Will digitals be collectable?

[jack_welsh]

<p>Digital cameras, doubt it. The older mechanical cameras, more likely. About tube radios. I can still buy tubes for my 1927 Atwater Kent "coffin" radio.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Ed, I already have a hole in my "digital memories". I saved all my pictures on CD, made even double and triple copies, just to discover five year later that I had a crappy burner and all my CD are good as "compact fribiees" only.</p>

[k5083]

I believe that if a digital camera were made that had true style, innovative design, and were not just an appliance for capturing images, it would become collectible and remain so long after it could no longer be made to work. There is no reason why such a camera could not be made, and I believe that one will -- or perhaps, unknown to me, already has been.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I am making a fortune selling swingers and am current buying izones and websters (digital)<br>

<br /> i = me, individuality, internet<br /> <br /> Zone = my area, my space, my community<br /> <br /> at one time the izone was the#1 selling camera in the world; of cameras that load film; ie not disposables</p>

[Brian1664876441]

<p>I like my Kodak DCS200ir, still have it, and it still works. It's probably worth about $100, much less than the $12,400 that it cost new in 1992. It was the first in the line that did IR. I called Kodak and talked to the engineers about leaving the IR cutoff filter off of the KAF-1600. They did.<br />I bought a Nikon E3 for $200 a couple of years ago. Much less than the $8,000 that they sold for originally. It works with my SB-29 ringlight. Still works, I use it for documentation. It is SN 67. Nikon did not sell many of them.<br />John Glenn's Kodak DCS460 is in the Smithsonian. It flew on the space shuttle. Now that's collectable.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>It's a funny kind of question that people think from time to time. But here's something you should ask yourself. When was the last time you saw a new computer with a floppy drive on it? How about a 5 1/4" flopppy? How about a ZIP drive? Jazz drive? Floptical drive? How about the early CD's that stayed in the plastic shell like a floppy disk? In the near future USB-2 is going to be replaced with USB-3, and while there will be backwards compatibility to be expected... how long will the standard retain that? 10 years? Basically my point is that even if you keep a digital camera safely protected without batteries in it... in 20 or 30 years you probably won't be able to get to the data on it to read it. Just look at how many different cards there are available for memory storage today... even if one of those media's makes it 20 years into the future, it will probably be formatted differently and wouldn't really be compatible. On the other hand, if they ever stop making film, you can take the very last batch of B&W film ever made, store it in your freezer, and one hundred years from that date you will be able to load it into a restored film camera and shoot it, and then process it in instant coffee developer and have yourself some great images.</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>To the OP - It's kinda ironic because I was doing much the same thing as you were (identifying cameras in Le Mans) when it was on TCM the other night...I do kinda wonder how you shoot racing with a Hasselbald, though... Action w/o a instant return mirror?<br>

"RACING IS LIFE!"</p>

[ed_lutz]

<p>Michael, I had the same thoughts re the use of a Hasselblad for shooting fast action. I've never tried it but maybe "back in the day" it was the norm.<br>

<em>I believe that if a digital camera were made that had true style, innovative design, and were not just an appliance for capturing images, it would become collectible and remain so long after it could no longer be made to work.</em><br>

This hits pretty close to what I was thinking in my OP. What is it about digital cameras though that make them appliances? All a DSLR is really, is a 35mm body with a digital sensor. If a Canon F1 is a classic, why not an EOS? Is it the plethora of electronics? How about a T90, will it be a classic or is it destined to fade away?</p>

 

[jack_welsh]

<p>"John Glenn's Kodak DCS460 is in the Smithsonian. It flew on the space shuttle. Now that's collectable"<br>

I guess that what it takes for digital to be considered collectable. Digitals are electronic devices, just like VCRs, DVD Players, etc. Old cameras are mechanical, even the old 1970s 35mm with a built in meter. People are more incline to collect mechaical devices than elecrical ones. People do collect old tube radios.But, look at a 1930's Cathedral or Tombstone radios. With the wooden finish and all the knobs. Then, look at a Digital camera. It's just not the same.</p>

<p> </p>

[tomscott]

<p>People collect Beanie Babies, Cabbage Patch dolls, all kind of crap. Anything is "collectible" to someone whether it makes sense to the rest of us or not.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Agree. Collectable is one thing, useable is another. People collect the most useless things. Anyway I guess that somebody willing to collect 10+ old digital cameras will not find too much competition from other people doing the same when trying to get his stuff. E-bay auctions will end with one bid only.</p>

[terrance_hodgins]

<p>Unfortunately, digital cameras seem to be an extreme example of planned obsolescence.<br>

Also planned wear-out. Where an old solid-metal 35mm SLR might last 50 years -- 100 years with maintenance and replacement of leather and rubber parts -- digital cameras are obsolete in 3 years, and worn out in 6. Just try to get parts for your digital camera in 50 years. Not gonna happen.<br>

So what's the point of collecting old plastic bodies that don't work?</p>

 

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>I've thought about this for a long time, not trying to make into a subjective "film good, digital scary" observation.</p>

<p>Someone would have to chime in on this, but I think you have to look back at the original time of the design. Throughout the last 150 years, we've been moving away from crafted hand made gear to manufactured, mass produced equipment in almost every industry, making more modern equipment more abundant and common. The more you make, the less you can specialize for certain niches.<br>

<br /> In addition, the availability of resources has changed. Originally strong lightweight materials were scarce, so they had wooden view cameras. Eventually metal became more popular because of its longevity but was replaced by bakelite/plastic. Also remember that photography was originally something that only the very rich could do. As it became more popular, the masses could join in. You have to sacrifice quality somewhere, and in conjunction with trying to turn a bottom line while manufacturing in large quantities made non-collectible items. I can mention a number of Instamatic/Polaroid cameras that the majority are now worth peanuts. I love my Polaroid 100, and love my Fuji-FP100C.<br /><br>

Keep in mind that simpler designs are also easier to repair. As dSLRs start to collect technologies, it would take 50 craftsmen/engineers to fix just one body. Today they have wireless, HD movies, flash, a GUI like an operating system, and an LCD. How many technologies is that? How far away is it from having your cell phone in there? Don't some already have GPS? As a comparison, my clumsy hands are able to tape a bellows and even if it's ugly, it works. I'm also able to free up a few shutters if I have the right size tools to get in there. I don't think it's planned obsolescence so much as the technological limitations of including so much stuff.<br /> I think alot of this is the fact of industrialization. Metal bodies will tend to be worth more than those with leatherette because leather does not respond well to adverse conditions. Cameras with a bellows will be worth less than those with interchangeable lenses, but maybe more than those with fixed lenses (easier to go inside and clean lenses).<br>

<br /> Chemical and mechanical engineering of certain cameras, developers, etc. is much more second nature to humans than a circuit board crammed inside a magnesium alloy TV box with a lens attached.</p>

<p>Also maybe collectable is affected by the fact that some day people will realize that with the right skill and knowledge, a glass lens, and a shutter, many more things are possible than previously thought. Results from a 1950s rangefinder with Portra 160VC are not so diffent than a $4,000 dSLR. It's kind of a marketing success story: Why f/1.2 is so much better than f/1.4. Yes, if you need it, you need it. But man, they get your money for it!</p>

[ed_lutz]

<p>Another thought hit me while reading Bonifaz's response. How much of this has to do with societal changes? I could be way off here but just from my personal observations, I don't see younger people (talking 20 somethings and younger) caring as much about old things as us older folk. This is of course a generalization and as such is quite dangerous but hear me out. <br>

As Bonifaz alluded too, we have become a consumer society where things have less value. Young people growing up in this society will therefore put less value on things, old or new, and why not? What they see are items built with planned obsolescence and why would such a thing have long term collectibility? So is it that we (I'm generalizing like mad here) grew up in a time where long term quality mattered more, and thus we appreciate the quality of these old cameras, and thus also recognize the lack of long term quality in many new cameras? There are of course exceptions, probably many (my 16 year old daughter being one) but in general when I show a younger person my F1 I can see that they just dont get it. My old Alfa, or my old bikes are just lost on them as a newer model has more flash and is probably a lot faster. They dont see the long term intrinsic value in anything that isnt the latest and greatest.</p>

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>Good points, Ed. For the records, I am in my early 20 somethings :)</p>

<p>My newest camera is the Bessa R2C, to tide me over while I wait the 2 year waiting list for the repair of my Contax IIIa. It is a good camera, but not a classic. It will only be collectible for its relationship to the Contax. After that, we have... the Polaroid Automatic 100 (early 1960s). After that, the Zeiss Contarex, then the Contax, and lastly the Zeiss Baldur (1930s).</p>

<p>Before I started getting into classics, all I had was a Nikon N90s (sold a few months ago).I knew nothing of what a classic was. I went into a camera store once when I was 13. I was quickly turned away by the prices, the gimmicky ads, and the bright labels. I didn't know a decade later I'd have multiple cameras. Where would I have gotten a chance to hold a camera? I've been pestering my dad for childhood negatives for almost a year now, and he still can't find them. So there's exposure, family habits, and general apathy towards photography of yesterday, etc.</p>

<p>But for my generation, aside from exposure to these cameras, their rareness, and the general vastness of the last 70 years of cameras, there's the wisening up effect. My generation has yet to realize that Windows 9x could spell check with a little patience just as well as Windows Vista. They have yet to realize that a greasy joystick and a foggy screen for Pac Man is better than some silly movie video game remake with Keanu Reeves. Marketing has ebcome very agressive. I walk into a computer store without getting a headache afterwards. The products on the consumer side deliver largely the same results. The packages may be brighter, and you may be able to broadcast lip syncing to Ukraine in only a few minutes, but it doesn't really make a difference, does it?</p>

<p>Digital has its uses, but do I trust memories to a $4000 sensor that's barely worth its weight in silicon next year? No, and don't think many other people would even pay that much for the silicon in 10 years.</p>

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>Oh yeah, and my 21 year old wife got me the Baldur for Christmas. I'm not supposed to say that I own it for a few more days.</p>

<p>She's jealous, too.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Like many kinds of collectibles, they will only start to have some value when most people have thrown their old ones away.<br /> I know that if I stumbled across a Mavica, I'd snap it up for sure.</p>

<p>But this, you must understand, is from someone who collects old East German cameras. ;) So what would I know?</p>

<p>The flaw in Ed Lutz' argument is that these "kids" are <em>already</em> nostalgic about things that are less than 10 years old.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The friends I know that are real young; say less than 25 do not seem to "collect stuff"; except for MP3's, skins for phones, maybe CD's if older; maybe older games if a gamer.</p>

<p>I see less of the baby boomer craze of with young folks; ie boomers collecting stamps, coins, lincoln logs :) , erector sets :) , model cars, trains, rockets. They search on Ebay for old rockem sockem robots; zoomer boomers; frisbies; sonic blasters; baseball cards; comic books; Barbies; switch and go sets; space food sticks.</p>

<p>Real old folks that went thru a depression folks would collect aluminum foil, gift wrapping, old Xmas bows, shampoo from every Holiday Inn; save cords on discarded items; save rubber bands; save nails; save old screws; save things that cost money; having lived in a time were it was real tough.</p>

[roger krueger]

Things that have no direct replacement maybe--the Epson RD-1 seems to have held its value pretty well. The M8 will

become very collectible once Leica finally goes out of business.

 

For significance and rarity the only one I can think of is Contax N digital, "the camera that killed Contax", I'm guessing the

right person might pay big for one of the what, six? prototypes they actually produced.

[MichaelChang]

<p>On the other hand, Kelly, most children do eventually grow up to be quite similar to their parents. :-)</p>

[k5083]

There are some good thoughts here about generational differences in attitudes toward collecting. However, I do not quite buy that Gen Y is so indifferent to collecting. As they age, they'll appreciate things from their past. But to go back to my style vs appliance point, in order to be collectible something really must have been loved when it was new. Today's devoted following is tomorrow's collector community. So where's a digicam with a devoted following? Leicas are made to be automatic future collectibles, but no one seems to really like the M8. Most manufacturers now intentionally promote loyalty to a brand, not a model. Mention Chris Evert and camera buffs think AE-1 Program. Mention Maria Sharapova and we just think Canon. That's done intentionally to keep you upgrading and not to get too loyal to one model. We have rabid Canon fans but not rabid 20D fans. I don't blame it all on marketing--the cameras themselves are individually forgettable even though as a series they're pretty good.

 

 

On the issue of making old digital cameras work, I think some of you may be underestimating the ingenuity of old-camera buffs. If the desire were there, ways would be found.

[michael_oxford]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see younger people (talking 20 somethings and younger) caring as much about old things as us older folk. This is of course a generalization and as such is quite dangerous but hear me out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a representative of Gen Y, let me say this: Digitals will MOST CERTAINLY become collectible - to some degree.<br>

That said, you find kids my age (the 16-18 bracket) getting into LPs, and cassette tapes (yuck...). There are also alot of people in that age bracket that think it "kool" to use old cameras. Surprisingly, whenever I talk about photography to my friends, they are surprised to learn that digital is better (yeah, I went there). It's really bizarre actually. I'm waiting for the day one of my friends comes over and says my parents old IBM 80486 that I have set up is "kool" ...<br>

My point is that with Gen Y. retro is trendy.<br /> In 20 years, people will want those junky old digi cams they bought when they were brand new... when the Canon 1ds Mk I was "wicked" and 5mp compacts were all the rage. They'll want them for nostalgic value, just the way you older folks want those old film cameras. - That said, they will probably want the old film cameras they had that were "retro trendy" at the time... so I think if anything, that will drive the price of some classic cameras.<br>

*Note - I have never done anything because I thought it was or is "kool" ... I got my first film camera before it was "kool."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We have rabid Canon fans but not rabid 20D fans. I don't blame it all on marketing--the cameras themselves are individually forgettable even though as a series they're pretty good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. I am a rabid EOS-1d fan. I think that the debate now a days has become more about the brand anyway because the cameras share a heck of alot more that they used to. I mean, come on, back in the day, a Roll of Tri-X in a Nikon was still the same roll of Tri-X that it was in the Canon. Now you have Canon building their own CMOS, Nikon using the Sony CMOS, ect, ect, and then you get into the whole processing thing... Is Nikon really better than Canon? They score higher in the DxO Mark tests now.... but does that mean there better? after all they do apply in camera softening/noise reduction, ect ect....<br>

I hope my point is understood...</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>There are of course young people who have collections and who collect all kinds of things... this is the generation that grew up on beanie babies, Pog disks, and collection-based RPG card games like Magic The Gathering. You would be surprised how many people in the under 30 bracket are really into old cameras and records. It is a mistake to base a perception of youth on what you see in movies and television. Movies and television are product-based media who's goal is to encourage a consumer disposable-centric attitude... and these programs are all generated by the 50-30 crowd to manipulate the perceptions of the youth... not the other way around. There is very little money to be made in portraying characters who go to yard sales, rummage through Goodwill (Napoleon Dynamite did it... but he wasn't exactly "cool" was he?) or collect cameras they buy off of ebay. I willing to bet iTunes makes a TON of money selling tracks off of albums that went out of print decades ago, and you and I used to be able to buy the entire album in record shops for a few bucks. It isn't all rap and electronic music and heavy metal they are into, it's everything... and the internet is making music and movies and technology that used to only be faded memories available to everyone. In fact, there are entire fashion/culture movements now all about resurrecting Victorian era and Doo-Wop era clothing styles and trinkets. There's a bar here in Asheville where people from 21-35ish come to dance to Soul music being played off of vintage records, usually wearing "retro" or real vintage clothing... music that when it was published 40 years ago, very few white people ever listened to, let alone flocked to bars to dance to. I'll bet you've never seen that portrayed in a movie.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<blockquote>

<p>I mean, come on, back in the day, a Roll of Tri-X in a Nikon was still the same roll of Tri-X that it was in the Canon. Now you have Canon building their own CMOS, Nikon using the Sony CMOS, ect, ect, and then you get into the whole processing thing...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Umm... huh? A roll of Tri-X processed by the same person using the same exact process in a Nikon or Canon may technically be the same, but B&W developing techniques actually represent some of the biggest and most important aspects of B&W photography. You have the developer itself, the times used, the agitation method, and even how the negs are cleared and dried effecting the look of the negative, and then you have paper printing which brings another work of even MORE complexity. And there are issues such as film flatness and pressure plate texture which DO have some effect on the film other than just whatever lens is sitting in front of the camera. For instance, pressure plate texture effects IR Film, so some cameras are completely unacceptable for IR Film use, unless you want a pattern all over your image. And thats just the FILM, the biggest difference in camera brands was traditionally in the layout of controls and how that effected camera handling and image making. Pretty much everyone is just following the Canon EOS mold for how a dSLR should look and feel, which is really unfortunate in terms of opening up the doors to users who want to use a camera differently. So really, in terms of looking for a "classic" digital camera, what you end up with is really just a handful of digital versions of a classic AF film camera, the Canon EOS-1... and not an original or inherently digital design.</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>Pat, I don't really disagree with you, I'm just clarifying my point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...A roll of Tri-X processed by the same person using the same exact process in a Nikon or Canon may technically be the same...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hypothetical situation: You have Nikon and a Canon film cameras that are both calibrated and working flawlessly. You take pictures of the same object at the same time, same shutter speed, aperture, ect, and then proceed to develop the film in the same developer for the same amount of time, same agitation technique and intervals, ect. In theory, the <em>only differences you will be able to see are characteristics of the lenses themselves,</em> like color shift and sharpness, ect. (granted there will probably be some sample variation between the film too.)</p>

<p>In digital, the problem goes beyond the lens, and processing- it goes into the way the chip is designed and how the image is handled in camera, RAW file or not. This has just as much if not more of an affect on the image because at least with film, you can get much more similar results from 2 different brand cameras if the same techniques are applied. In the case of SOME digital, you can't (read Nikon v. Canon - http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pretty much everyone is just following the Canon EOS mold for how a dSLR should look and feel, which is really unfortunate in terms of opening up the doors to users who want to use a camera differently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completley agree with you. While Canon may have come up with a great AF system and ergonomic design, that doesn't mean that the competition has to copy the whole camera deisign - of course, the desin of cameras is really kinda just like fashion. Designs come and go, and are hevily copied along the way.</p>