Good point! I can say the same about MZ-S (except that it is not 11 years old yet). The MZ-S and 3.5-4.5/24-90 cost about 1500 USD and it has all the features I need and I am going to keep it for at least 10 years. Cost of one exposure will be negligible. But it would sell better if it were slightly (slightly, not much!) cheaper. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 18. kes�kuuta 2003 22:28 Aihe: SV: Cost of cameras (WAS Re: Lens Mount Progress) >Hi >Just a note: My Z1 cost me less than 2000$ (with two zooms) in Denmark. Its >11 years old and works like the day I got ot. That's less than 200$ a year - >or less than 1$ a day - or two slides in a frame. I took hundrets of films >with very nice photographs. It's really good value for money! It really >doesn't matter if it's 1000$ or 5000$ as long as I enjoy using it! >Regards >Jens > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 18. juni 2003 21:20 >Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Emne: Re: Cost of cameras (WAS Re: Lens Mount Progress) > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The number of people that will spend around $1000 for a film SLR that >isn't made by Canon, Nikon or Leica isn't large enough to make such a camera >profitable. > >You forgot to mention Mamiya, Hasselblad, Fuji, Contax, Pentax and even >Bronica. > >If you were reffering to 35mm format only, I have some news for you. The >guys that were buying and making profitable the >$1000 C/N cameras were >the PJs. Some time ago they went digital. There's very few of them left >to buy those film things and make them profitable. 35mm film is now >hobbyst land. They don't have a company behind to pay the gear for them. > >cheers, >caveman >
