I think the poster means digital bodies lose their value faster than failm cameras. Look how long an EOS 1V has been out ( almost 10 yrs) . Look at the cost of the original EOS 1D vs what it is worth today.
Look at the price of a EOS 1V at that time and check its value now. An Eos 1V kept more of its value than the 1D digital.
EB-1 wrote:
13 years ago 35mm film was far better in IQ than DSLRs. 1Ds was the first 35mm style camera capable of approaching film-level quality.
EBH
Not exactly.....there were no DSLRs 13 yrs ago to compare to film unless you count the E2N. I liked the digital files better than the scans. Then there was the 645N was an 18mp medium format camera and made scanning film obsolete for us in the days when most people were just hearing about "digital imaging"; I got into the early DSLRs (Kodak DCS bodies) in 1999 after dabbling with the E2N in 1997. As a Nikon shooter at the time, the DCS660 made a nicer file than scanned film, IMHO. Admittedly, at that time it may have been a limitation of the scanner process of the day.
If film is dead someone had better tell Fuji and Kodak as they obviously haven't heard as they are still bringing out new emulsions.....nor have numerous readers of B+W Magazine (both the USA and the UK titles)....and maybe also tell the long line of people at the film counters at my local Jessops...I suspect they are waiting to collect their films from the technicians.
It is fairly obvious why Canon would drop the 1V...35mm film is a niche market for pros; and amateurs can pick up mint copies of 1Vs and EOS3s for the price of a very average P+S......and of course, as these cameras were built to last...they are lasting...and lasting...
I still have 2 FTb QLs that I bought in the 60s when at art school...they still look newish and still work perfectly.
As for software emulating the look of film.....all I can say is that it doesn't so far as I can see...and I have tried quite hard over the years. However...I only use B+W film (that I process myself then scan). Things might be different with colour.
carlsbadbum wrote:
See, you only willing to pay $50 for it so that concluded the 1V is worth less. There's a 1V with 25 rolls usage selling for $500 right now on the B&S, 4 years ago this is sold in minutes, it's been 3 hrs and not yet SOLD.
The 1V is a $2000 camera, but now a day you'll have a hard time finding one buying for that price.
Not sure I follow.
The 1V was introduced in 2000 for $2k. 10 years later it fetches $300-600 in the UK: $170/year depreciation at worst.
The Nikon D2X was introduced in 2004 for $5k. 6 years later you can get easily get one for $1.5k: $580/year depreciation.
The 1Ds was introduced in 2002 for $9k. 8 years later, well would you pay $2k for it? That's $875/year depreciation.
Pretty much standard depreciation for any electronic device. Of course the 1V is the "most worthless" of the lot because it is the cheapest to buy today. But that is because it was the cheapest to buy new in the first place.
I have a cherry 1v HS. I have loaded but never shot and developed. All my EFs fit. It's my security blanky to get me back to those FTn days (for those of you familiar with a 1968 camera).
please explain