Would it be financially prudent to start selling off most of my film cameras and gear now?

This is really a question being sensible, aimed at all you gear

heavy listers...

 

The question is would it be financially prudent to start selling off

most of my film cameras and gear now? Yes, I know the correct answer

is that it would have been financially prudent to do so 2 years ago,

but leaving aside a chrome M6 and chrome lenses they'll have to pry

out of my hands, what do you think? After all, how many customers is

one going to have for a Leica 1.25 magnifier in the year 2010.

<br><p>

 

You see, this announcement about the latest <a

href=http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0128_01.htm> Nikon

wundercamera, the N70 </a>(1/500 sync!144 shots in a row!lousy

sounding viewfinder!), got me thinking that the bell just tolled

again for film.

Mani,

 

(a) How come? Time for digi?

 

(b) Check and store the choices and prices here on this forum and also on eBay for a while, then you've got better statistics of what's coming and going.

I personally think that the "bubble" in prices for classic manual focus RF gear has deflated somewhat from two-years ago when "EBay-Mania" hit. Prices soared on anything hard to find when everyone's inheritance, attics, basements, junk drawers, etc opened up to collectors. The price decline denotes reality settling in that this equipment is available, and still in manufacture.

 

This is occurring at the same time when digital has caught the mainstream. If you have a collection of film cameras, and want to recoup some of the money spent, either use them as they should be used, or sell them at a loss. They will not likely go up in value. Kind of like Silver when the Hunt Brothers blew a billion dollars trying to pump the price up.

 

But all of the "dooms-Day" of film going away, cameras being useless, if you believe that "----", No. Just check the prices on EBay. Reality settling in, not Dooms-Day coming.

 

Hey, does anyone remember when LED watches were going to make those little analog hands obsolete? Remember the Columbo episode? And we should all be in flying cars because it is the 21st Century?

 

And when people said film would be gone because of Digital Cameras? For me, THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO!

digital cameras are getting better, film sales are (and have been) decreasing 12-15% a

year, Leica is getting into digital (courtesy of Panasonic), medium format pros are

dumping their equipment in favor of DSLRs and digital backs to 645 cameras... decide

for yourself.

Yes, dump it all now. I'm offering $500 for any mint M6TTL body, $700 for any M7. By the end of Feb, those prices are likely to be half, so sell Now!

I guess that depends on what type of film cameras you have and how much you "need" the money right now. Face it, film will be around for 20+ years as a consumer item and much longer as a specialty item. There is a HUGE installed base of film cameras and users who do not want to go to digital and all the complexity and expense entailed.

 

I think that the market for high-quality, classic film camera like Leicas, Nikon, or Canon's top models (and others) will remain strong for many years to come. Middle-of-the-road cameras and brands have already had their prices hammered by the market and the also-rans will continue to fall. MF gear will continue to get slammed as people find fewer and fewer uses for the large negatives. I can't see MF film gear going a whole lot lower, maybe 20-30% over the next 2-3 years? But the market for new film gear is really shrinking fast. No intelligent manufacturer is sinking significant R&D dollars into film camera technology unless it's cross-compatible with a digital option.

 

Decide what you want to do photographicaly and then alter your gear inventory accordingly. Me? I sold a large volume of Olympus OM cameras last fall as I see a DSLR as better fitting my needs for most of my photography. But I kept an OM kit, my Leica M kit, and the MF gear.

Sell everything and buy golf clubs... ;>)

Everyone is also overlooking the fact that 10 years from now there may be even newer technology that supplants digital photography as we know it today. If we live long enough we're all going to shoot with the newer technology eventually...even if we hang on to our Leicas. That seems pretty obvious, don't you think?

If you used your gear for photography you wouldn't be asking this question. Who

cares what it will be worth in two or ten years if it performing a vital function right

now.

Trying to give advice, make up your decision if you want to sell, or if you want to keep using your film gear. I'd say sell it now if you want to sell it. It is hard to tell if prices will settle anytime soon, and even harder to preview at what point they will settle.

 

Sooner or later the market will stabilize, when the leicas have been sold to fund dslrs, and new collectors and users buy again. Have a look at the super8 or even 16mm market, the cameras are still being traded, in a very low pricerange compared to their original prices, but it is a stable, consolidated market.

 

Say good bye to your "investments", prices will go downhill a long way until then. This weekend I monitored five summicron 2/50 auctions, they hardly rose above 200�.

 

My guess: in the summer, you'll get 500� for a M6, and decent lenses(before current generation) will be between 150� and 300�

Unless you use your cameras to earn an income, it is indeed financially prudent to sell your film cameras now - and even more prudent not to have bought them in the first place.

 

For amateurs, cameras are not investments, no more than toy trains, camping equipment, DVD players, chess boards or pop science literature. Is it financially prudent to buy a couple of DVD movies?

 

If you don't use your cameras any more either for making pictures or for fondling, by all means sell them, they have lost their value to you. If you do use them, selling them will prevent you from that use, it's your choice.

 

For professionals, cameras are investments only in terms of what income they can generate, just like any other tool. It doesn't take much income to counterbalance the decreasing used prices, if prices do decrease, but if they've already been replaced, then that's it, out it goes.

 

(The Leica purchase excuse of cameras as investments "they can be sold for as much as they cost you" has never been anything but an excuse, supported by a bit of anecdotal evidence, but not really an argument in favour of using a couple of thousand dollars on expensive equipment, when that money would surely give a greater profit if left in the bank)

<<If you used your gear for photography you wouldn't be asking this question. Who cares what it will be worth in two or ten years if it performing a vital function right now.>>

 

 

John if you'd said "used your gear professionally" I would agree with you, but for an amateur for whom the gear doesn't make money, even if he uses it the money might be a big issue. A more practical approach would be to ask yourself is, if you lost every penny, if it depreciated to zero in the future, would it be worth it to you to have it to use in the meantime? If yes, then keep it. If not, sell it now. Prices for used film gear aren't going to go up, only down. The question of how far how fast is the only thing debatable.

The mob hysteria spreads. ( Just an observation).

 

Anyway Mani, depends on what you have in terms of film based equipment. IMO, if

you are worried about no film available, then cameras like an Pentax 6X7 may be a

problem to use later, and end up being a paper-weight. But any modular MF system

like Hasselblad is easily converted to digital. I made that move years ago, and my

commercial work paid for it quite fast (instead of paying for film and processing, I

now charge a "digital capture fee" (i.e. make money,don't spend money).

 

While it is true that Pros are selling off MF gear in favor of the newer DSLRs, it is

wedding shooters and advanced amateurs primarily driving that. It isn't true in the

commercial sector as much. Medium format digital solutions out perform any DSLR

for the same reasons MF film did. As the MF digi backs improve, the previous models

become available for less cost than a Canon 1Ds body. A pal of mine just picked up a

645C Kodak Proback for $6.500. On his Contax 645 there is no contest between it

and our Canon 1Ds cameras & their CMOS sensors. The ProBacks 4X4, 16 meg CCD

offers both a bigger sensor and more megs... the bigger CCD sensor being the

operative advantage... i.e. more real-estate, just like with film.

 

I also opted out of dead end systems like the Leica R as soon as DSLRs reached a

decent image quality. But the decision was based on lenses not bodies. That's where

the real investment is. Being stuck with a body is one thing, a whole system of lenses

is another. Canon is where I landed as they are clearly murdering everyone else in the

digital market place. But I just invested in a Canon 1V film body also. I still like film

for many applications and I can use all the L lenses I've invested in either with film or

digital... same as with my MF Hasselblads, Contax 645 or RZ systems.

 

Film can completely disappear and the only obsolete kit I'll be stuck with is my M.

But since I use the Ms almost exclusively for B&W work, I don't believe they'll be

obsolete in my lifetime (please, no intention of starting another "film is dead" sub-

thread here).

When the McIntosh factory rep came through town one year, they said that there wouldn't be any more vacuum tubes and I should trade in my tube equipment on solid state.

 

That was about 20 years ago. Today the McIntosh gear I have is worth about 1/10 what I paid, the gear I traded in is worth about 10 times what I got.

 

Silver Halide is not going anywhere. Digital photographers are transitioning to taking their pictures to the drug store. (18 cents for a 4x5 try that with ink jet or dye sub.) Billions of dollars are being invested in mini-labs that use lasers to write to triditional photo paper because that is the best, fastest and cheapest way to get a lasting, water resistant color print.

 

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/minilabs/

 

I suspect that this trend may increase triditional photo paper production instead of decreaseing it. Kodak is crosways with Wallgreens and has let Fuji take the mini-lab market and run with it so yes, for them the cart may be in the ditch, that doesn't mean film is going away.

 

Photographic film is paper on a transparant backing.

 

Beyond that, making film isn't makeing vacuum tubes. It is simple. I suspect that a market 1/1000 the size of the one today would support several factories.

 

I also expect to see a return to film. Digital was over sold.

 

"You can make prints at home" Sure if you can afford the ink cartrages, don't mind green people, don't mind that they smear when wet and don't have a life".

 

Save money on film.

 

Let's see: batteries, memory cards, ink cartrages, obsolete cameras, obsolete computers, paper that costs a dollar a sheet...

 

Lag time, write time, blown highlights, blocked shadows.....

 

Obsolence...good greef charlie brown, I just brought it..

 

Reliability...Do an auction search on "Camera as is", "Camera not working" or "Camera parts" and read the discriptions. About 2/3s of the listings are digital. Considering that they have been around in volume for about 5 years and 35mm film cameras have been around for 50 you have to wonder why so many people are willing to sell a 3 year old $500 new digital camera for $20 or $30 as is.

 

Humidity...every digital camera on the boat about 8 had humidity related problems on the last day of a 12 day trip, during my last vacation, and most of them were high end, going all the way up to the top of the line Nikon.

 

Resolution. I can take a photograph of an unfolded newspaper (the whole sheet) with an Argus C3 and read type that is smaller than 1/10 of a milimeter on the negative. You need at least 5 meg, probably 10 to capture that much detail with digital. (Try that with your digital camera.)

 

http://truckgenerator.com/subdomain/sueandneal/new_page_9.htm

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why I would trade my Argus C3 for a top of the line Nikon digital, but sell your film cameras if you want. But trust me, 20 years from now you will regret it as much as I do tradeing in my tube equipment, which is probably now sitting in some living room in Tokyo.

If he is a photographer, what is he supposed to use to make photographs? I have four

M bodies, multiple lenses and tons of dodads. All of it gets used: most regularly,

some occasionally. Its value to me is in what it can do for me. I do have some

sentimental stuff: my first this or that or my father's gear, etc.

 

Could I use the 15 to 20 grand I have invested? I suppose so. BUT, I ask again, how

am I supposed to make photographs then?

No. No. No.

Heck the lowering of prices is a GOOD thing! It means I have more money for film and

processing. My wife would gladly buy any and all the Leica catalog if I would just stop

exposing film!

 

:-)

Yes, sell them all... the world is ending! O woe is me!

Yes. Prices of used film cameras are falling and will continue to fall for a L O N G time. Leicas will continue to fall too, sorry to tell you folk. In 5 years you won't be able to give away that Nikon N50, but Leicas certainly won't fall that drastically. But if you're looking at your Leicas as an investment, GET OUT NOW. If you actually USE your cameras and they give you enjoyment, and you don't give a damn what they're worth 20 years from now, KEEP THEM. But I see the same 20 people here debate the same question as it comes up every 6 hours or so on this forum, and they all have 4 or 5 Leicas. That tells me no one is out actually using them. So, I'm sure all of you are sweating it out with regard to your precious monies you have "invested". Hell, you had to justify to yourselves and everyone else in the world all along that you're doing the right thing by spending thousands on Leicas. It's even more worrisome now that film in general is threatened, isn't it?. What will you say to your spouse, your friends, the other shooters you come across who have the latest Canon DX 156xx?

 

In 10 or so years I see film users being viewed upon as a curiosity by the then 20-somethings. Hell, 20-somethings now won't consider anything but a digital, face it. We'll all be 100 years old and in no manufacturer's demographic for sales marketing and we'll be swept aside. Bottom line- if you care at all about the money invested, sell your multiple bodies and keep your favorite. If you care A LOT- get out completely. If you're happy and don't care about resale at all, you're probably out shooting and not reading these threads anyway!

Mani, if you look at your photo gear collection as a portfolio, you are already screwed financially. Except for the extremely rare collector piece, all photo gear, no matter whether it is long lasting Leica, or short lasting Voigtlander, is an investment with a negative return. In other, it is not an investment at all, but an expenditure. You blew the money when you bought the stuff, so enjoy it and forget about it.

 

 

It is easy to prove the fallacy. Let's take the case of a classic Leica, which is legendary for "holding its value." How many times have you hear someone brag that the M3 they bought in 1955 cost $500, and is now "worth more than I paid for it!"

 

Horsesh*t. First of all, that $500 in 1955 is really $3,474.25 in 2004 dollars. Add to that the cost of CLA's and repairs over the years. Secondly, if that $500 had been put into the stock market, it would be worth about $11,000 today not counting the dividends received. So the total cost of ownership in today's dollars is probably near $10,000 (or $20,000 if you compare it to having put the money into the stock market), and whether the camera is worth zero today or even $2000 makes very little difference in the bottom line number, which is NEGATIVE!

 

And that's the BEST case of a non-collector camera. You shouldn't deceive yourself. When you buy a piece of gear, the money is spent, the same as if you'd gone to a restaurant or blown it on a vacation. If someday you get something back from selling it, that's merely salvage value.

 

So keep whatever you like using or fondling. Sell or give away whatever you don't need. And forget about any "investment aspect" to photo gear ownership -- there isn't any. And forget about whether prices fall fast or slow. It doesn't make any difference.

 

 

This truth also proves the idiocy of buying cameras and keeping them locked in safes rather than using them. Unless you get lucky and buy something which collectors are crazy about 20 years ago (like a '50's MP), you will ALWAYS lose money. If you have a piece of gear, you should use it and enjoy it. The fact that you put scratches on it and wear it out does not really make any significant difference in how much it costs you in the end.

Absolutely, sell it all, and FAST.

 

Then you can take some extra cash and add it to the pitiful sum from your film cameras and get a digital wundercam. You know it will improve your photography since the pictues are free !!

 

Of course, five or six years from now your digital investment will be worth virtually nothing, like the $17,000 Kodak/Nikon 2.3 MP wundercam I bought the other day at my local camera dealer for $50. (Stripped off the digital crap, put on a regular back and ended up with a clean N90s for a total investment of $80, but I guess that just proves I'm not a wise buyer since it's no longer digital.)

 

At that same distant point in time, the poor sucker who bought your Leica will have something worth about the same price he paid for it, and he will still be able to produce images that rival anything the wundercam of the day can produce...... and do it without batteries or a computer.

Between 20 and 30 years ago the "slr world" moved to a great extent first from screw-mount to bayonet mount, and then to autofocus. The prices of "then obsolete" gear was minimal, 42-screw then m/f lenses could be picked up for virtual peanuts ... just look at the prices of the better quality stuff now ... Takumars, Fujinons, or whatever fetching ridiculous? prices ... because it really was good!!

 

The same will be true once the "digital revolution" is over. The realisation that just because it's "new" doesn't mean it's better will strike home and true quality will have real value again ... for those who didn't sell off in a rush.

Video almost took over from Super-8 film - but only 'almost'. Super-8 film sales are reported to have been on a steady increase over the last few years after the initial dramatic fall. Even Standard-8 film sales are on the increase now after a long lull.

 

Why? Because some people just like using film. Decide whether you like digital or film (or both) and use what you want to use.

 

Best,

Helen

Chris,

 

What do you mean by "once the digital revolution is over"? Do you think that the revolution will collapse, and everyone will run back to film??!!

Helen,

What's a "steady increase" mean with regard to Super 8 film? I know of no one who'd still use that format. I think the film numbers will eventually mimic Super 8 usage (or 33 1/3 LP sales) when it gets nearly impossible for everyone to not go digital, whetether if its for the technical improvements, or the ease of use, or the fact that manufactureres will abandon film and film cameras and force everybody to go the digital route. Yes, you can buy super 8 film and vinyl records, but are the makers of them making it easy for the masses to buy them? I think not.