Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
"Killer" is a relative word working with frame of reference. D800 was the killer for medium format with a pixel count less than say 29MP. 5DSR was the killer for medium format with a pixel count less than say 40MP. Both medium format and 35mm format get advancement at the same time.
Just happened across this thread, thanks, Will, the rat race indeed.
No, it doesn't. It implies the advantages of using one type of system or format have no value by advances in a perceived "lesser" system.
You are correct, though the standard of "advantages" is most accurately implied by second-hand re-sales value.
Really? I have never seen that posited as an argument. Mostly it is why spend x on (insert your camera or format here) when you can get the same (insert your preferred technical variable here) for (x/y) less.
There is no need to show statistically significant samples. Generally if something has more advantages then more people are willing to pay more, and vice versa.
This asumtion is wrong: Price of used items is not determined by features or advantages only, and more often than none, even primary. If that was the case, a used Patek Calatrava will have a lesser value than a JL reverso, and the best value will be a Casio. What about Ferrari: the cars are a set of problems, same goes for the Land Rover Defenders that have such a high price in the USA.
Yes it's a pretty narrow note. Actually brand, rarity, identification etc are all determinants of price, and all count towards "advantages". Whenever these factors cannot offset the depreciation due to new features/performance brought by technology advancements, then it's called "killed".
Generally? So you are saying that there is statistical evidence, so why not show it? The problem is that it is not true. I would say the D850 has more advantages over a Leica M, but people will buy a Leica. Now you can start flubbing and state that brand is an advantage, but then you get any variable that a buyer can justify is a valid variable resulting in a hypothesis that cannot be disproven--hardly scientific.
This is not even an argument. No one is suggesting that someone looking for a new system not consider a D850. And who is this person that cannot afford an upgrade or switch?
Exactly. There are many variables. Focusing solely on resale is not very useful. Particularly when you cannot show a correlation.
