a photo discussion group (Webaperture) I've gone searching
through the many boxes of Kodachrome and Agfa slides that have been sitting
in the wardrobe since the 70s and 80s. When scanned on an old Nikon LS1000
an American friend sent me, some of these have turned out to be better than
I originally thought.

With slides, you project them in series to an audience of yawning friends
and relatives who keep glancing at their watches. But digital attracts a
different crowd, especially on the Internet, and I find I get a lot of
pleasure in sharing and listening to comments on them.

Have *you* rummaged in the closet recently? :-)

Paul
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:59:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:39:30 +1000, "Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR
NEAR optusnet.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote
>
>> I still have some excellent slides from that era.
>
>Since I joined a photo discussion group (Webaperture) I've gone searching
>through the many boxes of Kodachrome and Agfa slides that have been sitting
>in the wardrobe since the 70s and 80s. When scanned on an old Nikon LS1000
>an American friend sent me, some of these have turned out to be better than
>I originally thought.
>
>With slides, you project them in series to an audience of yawning friends
>and relatives who keep glancing at their watches. But digital attracts a
>different crowd, especially on the Internet, and I find I get a lot of
>pleasure in sharing and listening to comments on them.
>
>Have *you* rummaged in the closet recently? :-)
>
>Paul
>
>
>

Yes I have. I'm just waiting a bit to get a scanner for the slides
till after I feel a bit more accomplished at all the photo shop stuff.

gawd what a learning curve!

One of the real benefits of digital is the lack of 'chemical' smell in
the darkroom!


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 9:58:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's almost like moving, I planned things out this way:
1. Sell bodies I didn't want or use.
2. Keep mech. bodies as a backup.
3. Keep mech. bodies for emotional reasons.

I got a D70 and F100 at the same time. I love the D70 and would like
to sell the F100 now.

In regards to a mech. body for a backup my list goes something like
this:
- Nikon F3HP
- Nikonos I
(the F2 was choice #2 until I sold it)

If for some reason something can destroy my Nikonos then I'll just
buy the eq. of a Diana and get the job done anyway.
Keep what you want for a backup or for that sweet feeling you had
w/your 1st camera. Take them out once a month, w/o film shoot all
speeds at least 6 times for a little exercise and put 'em back. It's
like owning a car made in 1965, you'll be happy you saved them (and
lordy knows they take up less space!)

Don
monographs, Photoshop, manuals:
http://www.1world-design.com/book/
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:38:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

George wrote:
> "Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:1105729737.316132.12110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I kept one Canon 1N film body that is mint with Power Booster. I have
>>probably 100 rolls of film in the refrigerator. I gave my daughter 15
>>rolls of B&W film to shoot up. As much as I might think about film and
>>shooting it again I doubt if I will ever shoot up the film in my
>>refrigerator. I doubt if I will sell the 1N body only because the
>>thought of getting $250 bucks for a mint copy distresses me. I already
>>sold one for $275 a few months ago.
>>
>>I don't know what model cameras the people have that said film is
>>better but I like the images I'm getting from my Canon 20D better then
>>film. I also get a great deal of enjoyment working the images in
>>Photoshop. Like all photography I guess it's an individual thing.
>>
>>Art
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately, the depreciation curve is speeding up more than ever with
> digital...in about 5 years you'll be lucky to get $250 for a mint EOS-1Ds
> Mark II... 5-1/2 years and it'd just be landfill...
>
> George
>
>

Maybe so, but 5-1/2 years from now if the 1Ds MkII is in working
condition it will still be capable of producing quality pictures.

nick
January 19, 2005 7:43:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XvGdnYM-FLxn43PcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
> Maybe so, but 5-1/2 years from now if the 1Ds MkII is in working
> condition it will still be capable of producing quality pictures.
>

Maybe, maybe not. Electronic components tend to be difficult to repair,
because the entire board is designed to be replaced as a cost-saving
measure. My point is that, unlike legacy mechanical cameras, it may not be
economical to repair electronic cameras. The manufacturers surely have no
vested interest in keeping that old equipment going. They are not required
to provide replacement parts in the US after 7 years.

Every other type of electronic item--cell phones, televisions, video
recorders, walkmen--just gets thrown into a landfill when it fails. Is
there any basis to believe that cameras will be any different--especially
when newer and possibly cheaper models will be in good supply on dealers'
shelves?

It's not that the manufacturers CAN'T make a long-lasting product, it is
that they probably would be undermining their profitability by doing so.
There may be room for the Hasselblad or Leica equipment, that continues to
be serviced for many years after it is sold, but it is doubtful that there
is room for every manufacturer to do that.

As buyers become accustomed to replace, rather than repair, the incentive
for manufacturers to buck the trend becomes even less.

In thirty years, anyone shooting with a camera made now will probably appear
as eccentric as someone that is making his cellular calls on one of those
old bag phones.

I have no crystal ball, but that's the way I read the handwriting on the
wall.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 7:43:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
> "nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XvGdnYM-FLxn43PcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
>>Maybe so, but 5-1/2 years from now if the 1Ds MkII is in working
>>condition it will still be capable of producing quality pictures.
>>
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Electronic components tend to be difficult to repair,
> because the entire board is designed to be replaced as a cost-saving
> measure. My point is that, unlike legacy mechanical cameras, it may not be
> economical to repair electronic cameras. The manufacturers surely have no
> vested interest in keeping that old equipment going. They are not required
> to provide replacement parts in the US after 7 years.

The entire board might well be replaced at a much lower cost (for the
board) than the board costs at the present time. Should there be a
sustaining market (and I think there will be such a market) for these
boards, they will be made, probably by a third party company. As it is
now the boards are produced in an automated fashion.

I also feel the manufactures of quality digicams do have a vested
interest in keeping older better made dSLR's operational. What better
advertisement can be had than to read from multiple sources on the
Internet that a particular quality camera just keeps on producing
quality photos.

Even now, when a tyros asks about cameras or lenses many a suggestion is
made referencing older cameras and older lenses that have proved to be,
by trial, first rate.

I have to say, what would worry me more is not the availability of
boards or lenses some day down stream. I think a prime concern should be
availability of batteries that a quality camera uses. In that respect,
the Canon 20D and Canon's 1D family of cameras will see continued use
for many years because the batteries in these cameras are common
batteries, standardized in many of Canon's cameras.

BTW, I thought OEM parts availability was ten years after production
ceases. No?


>
> Every other type of electronic item--cell phones, televisions, video
> recorders, walkmen--just gets thrown into a landfill when it fails. Is
> there any basis to believe that cameras will be any different--especially
> when newer and possibly cheaper models will be in good supply on dealers'
> shelves?

When electronic items fail and parts are no longer available or labor
rates are much too excessive as compared to buying new equipment, then
for sure electronic items may get dumped in landfills or get sold on
e-bay. As they say, one mans trash is another mans treasure. Heck, my
high end sound equipment is powered by a preamp and two separate 250
watt amplifiers that were made in New Zealand about 11 years ago. My
speaker systems are floor to near ceiling electrostaitc and combined,
these puppies would shatter windows.

Right now, today, if quality dSLR camera designs were frozen at 8MP,
they would be more than adequate for laymen and pros alike, in many
fields of photography. New cameras coming off the design boards will be
better and better following each subsequent design but that will not
mean todays quality cameras, still in good operating condition, will
become useless.

Frankly, as long as we are playing the if game, I expect computer
software to be gradually improved in such manner as to salvage or
further enhance digital photos so that the camera that is used to take a
digital photo will become of lesser consequence.

>
> It's not that the manufacturers CAN'T make a long-lasting product, it is
> that they probably would be undermining their profitability by doing so.
> There may be room for the Hasselblad or Leica equipment, that continues to
> be serviced for many years after it is sold, but it is doubtful that there
> is room for every manufacturer to do that.

I absolutely agree with you Jeremy with the exception of what you doubt.
Population growth and the continuing introduction of tyros photo
hobbiests or professionals will continue to be a market source for
cameras that doesn't mean Nikon's Dx/Dh cameras or Canon's 1D camera
will be relegated to the trash bin. My guess would be to look for the
future to make greater and more rapid advancements in lens designs than
camera bodies.

>
> As buyers become accustomed to replace, rather than repair, the incentive
> for manufacturers to buck the trend becomes even less.

Here I would agree if we were taking about P&S digicams but a quality
dSLR that satifies the owner is not likely to be replaced unless the
owner is a gaget lover or a pro who may find it necessary to update
equipement. Outside of Pros and avid photo hounds, cameras are bought
with discretionary money. I bought my 1D MKII and the 20D, with a bunch
of lenses because I can afford to buy them. But I would not have bought
them if I were strapped for cash and needed to satisfy other financial
prioities first. Frankly, I find having these two cameras (along with my
film cameras) further enhances my interest in photography. I almost
bought the 1Ds MKII and was salivating while I was handling it but
reason prevailed and I backed away because the 20D and 1D MKII more than
fulfill and satisfy my photographic interests. Lenses now, whew, that
would be another subject. :) 

>
> In thirty years, anyone shooting with a camera made now will probably appear
> as eccentric as someone that is making his cellular calls on one of those
> old bag phones.

For me, that wouldn't be a big deal. I'm eccentric now. :)  Besides, I'll
not be around thirty years from now.

>
> I have no crystal ball, but that's the way I read the handwriting on the
> wall.

Same here Jeremy. I'm presenting my opinion same as you. Why not?
Converse is what we do here.


>
>
January 19, 2005 8:44:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
news:T6wHd.629$cZ1.202@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>>
>> Maybe so, but 5-1/2 years from now if the 1Ds MkII is in working
>> condition it will still be capable of producing quality pictures.
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Electronic components tend to be difficult to
> repair, because

But Nick specified a working camera. What difference does difficulty of
repair make?

How many people have you heard complaining of other professional bodies
having problems?

Example: The Nikon F4 came out in the mid 80's, about 20 years ago. It's
full of electronic parts. Ever heard of one failing? That couldn't be
repaired? Besides the obvious like being dropped into the ocean, or from
a moving car...

Bob
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:11:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The fast depreciation on digital will likely level out once the cameras reach a
standard level which is adequate. When you had the VGA or 1.3MP cameras, they
legitimately weren't ample performance for what many wanted-- reasonable size
prints, screen filling pictures. We're pretty much hitting that mark now, so I
think the depreciation will slow down.

Moreover, the prices get more and more affected by the lens, which isn't
dropping in price.
--
Marada Shra'drakaii
January 20, 2005 5:26:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in news:vK2dneFODO_qcnPcRVn-
3Q@comcast.com:

> I think a prime concern should be
> availability of batteries that a quality camera uses. In that respect,
> the Canon 20D and Canon's 1D family of cameras will see continued use
> for many years because the batteries in these cameras are common
> batteries, standardized in many of Canon's cameras.
>

I have a Yashica Electro 35, which probably dates to about 1970. The
battery it used was based on mercury cells, no longer available. Some
clever guy makes an adapter to put some other cells into it.

The E-35 is a decent camera, but not pro quality. I don't think I ever
saw anyone else use one but me. My thinking is that if I can buy a power
solution for the E-35, there will be power solutions for high end digital
cameras for a long time to come.

Bob
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 5:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in news:vK2dneFODO_qcnPcRVn-
> 3Q@comcast.com:
>
>
>>I think a prime concern should be
>>availability of batteries that a quality camera uses. In that respect,
>>the Canon 20D and Canon's 1D family of cameras will see continued use
>>for many years because the batteries in these cameras are common
>>batteries, standardized in many of Canon's cameras.
>>
>
>
> I have a Yashica Electro 35, which probably dates to about 1970. The
> battery it used was based on mercury cells, no longer available. Some
> clever guy makes an adapter to put some other cells into it.
>
> The E-35 is a decent camera, but not pro quality. I don't think I ever
> saw anyone else use one but me. My thinking is that if I can buy a power
> solution for the E-35, there will be power solutions for high end digital
> cameras for a long time to come.
>
> Bob


I agree Bob. Though prices of top line camera bodies may be reduced as
new designs are marketed, presently used functionally operational top
line cameras in later years will still be producing technically good
photos, further improved by newer and better computer programs.

I can see no reason for dSLR users who are satisfied with their present
equipment to become paranoid because new bodies are being marketed. In
fact, I would venture a guess that talented photographers using older
equipment would bust vest buttons when showing their photos and
comparing their work with less talented users of much newer equipment.

nick
!