Loss of value

Purchasing a new equipment did yoiu ever think about loss of value of it over the years? What if you splurge sometimes... you buy a new digital MF camera like Pentax 645Z + 150/2.8 or FF MILC Canon RF + new RF 85/1.2 L (2700 USD for a lens) and other lenses or a new Leica M10 to take photos of... flowers, pets, people next door or on the street, casual models, just for your pleasure? Did you think that you must be thrifty getting top grade equipment not for your profession as a tool, but just for pleasure/prestige? The full top class kit might be 7000 dollars these days (and more with Leica) but as long as it is new. The hobby might be kinda expensive? I know some people get a rather medium-to-high class bodies, take 2000-4000 frames/shots and lose interest to photography. Then they put it all on E**y to sell it. I know most of you are seasoned, dedicated photographers, but still, do you ever think of value loss? Any thoughts?

Dilettantes following the latest fad have provided me with a lot of high quality, barely touched equipment. Even so, it's not necessarily inexpensive, but I'd rather pay the money than settle for something which might fail before obsolescence.

 

Loss in value is not necessarily bad. Equipment used in a professional application can be depreciated. The loss in value is deducted from your gross income, reducing your taxes. Anything you get for it in the end is added to your income, or if you donate it to charity, you can deduct the present value and the depreciation is forgiven.

 

If you can afford it, there's nothing wrong with buying things that give you pleasure. Guitarist Andres Segovia was asked "Why do you play everything so fast?" He responded, "Because I can."

As an amateur, I've found that buying already depreciated equipment is the way to go. As Ed mentioned, above, it is different for professionals.

I'm probably the wrong person to answer this question since I don't remember the last time I bought a brand new camera or lens. In fact I'll buy broken stuff because I have fun fixing it.

 

If someone can afford a brand new Leica and decides after 6 months that they're really not that into photography, -well, if it didn't keep them from paying the rent, impact their retirement savings, or prevent them from buying something that turned out to be more useful, I guess it doesn't matter.

 

When it comes to cars, I think people have come to accept the loss of value. It's not an investment but more just a cost associated with their lifestyle. For a professional, or even a hobbyist, camera equipment could be seen in the same way. Just as computers can. Camera technology does change faster in the digital age, so I do think things lose value more quickly than maybe they did in the past.

 

Of course, you can turn that value loss to your advantage if you don't need the latest and greatest and buy 2nd hand.

 

Right now I'm much more into old film cameras where values don't necessarily go down. If I want something in particular that's enjoying a new found popularity the question for me is, - do I wait and hope I can find a more reasonable price or buy it now since the prices might even be higher down the road?

 

My current interest is a Fujica GS645. Working versions cost $400+ on eBay and prices seem to have risen just in the last few weeks. Yet I know that there are probably hundreds of them either working or with minor problems sitting unused in a box someplace and the owner would be happy to part with them for little or nothing. So I wait.

Edited July 20, 2019 by tomspielman

I am not a professional and I do think about loss of value. When the Nikon Df was introduced I knew I wanted it but I was willing to wait for as long as it took to get a brand new one for a lower price. After a month of thinking I made a guess that the price of the Df would not drop so I bought one. For example if I wanted a D850 I would wait until about now to buy one.

If I were a professional, which I am in different field, then the tools and their depreciation has to be weighted to amount of money that can be gained from owning them.

As an amateur, I've found that buying already depreciated equipment is the way to go. As Ed mentioned, above, it is different for professionals.

I have nothing against depreciated especially from good careful hands. But my rule is to buy it if there is a service nearby and the camera is still serviced (parts are available). Still I have a negative experience from buying second hand gear, so I buy new now. Though I admit buying second hand especially classic film gear. I can afford a new Pentax 645z with a simplest 75/2.8 and I dig that lens's 3d rich rendering BUT I understand I will not be able to refund it and I will use it for pleasure only and never print A1 never need 51 Mpix. For presentation online and you know it, 1-2 Mpix is more than enough. I just like this work of art (the camera), maybe it will be the last digital MF SLR . I am an amateur now. I don't shoot a lot. I am extremely careful about the gear. My 10-year old Olympus E-420 was sold in super mint condition in spite it had clicked 70000... So I am ruminating.... over it... Should I take the plunge?

Edited July 20, 2019 by ruslan

After a month of thinking I made a guess that the price of the Df would not drop so I bought one.

The price on it has at last dropped in Moscow official Nikon store it is 135000 RUR. 2000 dollars.

Edited July 20, 2019 by ruslan

Buy what you can afford (amateur or professional) and learn how to use it to its maximum potential. When you think you have maxed it out, buy something you think may help you improve your work and start all over again. My philosophy is simple and I feel that I get my money's worth out of every photo item I buy. I have had my D750 for four years and I still haven't come close to using half of its features. There is no way I would spend $3,000 for a new D850 body because it would be over kill to what I want to accomplish in my never ending photo journey. A friend of mine is going to buy the new Fuji MF camera for $10,000 and I think that's great because he can justify it for what he wants to do. I am cheap, always have been and I don't want to change. My opinion only!

I think all my major kit (including batteries !) is second-hand, but I've managed to get a reasonable set-up for probably 1/10th of its original retail 'value' (= cost), merely by trawling ads, being patient and only getting what I really wanted. Over the past year or so, I have bought (at around £8 to £12 each) a selection of Tamron adaptall lenses, which I can use on my Pentax digital bodies. Just bought a good condition Nikkormat FTN for £7.50 - and of course, they also fit that, so I've basically got another complete system virtually free.

 

Now waiting for a Nikon F2 photomic at £35 or less !

 

Wish I could set up a darkroom again, but alas - no room, and nowhere I could black out.

The price on it has at last dropped in Moscow official Nikon store it is 135000 RUR. 2000 dollars.

 

When I was in Japan in last April the price was about $2000 USD too. But not in the US nor Europe. My guess is that Nikon drops the price in the country they can expect to sell the most of them. They discount almost everything else heavily in the US.

Dilettantes following the latest fad have provided me with a lot of high quality, barely touched equipment.

 

These are often medical personnel in the USA.

 

I have one early Kodak-Nikon digital (the specs of which are still respectable) that once sold new for something like US$35,000. I bought it for around $200 and probably overpaid. o_O

I usually buy DSLR bodies new since I use them heavily but have bought a number of lenses that were used. So far, my experiences have been good--the only lens I have had to have repaired in the last 10 years is one that I bought new that was still under warranty. It took Pentax two months to return it since they needed to import parts from Japan, so I wound up buying a used, older version to use while I waited for it to come back since it is a lens that I use regularly in my studio.

If you can afford it and want it why not. Who cares about value, if it's for personal pleasure. Speed limit on the city road is the same for everybody, still some prefer drive Ferrari, some BMW and some love their Honda Civic.

I sometimes think about gain in value but only on stuff like the couple of Leica lenses I have. I know from friends that buy and sell equipment as their wants/needs seem to change, often time end up going for the same Leica lenses they sold a while ago, and end up paying 2-4 times as much as to replace them. Mostly because digital cameras and adopters has made these lenses valuable again. But as far as most anything else, digital cameras will highly depreciate and cameras like this are not investments I would think.

All of my cameras were purchased for a small fraction of their introductory prices, in almost new condition. I plan to keep them until they become conversational pieces. So when I think of the degree and duration of enjoyment, they are actually very inexpensive. My images may not be cutting edge, but they're still very enjoyable.

The price on it has at last dropped in Moscow official Nikon store it is 135000 RUR. 2000 dollars.

 

It seems that you are in Moscow so do they sell mercury batteries there?

do they sell mercury batteries there?

I don't know for sure, maybe Alibaba? Personally I don't use mercury cells.

While I'd love to sell some of my photos, I shoot for me instead of for money. But no, I don't think about loss of value because I don't plan on selling my gear. I also don't buy new stuff often and I plan on really using it when I do buy something. I don't think about trade-in value of cars either. I drive enough miles per year that my cars are never worth much as a trade. I enjoy them myself while I have them.

Purchasing a new equipment did you ever think about loss of value of it over the years?

 

I sure did, for about 40 years: diligently I depreciated the book value then at the end of their book life the business sold those items, often to me - same with cars and all other business assets.

 

Now I don't do that: I buy what I want to use and what I can afford, I don't even think about loss of 'value'.

 

Also on another a point, I think that a professional (defined here as a "person charged with running a Photography Business) should NOT buy "what he can afford", he should buy what is in the best interests of the Business.

 

The bases for personal and business purchases, are different.

 

WW

Over my years as an amateur and a profession photographer and musician I have always loved the used market. Almost all of my professional cameras, from my first RB67's to my current D7000's and D7100's have been used. The same goes for lenses, flash gear, some of the cases that I pack them in and cars that I transport them in. Letting others take the depreciation caused by opening the box.

 

BTW: As a professional, you can take depreciation on used gear at the same rate as new.

. . . BTW: As a professional, you can take depreciation on used gear at the same rate as new.

 

That may be so for your situation, but it does depend upon the Tax Laws applicable locally. Tax Laws are not universal.

 

WW

No big deal, but I misspoke about my "most depreciated" cameras, The one is actually based on Canon

Kodak DCS 560 & Pro SLR

 

One of these days I'll be getting around to a 'formal' report on them.

Rutland, No one sees my gear or understands it so for there is little prestige. It’s for pure pleasure only. As an amateur I do not have to justify cost but photography for me is a creative outlet. I get to rub shoulder with interesting people. My friends who are professional have to justify every dime and as well have to shoot current models of recognizable brands such as Nikon and Hasselblad that will satisfy their clients until they have to move up to a newer model. I could say something about the condition of my friends gear because of all the use. I can afford what I want but I often buy used glass or a refurbed body and I drive a 2003 truck and continue to work after a first retirement because I love my non photographic field of work and I like the additional income for my camera addiction and trip. As far as depreciation the rules of the road changed when digital came along and bodies became obsolete much more rapidly. I have to accept that. I still shoot my old bodies. The flip side is that a young person can buy a d3400 or equivalent rebel with two lenses for less that the same price that would be a very basic and featureless film camera from 1995. That camera has image quality that will knock your socks off. My first autofocus camera after using an F2As and a Nikkormatt for many years was a N70 film body for $575. In order to check depth of field I would unlock the lens and rotate it clockwise and after checking then rotate it back until it locked back on. Forget mirror lock up. My D2x is worth a couple hundred bucks but I had the time of my life with it underwater. I enjoy using and I am keen to acquire newer bodies and will very occasionally push the limits of their capability. It has not been a passing fancy and as I am moving to Virginia next week I already have plans for a blind in my back yard. Some folks will spend a few thousand dollars to go to the Catskills and listen to a lounge lizard act while inebriated others will go to Las Vegas and drop $300 a ticket to hear Celine Dion sing her heart out. Me, I just want to be outside and take pictures of rabbits and squirrels with $14,000 worth of hardware that will depreciate within a few years. Thank you mister squirrel. Stay frosty.

Speaking of cell phones..........

I usually buy used since I am on a budget. But I try to get use out of the gear and expect it to be used up in the work. If I bought new gear, put it on the shelf, never used it and it lost 90% of its value, sure I would feel bad. (Unless rich, then would not care.)