Are film gear going up in price - in the long term?

[tomspielman]

It depends on your definition of "equivalent"

Other than the final print, nothing about the two process are the same.

Just the fact that a digital lab (and paper) operates in "normal" room light negates any similarity.

Digital cameras have much more in common with film cameras, and even look "the same".

At first look, a digital lab and a red-light darkroom do not appear to have anything in common at all.

The equipment looks completely different and the position of the operators is at extremes..... sitting Vs standing, etc etc etc.

 

Sure, it depends on what you mean by equivalent.

 

I think what JDMvW meant by equivalent is that the darkroom was where corrective/creative measures were taken to enhance images taken on film. With digital images that kind of work is done with software, - photoshop.

 

Simple example. "Dodging and Burning" is a process people will use in photoshop to selectively darken or lighten parts of an image. But the terminology comes from the darkroom technique for doing the same thing.

[JDMvW]

Thanks tom.

 

 

Other than the final print, nothing about the two process are the same.

 

Almost all the names for the functions in Photoshop are derived from analogous procedures in the darkroom. There's a reason for that. Equivalence does not imply complete identity.

 

This is a distinction without a difference. It is true that if you want the smell of fixer in your nostrils, you will have to use chemicals.

 

"red-light darkroom"???? wow, there's a blast from the past.

[markwyatt]

I have been surprised about the low prices for many AI Nikkor lenses.

 

Since they work fine on current Nikon DSLRs, I thought prices would stay up,

but they don't.

 

I got an AI 80-200 zoom for about $11.

 

More recently, an AF D Nikkor 24-120 zoom, not the newest which

I believe has image stabilization, but the older one, for $75.

 

Not quite as low as some 35mm SLRs, but plenty low enough.

 

It seems it is prime lenses that really have the premium. Manual zoom lenses are not an in thing right now (but are still practical).

[samstevens]

Equivalence

Because of the kinds and qualities of difference ... tactile, environmental, atmospheric ... I might go with “correspondence” rather than “equivalence” when talking about the actions performed in a darkroom and with software, though I think the casual use of “equivalence” here, especially given the further explanations, is understandable and sound.

 

Semantical, sure, but semantics can really help in conveying subtle differences.

[glen_h]

Because of the kinds and qualities of difference ... tactile, environmental, atmospheric ... I might go with “correspondence” rather than “equivalence” when talking about the actions performed in a darkroom and with software, though I think the casual use of “equivalence” here, especially given the further explanations, is understandable and sound.

 

Semantical, sure, but semantics can really help in conveying subtle differences.

 

OK, consider scanning a negative, dodging on the digital image with your favorite

digital imaging program, then printing on light sensitive paper.

 

Optical dodging is somewhat interesting in that there is some randomness to it, but

you can probably add enough randomness to the digital processing, too.

 

There are plenty of digital operations that don't have any non-digital similar operation,

but if you don't do those, then it will be hard for the end user to know.

 

The printers might even have enough fixer smell to keep the darkroom environmental

experience active.

[arthur_gottschalk]

It's widely said that film use is coming back as more folks become disillusioned with digital. And since there are few if any new film cameras on the market, the demand for existing ones are on the rise as well. My only concern is that it may become more difficult to get them repaired as many old pros are retiring or otherwise leaving the scene. The other concern is that the electronic components like built in light meters in many cameras have become impossible to repair as parts and expertise no longer exist. All this added together can only mean that prices will go up for cameras that still work.

[Nick D.]

I have Nikon F50 with new battery and 2 rolls of film, works fine. Anybody want it for $49 plus shipping?:)

[Rick Helmke]

The Nikon F4S, the only camera I like as well the F2, sold new for about $2500 around here. I just got one on the auction site for $125. Not new but it looks like a good shooter. The last couple of years I have picked up several film cameras and am happy with them. I am seeing prices rise on super clean bodies but otherwise not so much.

 

Rick H.

[kmac]

A Kodak Medalist just went on ebay a few minutes ago for US$615, with display box, lens cap, case and instructions.

 

Kodak MEDALIST II Works Perfectly and looks Great | eBay

[Moving On]

After being so excited a couple of years back with the film comeback, I took the opportunity to get a few Nikons which I used to only dream about in my younger days. I was fascinated to be able to buy them new and in the box as I had seen them all those years ago.

Now after a bit of interruption working on the house is Missouri I can get back to enjoying them.

Though the prices for the new ones have gone up a bit lately, they are still well below the original prices, especially adjusted for inflation.

Some of the Nikon glass is wonderful stuff.

[charles_stobbs3]

As I remember, Medalists went for $212.50 new.

[John Seaman]

It's easy to forget that although cameras like the Medalist sound reasonably priced when new, people only then earned a small fraction of what we earn nowadays. These cameras would have eaten up weeks or months of folks wages and were way out of the reach of the average peasant.

[orsetto]

There was a stronger disconnect mid-century between "high quality" camera prices and day-to-day financial reality for most people, a context that slowly ebbed during the past few decades.

 

i.e., the Medalist II price adjusted for inflation would technically be $2500 or so in today's dollars, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Today, that amount is considered eyebrow-raising to spend on a mere "camera" by most non-serious photographers (same as it was in 1947), but millions of people today happily spend a good portion of that amount for other, arguably more frivolous or equally "overpriced" consumer products.

 

Between 1947 - 1970, things were a bit different: there weren't nearly as many "must-have" pricey products or services eating up a paycheck, and cameras like the Medalist, Hasselblad 500c, Nikon F or Leica M3 were considered extravagant indulgences even by many serious photographers. The value of a dollar was more skewed and variable: certain things we take for granted now as commodity or luxury items were more expensive, other things were remarkably cheaper proportionate to average middle-class income. Plus in USA, real-world (vs statistical) inflation between 1961 and 1971 was off the charts.

[Vincent Peri]

... Plus in USA, real-world (vs statistical) inflation between 1961 and 1971 was off the charts.

 

Here's an inflation chart for the US:

 

Historical Inflation Rate- Annual Inflation rates from 1913 to the present |InflationData.com

[orsetto]

I have been surprised about the low prices for many AI Nikkor lenses.

 

Some are dropping from their peak a few years ago to more realistic levels, others remain steady or tick upwards (mostly some of the "cult" primes). The introduction of AI-crippled digital bodies like D7500 and the Z mirrorless threw a wrench into the manual Nikkor party, as did higher res sensors (and the obsessive pixel peeping that comes with them). AF has become increasingly necessary to make the most of the new sensors, esp on the old-school DSLRs with neutered difficult-to-focus OVF.

 

Zooms that were impressive achievements in the manual-focus film era are usually the first to fall apart on something like D850 or Z7: zoom performance remained relatively stagnant between 1975-1995. The wide zooms were long since eclipsed by better modern AF versions, and even the venerable ground-breaking 80-200 f/4.5 struggles on 24MP or 36MP unless technique and post-process is perfect. Some of the top-tier AFD screw-drive lenses have started to trend down as the reality of no AF support with Z platform sinks in. And the stampede of video-oriented shooters has begun drifting away from manual Nikkors to other "more-interesting" glass.

 

The popularity of Sony A7, and to lesser degree Canon and Nikon mirrorless, led to much greater numbers of cross-brand lens samplers (with no emotional stake in Nikon) than ever before in history. Over the past few years, these users have discovered (and publicized) what most of us more level-headed long-term Nikon enthusiasts have always known: the manual Nikkors are not a uniform golden ticket to visual thrillsville. Most are "just" well-made, average, journeyman lenses that are hardly likely to rock your world.

 

Many are just "meh" on digital, with some of the previously-beloved mid-price gems like 28mm f/2.8 AIS really starting to drag their ass on newer sensors. The "great" manual Nikkors were always overpriced for what they are: as deeply flawed in some respects as they are exceptionally good in others. Few will give you the instant, predictable, consistent satisfaction of a Leitz or Zeiss with their tell-tale imaging qualities: in common primes, Rokkor and Canon were sometimes more innovative. Nikon was amazing with many clever manual primes early on, but then coasted with those designs long after others caught up or got more interesting.

 

Long-term, most of the better manual focus Nikkors will remain an excellent, cost-effective choice as universal lenses in the age of mirrorless, esp as prices have stabilized from their rollercoaster highs of a few years ago.

[orsetto]

Here's an inflation chart for the US:

 

Yikes: 1966-86 was worse than I remembered. Just checked a 1975 camera buying guide, and its chock-a-block with references to how Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc, were coping with rampant inflation ruining their pricing structures and projections year after year. Apparently Nikon was the envy of the Japanese camera industry, due to their ability to leverage slight improvements and staggered price drops to the same basic amortized Nikkormat body for nearly a decade (FT, FTn, FT2) which they used to sew up the majority of the then-enormous college student market.

[arthur_gottschalk]

I've never liked the CPI as a gage of inflation. It's based on a basket of consumable commodities that in no way represents the real world. And remember that in 1964 a recent college graduate was doing well to earn $7000.00 a year.

[glen_h]

I haven't got interested in mirrorless yet, though if prices come down, I might.

 

And yes many of the lenses aren't good enough for the D850, but many of us don't have a D850.

 

I now have a D200 and D700, which I still use both of depending on the need.

 

The old AI lenses, even the zooms, are not so bad on the D200.

 

But yes, the larger aperture primes do seem to stay higher in price than

I might have expected.

[Moving On]

As I recall in the late 70’s Nikon was “IT” and priced accordingly.

Dad bought a Canon and I bought a Pentax.

Inflation was bad in the early 70’s but went through the roof from the mid 70’s into the 80’s.

Back then I used to stop by the local camera shop to kill an hour between work and school.

I must have looked at and handled every lens in that store. I dreamed of having a Pentax telephoto for the ME.

Finally had to settle on something cheaper, a Kmart Focal lens.

But I was a kid then and didn’t realize at that point it wasn’t all about long lenses.

 

Anything Nikon was well beyond my price range.

So I have really enjoyed the last few years’ market shopping the new old stuff online.

The gracefully meticulous mechanical quality of those cameras still holds my affection.

Funny how getting older returns me to my childhood, and it’s nice to see things come back ‘round at a level where I can enjoy it all again.

[orsetto]

But yes, the larger aperture primes do seem to stay higher in price than I might have expected.

 

You can snag several of the key large-aperture manual-focus AI Nikkors at reasonable cost, but it takes long-term patience stalking eBay and/or KEH. Most eBay listings (and often KEH as well) start unrealistically high, and certain lenses like the 85/1.4 or 55/50 f/1.2 seem to have immortal cults that will bid like maniacs even for beater examples, so those will always be on the pricey side. But you can find a nice (if not flawless) 35mm f/1.4 AIS for half the typical $695 ask if you stalk listings every day, and are aware of little tidbits most people don't know (i.e., fast AIS Nikkors tend to develop "Schneideritis", a harmless disintegration of black element edge coatings that looks terrible but doesn't actually impact performance much, if at all: such lenses will sell for lower).

 

Certain lenses like the 50/1.4 AI and AIS drift in and out of demand in accordance with how many newborn videographers are looking for them in a given month: within this past year they've gone from typical sold prices of $169 down to under $100, then bounced. Waiting for a periodic cliff drop can save you quite a bit. The excellent 28mm f/2.0 has wild price fluctuations, as does the 24/2 and the faster 105 and 135 variations. The 85/1.8 and 85/2 are usually stable but can drop significantly if more than two are available in the same week from USA sources.

 

One of the joys of the D700 is it tends to be simpatico with lenses that falter a bit on newer higher-res sensors. I'll probably never get rid of mine for that reason: the 12MP full-frame sensor handles nearly any glass you throw at it with aplomb, plus it has full AI meter coupling and still-impressive AF. Big, heavy, louder than I'd prefer, but the ole D700 lets me exploit some beautiful older lenses that can take much more work to finesse on newer cameras.

Edited January 22, 2020 by orsetto