----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Reynolds" Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE
> You mean for your 35, right? So, you have to factor in depreciation > into your camera and enlarger. You can't argue that one depreciates and > the other doesn't. Lets see, I bought a new Olympus OM-1 system, then sold it for half what I paid to buy a new Nikon system, which I eventually sold for somewhat less than half what I paid, to buy a new Pentax system. Total loss on the three transactions would amount to several thousands of dollars. Fortunately, I was able to write some of this off as a capital loss on my income tax, and was also able to depreciate the equipment while I owned it. This option is not available to most people, however, and the IRS (why is it called a service?) does check on what they think are bogus deductions. I bought a Pixur enlarger, and sold it for less than half what I paid to buy a Durst enlarger, which I then sold for a third of what I paid to by an Omega enlarger which I eventually sold for a quarter of what I paid to buy a 6x7 Beseler, which I didn't bother selling when I bought the 23C. Cost of depreciation? It hurts me to think about it. Photographic equipment upgrades have probably cost me a couple of years worth of salary, even with capital losses and depreciation added into the equation. My point? The entire depreciation arguement is a straw man. If you shoot a lot of pictures, and a presently available digital will satisfy your needs, not having the cost of film and processing and custom printing might well start paying for itself very quickly. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
