Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2004, 8:41 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

I tend to think of it as renting 2500 pictures at poloroid prices i think i have really broken even. Plus quite a bit up on image quality.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2004, 12:05 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

So why do you think we get stories like this?:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mp;refer=japan

which says that Nikon profits TRIPLED last year! Since they don't make any money from people using their digital cameras, the only way they can get that amount of money is by geting people to buy the newest and latest and greatest digital and scrap their old models!

Of course, if the trade-in value drops to zero, that shows that, even though the camera might be working just as well as it did when it was originally purchased, its 'technological lifespan' was only 14 months. (This is down from the average 18 month technological lifespan of a year ago.) :shock:

I have classic film cameras that are 60 years old and are still working perfectly...and still retain their value. My old Sony Mavica FD-7 (which is worth nothing as you might imagine) I gave away years ago! It is still being used!


Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2004, 6:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

It might sound strange, but DSLRs might turn out depreciating less than "point and shoot" cameras if only because those expensive lenses you simply must have can be moved ahead for use on more advanced cameras.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Buying a DSLR locks you into a brand, because Canon lenses don't fit on Nikon or Minolta cameras, or vice-versa. There's always a chance the manufacturers will introduce cameras that aren't backward compatible (it has happened in the past), but in general, the camera body is a small part of the investment in the DSLR world.
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 7:57 AM   #14
TC3
Senior Member
 
TC3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,169
Default

Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:
Quote:

An example of the impact of slow changing industry is the car industry. The prices of cars have not dropped that much in 50 years (note: cars dropped a lot in the beginning, circa 1920s/1930s to 60s). The good thing is that if you buy a car, the prices don't drop that much; but the bad thing is that the affordability of cars is very low. Lower class people have to spend a huge chunk of their income on cars whether they want to or not (if you are into cars that's another story). Furthermore, apart from being more environmentally friendly and safer, car technology hasn't changed that much since the 70's.
you know very little about how high car dpreciation actually is! You say car tech hasnt changed much over the years....it is obvious you are not familiar with the car industry or you would not have made such a daft comment


TC3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 9:51 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

Meryl Arbing wrote:
Quote:
which says that Nikon profits TRIPLED last year! Since they don't make any money from people using their digital cameras, the only way they can get that amount of money is by geting people to buy the newest and latest and greatest digital and scrap their old models!
What you are getting at is a valid point but picking Nikon is kind of weak. Their profits tripled but it includes their other divisions (the article even says the the LCD stuff has been driving a chunk of their income). In any case, profits tripling may or may not mean anything, given that a lot of the camera companies have been struggling throughout the late 90's (mostly because of difficulties transitioning from film to digital)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 10:06 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

TC3 wrote:
Quote:
you know very little about how high car dpreciation actually is! You say car tech hasnt changed much over the years....it is obvious you are not familiar with the car industry or you would not have made such a daft comment
How much do cars depreciate exactly? Certainly nothing substancial compared to digicams, computers, etc.

I would not say that cars have changed much since the 60's. There are only two areas where there has been any significant changes: safety and environmentally-friendliness. Other than that, the changes are slow. If you look at the price of cars, it has not changed much. I don't have any real numbers but if I had to guess, I would say that cars have only decreased by around 20% in price since the 70's (adjusted for inflation). That is not anything major and that certainly hasn't improved affordability that amount. That vast majority of people now only afford cars by taking on debt.

I may be exaggerating a little bit but I still stick by my point that car technology and prices have not changed that much in the last 30 years...
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 1:46 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

I didn't pick Nikon specifically. They just happened to be the ones who reported the excess profits!
Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 2:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

Great little discussion...I like the idea that Nikon made lots of money. It makes me look at the current prices, and when I compare that to the prices a few years ago, and consider how much more I can get for the same money, I am very hopeful that very soon I'll have me a Canon 20D or better! By making a healthy profit these companies are not going to stop creating newer and better equipment for us. If I thought my skills were good enough to fully take advantage of all the 20D has to offer, I would buy one right now. Lucky for me, there are good choices that fall short of the 20D but still have a lot of technical goodies that will allow me to improve and still have a great range of options to experiment with. I have had my Minolta Dimage 7i for going on three years. I can finally say I know how to use all the various settings and after over 12 thousand pictures I am ready for a new camera. Everything on my 7i works as well as it did when I bought it, with two exceptions. The rubber ring on the manual zoom has loosened and rotates a bit sometimes, but doesn't impede anything, or interfere with overall enjoyment or use of the camera. And the little plastic release lever on the battery compartment launched itself into the air about 10 ft one day while I was opening it to change batteries. Now I have to keep it in a small plastic container in my camera bag, and put it back into place to use it when I open the battery compartment to change batteries. I don't want to give up use of the camera while it gets fixed so I just keep holding it in place with my finger while I change batteries. I am happy to say that the equivalent amount of film for all those pictures makes this experience very cost effective. By continuing to buy newer technology, we are reinvesting our dollars, and in return we get better and less expensive equipment. And for as long as it takes me to make up my mind about what to buy next, I get better and better equipment to choose from while I ponder. Best regards,

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"KennethD
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2004, 6:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

I think all of this is interesting but, i think that it was when i started getting into digicams that i started to slow down on the upgrade mary-go-round. I suspect that a lot of people in the more or less mainstream uses are like me; Seeing no need to trade a well accustomed camera for a new may or may not work well model. There really is a lot to be said for a camera that works reliably for many years.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2004, 3:06 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
nzmacro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 389
Default

Yeah you are right. I can't see the point in changing if nothing is wrong. WhenI started looking around for an upgrade for the Sony CD-1000, I looked for two years before something came along that I wanted. The CD-1000 isstill used at 1.9 megapixel and takes fantastic shots that print out well. Not bad for a 5yr old. Both that and the FZ10are used for different purposes.

Tell you something I've never really understood. The "Crash test dummies" that pre-order cameras. Why the heck would anyone take the risk without picking it up and trying it first. Thats really got me stumped to be honest.How many times do we see in forums, complaints about focusing proiblems, CA, CCD aligment needs correcting, etc, etc and they didn't wait for the full reviews or to try it out first :roll:, rather them than me, thats for sure.

Anyway, interesting and I expect the FZ10 to last at least another 4 years. Probably about the same as I changed 35mm bodies.

Danny.






nzmacro is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:49 AM.