Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Tue Nov 9 11:54:38 2004
References: <49550-220041129174820578@M2W036.mail2web.com>

Hi Doug,
I am sure Digital is more expensive for an amateur like myself, so for 
me the benefits are variable iso and downloading all of a sessions 
pictures immediately, rather than waiting to finish a film. The pros I 
know, and I know lots doing my sport, tell me a digital SLR pays for 
itself in about 3 to 6 months compared to film.
Frank

On 9 Nov, 2004, at 17:48, telyt@earthlink.net wrote:

> B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course digital saves money - if you buy film.
>
> Not nessesarily.  For those of us who have to buy our own cameras the 
> net
> cost of the hardware is a much greater with digital vs. equivalent 
> quality
> film cameras.  NOTE EQUIVALENT QUALITY, NOT D70 vs. M7.  If you're a
> machine-gun photographer then digital can make economic sense but if 
> you're
> more deliberate or if other circumstances keep your film use low the 
> cost
> of depreciation on the digital camera can be much greater than the 
> cost of
> film.  Digital cameras depreciate to nearly nothing in just a few years
> while Leicas hardly ever depreciate to nothing.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)
In reply to: Message from telyt at earthlink.net (telyt@earthlink.net) ([Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron)