Canon: The "hits" just keep on coming

Neil Harrington wrote:

"Pboud" wrote in message
news:9Po%i.5103$Ji6.3137@edtnps89...
Rita ? Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use
By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using
the
Mk II?





Rita

If I'm to take you seriously,

That would probably be a mistake.


you're stating that the used camera market should not exist, since either
you have new gear, or you have 'spoiled' gear.

Yep, that's pretty much what he or she is saying. Everyone should sell his
camera body when it gets to be 18 months old, buy a new one, and repeat, ad
infinitum.


If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as I've
seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a camera
and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the humour
department.

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of the
importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of posts
on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for years to
come.

Shouldn't he or she get a new complaint every 18 months?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On 2007-11-17, John McWilliams wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of the
importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of posts
on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for years to
come.

There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.


But I wonder why? Once it's alerted the camera-buying demographic to the
value of the rule who is it going to sell its 18-month-old cameras to?

Surely having realised such a truth and living in a capitalist economy a
person of intelligence would...

Oh. Right.


--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:25:39 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of
the importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds
of posts on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so
for years to come.

Well, that's one take. Another is that "Rita" enjoys his role as dog in
the manger. He's a bright fellow, seldom pinned down, and when he is,
puts on a good squirm and weasel.

There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.

I beg to differ with you John.
A 20D was $2400 AUD new. Today you can buy one on Ebay for $600UD. At 18
months old they were still fetching $1200. Having sold one then, would
have seen a loss (cost of ownership) of $15 a week.

Waiting for 2 years and the cost of ownership goes to $30 per week plus
the longer you own it, the more likely they are to malfunction. There
most definately is an 18 month "rule" of ownership of high tech gear.

As an interesting aside to this issue: Panasonic FZ50 cost $640 (AUD)new.
Today you can still get $450 for one on Ebay. Cost of ownership for one
of these is incredably low, compared to any DSLR.

You really have ask yourself in this matter, are your photos worth the
cost of owning a DSLR?. When printed (up to 8x10 or 8x12) there is almost
no disernable difference in P&S photos and those from a DSLR.

Unless you are the sort of person who sprays their lens white, there are
many P&S cameras out ther that defy to 18 month's rule of ownership. I
can't name a single DSLR with the same low cost of ownership.

Douglas


--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

"Serge Desplanques" wrote in message
news:2007111715364750073%desplanques@volumeen...
On 2007-11-17 13:19:24 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:



Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of
the importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of
posts on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for
years to come.

Neil

Rita
first three letters of RITZ + last letter of CAMERA
coincidence, or devious marketing conspiracy?

Well, now that's an interesting thought.

Beats me.

Neil

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

"Pboud" wrote in message
news:9Po%i.5103$Ji6.3137@edtnps89...
Rita ? Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk
II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use
By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after
it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using
the
Mk II?





Rita

If I'm to take you seriously,

That would probably be a mistake.


you're stating that the used camera market should not exist, since
either
you have new gear, or you have 'spoiled' gear.

Yep, that's pretty much what he or she is saying. Everyone should sell his
camera body when it gets to be 18 months old, buy a new one, and repeat,
ad
infinitum.


If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as I've
seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a camera
and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the
humour
department.

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of the
importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of posts
on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for years to
come.

Shouldn't he or she get a new complaint every 18 months?

chuckle

If so, I think it's overdue.

Neil

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of
the importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of
posts on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for
years to come.

Well, that's one take. Another is that "Rita" enjoys his role as dog in
the manger. He's a bright fellow, seldom pinned down, and when he is, puts
on a good squirm and weasel.

I've noticed that. But I don't quite see how he or she (I really have no
opinion on which it is) is playing dog in the manger with this.


There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.

No argument from me there.

Neil

"Douglas" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:25:39 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

Neil Harrington wrote:

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of
the importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds
of posts on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so
for years to come.

Well, that's one take. Another is that "Rita" enjoys his role as dog in
the manger. He's a bright fellow, seldom pinned down, and when he is,
puts on a good squirm and weasel.

There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.

I beg to differ with you John.
A 20D was $2400 AUD new. Today you can buy one on Ebay for $600UD. At 18
months old they were still fetching $1200. Having sold one then, would
have seen a loss (cost of ownership) of $15 a week.

Waiting for 2 years and the cost of ownership goes to $30 per week

That does not compute. Two years is 104 weeks, times $30 is $3,120. There's
no way you can buy a camera for $2,400 and have it depreciate $3,120.

If you bought a camera for $2400 new, kept it four years and just threw it
away, it would have cost you only $11.54 per week. And I'm sure no one will
be just throwing away four-year-old cameras that cost $2400 new.

Neil

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

No, I love the used camera market! The issue you fail to grasp is
that one should never keep a dSLR body past 18-months so they can
reap the most benefit from the economic/use ratio. Of course, once
sold and bought by the new owner the 18-month timer resets and the
process begin again. You get more bang for your buck on the second
and third reset.

Ok, let me get that straight: if after 18 months I sell that camera
to myself and then again after 36 months, then I will get the most
bang for the buck? Because I made the deal three times, not only
once?

Sorry, the pop-up timer cannot be reset by the original owner.

Ok, then I am sure you don't mind explaining why buying the used camera
after 18 month is a good deal for someone else but a poor deal if I buy it
myself.

jue

Douglas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:25:39 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.

I beg to differ with you John.
A 20D was $2400 AUD new. Today you can buy one on Ebay for $600UD. At 18
months old they were still fetching $1200. Having sold one then, would
have seen a loss (cost of ownership) of $15 a week.

18 months @ 52weeks/year is 78 weeks.
It's $15,38 a week.

Waiting for 2 years and the cost of ownership goes to $30 per week

2 years @ 52weeks/year is 104 weeks.
At $30 the new camera would have cost ~100 * $30 = $3000.
(Or to be more exact: 104*$30=$3120)

And that only, if you threw your 2 years old camera away, yet
you could sell it for $600 according to you.

This doesn't compute.

plus
the longer you own it, the more likely they are to malfunction.

Malfunction in electronics equipment is a bathtub curve
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bathtub-curve.html
which means that until you get really near the end of life your
claim doesn't stand true.

There
most definately is an 18 month "rule" of ownership of high tech gear.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/Moores-Law.html


As an interesting aside to this issue: Panasonic FZ50 cost $640 (AUD)new.
Today you can still get $450 for one on Ebay. Cost of ownership for one
of these is incredably low, compared to any DSLR.

The cost of ownership of a keychain P&S is much lower than
that of the Panasonic. At $20 USD,
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-58657.html
even if you throw it away after 18 months, the cost is below
26 cents per week. The FZ50 costs *much* more.

You really have ask yourself in this matter, are your photos worth the
cost of owning a DSLR?. When printed (up to 8x10 or 8x12) there is almost
no disernable difference in P&S photos and those from a DSLR.

Ever hear of the term "selective DOF"?
Or maybe "available light" and "LV 2" or "LV 1"?

-Wolfgang

On Nov 18, 10:40 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Most people find that following the 18-month they have
actually made them money.

I'd like to know how that works.
Say I buy a 1Ds3 for $8K.

Why would you be stupid enough to pay $8K for that camera when there is so
much margin on that model that you can get a new one almost a $1K cheaper?


Buy a new one for a little more the $7K or a used one from an anxious fool
for $6K.

A used 1DsMK3? That would be a neat trick since the new ones aren't
even available yet. And the new ones are all $7999.99.
Without doing the math that's probably over $8K after taxes and
shipping, dontcha think? So tell me how I can sell it for more than
that in 18 months?
Otherwise, STFU.