Jump to content

How low the (prices of) the mighty have fallen


yog_sothoth

Recommended Posts

<p>Who here remembers 2005? It was an amazing year for Canon. They came out with the 1Ds Mk II and the 5D, both amazing full frame digital SLRs capable of producing high quality professional images. The 1Ds MkII cost about $8,000 and the 5D cost about $3300. </p>

<p>Well, fast forward a few years and a few models, and now the 1Ds Mk II goes for about a grand used and the 5D is around $650 depending on condition. (The APS-C cameras have also dropped a lot, but the new APS-C cameras are really inexpensive as well.) While the newer models are simply much better cameras and worth the premium, it is an interesting time in the used camera market. I am looking forward to the year 2020 when the 5D MKIII will be $600.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't hold their value like film bodies. Interestingly the consumer models seem to have fallen just as badly (e.g. Rebel

XTI from $800 to $150 in a year less). It seems that the rapidly replaced CSC bodies are falling even faster than DSLRs.

There does not appear to be any difference in this rapid depreciation pattern for most digital bodies although my Leica

appears to do better. The M8 is only slightly newer than the 1DsII and 5D but the $4800 body is still worth about $2000.

Heavy depreciation of almost 60% but not the 80% to 85% of the Canon models. Of course the 1DsII, 5D and M8 all still

take great photographs today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>They don't hold their value like film bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many people say this, but like so much that is said, it is backwards.</p>

<p>Most film bodies are selling today for the 'cost-of-a-pizza-or-two' except for a few of the most recent. A few years ago when I was buying models back to the EOS 650, I was usually paying no more than $30 or $40, sometimes even with a lens. If they have the Mark I version of the EF 50mm f/1.8 - <em>that</em> drives up the price, but not the body. Since EF lenses are still current, any film camera with desirable lenses will sell for more - but, again, not the body.<br /> Even in the later models, I paid only apx. US$150 for an EOS 3 and $90 for a Canon EOS 1 a couple of years ago. Most earlier FD cameras also sell for little.<br /> This is also true of Nikon, except that there are more "Nikon collectors", I think, so a few rare serial numbers or such will go for inflated prices.</p>

<p>A Canon D30, one of the very early digital cameras, is still going on eBay (sold prices) at around $70 to $150.<br /> Canon EOS 20Ds are going mostly in the $200-300 range. Later models for more.<br /> My efforts to get early Nikon digital cameras has also been thwarted by the higher cost of these compared to the older film bodies I have bought.</p>

<p>Leica is a world of its own, and those prices have almost nothing to do with "use values".<br /> <br /> And it is true that almost <em>all</em> old, used cameras bring very little in terms of their original prices (though you have to correct for inflation in the older models, of course).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Price doesn't matter because in 2020 you'll be complaining about how you can't afford $6000 for the 5D mk 17 which not only takes pictures for you, it calls all your friends' cell phones to let them know you made (or the camera made) a new picture. All images will be submitted to every available online storage or portfolio site and six art critics, minimum (Canon will guarantee this), will state your work is distinct and "fresh". Over the next decade you will make $3.22 on royalties from your images, although all of them will be public domain by then and resold to obscure third-world image agencies for $8.00 each.</p>

<p>Cheer up! The future is worse than we hope!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Talking about film cameras, it's the more modern-ish, consumer grade cameras that have really depreciated the most. There is sort of a middle ground between modern pro-level cameras and "vintage" cameras that are really going for pennies on the dollar. Nikon F-F6 & F100's, Canon F-1's, OM-1's, etc. all seem to command decent prices (though still much less than when new) while prices of the F75, F80's, T90's, etc are in the cellar. I recently bought a Nikon F with Photomic Tn prism (not in great condition, mind you) for $79. If I were to try to sell off my N75, I'd be doing good to get $20, even though the N75 is a much more capable camera, and in much better shape.</p>

<p>Medium format is feeling the same thing too. I recently bought a Mamiya M645 1000s and 2 lenses for less than 10% of the price when new (prices adjusted for inflation). Comparing prices of completed listings on eBay, that is an only slightly better than average deal. 'Blads, Bronicas, and most of the 6x7 stuff is still pretty expensive though.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Those early digital bodies have dropped a lot in value because the new bodies are much much better. Canon was still on the learning curve back then, but that curve has levelled off. CMOS technology has matured now. These days, new bodies are hardly an improvement over their predecessors. Take the T4i and T5i for instance. My prediction is that today's bodies will hold their value longer than those early digital bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think it's awesome that you can buy a camera which is capable of producing world class imagery for $650. The bottom line is that a 5D produces as good <em>or better</em> quality images today than it did in 2005 when it blew us all away with it's capabilities. </p>

<p>In fact I'd go so far as to say that for 95% of photography, a 5D is capable of producing imagery that is indistinguishable from a 5D3, <em>especially</em> in the medium most people view pictures these days. So I guess we can thank the 'latest <em>is</em> greatest' zombie crowd for making sure to sell off their utterly useless 'ancient' digital cameras for pennies on the dollar, because without them, a used 5D would still cost us $1100+.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Take the T4i and T5i for instance. My prediction is that today's bodies will hold their value longer than those early digital bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think price is based on utility. It's based on what's new and everyone wants and what's old and nobody wants. The T4i/T5i is like the 20D/30D. It's like adding a cupholder to a car for next year's model. Everyone wants the new one and the old one loses value just because there's a new one.</p>

<p>I'm not saying this is logical, I'm just saying it's the way things work. I'm still shooting with the original 5D, so I guess I'm not a follower of bleeding edge technology - or at least I'm too cheap to buy it most of the time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>These days, new bodies are hardly an improvement over their predecessors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The 24MP Nikon D7100 was quite a jump from the Nikon D7000 (16MP) in more ways than just pixel count. It had upgraded AF, upgraded video capabilities plus some other new features and firmware changes. <br>

<br /> <br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's awesome that you can buy a camera which is capable of producing world class imagery for $650.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> +1. The 5D1 is a very capable camera. And I would agree it's even more capable now than it was in 2005, because RAW processing has improved and will continue to improve.</p>

<p>I've moved to a 5D3, but I also use a 5D1 and 30D for photographing events, and they all take good pictures.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used to use a 1Ds Mk II for specimen and macro photography back in the day. While it was great, a Rebel T1i from the future would have been better. Tethered live view focusing and mirror lockup without using the menu system makes macro work 1000 times easier.</p>

<p>If one is not doing macro photography or video and AF sophistication is the most important thing, then a used pro body like the 1Ds Mk II is an interesting (if heavy) option. You can make a pretty big poster from the output of a 1Ds Mk II.</p>

<p>BTW, is the AF system on the 5d MK III the same as the 1Ds Mk II and the EOS 3? </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1923 O series Leica now sells for $2.8 million - seems like a good price for a 6 condition old film camera!

 

On a serious note quality film cameras seem to hold their value better than quality DSLRs

 

An EOS 1 V from 2000 sold for $1900 new and they still sell for $600 to $800 in good condition (KEH price). In contrast

the EOS 1DsII sold for $ 8000 in late 2005 and now sells for about $1000- $1100 on KEH. Both were quality professional

bodies.

 

Similarly a good Canon F1 sells for $300 to $600 and they were only $280 new in the early 1970s. Indeed even the New

F1 was about $450 in 1981. It was suggested that the T90 has plummeted like the DSLRs but the new price was about

$550 in 1986 and KEH starts at $180 today so in 27 years it has lost about two thirds of what it cost new. The 5D has lost

80% in only 7 years!

 

By the way all my old film bodies still work - even my F1, two New F1s and my pair of T90s (although others have had issues with the T90). I suspect that a 40+ year old EOS1D will not work like my 40 year old F1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>"+1. The 5D1 is a very capable camera. And I would agree it's even more capable now than it was in 2005, because RAW processing has improved and will continue to improve.

<p>I've moved to a 5D3, but I also use a 5D1 and 30D for photographing events, and they all take good pictures."</p>

<p>+2. I think the depreciation of digital cameras is highly analogous to PCs, for the same reasons. Both are now mature / maturing technologies, but the incremental improvements cast a pall on demand (and therefore pricing) of the older, used, discontinued models. The debut price of the 5DIII was actually <em>lower</em> than that of the 5DI in yen; it has only been the slide of the value of the dollar relative to the yen that resulted in a higher US price.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the 5DI to the 5DIII primarily for the better AF and low-light performance. I'm also appreciating a number of its new features, such as the Quick Control screen, available grid in the viewfinder and the built-in electronic level. I actually bemoan the higher resolution, which I rarely need, and shoot most of the time in mRAW or sRAW. (I only shoot in full RAW when I know I'm going to be cropping ... my longest reach is with a 70-200 + 1.4 TC.</p>

<p>But I still have and use my 5DI, and have no plans to part with either of them in the foreseeable future. I also have a 20D that I'm holding onto, since it isn't worth much on the used market, and I have a couple of nieces who have expressed interest in growing their photographic skills beyond pointing & shooting with their iPhones.</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The used market is all supply and demand, and is very hard to manipulate through advertising and controlled supply. As a result, weird things happen.</p>

<p>For instance, Minolta SRTs are worth almost nothing, unless you find one that is a 9 out of 10 or better. It doesn't matter if it's a good camera or not - there are so many of them out there that still work, that the market is flooded.</p>

<p>Minolta Maxxuum 7000s are also worth almost nothing. not only because there are a lot of them, but because it was an early use of of the LCD screen, and regardless of how amazing it was at the time, most of those screens have problems, or will have problems before too long.</p>

<p>The Minolta CLE is worth a ton. It was licensed from Leica, and it's almost the same as the Leica, but with an Aperture priority mode added. It sells for a few hundred dollars more than the Leica CL sells for, even though it doesn't say Leica, and uses the exact same lenses. Some of this is because of the extra mode, which is really useful. But it's mostly because Leica owners are more likely to keep their gear in good nick than Minolta users, so a mint condition CLE is a LOT harder to find than a Leica CL. In fact, a <em>working</em> CLE is a lot harder to find than a CL.</p>

<p>Canon hasn't 'fallen.' It's just that those cameras are too old for regular users to be interested, and too new for collectors to care about them. In another decade, some of them will start going up in value. Look at cars - the most expensive production car in the world is the Ferrari 250 GTO, and you can buy a new car for $30,000 that runs circles around it. My Taurus is only a little slower, and I've still got snow tires on it :)</p>

<p>Collectors don't actually care about how good something is.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Manufacturers have to recoup the money they spent on research and development, planning, engineering etc. Once that is done these cameras can go for cheap. but not until they have provided a hefty profit during their life-time. Once that is done the hefty profits can go into more research and development, planning, enginnering etc for a new mode, l usually at a higher price. I makes no sense for the manufacturer to put out a new model and keep an older model on the production line. So the older models deteriorate in price quickly after. However market demand plays a part on how much the price deteriorates. The 5DII was still very popular when the 5D III came out, that is why the price did not go down by much. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting to note that the prices of the 1Ds Mark III have not fallen nearly as much as other bodies. Probably because it still has some cachet as the highest-megapixel Canon DSLR. (Like how the 50mm f/1.0 lens is crazily expensive secondhand.) This means if you have a 1Ds Mark II, it is very hard to make a definite upgrade, since any other body will either be worse in some aspects (e.g. 5D3 has no interchangeable focusing screens) or cost a lot.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think this is funny in that I never hear much about how these older cameras stack up to the newer ones. I own a Nikon D1 (2) a D1H and a D1x all of them take great photos I have many that hang on walls and are 13X19 inches. A camera is just a tool and the new cameras make using it easier not better. These old cameras take great photos as do the Olympus E300's and the E1 so why replace them its the image not the tool.</p><div>00bTuG-527415584.jpg.6e439595a4554cb84ceb85174258ff77.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The devaluation of used digital cameras over the past 5-10 years is not a predictor for the next 5-10 years. Technology advances come in spurts, and DSLRs may not advance as fast in the next 10 years as they have in the past 10 years. The most recent Canon DSLR announcements provide a good example that big leaps in technology may not be ahead of us. I think the technology for DSLRs has matured now. If the future EOS 5D mk v is only incrementally better than the current 5D mk iii, the used older cameras will hold their value better. I did not feel that the EOS 20D met my needs when it came out (I kept shooting 35 mm slides) so I don't think it is grossly undervalued now either. The EOS 5Dii and 5Diii are great cameras now and most likely will be in 5 years from now.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One thing some people may be forgetting is that as a digital camera gets older it gets more difficult to repair. You can repair a 75 year old Leica because any watchmaker or precision machinist could fabricate new mechanical parts for it.</p>

<p>If the Digic IV processor in your (or my) EOS 5D dies how much longer do you think a replacement will be available (assuming it still is?). I'm sure Canon aren't making anymore and nobody else can. Probably most electronic repairs are board swaps rather than component swaps and I'm sure Canon aren't making circuit boards for older bodies either.</p>

<p>Have you tried to get a VCR repaired today? Old technology nay work fine, but when it breaks you may have problems.</p>

<p>Past the 5 year mark repairs can start to get tough and past the 10 year mark repairs may be impossible without canibalizing old cameras which have failed for a different reason.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I really don't expect a modern digital camera to last 50 years. The weak link will likely be the proprietary rechargeable batteries. They are likely not going to work amazingly well in a couple of decades and replacements will be challenging to find. That said, cameras from 2005 are hardly entering the unrepairable age and spare batteries are still available. </p>

<p>Looking at the electronics in cameras from the 1970's and 1980's, some seem to be holding up and some are not. It will be interesting to see which modern cameras last and which ones fail early. My no-electronics no-batterty Leica iiif will still work in 50 years if I keep it in good repair, although finding TMAX 400 film for it will probably be challenging in 2063. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't remember my T90 being cheap back in the day, neither was my A2E. I paid $1400 for my new 10D. Whether they are/were film or digital new cutting edge high end cameras are expensive.</p>

<p>Their prices drop as soon as they leave the showroom and drop even more depending on how many models old they are. I have usually waited till the model I want has been replaced by the newer model and get it for 20-30% off what I would have paid the year before.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another way to look at the situation is this: buying a digital camera is like buying a large batch of film. Instead of buying a new batch of film every couple of years, you buy a new camera. New films come out, and a leftover couple of rolls that have been sitting in the back of someone's fridge a couple of years isn't worth much on the used market.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I purchased an XSi and a T1i with some trepidation some 4-5 years ago and have followed the progression and parade of Rebels released since then. All subsequent models up to the newly released T5i seem like updates, some bigger some smaller. The shape is all basically the same, they're all black, bulky and industrial looking plastic. Very high techy that rolls out on a yearly basis. Back in the day of Canon's "letter" series film cameras, there was quite a big distinction between the A, T, and F bodies. I don't think anyone could mistake a T-50 with a T-90 for example. I have a feeling my A-1 which has been serviced recently will last a lot longer than today's digitals. Providing there is still film available. Perhaps I should buy a freezer, just for film. With that said I would like to upgrade my digital arsenal sometime later this year. The T5i looks interesting ... Canon obviously knows a sucker when they see one. Oh, and one more thing as Detective Columbo would say. Canon F-1 bodies, and latter day Nikon film bodies all seem to be holding their value, which is something to consider when buying new.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...