>>3932241Depreciation is a valuable metric when it comes to making financial decisions.
Do you buy the sexy newest model? Or do you buy the last generation, gently used model that has already depreciated by 2/3rds? The sexy new model will cost you much more per frame, but it might offer an advantage that offsets that cost. Alternatively, the used model may have already reached the last act of its lifespan. If a seller is listing a camera with a 70,000 shutter count for 50% of MSRP, are you getting a good deal? Probably not, but it helps to think along these terms.
Finally, and this sort of goes to your point, depreciation is a valuable consideration because usage or shutter count is only one way of counting depreciation. There's also just the monthly/yearly depreciation, where even if you don't use it and the camera is just there sitting on your shelf, it's still losing value every minute. That should incentivize people to go shoot at a rate that is at least commensurate with the annual deprecation of their equipment. In other words, you buy a camera for $3000. Regardless of whether you use it or not, the camera is only going to be worth $500 in six years. You might as well shoot enough that you get an average usage out of it.
And yeah, if you only buy three camera bodies in your lifetime and never resell them and consider their purchase to be a one-off expense, then depreciation is totally alien and foreign and worthless. I get that. A lot of people, however, either resell or buy used cameras, and it's an important consideration to keep in the back of your mind.
