KR on Camera Economics 101

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
end

Archive 2008 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Grognard
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Love him or hate him, Ken Rockwell is always controversial, and gets comments. His latest on Camera Economics 101.

When Cartier-Bresson walked into that camera store in the 1930s, a Leica was all what most people who had to work for a living could afford, if anything. Cartier-Bresson was a just a journalist, although he is now an icon. For all I know, his portrait may already grace the 100 Euro note.

But wait - the initial asking price of 2008's Nikon D3X was so absurd that even Hitler came back through history out of astonishment.

Think about it: you could flush $8,000 down the toilet into a Nikon D3X. A D3X can't even take pictures until you've bought a lens and memory card, and charged the batteries.

For just $8,080, you could buy a brand-new Leica M7, and 28mm, 50mm f/2 and 90mm lenses. You'd have a complete Leica setup for the same price as a stripped Nikon body. You could pay $200 less and opt for the 50mm f/2.8 instead, or save $1,000 and not even bother with a 50mm lens. You also could pay a lot less finding these items used.

You could shoot with the Leica system for years.

In three years, the Nikon D4 should be announced. By then, the D3X body will have a resale value of about $775. Your Leica system? Well, it will still be cranking out great photos, and from what dangerous little I know of Leica prices, with inflation, the same system will probably be worth about $10,000 with inflation, not $775 like the D3X with digital rot.

Leica may be expensive, but it's a bargain compared to digital.

Dec 11, 2008 at 02:41 AM

davenfl
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Why did you need to start an duplicate thread twice in 5 minutes

Dec 11, 2008 at 02:47 AM

ulrikft
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · KR on Camera Economics 101

And why can't we just ignore ken rockwell? He is annoying.

Dec 11, 2008 at 03:44 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #4 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Hilarious. He forgot about the cost of film. He should get a job in finance.

Dec 11, 2008 at 04:00 AM

scribble
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Cost of film and time... How many people really want to go back to waiting a week to get your slides and profs back from the lab? And having the fun of colour corrections in analog?

Dec 11, 2008 at 05:04 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · KR on Camera Economics 101

scribble wrote:
Cost of film and time... How many people really want to go back to waiting a week to get your slides and profs back from the lab? And having the fun of colour corrections in analog?

and that a Dx3 is a lot more capable than a Leica M7 A D300 is more capable, and even a D90 is more capable -- and it's a lot it's cheaper.

Just another idiot with a website who thinks that makes him some kind of authority.

Dec 11, 2008 at 05:11 PM

robsteve
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · KR on Camera Economics 101

He does have a point about the value of digitals though.

I still have my first digital SLR sitting in the camera cabinet. It is a Canon D2000, which retailed in Canada (well to wire services) for about $18,000. I bought it when it was a 2 year old technology for about $2,000. It is now probably worth under $500 and then only to those wanting the novelty of having one. In the Cabinet beside this camera is my second digital SLR, a Canon 1D. I think it was about $4,500 USD, I bought a demo in year two and paid about $3,000 for it. It is now worth just over $500.

In this same cabinet is a M7. I think I paid about $3,200 Canadian for it about six or eight years ago. Looking at Ebay listings, it is probably still worth $2,200 Canadian and it still works and takes nice pictures. In the Cabinet beside it is a M3, which still works and has probably doubled in value since I bought it.

Robert

Dec 11, 2008 at 06:40 PM

frank kayser
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · KR on Camera Economics 101

I hear the D3x comes with a big hunk of cheese, too.

Dec 11, 2008 at 06:43 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · KR on Camera Economics 101

robsteve wrote:
He does have a point about the value of digitals though.

He just doesn't know how to make it.

Dec 11, 2008 at 06:48 PM

Daniel Buck
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Grognard wrote:By then, the D3X body will have a resale value of about $775. Your Leica system? Well, it will still be cranking out great photos

yea... like the Nikon will be absolute shite as soon as a new body comes out. lol man this guy cracks me up

My 1ds2 is still 'cranking out great photos' long after the release of the 1Ds3

And I suspect it'll continue to do so for many years

And of course the value is going to go down, it's an electronic device, they do that

Dec 11, 2008 at 06:50 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · KR on Camera Economics 101

8000$ in my part of the world is equivalent to the price of 800 rolls of Provia 100F with processing. Shoot 800 rolls (or 28,800 shots) and the camera is basically for free. I believe the film savings are even higher in Europe or the US.

Dec 11, 2008 at 07:06 PM

mawz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · KR on Camera Economics 101

But 800 rolls of provia is several years shooting for most people shooting film (it's about 4 years of shooting for me).

Most people shoot a lot more frames with digital than with film.

Dec 11, 2008 at 07:10 PM

pascal03
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Isn't film on it's way out..... everything seems to indicate that with the high resolution digital's.... we are at 21-24MP right now.... with MF backs selling for <$10k, which surely excel 35mm quality. What's not to say the Nikon D3x or Sony A900 or Canon 5D Mk II or 1Ds MK III don't already surpass what 35mm film is/was capable of.

So why would anyone want to buy a film camera (especially one of those overpriced 35mm bricks with a red dot) for $10k when you can get something better (much more versatile) for less ?

Does Ken R still shoot film or digital - is this one of those "Do as I say not as I do" sort of things....

Edited on Dec 11, 2008 at 09:52 PM · View previous versions

Dec 11, 2008 at 09:01 PM

Silentlight
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · KR on Camera Economics 101

brainiac wrote:
Hilarious. He forgot about the cost of film. He should get a job in finance.

Exactly. I've got my $3200 I spent about 3 years ago on 5D back (and more) for not paying for film and developing. And I don't even shoot much. I am sure the pros recover their costs in no time flat.

And I bought a used E55 Leica R 135/2.8 for $250. A lot less than what it was worth originally.

Dec 11, 2008 at 09:52 PM

mawz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · KR on Camera Economics 101

pascal03 wrote:
Isn't film on it's way out..... everything seems to indicate that with the high resolution digital's.... we are at 21-24MP right now.... with MF backs selling for <$10k, which surely excel 35mm quality. What's not to say the Nikon D3x or Sony A900 or Canon 5D Mk II or 1Ds MK III don't already surpass what 35mm film is/was capable of.

So why would anyone want to buy a film camera (especially one of those overpriced 35mm bricks with a red dot) for $10k when you can get something better (much more versatile) for less ?

Does Ken R still shoot film or digital - is this one of those "Do as I say not as I do" sort of things....

Dunno why you'd buy a M7 unless you dig the RF/Leica vibe. Not when a nikon FM2n can be had for $150-200 in superb condition and is far more capable in most situations. You can have that Nikon and a nice trio of ZF lenses for less than the cost of a new M7 body.

I still shoot film. I enjoy it and I love the results. From a technical standpoint they're inferior to high-MP digital, but they look great and that's what I care about. And digital requires a ton of post-processing and HDR rendering to achieve the lovely, non-linear look of traditional B&W emulsions. Also digital simply doesn't offer 35mm-level quality at ISO's over 100 in a package as compact as you can achieve with a Yashica T4 or Olympus XA.

Dec 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM

ulrikft
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Erhm..? I beg do differ.. :P it is exactly in the high iso department I prefer digital over film?

Dec 12, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Tamerlin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · KR on Camera Economics 101

pascal03 wrote:
Isn't film on it's way out..... everything seems to indicate that with the high resolution digital's.... we are at 21-24MP right now....

I'm at around 150 megapixels right now using film scans.

with MF backs selling for <$10k, which surely excel 35mm quality. What's not to say the Nikon D3x or Sony A900 or Canon 5D Mk II or 1Ds MK III don't already surpass what 35mm film is/was capable of.

I think it's close now, but I'm still skeptical, since films like Velvia record color, and current dSLR sensors are still monochromatic. That 24 megapixel D3x is really an 8 megapixel camera with sophisticated interpolation.

So why would anyone want to buy a film camera (especially one of those overpriced 35mm bricks with a red dot) for $10k when you can get something better (much more versatile) for less ?

Like a Tachihara or Chamonix 4x5 with 3 lenses, tripod, film holders, and about 500 sheets of Velvia, plus money left over for a backpack to carry it all in

Does Ken R still shoot film or digital - is this one of those "Do as I say not as I do" sort of things....

AFAIK he still shoots 4x5 film. I don't know whether or not he shoots 35mm film anymore or not. I still shoot smaller format films also, partly because I like the cameras better (for ergonomic reasons, that is -- IMO Nikon has yet to build a dSLR that's as pleasant to use as the fm3a, even though I do like my d300), and partly because I love the look of Velvia and Astia. I still also prefer the look of black and white film to black and whites I've seen from dSLRs and converted to black and white.

I think that digital will eventually surpass film's image quality, but it hasn't yet. Digital still has its advantages, though. Horses for courses.

Dec 12, 2008 at 12:42 AM

pascal03
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · KR on Camera Economics 101

I agree.... partially... yes...film has it's place still.... no doubt. And I still shoot film myself. I still use my Nikon F4s, OM-4, Contax T, and Contax N1/Nx. To me the Contax N1 or Contax T or the OM-4 are about as good a body as I can find - each is different and each has it's place. Then there's digital. You could go with the D700 or 5D for an SLR or the 21+ MP SLR's and the G10 or LX3 for a P&S and get close/maybe better.

KR compared a small format 135mm film to the digital formats available today. Even if you use a Leica M7, 35mm is still 35mm and be it the D3X or 1Ds Mk III or the Sony A900, I would rather spend $8k on a digital SLR than bother going with an M7. It's just personal preference.

Now if you were to compare a Contax 645 system with the D3X, yes, I would probably choose the 645 - especially if I could find a digital back for it under $8k

Dec 12, 2008 at 01:28 AM

mrladewig
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · KR on Camera Economics 101

I'm not saying that Mr Rockwell is an authority on the matter.

But I've looked at the digital versus film-hybrid argument for 4X5 versus digital medium format. Let me say up front that the luminous landscape article comparing 4X5 to a P45+ is deeply flawed. 4X5 was severely hamstrung to make the test fair. They did not shoot the finest grain film, they did not scan on a particularly good drum scanner and they did not scan anywhere near that drum scanner's capability. And still the 4X5 looked better to me. Based on what I've seen, I think drum scanned low ISO film done right is just about even with the top digital sensors at the same format at their base ISO. In other words, the P65+ is right about even with ISO 100 fine grained film in 645 format. 35mm scanned on a good drum scanner will yield files in the honest 20+ megapixel range and fluid mounting reduces the appearance of film grain. But this takes time and work and there are expensive consumables.

On the economic side, I think digital 35mm does have a break even point on film costs pretty early. But on digital MF, my calculations show that it would take about 10,000 sheets of film (including processing) to break even. I shoot much slower on 4X5, so only shoot about 300-400 sheets per year. So that comes out to about 25 years worth of film at today's prices.

I personally started with film, but the instant feedback of digital increased my understanding of photography very rapidly. Then I found film again and I haven't looked back. I do not shoot commercially so for me the slower pace of film is just fine. There are times when I wish I still had the instant gratification of digital, but I'm really quite happy where I'm at with my hybrid film-digital workflow.

There are two things that I think digital does better though. I think it shoots high ISO better and it switches between ISO and color temp better.

Dec 12, 2008 at 05:12 AM

scribble
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Silentlight wrote:
brainiac wrote:
Hilarious. He forgot about the cost of film. He should get a job in finance.

Exactly. I've got my $3200 I spent about 3 years ago on 5D back (and more) for not paying for film and developing. And I don't even shoot much. I am sure the pros recover their costs in no time flat.

And I bought a used E55 Leica R 135/2.8 for $250. A lot less than what it was worth originally.

Oh yeah. I made back the cost of my D700 and four lenses within two weeks. And for those who feel that film gear never depreciates, look at the cost of the lovely F5. Still is a very capable machine, and can be had for well under $500. I have ever seen the for under $200 on the great action site. Its always the curse of early adopters to get screwed on depreciation. And in DSLRs, since they are every bit a high end digital device, any first gen. purchase is early adoption. If your looking for bargains, now is a great time to pick up new 40Ds.

Dec 12, 2008 at 05:27 AM

pascal03
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · KR on Camera Economics 101

I digress.....But did Nikon have an F6. Was the F5 a better camera ?

Dec 12, 2008 at 06:10 AM

mawz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · KR on Camera Economics 101

ulrikft wrote:
Erhm..? I beg do differ.. :P it is exactly in the high iso department I prefer digital over film?

That's true with DSLR's. Not with compacts, which are at best poor at moderate ISO's (200+). The compacts I mention (XA, Yashica T4) are smaller than a Canon G10, but offer better optics and also better high ISO performance than a G10.

Dec 12, 2008 at 02:44 PM

ulrikft
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · KR on Camera Economics 101

Ah, gotcha! Then I'm with you

My yashica gsn is quite smallish, and with good film far better than my compact digital.

Dec 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · KR on Camera Economics 101

mawz wrote:
But 800 rolls of provia is several years shooting for most people shooting film (it's about 4 years of shooting for me).

Most people shoot a lot more frames with digital than with film.

I don't. I try to shoot digital the same way I shot film. Using alternative lenses also helps me to slow down.

Like you, 800 rolls is about 4 years of shooting. Then think about it, you would basically have the camera for free, sell it for 3500-4000$, and upgrade to the next 1Ds/Dx body that have a life cycle of 3 years anyway.

This said, I truly love film results and believe film is still light years ahead of digital because what is important for me is the end result, the final print. It's all about the look and film look is great. But for practical considerations, I would rather shoot digital.

Dec 12, 2008 at 04:20 PM

Tamerlin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · KR on Camera Economics 101

mrladewig wrote:
Let me say up front that the luminous landscape article comparing 4X5 to a P45+ is deeply flawed.

That's putting mildly!

Dec 12, 2008 at 05:49 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell end