Price depreciation of bodies isn't it a worry

<p>How do people who don't make money out of photography justify buying expensive gear! say 5D III for $3500 when it comes out...assuming in 3 years time when the later one is released one can't sell it for more than $1500-$2000 used MAX!</p>

<p>I own a 5DI, 600D, and good lenses: 35L, 135L, 85 1.8, 70-200 F4 IS, 24-70L, 17-40 and 100 macro.<br>

But you see lenses don't depreciate much, and the two bodies I have are waaaay cheaper than even a 5DII :) btw IQ wise i'm 100% satisfied with my 5DI, would love better AF and ISO though.</p>

<p>I'm asking because I want to sell the 5DI and 600D and buy the 5DIII in about 6-12 months time hopefully; but having tough time justifying the cost. I can afford it and I'm working full time since the beginning of the year; but I have bigger goals in my life like saving for a loan deposit +/- marriage in the future...and when I think of these goals it feels like I'm throwing away $3500 down the drain! that's why I don't mind buying something expensive if I know it will hold it's value otherwise i keep away.</p>

<p>I know it's more of a financial management question now rather than photography ;( .. but wouldn't the 5DIII depreciate HEAPS say 3 years time after it's release in the used market if I was to sell it or not really?<br>

I would love to buy it and sell the two bodies and maybe 1 lens to downsize.</p>

<p>thank you</p>

"I don't mind buying something expensive if I know it will hold it's value otherwise i keep away."

 

A new digital camera will not hold its value! Keep away!

 

When I sold my 4-year-old 5D a couple of years ago, I got back about a third of what I paid for it, so it cost me about $500 dollars a year to use the camera, or a bit over $40 per month. I think it was well worth that cost--I used it a lot. But it absolutely did not hold its monetary value.

<p>I feel that if you can't justify the cost then don't get it. Buy the body if you feel it'll offer you something you really need and are willing to pay for, that way you aren't throwing $3500 down the drain. However, I don't think that it'll depreciate "HEAPS" in three years if it really is everything that canon is hyping it up to be the 5D Mark2 is still reselling for quite a bit now. </p>

<p>It's all about perceived utility, value, wants and needs. Sounds like a good camera, at least in this case, is more a want than a need. I have found that most photographers, professionals as well as amateurs, are techno hounds who always want the latest and greatest. But let's not forget that photography is mostly about the photographer, not the camera.<br>

Dan</p>

 

<p>Almost everything depreciates pretty quickly once out of the showroom or warehouse. Heck, that benjamin in your pocket is shrinking by the minute... If you're not a pro, pricy camera gear is a luxury like fancy golf clubs, sailboats, firearms, vintage and custom guitars, fine wine, high maintenance women, etc. Value is measured by your enjoyment of the item, not by depreciation tables, rational thought or need. And to have a wee bit of enjoyment in this crazy world is priceless. </p>

<p>Some people photograph landscapes. Other people make portraits. Some people don't have a camera. It's a very diverse world.</p>

<p>why justify? I just like toys.<br>

for me it's the same as spending 30.000 on a car. (no-one will think that's strange) or spending 20K on a stereo, or 10K on a motorcycle (that lives in the garage most of the year.<br>

i just like toys. wouldn't buy them if i couldnt afford it though.</p>

<p>I take advantage of all the people that sell their DSLRs after a few years. For eight years and four bodies, I stayed a generation or two behind by buying used. I was able to buy cameras that were originally $6000 to $8000 for under $1300. Then when I sold them to upgrade I only lost $300 to $400 each.</p>

<p>I buy all my lenses used and have actually made money over the years by waiting for the best possible deals and thus buying low and selling high.</p>

<p>When I did finally buy my first new camera in 25 years it was a 5D II last fall for under $2000 CDN. If I wanted to, and I don't, I could now sell it for more than I bought it for (thank you Canon).</p>

<p>Justifying the 5D III over the 5D II is very hard! Virtually the same resolution, better AF, and better ultrahigh ISO, if you ever go that high, for $1000 to $1500 more! No thank-you. For the cost savings I'd much rather add a <strong>used</strong> 7D to get better AF, higher fps, and tighter crop for sports or just to provide different focal lengths.</p>

<p>If you are happy with the 5D but need better AF sometimes then consider a 50D, 60D, or 7D as a second body. If the 5D II drops in price again you could consider it if you want significantly higher resolution and better high ISO. AF is likely not much better than your original. </p>

 

<p>The whole point of marketing consumer goods is to maintain strong demand for new items and versions. The iPad (heck - the entire Apple product suite) is a perfectly good example of rampant consumerism - and as John C points out above you have the option to satisfy your needs by buying new, or waiting until depreciation has taken the edge off the price and then buying perfectly good tools, or toys depending on how you plan to use them. Whatever you do, work hard on avoiding the trap of buying stuff you can't afford. That's one of the major factors that got us into the "great recession".</p>

<p>If you gotta ask the price, you can't afford it. If you're not in the business, where you can depreciate certain of your fixed assets, then it is a luxury. Nothing wrong with luxury purchases...just don't expect them to hold their original value unless there's something unique about them which will maintain demand and high prices for them. I usually try to buy items I need which have already depreciated in value...ie used. Often I can later sell them for a profit after I've gotten what I need out of them.</p>

<p>A few thoughts:</p>

<p>You are right to note, I think, that some people seem to upgrade more out of a desire to own the most recent thing than out of photographic necessity. The 5D3 may be a case in point. Some who own the 5D2 might be able to justify this upgrade - the newer camera certainly offers some real improvements - but others will likely see absolutely no difference in their photographs.</p>

<p>In terms of how people handle the expense, it isn't as bad if you think of the cost for your "hobby" on a monthly basis. A $2400 camera costs about $65 monty if you give it away at the end of three years - and I know people who spend more than that at Starbucks each month! If you sell the used camera at the end of the period the cost is even lower. I suppose that those 5D2->5D3 upgrades might sell their current cameras for something in the $1500-$2000 range, thus reducing the cost of the new camera to $1500. (Plus tax, new batteries, L brackets, etc.)</p>

<p>One thing that does annoy me sometimes is when the folks who buy this stuff for non-photograpic reasons - e.g. they "must own the best thing" - also go on about how important the new technology is to making photographs. It isn't exactly unimportant, but it is less so than they might think.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Justification/rationalization is up to each individual, and nobody else can decide it or should criticize someone else's decision in this regard. </p>

<p>I would submit that life is short and one cannot put a price on enjoyment or satisfaction during this short life. </p>

<p>I'm lucky, the cameras pay for themselves in a year or 2, so a new 1Dsxx body, when they upgrade, is not a grave decision. That's what I mean about others criticizing a buyer's decision: if I'm hung up on pro-body construction, and it pays for itself either way, why not indulge my hangup of paying more for something built more like a tank? </p>

<p>Make your decision, don't look back. Just remember to enjoy! </p>

<p>Some people just have that kind of money, but most people that buy the high end cameras new are the one's that are on the leading edge of the industry and have to keep up. Big time wedding and sports shooters will probably buy the 1DX new b/c of the supposed noise control. The rest of us will buy it used in a few years.</p>

<p>By Japanese market rumor, the price of 5Dmark3 quickly down after Olympic since Nikon D800 is amazingly cheaper compare to 5Dmark3. Should be wait half a year to buy it.</p>

 

<p>I just sold my canon 40d, that I paid 1450 $ for new 4 years ago. It and flash and 3 lenses..900 dollars. I think I got my use out of it. I sold because I wanted higher iso, better IQ, and a smaller package. I found that in the pentax K5, I bought new with kit lens for 959. It cost me some, but with this camera I now have better AF, and better IQ, more pixels, and a vast array of 'legacy lenses' so I can get more glass for less money. I just could not justify a 2000 dollar lens for a body that was not getting any younger, and I didn't like the 7d or the size and weight of a 5d. I did consider the nikon d7000 but the lens price issue was the same as canon. I just got a prime 50mm f2 on ebay for my pentax k5 for 18 bucks. Its manual focus, but a really nice lens... I think I come out ahead in the long run.</p>

<p>Remember, many people take pride in the <em>ability</em> to buy expensive toys. There isn't much rationalization, nor a compelling<em> need</em> for features or output. To them, it's not about what the gear can do, or even how it outperforms different models... It's about the fact that they<em> can afford to blow their money on it</em>, and they want others to<em> know</em> that they can. They just want to have the baddest gear when they walk around in public. Often such users are characterized by walking around with their 5D2/3 (w/ the obligatory 24-70L or 24-105L mounted) on full auto w/ the lens cap on. ;-)</p>

<p>...not that there's anything wrong w/ that... they drive prices down for the rest of us!</p>

<p>Never buy a car. The depreciation is terrible. Actually you could recently say the same thing about houses.</p>

<p>If you don't want depreciation, buy art or gold (even then nothing is certain), but they both take lousy photographs.</p>

<p>I buy cameras to be used and because I need them then and there, and in the immediate future. It's not an investment like stock, where you expect a financial return. You expect to be able to shoot photographs with it, period. Make them count.</p>

<p>What's most interesting about the topic is how consumer willingness to pay very high prices for photo equipment has been ratcheted up in recent years, kind of like big-screen tvs. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>What's most interesting about the topic is how consumer willingness to pay very high prices for photo equipment has been ratcheted up in recent years, kind of like big-screen tvs.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. But counteracting this is the disappearance of costs for film, developing, and printing. In the long term we probably pay less per image overall.</p>

<p>If you spread the cost of a $3500 camera over four years, it costs you $825 a year. If you sell it later for $1500, the price of ownership goes down to $500 per year. It would cost you that much to RENT one for a WEEK.</p>

<p>If you're going to USE the camera, then it's a reasonably good deal assuming that you can afford it. If it sits unused in your camera bag, or if you own it solely for the bragging rights, then it's a waste of money.</p>

<p>I thought big screen TV prices were coming down! Actually Camera prices have typically been falling or staying constant for a while now. At introduction, all the 5D models have been somewhere around $3000 (+/- a few hundred bucks).</p>

<p>What's getting <em>really</em> ridiculous are lens prices, especially telephoto lenses. The new Sony 500/4 lens is $12,999. Makes Canon's 500/4L IS II USM look positively cheap at only $10,499.</p>

<p>The new Canon 600/4L IS II at $13000 makes the old one at only $8000 an unbelievable bargain.</p>

<p><em>The new Canon 600/4L IS II at $13000 makes the old one at only $8000 an unbelievable bargain.</em></p>

<p>Canon thinks photographers are willing to pay top dollar to keep their backs in good condition over a career of long lens use. Sony long lens prices are high because they can expect to sell few of them. Nikon long lens prices seem to be a bargain now, whereas a few years ago they were the ones that were considered expensive. :-)</p>

<p>This a great thread, with many thoughtful, intelligent posts. I've been an avid photographer since the late 1960's. A couple of decades ago (the 1990's), I made enough money to buy what I wanted, not only photographically, but high end guitars. When I started to sell off my film gear, I sold my Nikon outfit, 2 F5's, N90s, 5 ED-IF lenses, 2 SB-26's, My Canon outfit, an EOS-1N with motor, Elan 7E with grip, 5 Canon L lenses, My Contax RX with 3 Zeiss lenses (miss the 85 1.4 German), and my Hassy outfit, 2 501's, 4 backs, 4 lenses, 3 finders. I got to the point going out for photography was nuts. Packing it all up, what lens, what film, this & that, you name it. I wound up owning it for almost nothing more than bragging rights because my job kept me wrapped up for 60-75 hrs/week. Same with the multiple Lowden's, Collings, Santa Cruz' and other instruments. Today, less money, more relaxed, 1 DSLR and a couple of lenses. I'll add some gear when I feel the time's right and I'm going to actually use it. And I'll more than likely buy used. All of these things are toys - nothing more. Never needed them, just wanted them. Today, financial management is more important, and I don't shoot for anyone but me. I think my point is, if you can afford the toy and want it, buy it, if you can justify it. If not, step back and think about it for a while. The gear will still be there.</p>

<p>For a long time I drove as my principal car a crappy, beat-up, decade-old car, and enjoyed over six figures worth of photography equipment.</p>

<p>I sometimes referred to my camera bag(s) as 'My Mercedes' jokingly.</p>

<p>It really was no joke.</p>

<p>I still have the car; I don't drive it much.</p>

<p>I took 570 photos today, though today's photos were taken on a refurbished, second generation camera without many bells and whistles. Today's body takes images as good at low ISO as the $3,000+ D2Xs (s) that I have used in times past, and which still retail (as refurbished) for $2,000 (and at one store for $1,400) (with a 90 day guarantee from Nikon). At high ISOs it knocks the socks off a D2Xs or even a D200.</p>

<p>The quality and feature difference is huge, but the images are nearly identical at low ISO but at high ISO this particular low cost consumer DSLR is many levels above those D2X and D2Xs which fell apart at ISO 800, and the D200s that I once shot with and even equal at least to the D300 and D300s, (it has video), yet it cost less than $360 (body, refurb). (really, it takes GREAT images and it's almost a throwaway.) </p>

<p>I'd use other bodies as well, but such a body is enough for anything not requiring ultrahigh ISO, a high frame rate, or use of non 'G' lenses.</p>

<p>You can take a Photo of the Week with a D2Xs or a $350 refurb. You even can take a world class photo, (as you can see with my first portfolio posting--'Balloon Man') with a $28 telephoto that did not even stop down when you released the shutter. You had to focus with the aperture closed down, or open it manually for better focus, then close it down again manually to shoot.</p>

<p>It's just a matter of conveniences now, how much money you have, and how much you value the bells and whistles (with camera bodies). </p>

<p>And then there's build quality to consider; do you want a titanium or other strong metal body or a plastic one?</p>

<p>I know magazine photographers who shoot women for fashion in studios, and they shoot 20,000 frames minimum a month; they NEED $3,000+ cameras and still replace shutters every two years or so.</p>

<p>I shoot lots less than that, though I've shot more than 1/2 million frames since joining Photo.net, but on LOTS of bodies, many recycled (or stolen) before 15,000 or fewer frames.</p>

<p>(I can't afford any down time; I'm often far from repair services which can take forever.)</p>

<p>You have to make your choice sometimes; a Mercedes in the garage, or as my choice was those super teles, those pro lenses and those great bodies.</p>

<p>I made my choice.</p>

<p>We've helped you with pointing out the pluses and minuses of your decision, but the choice is yours.</p>

<p>You can shoot most great shots with almost any DSLR these days.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>