Camera Value

Hiya,

 

Can someone please tell me why a Olympus OM10 with a 35-70mm lens or

a Pentax K1000 with a 50mm lens commands a greater value on the the

second hand market than an Canon EOS 500 with 35-80mm. I can't work

it out!

 

Stu :)

I know the the K1000 has a dedicated following because of it's place in the evolution of the Pentax catalog. It is a well built, well-featured purely maual camera that doesn't even have a slot for batteries. It also has a superior history of reliability and durability.

 

The lens also contribute to this slightly, in that the Olympus and Pentax lenses are generally thought to be superior in terms of performance, although this is comparing apples to oranges.

The K-1000 takes a battery, but only for the meter.

It's got a lot to do with perceived build quality and durability. The Olympus and the Pentax are predominantly metal, relatively simple in construction and expected to last a long time. The Canon is seen as mostly plastic and rapidly obsolescent. Also, the second-hand market is a market, so buyers' perceptions determine the price.

Manual SLRs are still in demand and almost no-one is making them anymore. There are plenty of auto-everything cameras around if you want one.

The Pentax K1000 has a cult following, which pushes up the price. It's a bare-bones manual camera.

 

The Olympus OM-10 was Olympus's first automatic camera released in the late 1970s.

 

Some photographers prefer the older cameras rather than modern day cameras, which often have more features but don't look all that much different than the other cameras on the market.

They're better cameras, and better lenses. That's why they're worth more. They may have fewer features, but they are better built, will last longer, and do what they are designed to do in a very good manner, for a long time.

Ditto what everyone else has said. My K100 takes exceptional photos, and has lasted close to 30 years. In 30 years your EOS500 will probably not be working at all. The lens is also a big part. The low end Canon 35-80 is much lower quality than a Pentax 50mm f1.4. And rarity is also a factor-there are way more point and shoot SLR's out there than vintage manual SLR's, so the old ones will sell for more.

As a regular camera equipment seller i can tell you thet the K1000 tends to bring the best prices out of those three-mostly because of it's cult following as mentioned above.I personally don't agree with the popularity of the K1000-you can buy better pentax models for less money for example.

<BR>The eos 500 is still an easily tradable camera too,as it is allmost the same as the current bottom of the range eos.It is also one of the first reliable eos models-the previous models had the shutter goo problem.Interestingly i've never seen an eos rebel/etc made after '95 that has problems.They may not last as long as the K1000 but they are at least reliable for a good number of years

Thanks to all for answers, it does help clear the air.

However... I disagree with lens quality. Many moons ago I owned an OM10 with a Zuiko 50mm 1.4 and in comparison to Canon's 50mm 1.8 MKII, I'd say the Canon "plastic fantastic" took better pictures. So the Olypmus got ditched.

 

Stu :)

You didn't ask about the Zuiko 50mm f1.4 compared to a Canon 50mm.

 

You asked about a pretty good Zuiko zoom or an OUTSTANDING Pentax 50mm compared to Canon's worst, cheapest junk kit zoom. Canon makes excellent prime 50mm lenses. That's NOT what you asked us about.