People who put expensive lenses on "lesser" cameras

On Jul 12, 5:43 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:


The whole point that people overlook with any dSLR body compared to a film
body is it is basically a disposable unit. You don't get to upgrade it you
throw it out. A new film emulsion comes out you just use it in the old
body. I realize people get emotionally attached to their dSLR body and don't
want to admit it is obsolete. It's obsolete and its scrap after a certain
point. Buying good glass should be any photographer's goal.


I don't think anyone is overlooking the fact that the camera is a
disposable unit. As long as that tool turns in quality work without
extra steps, there is little or no justification for swapping for a
new body. The tax write-off isn't enough to make up for the cost
differential on an 18 month trade basis, so it is money down the drain
at least one time in two.

If I were one of those who shot 80,000 or 100,000 frames in that
period of time, of course I'd trade off. But I don't, and I don't
believe too many photographers truly do. For those who do, I expect
they're staying up late eight or nine nights a week to cull the
failures and near-failures and to do any needed post processing. The
rest of us prefer to sleep once in a bit.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Jürgen Exner wrote:

Selling the 300D prior to its "Use By" date yields more return.

Now, what about if I do not intent to sell this imaginary 300D at all
but to keep it as long as it keeps producing the photos I bought it
for? Like maybe 5 or 8 or 10 years?

There's nothing wrong with that. By doing this you have a worthless
paperweight after 18-months that you get to stare at on your desk wishing
you had dumped eons ago when it had some value. Now you have to start out
on the bottom again. But, like you said if it is the only camera body you
are ever going to buy then it really doesn't matter. Some people have
upwards of $20k in glass and find it mind numbingly stupid to hold onto a
dSLR past 18-months.


Typically a popular dslr body won't begin to come down in price for about 6
months or so (if then). For those of us who must wait for best cost this
leaves approximately 1 year before your use by date. To whom should we
offload this equipment and approximately when does the optimal turnover
point for a soon to be obsolete dslr body occur?

Michael Johnson wrote:
jdear64 wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:49 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Jurgen Exner wrote:
Selling the 300D prior to its "Use By" date yields more return.

We been thu this already and your simplistic 18 month rule does not
work for many.

If a camera lifespan is expected to last ten years for a particular
person ( shutter life / shot per year ), then the break even resale
price must be 85% of the original camera cost after 18 months. You
don't find many people willing to buy a used camera just to save 15%.

If you heavily use you camera and only expect a lifespan of 4 years,
then the resale price would only have to be 62.5% of the original cost
after 18 months.

For a person that takes about 5000 or less photos a year, the 18 month
rule is a very bad Idea.

I will briefly mention too that depreciation curves for most consumer
items are downwardly logarithmic and not linear or near flat like Rita
assumes. The greatest depreciation per unit of time occurs in the
first year or so of ownership. In other words the cost associated with
delaying replacement of said item reduces every year you wait which
means less pressure to purchase and greater financial benefit to the
user. Her argument is 180 degrees backward, IMO.

But very useful for those of us who like to buy second hand stuff
that's at least 18 months old. It's the Ritas of this world who drive
the 18 month depreciation figures well down.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Thanks, Rita, for yet another proof that you (or rather the persona
you don as "Rita Ä Berkowitz" -- on the internet noone knows you
*are* a dog) are neither a professional nor knowledgeable.

Why are you still crying like a rejected child?

Why have you not stopped beating up your mother twice daily?

-Wolfgang

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Of course lenses depreciate, as they get used and get scuff marks

Really? And if I sold my complete collection of Nikkors I will have made
more than what I paid for them. You obviously are not buying quality glass.

Oh sure, and Windows is rock stable and bullet proof.

-Wolfgang

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:28:32 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Why are you still crying like a rejected child?

Why have you not stopped beating up your mother twice daily?

Because she's your sister . . .


. . . and hasn't yet forgiven her for bringing you into the world?


g

frederick wrote in news:1184276356.924166@ftpsrv1:

You can add a D2Xs to that equation as well, and get some very good
lens(es) for the D40x. While it seems that sometimes there may be a
very slight "advantage" gained from the extra pixels, the noise
performance of the 12mp CMOS sensor negates any IQ gains except at low
iso settings.

The readout circuitry in the D2X is not exactly state-of-the-art, but
that has nothing to do with pixel size. The Panasonic FZ50 has lower
read noise than the D2X, with much, much smaller pixels. The D3X may
very well have much better read noise, with smaller pixels. For the
first few years of Nikon DSLRs, there has really been only one gain level
on the sensor, with ISOs being done by feeding the ADC with different
gains on the original signal, giving about 15x as much read noise at ISO
1600 as ISO 100. The D40, however, has only 4x to 5x as much read noise
at ISO 1600, than 100, so Nikon/Sony may finally be onto something. Even
though I have my investment in Canon equipment, there are few things that
would please me more than Nikon or any other DSLR getting low noise at
high ISOs, to wake Canon up from its sleeping tortoise pose, where it
ignores users' request for things like intelligent auto-ISO.

--


John P Sheehy

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:37:15 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote:
: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
: Michael Johnson wrote:
: Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
:
: This is why following the 18-month rule is so important. Remember, the
: lenses will/should last a lifetime while a dSLR body is the only disposable
: item in the equation. The only people that get burned are the ones
: thinking
: they are saving money by keeping a dSLR body past its "Use By" date.
:
: How exactly am I saving money by buying a 5D to replace my perfectly
: acceptable 300D?
:
: By creative accounting. Think Enron.
: Rita learned all about buzzwords from these kind of people, and
: thus needs neither facts nor common sense nor the slightest grasp
: of reality.
:
: In fact, the longer you keep your camera, the better the TCO,
: as devaluation slows down --- and you can skip a few camera
: generations. Once you decide to upgrade to the newest and best,
: you saved more than enough (in comparison to Rita's methods) to
: treat yourself to the newest 1D Mk LARGE_NUMBER with all the money
: you didn't foolishly spent --- and keep the old body as backup.
:
: The only case where you would loose money is when a newer camera
: would give sufficiently better pictures in a sufficiently better
: number so that your profit after taxes and so on would be much[1]
: larger than the price of the new camera.
:
: -Wolfgang
:
: [1] you gamnble, you want assured results.
:
: The only way her math works in the slightest is I would have to earn a
: living taking photos and even then it very likely wouldn not be the case.

One problem with changing cameras often is that every model is different. Even
similar models have slightly different controls and different behavioral
quirks that have to be learned. If you're a professional, or even a serious
amateur, you eventually learn to use your equipment without thinking about it
much; and when you change equipment, you introduce a learning curve. An
amateur may take that in stride. But for a professional, time is money; and if
you're less productive while you learn the ins and outs of your new camera
(or, as Mark Morgan discovered, while you help the manufacturer wring out the
bugs), it can cost you. To reflect reality, Rita's accounting arguments would
have to take into consideration the productivity loss due to the frequent
equipment changes she recommends.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:37:15 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote:
: Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
: Michael Johnson wrote:
: Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
:
: This is why following the 18-month rule is so important. Remember, the
: lenses will/should last a lifetime while a dSLR body is the only disposable
: item in the equation. The only people that get burned are the ones
: thinking
: they are saving money by keeping a dSLR body past its "Use By" date.
:
: How exactly am I saving money by buying a 5D to replace my perfectly
: acceptable 300D?
:
: By creative accounting. Think Enron.
: Rita learned all about buzzwords from these kind of people, and
: thus needs neither facts nor common sense nor the slightest grasp
: of reality.
:
: In fact, the longer you keep your camera, the better the TCO,
: as devaluation slows down --- and you can skip a few camera
: generations. Once you decide to upgrade to the newest and best,
: you saved more than enough (in comparison to Rita's methods) to
: treat yourself to the newest 1D Mk LARGE_NUMBER with all the money
: you didn't foolishly spent --- and keep the old body as backup.
:
: The only case where you would loose money is when a newer camera
: would give sufficiently better pictures in a sufficiently better
: number so that your profit after taxes and so on would be much[1]
: larger than the price of the new camera.
:
: -Wolfgang
:
: [1] you gamnble, you want assured results.
:
: The only way her math works in the slightest is I would have to earn a
: living taking photos and even then it very likely wouldn not be the case.

One problem with changing cameras often is that every model is different. Even
similar models have slightly different controls and different behavioral
quirks that have to be learned. If you're a professional, or even a serious
amateur, you eventually learn to use your equipment without thinking about it
much; and when you change equipment, you introduce a learning curve. An
amateur may take that in stride. But for a professional, time is money; and if
you're less productive while you learn the ins and outs of your new camera
(or, as Mark Morgan discovered, while you help the manufacturer wring out the
bugs), it can cost you. To reflect reality, Rita's accounting arguments would
have to take into consideration the productivity loss due to the frequent
equipment changes she recommends.

What you just said it so true. I still use civil engineering software
written in the early 1990s because it does everything I need it to do
and more. If I were to put myself on the "bleeding edge" of civil
software it wouldn't make my final product any better or deliver it any
faster. In fact, for the first 6-12 months, or longer, it would kill my
productivity to learn these extremely complicated computer programs and
even then they are upgraded annually. If I did structural plans maybe
the new software would be worth the investment but for my particular
type of civil engineering the new programs do not. Like I said earlier,
thankfully she isn't my business partner. I prefer profits in hand over
needless business expenses.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:15:57 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote:
: Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
: Michael Johnson wrote:
:
: Nope, you seem to be looking at this in a totally contorted view
: that you were taught in school. Throw conventional wisdom out the
: window for a moment and think the whole problem through and you will
: see how quickly you save thousands of dollars by following the
: 18-month rule and get to use the latest and greatest equipment for
: pennies. Just think it through before you say it is not feasible.
:
: Let's take the 5D and 30D for arguments sake and analyze your logic.
: Say I bought a 30D the week it was released at a VERY inflated price
: (like all new releases are priced initially). I keep it 18 months
: during which time the street price for that model drops substantially.
:
: This makes absolutely no sense at all! Why would someone want to
: overpay in
: the first place? The smart way to do this is to buy into the dSLR at the
: lowest possible price point. Yes, there are deals and ways for the smart
: shopper to get the very best price if they research their purchase. An
: example of this is with Nikon's 187-200mm VR. I bought this lens through
: Ritz Camera being on their wait list for $750 delivered. I also was on a
: few other wait lists for the same price as well. While all the fools were
: buying these things for $900+, I was waiting for mine to be delivered. I
: got it and several others that I sold on eBay for $900+. The profit I made
: from selling the others offsets the price of justifying keeping the one
: piece of crap I kept enough that it was almost free. Once I get sick of
: that lens I can sell it on eBay for a substantial profit. It's like Nikon
: is paying me $750 to use that lens for two years.
:
: Now you are qualifying your previous statements. If you're advocating
: using bleeding edge technology but then put yourself on a waiting list
: to get a lower price you aren't following your own advice. Look at all
: that time you spent NOT having all that wonderful new technology at your
: disposal.

I think I'm starting to get it. Rita's hobby is horsetrading cameras and
lenses on E-Bay. (We basically knew that when she started fantasizing about
cornering the market for the Nikkor Nocturnal, the old night lens that had
seen a popularity boomlet when some Government astronomers rediscovered it.)
If you can spend the time it takes to do that, you might be able to parley the
bargains you may find into the 18-month ownership cycle that Rita recommends.
But then an honest accounting requires that you treat the time you spend on
E-Bay as a business expense. And in that light the financials might not look
as attractive. :^)

Bob