This is strictly anecdotal, but anyway, here goes.
About this time last year, because of the stampede to digital in certain
quarters, I decided to put together a Mamiya RB67 outfit, something far too
expensive for me to even consider 10 years ago. I bought every piece off *Bay,
exercising my generally reliable BS detector, which has served me quite well in
that market. In just a few months, I had a LNIB RB67, all the different
viewfinders, grips, backs, extension tubes, and six Sekor C lenses (50, 65, 90,
127, 140 macro, and 180).
Recently, I returned to the marketplace with the notion of adding 250mm and
360mm Sekor lenses. After sniping and losing and observing the current going
prices for the exact same stuff I was buying this time last year, it looks to
me like everything's going for 20-30 percent more now than then.
Maybe the bottom's not quite ready to drop out after all. I hope not, because
I'd hate to see KEH go out of business. But, then again, if they do go
belly-up, since they're just over the hill, down the road and across the river,
I might have a chance go pick at the carcass.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Chuck wrote:
> > Amateurs have been stampeding to digital because... I'm
> > not sure why. Certainly not based on a considered cost
> > comparison. I think wedding and portrait photographers have
> > been on a stampede to digital at least, in part, because of
> > the simplicity of retouching.
>
> I can't explain the amateur stampede either. Other than the
> "new and improved" and "keeping up with the Jones" mentality.
> 95% of of amateurs would be well served with a pocket digicam
> and a SLR/MF for serious hobby work.
>
> As to the wedding/portrait stampede, well, as you know, it's
> more than just retouching. I can scan a roll of 160NC
> reasonably fast and I only do those shots needing retouching,
> not every frame. The biggest advantage I see to digital now for
> the wedding/portrait photographer is workflow/timeflow. I can
> now have the proof book in the hands of the customer within 48
> hours. I've gone through the print-it-myself routine and have
> migrated back to lab printing for anything that has human skin
> in the photo.
>
> I absolutely love digital for wedding work for one primary
> reason: No half exposed rolls of film. Prior to the ceremony
> start, I always loaded fresh rolls of film so I wouldn't have to
> change rolls during the worst possible moments. Oh, and the
> total flexibility of ISO selection. No need to try and guess
> how many rolls of 160, 400 and 800 you might need for any given
> wedding. I highly doubt I'll ever shoot another film wedding
> again. As much as I like the color characteristics of film, the
> inconveniences outweigh the advantages. Frankly, 2006 will
> probably be my last wedding season anyway, except for the odd
> family/friend wedding.
>
> > I don't know if landscape, architectural and other types of
> > photographers have been so anxious to move there.
>
> Reluctantly. I think the semiaffordableness of used 1Ds cameras
> has finally tilted a lot of people over. The 5D is possibly
> going to draw a ton of people too. My E-6 lab in Des Moines has
> seen an increase in business as the publishing industry there is
> undergoing a digital backlash right now. "Everybody shoots
> digital", so the standout photographers are doing something
> different and they're shooting film.
>
> > But maybe it doesn't make much difference. It may be that the
> > medium and large format types who can't move so readily to
> > digital only constitute 10% of the business. And who knows?
> > They may not be far behind given the technology path of the
> > next few years.
>
> I don't think so. I believe that we are still in the early days
> of the digital photography industry. Canon has a lead right now,
> but historically, the early leaders tend not to be the long-term
> survivors. Whoever sells the most digicams to joe consumer
> today is not an indication of who will be the mover and shaker
> ten years down the road. Call me a romantic, but I believe that
> Kodak will still rule. They may only have a PO Box in
> Rochester, but as long as they own the patents to everything,
> they'll be relevant.
>
> AG
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|