Price depreciation of bodies isn't it a worry

[markci]

<p>If the value you get is worth the cost of the depreciation, buy it. If not, don't. How is this different than anything else you spend money on?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>H Nakae:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should be wait half a year to buy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes sense. The D800 is the 5D III's nemesis. If the D800 drops in price after this year's Olympic games, the 5D III should surely follow suit.</p>

<p>As a side note, I bought my first 5D new in June 2006 for $3800 CAN + taxes. Today, to pre-order the 5D III will cost exactly the same in my neighbourhood. I cannot even get $900 CAN for my first 5D and BG-E4 grip. The highest offer so far has been $800 CAN. Last January 2011, I was able to sell a second 5D and BG-E4 for $900. But, that was a used system that I had purchased a couple of years earlier which didn't hurt as much. At that time, the 5D III was not even a rumour yet.</p>

[tallnbig68]

<p>Reading the comments allows me to recall what my father said to me many years ago when automobiles were a lot lower in price than now: the new vehicle off the lot drops 40 percent in value when driven off by a new owner. That same vehicle in two or three years will worth a lot less in depreciation wear and value. Best by used to start. I did for many years, albeit old beat up Volvos. Now I purchase Honda and keep them until they drop or repairs exceed the cost of replacement.<br>

Photographic gear is the same. Film cameras were introduced infrequently, so we used them until they either died or we could afford to replace them, often not the latter. There were good used bargains then, you had to look. Now there are digital newbies it seems every six months, and hence many used digital newbies, gently used as toys or hard used as workers.<br>

Gear of this digital era is almost throw-away in nature, more electronics than camera, more disposable as computers, perhaps.</p>

<p> </p>

[sfcole]

<p><strong>But counteracting this is the disappearance of costs for film, developing, and printing. In the long term we probably pay less per image overall.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

Dan, you'd be correct if the average enthusiast only bought one camera for life just like our fathers. That does not seem to be the case based on so many posts here. How many of you have your first digital camera? What are most of you on now? #3, 4, 5 or higher? I doubt anyone's still using a 4 mp camera. And now the trend is to get all bent out of shape about shutter actuations--boy these things have a shorter shelf life than cottage cheese. Personally I shoot very economically. I'll go for a trip for a week with 4 rolls of 120 B&W and develop them myself. Obviously, that model breaks down if you shoot thousand of color images per day, but that's not my style.</p>

[doug_landrum]

<p>A few thoughts:<br>

The US Dollar is depreciating. Imported goods and commodities (like oil and gasoline at the pump) are generally increasing in price. That's the primary reason new premium Canon lenses are increasing in price. <br>

Those that comment on price of bodies as being cost effective due to zero film & processing costs are correct. I used to pay at least $100 per month on film & processing.<br>

Chanel No. 5 prices on printer ink are a bitch. Good paper is expensive (I have a taste for the Moab line). But a good color print at my home on Ilfochrome was outrageous in terms of chemicals, paper and time. B&W's on my Canon 9500 MkII are at least as good as anything I did in my dark room.<br>

Does anyone want to buy a Durst M601 with mint quality Rodenstock and Nikkor lenses - big trays and good fixer smells?<br>

I though not.<br>

Happy digital shooting and processing.</p>

[johne37179]

When I worked in photography I had at least half a dozen 35 mm bodies, 2 Hassies, a 4x5, a studio, a dark room, lighting,

tripods, probably 20 or more lenses, an assistant, etc. now, I have one body, a D7000 and will get a D800 in a year or so

and 4 lenses. I think there is a big difference there.

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am not totally convinced that digital is cheaper than film. While I will not argue the cost per shot I find that I take a lot more shots when using digital (just in case). I suspect that there is little difference in the cost per "used" shot.<br>

On the depreciation point I find the only way to avoid it is to buy film Leica and Leica lenses. Of course they hold their value best if you keep them mint (un-opened) in the box. Best not to use them!</p>

<p>Actually my old M6 has been used extensively and is worth more than it cost in the mid 1980s - all I lost was inflation.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>I make money by shooting weddings and I can write of my gear on my tax return. Still, I have a hard time justifying buying the 5D3 which costs $4K with grip. I also know another guy who's not making money doing weddings and he has the 5D2 from day 1 and a slew of L lenses. How he afford it I don't know? But I know he just uses it to shoot his kids and posts them on FB. </p>

<p>To me gear envy is all about lust than necessity. If you need to justify it, you probably don't need it. </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Digital is a lot more expensive than film. 12 years ago I naively thought digital would be cheaper! LOL.</p>

<p>With a DSLR you need to upgrade your software and keep your computer up-to-date. If you print at home you need a decent printer, paper, and ink supply. What about a sweet monitor for editing? Same thing.</p>

<p>DSLRs are like computers -- they get old, and feel old after just four years. I am on my 5th digital camera (my smartphone doesn't count) in 12 years now. I still have four of them, the 10D I gave away for a hundred bucks.</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>I love the numpties who 'upgrade' every time a new mk1/2/3 ets comes out, I get great used bargains.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>We used to pay for film, now we pay for bodies every few years. The expendable part of photography became a higher front end cost vs. a never ending sinkhole of film and processing costs. At least good lenses still hold their value.</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>When I worked in photography I had at least half a dozen 35 mm bodies, 2 Hassies, a 4x5, a studio, a dark room, lighting, tripods, probably 20 or more lenses, an assistant, etc. now, I have one body, a D7000 and will get a D800 in a year or so and 4 lenses. I think there is a big difference there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure I get your point, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1110391">John Ellingson</a>. Are you implying people that work with digital don't have multiple bodies tripods, lighting, studios, assistants, and digital dark rooms? Sounds to me like you retired! Not sure how this is an apples to apples comparison.</p>

<p> </p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>How do people who don't make money out of photography justify buying expensive gear!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of them don't. It makes far more sense for an amateur to purchase a Rebel series camera and spend the rest of the money on lenses and a quality photography course. Buying a $3000 camera and slapping a crappy kit lens on it is just dumb. A lot of the entry level DSLRs are so good now that if you put a prime or L glass on it you can take excellent pictures. What is often found lacking is the component of the system that actually pushes the shutter button.</p>

<p>There was a thread started a while back by someone who had FF envy and wanted to drop a chunk of money on a used ORIGINAL 5D. I suggested a new T3i for less than $700. I pointed out the excellent video feature that was completely absent from the 5D. The person ultimately chose to get the 5D. At least it was used.</p>

<p>Ultimately a lot of consumer decisions are driven by marketing, fashion, and peer pressure. The vast majority of images taken by even members of this forum will NEVER be printed. The extra megapixels, FF, and yes even L glass is probably a gigantic waste. I know if I take a picture with a subpar lens I can run it through photoshop, turn it into a 600x600 image, post it on the web, and have tons of people ooh and ahh and my amazing picture. Which is one of the reasons people posting 600x600 screen shots to prove something about a lens, camera, developer, negative, or slide are wasting everybody's time. It is really only when you start PRINTING images at enlarged sizes do you start to really get the benefit in image quality of $3500 gear. Frankly I shoot quite a bit of MF 25, 50 and 100 ISO B&W film. I also shoot Velvia 50 in MF from time to time. If I need to make enlargements I have excellent negatives to make large prints and I can assure you I have NOT spent $3500. A five pack of Fuji Acros 100 ISO 120 film costs $13.45+ shipping. Develop at home for pennies.</p>

<p>I always travel with the DSLR, but if I want to take that killer landscape or portrait shot the MF gear comes out. No sense in playing around. It really is hilarious that for a pittance you can start taking quality pictures with gear that used to costs thousands of dollars and still works just as well.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Dan, you'd be correct if the average enthusiast only bought one camera for life just like our fathers."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself! ;-)</p>

<p>My dad owned a succession of different cameras ranging from a Speed Graphic (sp?) to various cameras shooting 120 film to several 35mm film cameras.</p>

<p>It isn't a perfect analogy, but a friend of mine switched from large format film (4x5 color film scanned and then taken to a digital workflow) a few years ago, moving to medium format digital. He joked (only slightly) that he saved something like $4 or $5 every time he shot a frame on the digital MF camera, since that is what the developing typically cost for LF film, etc.</p>

<p>James Smith wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I always travel with the DSLR, but if I want to take that killer landscape or portrait shot the MF gear comes out. No sense in playing around. It really is hilarious that for a pittance you can start taking quality pictures with gear that used to costs thousands of dollars and still works just as well."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good MF film gear costs more than a "pittance," though it costs less than it formerly cost. However, full frame DSLRs used with skill can equal MF film in almost all ways aside from some related to DOF - so shooting landscape, etc with this newer gear is most certainly not "playing around." </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>However, full frame DSLRs used with skill can equal MF film in almost all ways aside from some related to DOF - so shooting landscape, etc with this newer gear is most certainly not "playing around."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3989561">G Dan Mitchell</a>, I do NOT consider any endeavor that involves a minimum of $3,500 worth of gear before a lens is purchased or a single picture is taken to be "playing around." I consider it very serious business. It may not be wise for most people but it is serious. I was referring to MY gear.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Good MF film gear costs more than a "pittance," though it costs less than it formerly cost</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I consider a Bronica ETRSI with speed grip, prism finder, a couple of backs, and a PE prime lens for less than $400 a pittance and certainly a fraction of the cost of a Canon 5d MK III with NO LENS. I cannot think of any other way to get that level of image quality at that price point or less. Heck its HUNDREDS less than the consumer T3i. And that is not the best deal I've seen. Plus I can pick up great lenses for a fraction of the price of Canon lenses. I picked up a 200mm PE prime for less than $300.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>How do people who don't make money out of photography justify buying expensive gear!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably the same you you justify paying for things you don't use to earn income or necessarily need. Why? Does everything you buy have the same marketable value as when you bought it?</p>

[h_._jm]

<p>Geez this thread is a joy to read! I have to thank everyone for their replies.<br>

John you're right if I just relax my justification attitude I can buy the 5DIII and be super happy and excited about it. But this thread made me think about the idea of upgrading to meet my photographic needs (I know this sometimes kills the excitement of purchasing goodies!).<br>

So while I need better ISO, it's all relative in that the ISO will be better going from the 5DI to 5DII to 5DIII to 5DIV... Any upgrade is good for me unless I specifically need a certain ISO improvement magnitude if you like! I'm sure the 5DII has better ISO than 5DI</p>

<p>And while I do LOVE to get a strong AF which I hope the 5DIII is way better than the 5DI/5DII; it will only be Important in my sport photography which makes at the max 10-15% of my photos<br>

Most of what I shoot is portraits and landscapes...and so 5DII at $1950 NEW is much more reasonable than a 5DIII for $3500 :)<br>

I will wait for the 5DIII reviews and see but I hope that $1950 price on the 5DII won't jump up by then!</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I wonder why people worry about what other people buy and why other people buy what they buy. Human nature seems to require some jealous reaction when someone else gets something newer (I won't use the word "better"). The purchaser rationalizes their decision to buy and the one that decides to stick with his or her current equipment rationalizes their decision.</p>

<p>It's the extra step of criticizing the decision of the other that demeans the whole event. I'm guessing we humans are hard wired with jealousy and envy. All that is aggravated by arrogance and superior posture if the buyer decides to defend his purchase. This Photo.net discussion is a micro example of classic human behaviour.</p>

<p>If you want full frame (start debate) AND you need fast AF because you shoot sports and/or wildlife (start another debate) AND you can afford it (debate some more) then you're going to seriously consider the 5D3.</p>

<p>Two years from now, as those of us with 5D3s talk about how to perfectly focus on mallard flying by at 60-mph, some guy will chime in about how his original 5D gave him no problems with focus the last time he shot a sunset while he was on vacation at the beach with his family. He'll further state that his big, "high quality" pixels will blow away those tiny little pixels on the 5D3. Next, someone will chime in about his Bronica...</p>

[robert_turner]

<p>@David Stephens-<br>

Great post! Spot on and humorous to boot!</p>