Ineresting question, Mark. If I use that $900 as an absolute number, I have never owned such a camera. However if we adjust for inflation. I have owned a Rolleiflex 2.8, Linhof Super Technica, Mamiya Universal (2 of them actually) even used they cost more than that in adjusted real dollars. Probably the two MX I bought new come close to that, certainly if you count the lenses (35/2 on one and 85/2 on the other) and winders with them. Heck the Pentax H3 at $200 in 1962 probably comes to the equivalent of that. Of course back in those days I had 2 things I don't have today, a real income, and good credit.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:52 AM Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D > Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >$1000 may not be alot of money to those accustomed to getting semi-pro > >or pro equipment, but to a typical beginner, it is alot of money. > > How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras > of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit > approximate and include the MZ-S). > > I have 2 such cameras: > MZ-S (with battery grip) > 645 > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
