Old 03-03-2017   #81
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by hap View Post

All I know is that I live in one of the most taxed jurisdictions in the country and have little to show for it other than failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, and somehow large pension obligations for public servants.

You live in LA too?

Pretty much our tax money di$appear$ ,who knows where ?, and it's only the little fish like Bell, City of Industry that get caught because they fail to hide their embezzlement.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2017   #82
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 58
Posts: 599
Hap, answering your question about Australian import taxes: in fact Australia taxes very few imported goods and certainly not photographic equipment. There is a national Goods and Services Tax of 10% and we have a weak dollar at the moment. If you take Leica's published price, whether in Euros (without VAT) or US dollars, apply the conversion rate at the time the M10 was announced, and add 10% you will get the figure that Fireblade announced.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

M10
Old 03-03-2017   #83
hap
Registered User
 
hap is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 75
M10

Thanks for explanation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2017   #84
Popey
Registered User
 
Popey is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 16
It's a sad fact of life that used digital camera prices plunge when a new model arrives on the scene. It doesn't mean that what you currently have has suddenly got 'worse'. I have tended to refresh my digital cameras on a 3-5 year cycle and accept that the resale value of any old equipment is going to be low.
The way I look at it is that the weekly cost of owning a[n] [insert camera model here] works out to be fairly low. Especially if savings from not having to buy, process and scan film is taken into account as well.
Buying a new digital camera body is a bit like buying a new car - as soon as you take it home, its value will plummet. It doesn't take away the pleasure of ownership though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2017   #85
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by froyd View Post
I don't really follow other digital brand, but I wonder if cameras of the same vintage from Nikon, Canon, fuji, etc
Here's an etc. for you:

2008 Hasselblad H3DII 39 body only £21,502.50

2017 e-bay sales around £3,000, those asking £5,000+ don't sell unless lots of extras, like a lens
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #86
Mute-on
Registered User
 
Mute-on is offline
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra View Post
My personal belief is that resale of used digital cameras will always be a bad deal. Computers go obsolete, and those cameras are computers. Resale of film Leica cameras will thrive, they are not computers, they are cameras.
This is certainly true in relation to a leica film cameras. I have seen a steady escalation in film M prices over the last 12 months, such that what was once $1,000 to $1,200 is now closer to $1,400 to $1,600. Of course this is in AUD, so the exchange rate plays a part. Nevertheless, even local sales of film Ms are showing the same trend.

J
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #87
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,718
As others have said its just like buying all the film upfront, as for the prices of film cameras going up I don't see that, maybe leica Ms have increased slightly but most others seem to be falling, cameras like eos 5 and f90s are selling for £20-£40 when new they were high end expensive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #88
ian_watts
Ian Watts
 
ian_watts is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
as for the prices of film cameras going up I don't see that, maybe leica Ms have increased slightly but most others seem to be falling, cameras like eos 5 and f90s are selling for £20-£40 when new they were high end expensive.
Yes, it really depends upon the camera. AF film bodies, apart from the F6, do seem to be absurdly cheap but Hasselblad V cameras and, to a lesser extent, Leica M do seem have increased in price in recent years.
__________________
Tumblr // Flickr // Instagram // ianwatts.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #89
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
I have to agree, digital is sorta stuck w/ the same look no matter what you do, and a digital camera is more of a commodity than an actual photographic tool. If someone cannot take a decent pic w/ the cameras that are already out there, and have been out there since, oh, about 1937, they should just give it up.

We are talking Leica here anyway, and today, this is just about acquisition, consumer status, wanting to own the latest and greatest new bobble. That should not be confused w/ photography. Even worrying about camera resale value is a curious thing on a photography forum. May as well be discussing the price you can get for your new beamer when you trade it in.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #90
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
...their cameras are just like Nikon & Canon...
How come?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
...It appears that nothing Leica will introduce in the foreseeable future is going to change that.
I agree.

Which brings up a really interesting question. How come Leica did not continue to use CCD sensors?

One reason could be CMOS technologies (photodiode arrays, on-chip DC signal amplification and analog-to-digital converters) provide superior signal-to-noise ratios and analog dynamic range. But these sensor assembly attributes are only part of the story. The cover glass, IR filter characteristics, micro-lens array and (most importantly) the color-filter array band-pass characteristics also play a significant role in perceived image quality. The Nikon D200 (among others) has a CCD sensor. Is the Nikon D200 IQ (or another CCD camera) equal to the M8's?

Another reason could be Leica could not find a manufacturer who would make a 24 x 36 mm CCD sensor at a practical price. Why would no one be interested in supplying a 24 X36 mm CCD photodiode chip? If a 24 X 36mm CCD photodiode array technology provides some unique benefit, how come no one makes them?

Or, Leica just settled for second best (CMOS). Why would Leica compromise their optical engineering excellence with an inferior sensor technology?
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #91
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 463
Having both a CCD camera in the M9-P, and CMOS with the M262, the "superior" image maker, and over a much wider set of lighting conditions, is the later CMOS technology. Urban legends die hard.

I'll take the up-front cost of a digital M and and several years use over shooting film with my M6 and the subsequent PITA scanning process every day. I still use the M6, but only enough to change things up every once and a while, and my appreciation for the digital bodies is always enhanced after just a few rolls.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #92
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,512
I had a Pentax K200D awhile back that had a CCD sensor. It made lovely pictures, but it is unlikely someone in the future will be able to pick this fact out, just by looking at a random assortment of pictures, mixed with others from CMOS cameras.

An urban legend of the "CCD wonder sensors" will no doubt influence prices of those Leica that possess them.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #93
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,683
Destroyed 240 prices maybe but M9 prices appear to be higher in the last year. Urban legend or not, CCD is keeping prices at a high and stable level and unless a new CCD camera is released then I can't see that changing.
Anyone who bought an M9 new would probably have seen a 50% reduction in resale and 240 will probably be the same now the M10 has been released. If you buy new then you lose money, it's that simple.
Maybe the perception that the M9 is as close to a film Leica in digital format is keeping prices up ie no gizmos, video etc just basically a digi M7?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #94
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizarrius View Post
what did you expect from a digital body?
doomed to carry the same film for all eternity, doomed to care about battery life, doomed to take pictures instead of photographs.
digital is sad and should be even cheaper than what it is.
exactly.

oh and the 10 silly words I need to publish.
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #95
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
The Nikon D200 (among others) has a CCD sensor. Is the Nikon D200 IQ (or another CCD camera) equal to the M8's?
funny you mention two 10mp CCD cameras am having. D200 has the "d2x mode III" for jpeg rendering, that I like for nature, greenery and landscape type of photos. M8 obviously has its IR-sensitivity which can help with b&w photos. and with filter in front of lens, good for colour as well. both cameras perform bad in low light situations, by todays standards. would I prefer one over the other, cannot tell because am using them in different situations. the Nikon's jpeg mode I mentioned can be installed in some of their CMOS models as well such as D700, but haven't tried it. probably could not tell the difference, if all other variables were the same, a shot from D200 vs. D700.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #96
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyeh View Post
Hap, answering your question about Australian import taxes: in fact Australia taxes very few imported goods and certainly not photographic equipment. There is a national Goods and Services Tax of 10% and we have a weak dollar at the moment. If you take Leica's published price, whether in Euros (without VAT) or US dollars, apply the conversion rate at the time the M10 was announced, and add 10% you will get the figure that Fireblade announced.
We had our glory days when the A$ was worth US$1.1. Ah, what a time, we could live like kings!

Another note, Australia is just expensive in terms of numbers, but in reality everything is more. Housing, food, cameras, film, but also wages. I get paid 50% more than my US colleagues in the same jobs at the same point in our careers, but we live similar lives with similar budgets - we talk about it a little. So by the numbers it seems expensive, but it's no more than anywhere else.

(of course, there are always the very rich, and the very poor, we have both. I'm neither but probably in the upper half by virtue of participating in this forum)
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #97
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobbylon View Post
Maybe the perception that the M9 is as close to a film Leica in digital format is keeping prices up ie no gizmos, video etc just basically a digi M7?
Check out used M7 prices, through the floor compared to the MP considering they cost the same new!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #98
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Check out used M7 prices, through the floor compared to the MP considering they cost the same new!
Yup, some people are asking the same money for a 20 year old M6 as a 2 year old M7.
The M7, not only newer and more featured, is made to a higher standard with the brass top and bottom plates, etc, as well as a better finder, while the M6 was of the zinc cost cutting days.
I think it is because people who want film Ms, want 100% mechanical cameras. The M7 does have 1/125 and 1/60 as mechanical speeds, but I guess that is not enough.
Having used both, and now owning an M7, the M7 is a far better shooter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #99
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,683
Huss,
since when does 'being a better camera' ever come into it with Leica shooters?
regards john
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #100
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobbylon View Post
Huss,
since when does 'being a better camera' ever come into it with Leica shooters?
regards john
John.


I think the M6 is the Leica rangefinder equivalent of the Pentax K1000.
People ask what film SLR to get and the standard knee jerk response is K1000. Even though a Nikkormat is far superior. Because of that the K1000 (which was much cheaper new than the Nikon and for good reason) is now more expensive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #101
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
People ask what film SLR to get and the standard knee jerk response is K1000.
I have never even seen a Pentax K1000.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #102
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
I have never even seen a Pentax K1000.
I sold them, back in the day. Never owned one myself ... I had Nikons and Leicas.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #103
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,512
I started with a K1000 (my wife's). And they were exceedingly cheap back in the day. I got an MX and 50 1.7 for $50 and considered that a major upgrade. Still in use...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #104
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Another reason could be Leica could not find a manufacturer who would make a 24 x 36 mm CCD sensor at a practical price. Why would no one be interested in supplying a 24 X36 mm CCD photodiode chip?
Leica's volumes aren't high enough.

Regarding depreciation: I sold a Phase back for a friend of mine, it cost $45k new, she took 800 shots with it and it sold for a net of $22k a year later. It seems the 'higher priced they are, the bigger the fall.'
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #105
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 463
Is anyone even developing the CCD image sensor anymore? I would imagine no. That ship has sailed.

I'm not sure who is supplying Leica with the M9 replacement sensors, one of which was installed on my M9-P last May, but it pretty much duplicates what the M9 was capable of when it was new 7 years ago, which isn't all that great above about ISO 800, but beautiful, even gorgeous if you can keep it between ISO 160-400. It's a perfect backup body, backup being something you only resort to when your main body isn't available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #106
hap
Registered User
 
hap is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 75
Not too far away......
thanks
Hap
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #107
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregm61 View Post
Is anyone even developing the CCD image sensor anymore? I would imagine no. That ship has sailed.

I'm not sure who is supplying Leica with the M9 replacement sensors, one of which was installed on my M9-P last May, but it pretty much duplicates what the M9 was capable of when it was new 7 years ago, which isn't all that great above about ISO 800, but beautiful, even gorgeous if you can keep it between ISO 160-400. It's a perfect backup body, backup being something you only resort to when your main body isn't available.


Even though I love and respect my M240 the colour from the M9 and it's CCD sensor have huge appeal.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #108
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
Leica's volumes aren't high enough.

Regarding depreciation: I sold a Phase back for a friend of mine, it cost $45k new, she took 800 shots with it and it sold for a net of $22k a year later. It seems the 'higher priced they are, the bigger the fall.'
This depreciation is not due to the high initial cost. It's due to the relative niche nature of the product, much like the OPs M-D. If there are only 1000 willing to buy one new, then the people wanting one used is like quite small. Then you have many of them used for business, and most tax incentives disappear when buying a used item. So you have a niche item, with a small pool of buyers who effectively get a tax break for buying new. Add it all up and the thing just ain't worth that much used - but still a lot of $ in raw terms...
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #109
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,142
If we step out of the Leica forest, the Foveon sensor surpasses all in the digital world.
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #110
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireblade View Post
If we step out of the Leica forest, the Foveon sensor surpasses all in the digital world.
Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?

I made quite a few prints from my Sigma Merrill. Sold it.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2017   #111
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireblade View Post
If we step out of the Leica forest, the Foveon sensor surpasses all in the digital world.

It does indeed ... and I'm still musing over getting the SD Quattro H.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #112
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?
I made quite a few prints from my Sigma Merrill. Sold it.
CCD's had their issues. Foveon are not CCD and Sigma hasn't fallen by the wayside.
Battery life?....carry 5 of them, fixed.
Low light can be like the Lochness Monster on internet forums.
Learn to use the tool, and for what it was made for...(especially digital).
This one @ ISO1250.
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #113
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It does indeed ... and I'm still musing over getting the SD Quattro H.
Yes, next time i'm in Melbourne i may fall for this one
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #114
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
Except for decent low light capabilities (in terms what of the market dictates as "good"). Isn't that why CCD's also fell by the wayside? And battery life?
Besides increased power consumption, CCDs increase manufacturing costs. CCDs have inferior quantum efficiency. CCDs are more susceptible to blooming artifacts (sensor site artifacts caused by excessive charge, i.e. over exposure). Perhaps more relevant to the M10 vs M240 vs M9 vs M8 discussion is CCD requires more physical space. (link-scroll to last summary slide)

There is no doubt the M8 offers a pleasing, and perhaps even superior, rendering aesthetic. This reputation is authentic and could be a significant factor in used M8 supply and demand.

It is likely the M8's image rendering reputation has more to do with its color-filter array and micro-lens assembly engineering than any fundamental advantage of CCD vs CMOS photo-diode physics.

Just say the M8 sensor assembly is preferable and unique in normal light levels. Invoking CCD alone as a superior photo-diode array technology for still-photographt is not credible.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #115
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
This depreciation is not due to the high initial cost. It's due to the relative niche nature of the product, much like the OPs M-D. If there are only 1000 willing to buy one new, then the people wanting one used is like quite small. Then you have many of them used for business, and most tax incentives disappear when buying a used item. So you have a niche item, with a small pool of buyers who effectively get a tax break for buying new. Add it all up and the thing just ain't worth that much used - but still a lot of $ in raw terms...
I didn't mean that the depreciation was due to the high cost, it's just that the higher the cost, the more the possibilities for depreciation. As far as taxes go, buying used doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a tax break. But you're right, the pool of buyers is small, although the pool of gear is also small. In the case of a Phase back, many people shy away from used due to warranty concerns. It also depresses used Leica prices, as Leica has a poor reputation when it comes to service turnaround not to mention service charges.

$29 per actuation...would have been far better off shooting film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #116
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,613
One thing that I really really didn't like about the CCD sensor in my M-E is that often if I had the sun in the image it would create solid thick vertical or horizontal lines from the point of light source which is some sort of sensor artifact. Something that I never got with the CMOS M240 sensor, or of course never got on film.
Base ISO, f11 or f16

Sensor remapping didn't help, and it was not a corroded sensor (that happened later)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #117
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,697
Low M240 family prices look like a huge bargain to me

its not like everyone did not know the M10 was about to be released
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #118
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
One thing that I really really didn't like about the CCD sensor in my M-E is that often if I had the sun in the image it would create solid thick vertical or horizontal lines from the point of light source which is some sort of sensor artifact. Something that I never got with the CMOS M240 sensor, or of course never got on film.
Base ISO, f11 or f16

Sensor remapping didn't help, and it was not a corroded sensor (that happened later)
Strange as I've taken a few sunsets and sunrises and never had problems.

http://www.johnwhitfieldphoto.com/al...ps-img-1222357
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #119
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
Depreciation only matters if one sells.

Why not just use your M-D?
The people who are losing their shirts selling or trading M-Ds and M240s for M10s are doing it to themselves. To each his/her own, though.

The M-P is still a fantastic camera; the printed image quality it produces is still outstanding. It didn't suddenly get worse when the M10 was released. My plan is to keep my M-P 240 and get an M10 when I can pay cash for it.

When it comes to used M240s, it's a buyer's market. I am happy for those first time digital M buyers who can finally get a good used M240 at fire sale prices. I may get one myself as a backup to my M-P.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-05-2017   #120
happy
Registered User
 
happy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 67
I recently bought an M9-P in great shape for 3,000 USD and am very happy. I don't buy camera gear as a financial investment. Only as an investment in myself.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.