[paperbag846]

Modern cameras ARE expensive. What makes them so is their lifespan. Yes, you would have paid an equivalent amount in 1975 for a K2 that you'd pay for a K5 today, but that K2 is still (and will continue to be for the foreseeable future) just as good of an image making machine as it was 35 years ago. Do you really think the K5 will hold it's value as well? Heck, I have a K10D that's lost over 60% of it's value just within the last 3-4 years.

I suppose you are right. I was thinking more along the lines of lenses. That said, you can use the fact that cameras are essentially computers (and lose their value as such) to your advantage, by buying a camera that is a few generations old and running it into the ground for 1/4 the price of a new K-5. I saw a great thread the other day called something like "spot the *ist D"... made me realize that aside from important things like low light capability and AF speed/accuracy, things have not changed too much in ASP-C land when you are working at ISO 100.

My friend just bought a Nikon D40 for like 200 dollars with a lens. Wowza.

[mikemike]

Are those prices in USD or Loonies?

[Pentaxor]

Are those prices in USD or Loonies?

loonies.

[TaoMaas]

I suppose you are right. I was thinking more along the lines of lenses. That said, you can use the fact that cameras are essentially computers (and lose their value as such) to your advantage, by buying a camera that is a few generations old and running it into the ground for 1/4 the price of a new K-5. I saw a great thread the other day called something like "spot the *ist D"... made me realize that aside from important things like low light capability and AF speed/accuracy, things have not changed too much in ASP-C land when you are working at ISO 100.

You're right about the lenses. Computer design and modern materials have allowed even the most basic lenses to be pretty darned good. Back in the film days, cheap lenses were just bad, no matter how you sliced it. lol

[Nesster]

Here's what the NYC mail order outfits were asking, '75 and '76... (A very large, readable for all the fine print, version available via clicking through to flikcr)










In this last one, from '76, B&H wants $177.50 for a KX body, and $272.50 for the K2, this latter $378.50 with the 1.4 lens. There's something cryptic and/or interesting: "For black split-image on K2 or KX add $15.50" - which may mean that with a black body you got a split image focus screen.

[Kirivon]

Modern cameras ARE expensive. What makes them so is their lifespan. Yes, you would have paid an equivalent amount in 1975 for a K2 that you'd pay for a K5 today, but that K2 is still (and will continue to be for the foreseeable future) just as good of an image making machine as it was 35 years ago. Do you really think the K5 will hold it's value as well? Heck, I have a K10D that's lost over 60% of it's value just within the last 3-4 years.

Yes, but you're forgetting film. Take a look at your shutter count and divide it by 36 and multiply that number by 10. My K10D has more than tripled its value of what I paid for it in terms of cost of film savings. I've only had my K-7 for 6 months and I've already made back what I paid for it in what I would have spent on film.

[SteveM]

Are those prices in USD or Loonies?

I think both are worth about the same these days (fluctuates by a penny or so the past few weeks). I think in 1976 though, the Canadian $ was worth more than the US $, so US prices might have been higher.

[TaoMaas]

Yes, but you're forgetting film. Take a look at your shutter count and divide it by 36 and multiply that number by 10. My K10D has more than tripled its value of what I paid for it in terms of cost of film savings. I've only had my K-7 for 6 months and I've already made back what I paid for it in what I would have spent on film.

That may be the case for you, but I was VASTLY more selective about what I did or didn't shoot when I was using film so a straight shutter count doesn't tell the real story. For me, shooting digital is like using a sketch pad, whereas shooting film was like committing something to canvas. With one, you can afford to scribble down whatever comes to mind...with the other, you need to be more deliberate. Don't get me wrong...digital has been a good thing for me because it has made my shooting more spontaneous and that was a direction in which I needed to grow.

[paperbag846]

That may be the case for you, but I was VASTLY more selective about what I did or didn't shoot when I was using film so a straight shutter count doesn't tell the real story. For me, shooting digital is like using a sketch pad, whereas shooting film was like committing something to canvas. With one, you can afford to scribble down whatever comes to mind...with the other, you need to be more deliberate. Don't get me wrong...digital has been a good thing for me because it has made my shooting more spontaneous and that was a direction in which I needed to grow.

Never mind a good photographer who can selectively shoot - I taught myself everything I know about photography thanks to digital. It has enabled me to take literally thousands of bad photographs for free, automatically recording the settings for me, which has taught me so much that I can't imagine where I would be right now in the film age. Likely, I would be very bad, because I simply could not afford to develop all that film. Especially when whole rolls would be junk.

In the last year I have shot about 9000 pictures (that would be 9000 since I took my first SLR shot!) which works out to about 2500 dollars. YIKES.

[HGMonaro]

I taught myself everything I know about photography thanks to digital. It has enabled me to take literally thousands of bad photographs for free, automatically recording the settings for me, which has taught me so much that I can't imagine where I would be right now in the film age. Likely, I would be very bad, because I simply could not afford to develop all that film. Especially when whole rolls would be junk.

You might have had to engage your brain and think about what you were doing. Thus, you migh thave learned 'exposure' quicker and now be further along the path to artistry.

The other 'furpy' that digi brings is 'immediate feedback'. Great to check exposure but can be crap at accessing the quality of a pic. Waiting to get a film processed distanced you from the immediate emotion of a picture, letting you judge it better. Go back over your older images and I'll bet you find hidden gems, and some of the ones you thought were great won't look so good now. Checking LCDs is good for checking if people have blinked though!