People who put expensive lenses on "lesser" cameras

On Jul 11, 5:49 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
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.

Rita

Well, I'll go along with the mind-numbingly-stupid bit, but it is
being applied to the wrong group.

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

Some people have
upwards of $20k in glass and find it mind numbingly stupid to hold onto a
dSLR past 18-months.


Rita


Some people find these newsgroup ****ing contests "mind-numbingly stupid"

Yoshi

In article ,
Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

A good lens system should last you a lifetime unless you bought
into Canon's FD system like I foolishly did years back.

My recently traded away Summitar was older than I am. People are
shooting them on M8 bodies with a screwmount to M adapter. Leica Leica.

Hasselblad has made an adaptor so people with V series lenses can use
them on the new H bodies.

JoeT wrote:

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

Only way I buy into "bleeding edge" is if I can get it at a substantial
savings to offset the depreciation curve. I use this strategy for IT
equipment as well. Rita


This was most certainly not indicated by your choice of wording in this
thread that's morphed into a conversation concerning your "Use By date".
In fact, it took someone finally saying "I think Rita wouldn't..." to
get you to state it clearly. Had you qualified your position this
distinctly in the first place the thread might have come to a conclusion
days ago.

But that would be counter to "Rita's" m.o.

--
john mcwilliams

RichA wrote in news:1184120289.955883.284330
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

But someone with and XTi is not going to match a 5Ds image quality,
ever, so does it make sense to go the cheap body, expensive lens route
unless some of those lenses provided specific attributes you couldn't
duplicate if you bought the 5D body and then didn't have the funds to
build the lens collection?

Camera/lens combos are complex, and depending on what you're doing, an
XTi could give a better image.

The best case for the 5D is ISO 1600, and you're filling the frame with
your desired composition; the 5D has slightly higher total pixel
resolution, and each pixel has both lower shot noise and read noise than
the XTi at ISO 1600. The 5D's pixel pitch is also less demanding on the
optics (at least in the same focal plane area as the APS crop). If you
have a small, distant subject, and your longest, sharpest lens dwarfs the
subject and the desired composition on the 5D, then at ISO 100, the XTi
will give a superior image, with more pixels representing the subject,
and each pixel having less read noise on the XTi. Even at higher ISOs,
the higher subject resolution might still be useful from the XTi.

--


John P Sheehy

frederick wrote in news:1184190262.903882@ftpsrv1:

RichA wrote:

Why are you introducing the photographer's abillity as a variable?

How could you seriously ever consider excluding it?

When talking about equipment and not about photographers.

--


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.

You're right.
And that's because Rita has taken a strategy from a large company
setting (that she doesn't really understand), and has applied it to an
individual (herself). It makes no sense in that setting.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:43:51 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

Michael Johnson wrote:

How exactly am I saving money by buying a 5D to replace my perfectly
acceptable 300D?

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

I'm still out $2,000 and have a camera I really didn't need. So, by
your math I have to spend $2,500 to save $100-$200 dollars? I hope
your day job isn't a financial analyst. If so, you would be a
bankruptcy attorney's best friend.

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.

*IF* your goal is to have the latest anbd greatest, this can work.
However, that's a fool's errand.
The goal should instead be to have what fits your needs/wants, within
your budget. If, for you, that means having the latest and greatest,
fine. But most of us can't afford goal.
Instead, we look to upgrade when what we have no longer fits our
needs/wants, instead of by looking at the calendar.
Most of us see our camera gear as assets, not investments.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:40:04 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

In article ,
Michael Johnson wrote:

BTW, spending money on glass is a much better investment
than camera bodies and actually makes a much bigger difference in the
quality of your photographs.

I think Rita wouldn't buy the very bleeding edge -- get one after the
inflation subsides and then sell it while the next model is high priced,
then buy again when the prices subside. You'd probably need two bodies.

Rita also appears to possibly be a professional -- and there are tax
breaks for professionals that might make all this even better.

The tax break for a professional photographer to be had by a new
camera purchase will not even begin to offset the price differential
for the new camera.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

On 2007-07-10 19:18:09 -0700, RichA said:

Rather than putting say medium quality lenses on bodies with better
sensors.

Most people would do far more to improve their photos by paying
attention to technique and lighting rather than worrying about minute
differences in gear.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor