5 ms·
Something tells me he wouldn't be having such a dilemma when he needs to spend $1000 or more in two years for a new flagship cell phone. Nevermind how much less
by stanski 6y ago
Something tells me he wouldn't be having such a dilemma when he needs to spend $1000 or more in two years for a new flagship cell phone.
Nevermind how much less a new camera costs and how much longer it will be useful for.
- nicbou 6y agoCompared to the cost of bodies and glass, I'd say it's not so bad.
- ValentineC 6y agoGlass is usually a one-time investment that rarely depreciates (though I wonder if my Nikon DSLR primes still fetch the same value these days). And while my 12-year-old full-frame Nikon D700 might only fetch a token sum now, it'll still take photos that are on a different level from any camera phone out there. Thousand-dollar phones are a sunk cost, and it's common to only recover between half to two-thirds of the cost after one release cycle.
- wl 6y agoGlass isn't the investment it used to be. Glass designed in the era of 35mm and early DSLRs doesn't hold a candle to the glass designed for modern high resolution sensors.
- nicbou 6y agoMy smartphone depreciates faster in value, but I use it several hours a day, every day. The price-per-use is much lower than for any camera I've ever owned. It's easier to justify the expense. Moreover, $1000 will get you a flagship phone, but at best a mid-level camera and lens. You'll get a vastly better camera, no doubts, but you'll only get a camera.