Re: So why is the 5D $3200?

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:46:06 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Skip M wrote:
>> "ASAAR" <caught@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:ue5fi1ts2665b0068hlbpc5d64q2mdaqb7@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:34:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> far too hastily wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The idea of 100,000 clicks being the expected life of a
>>>>>> shutter/mirror assemble would leave a hard working Professional
>>>>>> to replace their camera every year. Some I know of do that with
>>>>>> their 1Ds.
>>>>
>>>>> The concept that you will have to replace a $3500 USD body every
>>>>> year adds to operating cost when the industry is generally seeing
>>>>> falling prices or at best, stagnant ones.
>>>>
>>>> So when you get a flat tire, do you throw away the ENTIRE car
>>>> and buy a new one so that you have a tire that works????
>>>> Methinks you'll get the point...
>>>
>>> Only if he's gullible enough to swallow your illogical bait. The
>>> failure of a camera's shutter/mirror assembly would be comparable to
>>> the failure of a car's transmission or engine. A tire is a
>>> consumable item, and might be comparable to the failure of a
>>> camera's lithium-ion battery. Even this isn't a fair comparison
>>> because a new battery might represent up to 5% of the cost of the
>>> camera, while a new tire would represent less than 0.5% of the cost
>>> of a new car. We can always count on you make a foolish case.
>>>
>>> Additionally, are you so dense as to think that anyone wanting to
>>> get rid of a car or camera after tire or battery problems would
>>> throw it away? Of course not. They'd most likely sell it, or use
>>> its trade-in value to reduce the cost when upgrading to another car
>>> or camera. What might be done after the failure of a shutter/mirror
>>> assembly is another matter, because if there was no warranty
>>> covering its replacement or repair, the owner would have to weigh
>>> the cost to repair with the current value of what is now not only a
>>> used camera, but one whose list price has probably greatly declined
>>> since the original purchase. At that point, whether the camera
>>> would be repaired, placed in a footlocker, sold on eBay or placed
>>> under Gallagher's mallet would depend on factors you haven't
>>> bothered to consider.
>>>
>>> Methinks if you're true to form you won't get the point.
>>>
>> If you had a car that was otherwise in excellent working order, and
>> the motor went on the fritz, it would still make more sense to
>> replace the engine than to dump the whole car and start over again. I know
>> several photographers who've gone through a shutter or two,
>> but won't give up their cameras, whether Nikon or Canon.
>> Douglas' point was similar, replace the whole camera because the
>> shutter failed. And his implication that this was a uniquely Canon
>> issue was off the mark, too.
>
>The "echo" of ASAAR's above post (via skip) is a PERFECT example of why my
>patience with him died, and why he now resides *quietly* in my KLINK
>ile. --He will argue ANYTHING! If there is ANY possible way to battle
>against a point, he will do it. Never mind whether it is right, wrong or
>indifferent...he'll find a way to argue it. He has a special skill at
>missing the forest for the trees.
>The term for this is "oppositionism." We've peacably conversed on many
>occsasions, but it tends to come back to a basic level of stubbornness that
>eats away at his ability to remain fair-minded.
>
>Shutters aren't the engine.
>An imaging sensor?
>-Perhaps.
>The camera's main Digic II processor and board fried?
>-Perhaps.
>A shutter? Nah.
>Shutter are quite replaceable, and mostly are based on mechanical failure.
>They are FAR from being the most expensive part in a DSLR.
>Simple point: They are worth fixing.
>-But just in case there are any folks out there ready to pitch their
>high-end DSLR because their mirror/shutter busted, I should like to kindly
>offer to "dispose of it" for you as a service. ASAAR--When your DSLR dies
>of shutter failure...you know where to find me, but you'll have to send via
>e-mail. :) -Because as Sergeant Carter used to say to Gomer...
>...On the NG: "I CAN'T HEEEEEAR YOOOOU!"
>:)
>
>

<yawn> Yet another arrogant hissy fit from Mark<dumb-***
symbol to reinforce how clever (and annoying) he can be> wherein he
projects his own worst faults on anyone who dares disagree with him.
<zzzzzzzzzzzzz>

P.S. I can say whatever I want since he'll never see it as I'm deep
within his capacious killfile. But you can be sure he'll respond via
someone else;s quote, because he just can't really ignore me.
.