chuck_t Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Around 10 years ago, many considered the Leica M and Hasselblad kit were very expensive and not afforable. The cost was about US 2650 for the M6 with a 50mm lens which was as same as the Hasselblad 500CM kit. Now, looking into the digital system, Canon is selling their body for US 8000, Nikon is selling the D3 for US 5499, and the Hassy H3D is 20 grand. Pros are still buying them. The worst part is that digital machines do not hold any value. I do not mind to spend my money on any Rolex watches but I need to think twice on spending my money on a pro digital cameras. What I am saying is that I think camera companies need a solid plan to protect our investment on pro digital bodies so it does not become obsolete within three years. For example, a "trade-in program" like Valentine One company is doing for the expensive radar detectors. What it does is that we can upgrade our old Valentine One detector for a newer version one without paying the full price. A modular Nikon system would be nice, if there is a digital back that can be change and upgrade for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jclaice Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I was informed buy a fellow professional photographer that if you cannot recover the expense of a new camera within 6 months after the purchase of the said "new camera" your are buying "too much camera for your investment". At the time I thought he was a blowing smoke, I know share the same philosophy and after shooting with a D2x for just over a year I cannot wait until my D3 is delivered next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_prokopowicz Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Awesome point Chuck! The reality is that it's very lucrative for companies to NOT protect our investments. It's called "capitalism." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_276104 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Obviously camera manufacturers are doing quite well with the accelerated upgrade atmosphere we now have to endure. I have, however, wondered how much more they are having to spend on R&D to come up with the next great thing every year. I have a D2x, but shooting digital didn't change my life like some people. I was thinking of selling the body and getting a smaller, cheaper DSLR to carry on treks along with a film body. The last time I checked it had only 3,500 actuations in nearly 2 years, but the D2x has already been de-valued with the introduction of the D3, and it isn't even available yet. It's not worth losing $2,000+ on what I paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_Cooper11664875449 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 <i>What I am saying is that I think camera companies need a solid plan to protect our investment on pro digital bodies so it does not become obsolete within three years</i> <p> These "Camera Companies" are running a business where their objective is to maximise their shareholders value and not protect your investment. Hopefully, overtime both sides do converge. However, if you think about what youre asking for, theres not much on a DSLR body to be modular. With film it was somewhat different, you could keep changing the film type for years. In digital, apart from the viewfinder, not a lot would really lend itself to be modular. Even to go with a digital back, apart from adding excessive bulk, all youve really done is modularised the viewfinder. Probably not a lot gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedrek Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The benchmark for a digital camera isn't resale value, it's savings over film. How many rolls of film do you need to buy, develop and scan before you hit the $5500 MSRP of the D3. And how do you put a price tag on the time savings? The instant feedback? Even thought many of us use cameras as toys, they are (especially the ones you listed) professional equipment, designed, manufactured and sold as such. Buying/leasing gear is a business expense like any other. I don't expect the laptop I buy for $2500 today to be worth $2000 in 5 years - I'll be lucky to get $500 for it. Why should cameras be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 They should and this will eventually stop or slow as it becomes more and more difficult to make improvements. I think the digi revolution is half over, maybe more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I waiting a long time to go to digital because of the gross obsolescence factor that initially seemed to attend the industry. But now that I can make beautiful 16X20 and even 20x30 prints (that I don't have wall-space for) with my D200 I don't mind about the fact that newer, bigger, better machines will come... The thing that kept film cameras from becoming obsolete was that the base media was the film, not the camera itself. Now that sensors have gotten so good, and passed a certain threshold, then buying a DSLR isn't likely to end in major disappointment at the inevitable progress. To me a D300 is attractive, not because of the 12mp, but better autofocus/noise at high ISO -- but so what, I can live without these things for a long while. When I see $8K a pop wedding photographers shooting with 10 and 12MP cameras I feel the quality is now there to be worth a major investment for most other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Cameras are a tools that devaluate; not investments. <BR><BR>For a non-pro they have no return on investment; they are bought like a TV; lawnmower. They have a purpose but do not increase your income. Thus worrying about the NON- investment in a typical non pro situation is like worrying wether the new Britney CD is an investment; or buying an ipod; or a transformers toy; or 6 pack of beer. These products are consumed by consumers. Making them upgradable and modular would radically boost their pricing; fickle consumers won't pay 2 to 3 times extra for a LCD TV that can be upgraded in 2012; or a camera to be upgraded either. Digital cameras in the early 1990's were sometimes considered pro grade if VGA; and amateur if 1/4 VGA. Here I used a tethered VGA pro digtial once that cost many thousands. The 16 megs in one dream machine cost 1000 bucks later; many years after using that pro camera. Once we had a leased ISDN line for 600 bucks per month that was a cool 64k in speed; today a 56k dialup typically runs about 51k here on download. Once we bought a 286 for 5800 bucks. Once we bought a 468 beta unit to model magnettic recording for 10 thousand. One could have paid double these figures for a feel good programs to "protect ones investment"; so the extra 10 grand for the 468 would buy one future better computers. Just ask your camera dealer to double the price; have the extar amount invested in another Enron.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Digital cameras lose value quickly because electronic technology improves rapidly. Merely 2.5 years ago, the D2X was the state of the art, but today, the D3 (supposedly) has better AF, higher frame rate, and far superior low-light performance .... As a result, people are dumping the D2X for the D3. There is an over-supply of the D2X and the price drops drastically. That is simple economics. The only way to "protect" the price for the D2X is to not introduce the D3, and all of Nikon's competition cannot improve their DSLR either. That is simply not going to happen. If you individually don't care about all the new improvements, just keep using your older DSLRs. Nobody forces you to buy a new camera every 1, 2, 3 ... years. A professional nature photographer friend of mine used to spend $20K on film and processing per year. If you are a pro like that, even though you have to buy a new D3 every year, digital still means huge savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 What Joseph wrote. The pro cameras are intended for those who invest in these tools intending to make money with them. If you're not making money with it it's not truly an investment, it's an expense of your hobby just like film was. If the drop in resale value is more than you wish to endure, buy something less expensive. <P> Camera are now computers with lenses attached. Early computers were upgradeable to a certain degree but the standard architecture has changed so much that now there are hardly any parts interchangeable between a current model and one that's ten years old. Would you be satisfied with an 500GB hard drive in a 300MHz computer? For a number of years I was able to fool myself that I was upgrading my existing computer when in reality I was gutting the functional bits and building a new computer inside an existing case. <P> If you really need to be on the cutting edge of camera technology there are manufacturers to help you ;-) and there are plenty of students and those who are satisfied with the trailing edge of technology who can keep your cast-off computer- cameras busy for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 In response to, "I was informed buy a fellow professional photographer that if you cannot recover the expense of a new camera within 6 months after the purchase of the said "new camera...", I was told by several professionals you never really recover the cost of your equipment, it's simply absorbed in the overall costs of the business over time. Maybe high volume commercial photographers can recoup the costs relatively quickly, but I don't see how many professionals can in the competitive market today. Some interesting responses about companies "protecting their investment." Their investment isn't the equipment, it's the customer, and as long as they can keep selling equipment and maintain, or better increase, their marketshare, they're protecting their investment. They make money by providing equipment you'll continue to buy and use, and buy more as their introduce new products. This is partly why they have so many low and middle line products which is frequently updated. That's their profit, and the highend market is their name. And while they will provide support and service for discontinued highend equipment, it's not as much aimed at the service but the customer, to keep them and entice them to buy new equipment. After all, how many Nikon F3 users bought a F4, F5 and F6 along with the D2-series cameras? Just some thoughts, and it's an interesting thread, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 There's a huge fallacy in your rant: cameras and lenses aren't investments. Ever hear of depreciation? Buy some watches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I've mentioned before - I leave buying the newest stuff to the technogeeks, and I then buy it off them a year or three later, hardly used, for peanuts! This way I have a camera that I can just use and use and use without worrying about scratching it, or crying everytime I hit another 100 on the shutter actuation count, or having sleepless nights as I lie there thinking about its value dropping while it's sitting in a cupboard. Being a poor amateur (and wannabe "artist" :) ) I can do without the worry of equipment value. Of course if I was doing this for a living then perhaps I could justify the expense. As it is, I'm not worried about breakdowns as I have two 10Ds - each cost me no more than a replacement shutter, and each is low on shutter actuations. I think it's good that there are people willing to spend thousands on new camera and change them after a year or two. And I'm more than happy for the first person's investment to devalue quick;y ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 With regard to the radar detector tradein, I would have to ask what the company is doing with the old ones. If they're discarding them, that means that the list price of the equipment is padded out, above normal profit, by at least the amount of the tradein. Old customers may at least be getting a fair price, but likely no better than that, and it's a pretty poor bargain for the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Perhaps you'd like to buy a nice Apple ][ for $6000? What? No? It's just outrageous that Apple didn't protect your investment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 <i>Camera companies should protect our investment</i><p>Why not take personal responsibility for your "investment"?<p><i>I do not mind to spend my money on any Rolex watches</i><p>What kind of photos do your Rolex watches take? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_schoedel Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "<i>Perhaps you'd like to buy a nice Apple ][ for $6000? What? No?</i>" <p> No... but if you have a nice Apple I for $6000, drop me a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Subaru should have protected my investment. I bought a Legacy in 1997 for $18,000 and sold it the other week for $1500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_haykin Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Will the record companies buy back all my old LPs? How 'bout my typewriters, or my analog, low definition TVs? Wake up and smell the coffee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Speaking of coffee, I have some Folgers instant from 1989 that didn't hold it's value as well as it should have. I'm going to see if I can take it to Starbucks and trade it in on a couple of pounds of espresso roast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 <p>Jeff said: <i>What kind of photos do your Rolex watches take?</i></p> <p>I think this comment hits the nail on its head. People who actually use cameras to produce something (commercial photography, art, whatever) have no problems with buying an expensive camera that will become obsolete in two years. It's only those with no applicable talent or those who use their camera as an expensive accessory that get screwed. Those of us who use cameras to actually produce something naturally have reasons to be contemptuous of those who equate their camera with Rolex watches.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "...camera companies need a solid plan to protect our investment on pro digital bodies..." Chuck, I haven't had such a good laugh in some time. Thanks. Honestly ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john enman Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Yep, this has been a very fun read. I think the camera companies are doing better than they ever have. I can remember (years ago) talking to a Hasselblad rep. about how well his companies newest camera was doing. He said "not as well as I'd like. Hasselblads don't wear out." Well digital cameras don't really wear out befor they are discarded for the latest model, but they are discarded just the same. For myself I will always be looking for the camera about to be set aside for the newest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now