Depreciation in value of D100, time to upgrade?

[evan_litvin2]

Hello, I've had my D100 going on 3 years and now that the D200 has been announced and

is on its way, I have noticed (naturally) a decline in the value of the D100. I love this

camera, it was my first new camera body and it was a gift (possibly the best gift I've ever

received). I have been around the world with this camera and it has captured many great

memories. That being said, I am trying to decide if I should sell it now while I can still get

some decent money for it. I dont want to hold on to the camera for sentimental reasons

and find out a year from now that it is worth nothing. I am sure once the D200 arrives, the

D100 will lose even more value. How many of you people are getting rid of your D100's?

Judging that this camera was 2000.00 bucks when it was new and now its worth maybe

800 if I'm lucky, I'm scared that if I wait longer, I won't even really be able to sell it in order

to upgrade. Right now I'm thinking about going 1 of two ways, selling the D100 and

replacing it with a D200 while keeping the Nikon system OR selling the entire Nikon

system and go Leica M and pick up an 8 mp digital point and shoot.

 

Basically, I'm just looking for some advice on whether or not its worth it to hold onto the

D100 or upgrade it... Any opinions? Thanks

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

Dump it, or keep it as a back up. Probably lost too much value already to expect good prices but who knows try the bay, or put it on the clasifieds here, with all the buzz of the D200 i wouldn't expect to much. $800 USD would be good money I sold my last D100 with grip and card 6 months ago for around that money.

 

3 years same digi body is good usage mine are lucky to last 18 months.

 

Leica M or D200? totally different your call.

[bruno]

Eh eh... chosing between D200 and Leica M is really a strange. The funny thing is that sometimes I have exactly the same thoughts... I didn't use digital until now, so I'm in a different position.

[evan_litvin2]

yea, I admit the differences couldn't be bigger between Leica M and Nikon D200.... I'm just

thinking that I am at a crossroad right now, and if I'm going to go in a new direction, now is

the time.

[lex_jenkins]

I gotta admit, before adding a D2H to my arsenal (F3HP, FM2N, N6006, just to name the Nikons), I seriously pondered a Leica M series. I even considered getting rid of most of my other 35mm gear in favor of something a bit smaller and lighter. So your notion doesn't seem outlandish to me.

 

But I just couldn't get the hang of the rangefinder focusing. Some folks find it very natural. Not me. I've owned several compact consumer grade fixed lens rangefinders and still enjoy my Canonet and Olympus 35 RC. But I can't focus quickly with 'em no matter how much I practice. And I couldn't do any better with an M2, M3, M4, M6 or new MP.

 

The D2H was a better choice. In the short run it saves me money for events when I'd otherwise shoot lots of film (local sports stuff, mostly). I plan to run it into the ground ... just curious to see how long it really will last. But I'll still use film for my "serious" b&w photography.

 

Anyway, I'd hang onto the D100 as a spare. Resale value will probably be disappointing but you may find it handy having a backup dSLR. I seldom go on any shooting expedition that's important to me (or anyone else I happen to be shooting for) without at least one backup. For a NASCAR race the other day I took the D2H and an Olympus 35 RC compact rangefinder. Never used the Olympus but it didn't take up much room. For stuff like weddings I take three bodies. If I switched completely to digital for weddings, etc., I'd still want three bodies.

 

Which brings up another point - if you really would prefer to sell the D100, maybe you'll find someone who already *has* switched completely to digital for pro work and needs a backup body. So it's not like there isn't a market for a good used D100.

[rick_beets]

Sell the D100 if you can, but don't expect much for it. Otherwise keep it as a back up. I

kept my D1X after I bought the D2X because I wanted a back-up and I can't get a decent

price for it. Paid over 3500.00 for it and a year and half later I would be lucky to get

1000.00! Used to be you invested in Hasselblad or Mamiya, picked up lenses over the

years and when you wanted to upgrade your old body was still worth what you paid for it

or more. Now you have to consider the camera as a business expense with depreciation

etc. Most photographers today have to look at the numbers and decide if the new

acquisition is going to increase sales or at least pay for itself in a short time period

because it will soon be obsolete, same as computers. I haven't looked at the Leica in a

while, but I think the collector value is still pretty high, if you are looking for a longtime

investment, I think they still bring pretty good prices. As Dylan sang: "The times, they are

a changing..."

[edwardchen]

"...it was a gift (possibly the best gift I've ever received). I have been around the world with this camera and it has captured many great memories"

Your camera is, too, part of the memories. I think you already know the answer to the question.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Keep it as a backup or as a second body -- there is more value in having two bodies than

having to rely only on one. I love leica M cameras. Relatively small and inconspicuous,

great lenses etc. The problem if you travel a lot and shoot a lot is film. Film takes up a lot

of space and weight compared to Compact Flash cards. And you'll have the perrenial

expense of more film and processing. But of course with digital there is the bulk, weight

and cost of batteries and chargers. One thing about a D200/D100 system: do they at least

use the same charger if not also the same batteries?

[SCL]

You've already missed the sweet point by about 6 months to sell the D100 and capture much cash. The major depreciation has already taken place. You're better off keeping it as a backup. And on the point of switching to a Leica M, you're probably not really going to readily adapt to the nuances of the change if you haven't been using rangefinders along with your D100. I see many whiny posts by people who cut their teeth on SLRs then get a RF and complain that they can't learn how to focus or frame properly or compose, or whatever, and regret their switchover. I generally recommend SLR users stick with SLRs, they are generally much happier that way.

[oceanphysics]

You really just need to make your own decision.

 

Yes, it's depreciated a lot, but that money is gone, and so irrelevant to future decision-making.

 

Yes, it will depreciate more. If it's worth $800 now it will probably be worth $400 to $500 a year from now. That's $25 to $33 a month in depreciation. Is it worth it to you to rent an extra body for that monthly amount for the next year or isn't it? It really isn't much money, spread over time.

[mawz]

Sell the D100, get a Voightlander R3a. The Leica's no better than an R3a and is several times the price. The R3a can use the good but massively overpriced Leitz glass as well as the Voightlander lenses which are superb and more reasonably priced.

 

This will allow you to get a D200 as well.

[john_spiers]

"The Leica's no better than an R3a "

 

Oh yes it is! The build quality alone is different class.

[tholte]

Use it for a travel camera! It takes good images and if you lose it, wreck it or get it stolen, no big deal.

[ilkka]

There are two values in a camera and both depreciate.

 

The monetary value of old digital bodies depreciates so fast that it is generally not worth selling an old body. If it remains in usable condition, keeping it is usually much better value than selling it. (And if it is not in usable condition, its resale value is even less.)

 

Then there is the usability value. Buying a D200 and keeping the D100 as backup would be a very good choice. Buying a Leica M may be good as well, but in that case I would keep the D100 instead of replacing it with a much less useful and poorer quality digicam. Leica M does not work well with long lenses (135 and above) or close-ups, and has no zooms. A D100 with a 50mm or 100 mm macro lens and maybe a long zoom would be a very good addition to an M system. Getting into the M system is going to be expensive, so getting a few hundred dollars for the D100 is not going to make a difference.

 

But why do you want an M system?

[evan_litvin2]

Well the reason I am considering moving towards Leica M is because I don't shoot

professionally, I shoot for my enjoyment and for classes. Photography is one of my core

concentrations of my major and it is basically all B&W darkroom work. Which I have come

to really enjoy. It forces me to step backwards and really think about the process. The

D100 is a lot of fun and ultra practical (aside from the weight of the gear), but I don't do

any professional journalistic work with it. I find that the work I am using it for is not my

more artistic work, its just basic stuff that I shoot for fun. I think there are some digitals

on the market right now that would serve this purpose very well for me...ie something I

can take with my climbing/snowboarding etc. and not have to overly worry about while

still getting decent quality work out of it. Unfortunately, I couldnt afford to keep it if I want

to upgrade. The 800 bucks from the D100 is a good portion of what I would put towards

the new system. One thing that I like about the Leica M6ttl (which is the one I am looking

at) is most likely not going to depreciate in value to the extent that the D100 has. I don't

have the money to keep pumping into the newest DSLR's yet in the same regard I can't

afford to let the 2000 paid for my D100 go to nothing when I could put it towards

something new and salvage some of the initial investment.

[bill_thorlin]

Does your D100 do the job you want it to do ? If yes - keep it, if no - change it for one that does.

 

It also depends somewhat on how you view this "probably the best gift I've ever received" camera - what price sentiment ?

 

New for new's sake is not to my mind a worthwhile concept although the camera companies would have us believe it to be paramount - don't get sucked in.

[vasilis]

If you think about it depreciation is not that important because it is going both ways. If your d100 worths now 700 and the new d200 1700 the difference is 1000 dollars. After 2 years, at the end of her life, the d200 will cost new 1200 and your d100 will sell for 200 so the difference is again 1000. It is clear though that if you want the d200 you better sell the d100 now and not do it after 3-4 months that the d100 will depreciate but the d200 will not. So really it depends if you feel the d100 is ok for you and will cover your needs for the next 1-2 years.

 

Personally I prefer digital and I prefer cameras that can do things automatically for me so a leica M would never be my choice. I like it a lot when I see it, but for practical reasons like try to load film when you are walking with a friend or drinking in a bar etc. etc. Nevertheless, if you like film and darkroom, I would be tempted to consider the leica. I suppose the only way is to handle one and see if it is ok with you. For me I think that the bigest advantage of leica (and not only leica but also all small digicams) is that it is silent.

[ilkka]

I seriously doubt you can get 800 for the D100. Why would someone pay more for such an old body than a new D50, 350D or 5D? How much would the digicam you replace it with cost? 300? 500? That is almost the value of your D100 already. Your D100 will serve you well for another 3-5 years if not more, but it would be foolish for a new owner to pay the price of a new body for it.

 

Since money is an issue, why not look at Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder bodies instead of Leicas. Much smaller investment and still very usable. Their lenses are good value, too. If you later decide to get an M6 you can use the Bessa as a backup or trade it in for much smaller depreciation than any digital.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In a bar I use my Noctilux I got used for 400; and my first M3 that I got for 130 bucks. Neither has required a CLA. The shutter speed can be set in total darkness by feel of the shutter speed wheels notch. There are no batteries to worry about; no software. Hold on to your older Photo gear; it is usefull as a KNOWN backup. Welcome a price drop; you want a good value if you buy for a lifetime of usage.