Loss of value

[ben_hutcherson]

No big deal, but I misspoke about my "most depreciated" cameras, The one is actually based on Canon

 

I paid I think around $400 for an F5-based 620 earlier this year...that's a pretty big fall from the $10K or so that I think was new.

 

Of course the 620 is-I think-somewhat newer than the 500 series. I could be wrong on that, as they all start to run together for me. I know one of its selling points in the Nikon world was that it was a 1.3x crop as opposed to the 1.5x Nikon contemporaries.

[glen_h]

I have never been very interested in selling my used photographic equipment.

 

If I buy it new, I believe at the time that it is worth that price for me at the time, and not

think about the depreciated value. (I don't do it professionally, so no tax break.)

 

Over the years, I have found used to be a better value.

 

Most recently, I bought a used D700 from an actual camera store for $800, with about 11,000 actuations,

three years ago.

 

I first knew about the D700 when I was at a wedding, and all the (many!) photographers were using them.

That was a few years before I bought mine.

 

My father bought a Canon VI with 50/2.8 lens, I believe new, when I was one year old.

Before that, he had a used Leica If with Schneider 35/2.8. Also a Canon 135/2.8.

Those two cameras and three lenses are what I knew growing up. He bought

a Canon SLR when I was about ten, after which I could borrow the other cameras

much of the time. I did a lot of yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade with

the Canon.

 

I was in college when the Nikon FM came out, many of my friends were buying one,

and it seemed affordable. If I had thought about it before then, the Nikon F would have

been way out of my price range. The FM with new AI 35/2.0 seemed reasonably

priced new at the time. Some years later, I bought a used AI 35-70/3.5 which was

for some years my favorite lens.

 

So, most often new, gently used in good condition, I find the best value. Mostly, I don't need

what is at the current state of the art.

[Sanford]

I bought a used D700 from an actual camera store for $800, with about 11,000 actuations

How do I check the actuations in a D300?

[ed_farmer]

How do I check the actuations in a D300?

 

There are a number of tools that allow the detailed examination of EXIF data which, on the D300, will include something like "Shutter Count" or "Image Count". There are also websites where you can upload and image and get a report of the shutter count for the camera (at the time that photo was shot). You can find either with a Google search.

[glen_h]

How do I check the actuations in a D300?

 

Nikon DSLRs write the number into the JPG file.

When I bought the D700, someone in the store took a picture with it, then read the number out off the CF card.

 

Preview, in Apple OS X, will show the number if you select "Show Inspector" in the Tools menu.

I suspect that many other programs will also show it.

 

As I understand it (from the same store) Canon DSLRs don't do this.

[ruslan]

Over the years, I have found used to be a better value.

 

Most recently, I bought a used D700 from an actual camera store for $800, with about 11,000 actuations,

three years ago.

My friend, a wedding photograher in the glorious city of Prague, bought a second hand Canon EOS-1 Ds (original) in almost new condition with 3000 actuations and the shutter broke. Luckily, he had a service in Prague and had the shutter exchanged for new one for 300 Euros. They told him the shutter had broken because the camera had not been used for many years.

The occurrence was about 3 years ago.

[glen_h]

My friend, a wedding photograher in the glorious city of Prague, bought a second hand Canon EOS-1 Ds (original) in almost new condition with 3000 actuations and the shutter broke. Luckily, he had a service in Prague and had the shutter exchanged for new one for 300 Euros. They told him the shutter had broken because the camera had not been used for many years.

The occurrence was about 3 years ago.

 

My almost new Nikon FM had the shutter lock up after only a few months. Still in warranty, I went to the nearest official service place, and they fixed it.

 

The also suggested always finishing the wind stroke (with the rewind button in) before rewinding, which I mostly did after that, and never had that problem again.

(More recently it doesn't seem quite right, but then, as above, it has sat many years without use.)

 

When I buy used, I look for prices where I won't feel so bad if it fails early.

 

The D700 was from an actual store, with, I believe, a short warranty.

 

The lens now on the D700 is a Nikon 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 AF D.

(That is, not the newest of the 24-120 models.)

I got it for $75, which I believe is a good price, from a Goodwill store.

 

Lenses might not have as many failure modes as cameras, though, but they can still fail.

 

As with cameras, I suspect that they work better with continued use, but not overuse.

[William Michael]

On the topic of "Failure Rates / Failure Likelihood":

 

IME, Flash and Flash related electric gear (Shoes, Leads, Triggers, etc) are the number one contenders for 'failure in the field', then Cameras (digital and also analogue) then lenses are third.

 

I've had several conversation with Nadine (i.e. Nadine Ohara from PNet) on this very topic: by coincidence we each had similar years' experience in Wedding and Portraiture and we discussed many topics from those experiences - her experience was the same as mine, she had more Flash related failures over 30 years, than any failure of other gear type.

 

WW

[Sandy Vongries]

When I shot Weddings as a young man (film days) it was two cameras three flashes. Things have certainly improved, and in any case, you couldn't pay me enough to shoot a wedding these days!

[glen_h]

Some years ago, I got a replacement foot for my Vivitar 283 flash.

It had a crack, so I replaced it before it broke off. I suspect the strain

on the camera shoe is also high, but haven't had that break off.

 

One of my early lenses, a Vivitar 24/2.0, had the aperture stick full open.

I suppose that isn't so bad, if you like 2.0.

 

As I do like 24mm, I then bought a used Nikon AI 24/2.0 (pre-AF days)

which I believe still works fine. I don't know if Nikon uses better oils

in their lens apertures, but I haven't had any of those stick.

It is harder to know if they just slow down, though.

[Jochen_S]

Depreciation can be a blessing too. Once you feel able to replace your camera with an used one you probably worry less about it and might become more daring to take it out / with you.

Spend somewhat reasonably and according to your core's needs. The Pentax 645 you mentioned would be in my eyes a less sane investment. - How long has it been out now? - Buy such cameras new towards the beginning of their model cycle (to make less loss reselling them, when you figure out they aren't your thing) or used from a quitting / downsizing / upgrading (ex-)co-enthusiast.

M10? If you get one, why should you ever sell it? Rangefinders are nice, compact and kind of portable. Folks that weren't into photography tended to bring cameras to their vacations, before there were smart phones. An M 10 could play that role in your life, till it falls apart.

MILC Canon RF + new RF 85/1.2 L (2700 USD for a lens) and other lenses

I feel challenged to see the sense in a heavy 85/1.2 compared to either EF 85/1.4 IS or even Tamron 85/1.8 VC on a no IBIS body. (I'm aware of the latter's less enthusiastic reviews but it looks affordable and most importantly: lighter). I have mixed feelings about EOS R & RP. underspecced consumer bodies with mainly overdeveloped pro glass offered for them? - OTOH: Canon should be around for a while, an IBIS body is rumored, their eye AF might become more competitive and the camera with 24-105 should shine on tourist duty. So that 85/1.2 should be a quite safe investment? - The EF f1.2s don't seem to have plumeted either, but I might be off about that.

 

Stuff an ordinary person can afford to buy is unlikely to impress others.

The advantage of cameras compared to cars or dogs: You don't have to pay a lot of tax and insurance every year.

If you spend on experiences, your money is gone immediately and entirely.

just for your pleasure? Did you think that you must be thrifty getting top grade equipment not for your profession as a tool, but just for pleasure/prestige?

My income is "modest", so I must have lived kind of thriftily, to get what I have. The important point: Having a dream to try saving up for, keeps me going back to work and afloat enough to pay less expected bills coming my way.

[ruslan]

Depreciation can be a blessing too. Once you feel able to replace your camera with an used one you probably worry less about it and might become more daring to take it out / with you.

Spend somewhat reasonably and according to your core's needs. The Pentax 645 you mentioned would be in my eyes a less sane investment. - How long has it been out now? - Buy such cameras new towards the beginning of their model cycle (to make less loss reselling them, when you figure out they aren't your thing) or used from a quitting / downsizing / upgrading (ex-)co-enthusiast.

M10? If you get one, why should you ever sell it? Rangefinders are nice, compact and kind of portable. Folks that weren't into photography tended to bring cameras to their vacations, before there were smart phones. An M 10 could play that role in your life, till it falls apart.

I feel challenged to see the sense in a heavy 85/1.2 compared to either EF 85/1.4 IS or even Tamron 85/1.8 VC on a no IBIS body. (I'm aware of the latter's less enthusiastic reviews but it looks affordable and most importantly: lighter). I have mixed feelings about EOS R & RP. underspecced consumer bodies with mainly overdeveloped pro glass offered for them? - OTOH: Canon should be around for a while, an IBIS body is rumored, their eye AF might become more competitive and the camera with 24-105 should shine on tourist duty. So that 85/1.2 should be a quite safe investment? - The EF f1.2s don't seem to have plumeted either, but I might be off about that.

 

Stuff an ordinary person can afford to buy is unlikely to impress others.

The advantage of cameras compared to cars or dogs: You don't have to pay a lot of tax and insurance every year.

If you spend on experiences, your money is gone immediately and entirely.

My income is "modest", so I must have lived kind of thriftily, to get what I have. The important point: Having a dream to try saving up for, keeps me going back to work and afloat enough to pay less expected bills coming my way.

I am a fan of big mirror viewfinders. Pentax has it. And it is AF - very reliable for static objects. To focus Leica a photographer must have a good eyes. I do portraits, almost never - landscapes. Seldom - street. That's why I am into portrait glass. The drawback of the Pentax is that its focus points are in the very center. But it is a beast. MF has its "look".

As for Canon, they will launch a super camera, like Sony A9 to compete.

As for Canon SLR ( 5D Mk4 or EOS1 series), I like their skin tone, ergo, general color but (a big but) they don't have a good 50 mm (the L has a lot of issues, focus shift, etc) but I love 50 mm. Sigma is no-go for various reasons.

Sony is another option.

Thanks for the input.

[marbing]

Purchasing a new equipment did yoiu ever think about loss of value of it over the years? What if you splurge sometimes... you buy a new digital MF camera like Pentax 645Z + 150/2.8 or FF MILC Canon RF + new RF 85/1.2 L (2700 USD for a lens) and other lenses or a new Leica M10 to take photos of... flowers, pets, people next door or on the street, casual models, just for your pleasure? Did you think that you must be thrifty getting top grade equipment not for your profession as a tool, but just for pleasure/prestige? The full top class kit might be 7000 dollars these days (and more with Leica) but as long as it is new. The hobby might be kinda expensive? I know some people get a rather medium-to-high class bodies, take 2000-4000 frames/shots and lose interest to photography. Then they put it all on E**y to sell it. I know most of you are seasoned, dedicated photographers, but still, do you ever think of value loss? Any thoughts?

It can work the other way too. I have recently getting my film cameras back in regular operation and so I went into one of the few remaining camera shops in my area and asked for some 35mm. They ACTUALLY had to look around under the counter and finally located an old plastic bin with random films thrown into it. I picked up some Pro 400H and pulled out my Contax T3. The owner of the store (older than the kids he had working the counter) said "Whoa! Do you know how much that is worth?" I did. It is worth a LOT more than when I bought it. Ebay has crazy listings of $1500-$3000 for one.

My Contax G2 with all the lenses is similar and even the Yashica T4 Super is hundreds more than I paid for it back in the day.

Granted, not everything I have has increased in value. My Contax bodies have dropped to a couple of hundred from a couple of thousand. (The Zeiss lenses are holding their own, of course)

[Ed_Ingold]

I bought a couple pieces of used video gear last week, to update my 4K capability. Their loss is my gain, in spending avoidance. On the whole, pro gear I've purchased over the years, used, has been well cared for.

[PapaTango]

This all depends on what you are after. Some things, like an RB67 are not available new. I built an entire kit of that off fleabay, and luckily did not get anything that had been worn to a frazzle professionally. Pennies on the dollar from when I salivated over these things in shops when they were new.

 

In digital, bodies for me must be new. Saving money is going grey-market with someone who is reputable and offers in-house warranty. Lenses new? Not so much... :)

 

Every one of my Nikkor & Sigma lenses were bought used. Great deals and condition is to be had buying out of Japan. All too many "buy, try, sell" folks there. I just bought a mint Nikkor 18-300mm 3.5-5.6 from Roberts Camera. Several hundred dollars less than buying new, and they stand behind their stuff. Same with KEH.

 

Sure, it's nice to open a brand-new box. But I have gotten over spending hundreds of dollars more for a few minutes of GAS satisfaction.

[samstevens]

In digital, bodies for me must be new.

I got the two main cameras I've used in the last 15 years used, first a Canon 30D and then a Canon 5D MkII. Both have held up well and done for me what I needed them to. Your position seems reasonable as well. My iPhone came new (about 4 years ago) and also does what I need it to, when I use it to take pics, though an upgrade would be in order since I've been printing some of the pics I take with the phone.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

As to value, I'm not a pro and don't buy camera equipment for the investment value, so I see my cameras mostly as tools to help me make pictures and not as monetized commodities. The value I place is on the photos I make, and it's not their monetary value I'm too interested in.