I was just going through some reviews of film SLRs after picking up an MZ-60, and was shocked at how high some of the average prices were on old film SLR bodies.
I'm 27, and I never used a film SLR before today. The closest I had was an Olympus IS-50 I spent a pretty penny on when I was 17, primarily because it is potentially the sexiest camera I had ever seen (and still might be #1)
File:Olympus-Is50qd.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and it had an awesome zoom, which is all I cared about at that age.
I got the odd gem out of it, but had no idea how I got it, and it took me until I was 24ish to actually know anything about photography. Now, I will never claim to be knowledgeable about photography, but I know a little.
I'm just curious how much a $10 body (MZ-30) compared to a $580 body (MZ-S; which is higher than Medium-Format film bodies) is gonna affect picture quality. Isn't it about the lens and the film? I understand the price difference a little more between digital SLR bodies, as resolution is directly tied to the body, but I know I could easily make the lens argument for DSLRs as well.
I guess the jist of this post is why the disparity?