Another price differential that absolutely floors me (and I really mean 'floors me')

[markjwyatt]

My Contax iia with a Zeiss Opton Sonnar costs a fraction of a Leica M3 with any Leitz optics. The M3 certainly has a couple of improvements over the iia, but I am not sure it is any better quality (perhaps even vice versa), but, it is in more demand (and perhaps due to following and numbers available has better investment value long term). I am perfectly happy with my affordable Contax iia.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Could be the size, simplicity and young ones.
One young one stopped me on the street and asked about m4-2. Then pulled out... xa2.
Young ones have no bags with them. And no willingness to use something with too many controls.

 

[Arklatexian]

Could be a simple matter of inventory.

+1

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Ricoh sold a lot of crappy cameras.

Perhaps, I don't have the experience. But the Ricoh Singlex TLS was for me a stellar performer, and still is quite capable (absent a few loose screws!) It was my main camera for almost thirty years.

 

[dmr]

Wow black is worth a lot of money. I got my chrome for $3.

There's a black one going for US $275 on That Auction Site. Of course that's asking price, buy it now.

It looks like the chrome ones in good condition (translated: Only run over by a small truck) are anywhere from $49-ish to $150-ish or so.

Looking quickly at the KEH site (as in the one that started this all), I see a chrome one "bargain" grade for $190.65 and an "ugly" inoperative one for $53.

They have a section for the black ones, but none are currently listed.

 

[reddesert]

I have had and used a Canonet QL17 and an Olympus XA (Canonet since the early 90s, XA since maybe the late 90s). They are both 35mm RFs but otherwise pretty different. Obviously the Canonet is the refinement (and more or less end point) of the standard compact RF with manual controls, while the XA is aperture priority and fits in one's pocket. The Canonet and similar RFs were originally marketed as a sort of junior or simpler camera for a person who didn't want or need the complexity and expense of an SLR. I remember my dad buying a Canonet as a present for my cousin, around the time I got my first SLR; this is how I remembered it in the early 90s, before one could quickly look everything up on the internet. In contrast, the XA was since its introduction always sort of a premium camera with an aura of design-object, full page ads in photo magazines, etc.

When I got the Canonet used, it was not terribly fashionable or expensive (however, the black ones have always been very uncommon). It took significantly longer for me to get a moderate-price XA (under $100 or so) - this was during the film era, so neither had yet suffered digital-era devaluation. I enjoy using both of them, but they are different and I don't think a direct comparison of their prices is particularly illuminating. I also don't think KEH's "buy" prices tell us much that is useful. They reflect some combination of what KEH thinks the camera will sell for (user demand), the supply, the ease/difficulty of finding an example in relatively unmarked condition, etc. There are so many working film cameras out there, that one may buy a pretty decent 35mm SLR or compact RF for less than the cost of developing two rolls of prints. So we should go out and make pictures.

 

[David Lyga]

David, why are you so interested in KEH's buying prices?

I've seen you at camera shows rummaging through boxes of junk cameras, can't help wondering whether you bought some for resale to KEH and weren't offered as much as you'd hoped for.

If you saw me rummaging though cameras, it surely was me. (Who else is so nuts?) My fascination with KEH's prices does not emanate from KEH, but, rather, from an obsession with market prices, in general. Are they feigned? The result of recent trends? Indicative of hidden value? Solely as collectible? Hearsay that proves to be incorrect? All these factors amaze me. I used to be involved with numismatics (until I was robbed of a fortune, a real fortune) but it was the same, with the addition that a coin can do nothing but look pretty. Chan Tran's re-iteration about the K1000 vs KX is a case in point here. Why anyone would pay more for a K1000 with less valuable lens than for an KX with superior lens is an exercise in either naivety or blatant stupidity. And why an XA would dare compete in price with a Nikon F body baffles the clear-thinking mind. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Wow black is worth a lot of money. I got my chrome for $3.

Now when a rational person dares to equate the premium value attached to black paint, otherwise identical, we are firmly into the realm of 'collectible'; not any other. If you agree with this price differential, so be it, but for me, I would rather own four chrome for the same total price, and let it be my 'loss'. - David Lyga

 

[Chan Tran]

Now when a rational person dares to equate the premium value attached to black paint, otherwise identical, we are firmly into the realm of 'collectible'; not any other. If you agree with this price differential, so be it, but for me, I would rather own four chrome for the same total price, and let it be my 'loss'. - David Lyga

I didn't pay good money for the black Canonet. In fact I wouldn't even buy my chrome Canonet if it wasn't cheap.

 

[David Lyga]

Perhaps, I don't have the experience. But the Ricoh Singlex TLS was for me a stellar performer, and still is quite capable (absent a few loose screws!) It was my main camera for almost thirty years.

Again, Ricoh was a generally respected name. This Singlex was built like a brick shxt house. Even Nikon made bombs. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

Young ones have no bags with them.

I still have to see a woman without her bag.
And guys have bags too. Over here.

 

[David Lyga]

Actually, there are too many things to carry. Always, I carry a briefcase because I have stuff to carry. But, maybe the young ones, the ones who care ONLY about looking at their phones and NOTHING else, carry nothing else. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

As fr as KEH is concerned, with items like these, if their inventory of XAs was ten times their inventory of Canonets, the prices would be reversed.

 

[David Lyga]

As fr as KEH is concerned, with items like these, if their inventory of XAs was ten times their inventory of Canonets, the prices would be reversed.

Matt, somehow, someway, I doubt that. Maybe you are correct but I am not convinced. There is an obsession out there for XA. - David Lyga

 

[jtk]

Again, Ricoh was a generally respected name. This Singlex was built like a brick shxt house. Even Nikon made bombs. - David Lyga

Desperate salespeople in camera stores sold Ricoh only to get the "spiffs" (usually forbidden bribes by brand salesmen).

 

[jtk]

Oly XA is uses a thumb wheel for advance, not a motor.

Yes. Thumb wheel. Even better than a motor....smarter engineering for plastic cameras.

 

[Dan Fromm]

If you saw me rummaging though cameras, it surely was me. (Who else is so nuts?) My fascination with KEH's prices does not emanate from KEH, but, rather, from an obsession with market prices, in general. Are they feigned? The result of recent trends? Indicative of hidden value? Solely as collectible? Hearsay that proves to be incorrect? All these factors amaze me. I used to be involved with numismatics (until I was robbed of a fortune, a real fortune) but it was the same, with the addition that a coin can do nothing but look pretty. Chan Tran's re-iteration about the K1000 vs KX is a case in point here. Why anyone would pay more for a K1000 with less valuable lens than for an KX with superior lens is an exercise in either naivety or blatant stupidity. And why an XA would dare compete in price with a Nikon F body baffles the clear-thinking mind. - David Lyga

David, KEH's buying prices are not what most of us think of as market prices. KEH buys below market, sells at market. Ending prices of auctions on eBay and KEH's selling prices are market prices that somewhat reflect the states of supply and demand. We end-users are usually stuck with buying at market.

In thin markets prices can be very variable. In markets for common items, not so much. However, for markets to work buyers have to know what is what.

Ignorant students who've been advised to buy a K1000 don't know enough about the alternatives to behave in a way you or I would see as rational.

XA vs. Nikon F? They're hardly comparable. XA fits in a small pocket. I don't know anyone with pockets large enough to hold an F with 35/2.8 Nikkor. My late mother loved her XA, would not have traveled with a large front-heavy SLR for anything.

I prefer SLRs to rangefinders and fully manual cameras to auto-anything cameras (with the exception of an aperture preferred AE SLR hung behind my Questar 700, there stepless shutter speeds have some appeal), have always used second tier fully manyal Nikons. You're right, an XA isn't a good substitute for any of them but none of them is a good substitute for an XA. I fear you'r a little muddled.

Happy hunting,

Dan

 

[dmr]

For those who care, since the K1000 has been mentioned, and since that was my main shooting camera from the 1980s to the early 2000s, curiosity got to me and I checked current prices.

KEH is selling the bodies for $189.82 in excellent shape, which is almost as much as I paid for mine with the stock f/2 lens back in the days. They also have "bargain" ones for $129 and "ugly" ones for $69.

Checking That Auction Site, prices are all over the place with "mint refurbished" ones with the f/2 lens going for $159 and others that look like they are in decent shape, many with what I would call grab bag lenses, going anywhere from $70-ish to $180-ish,

Nobody seems to qualify if they are the older Japanese all-metal ones or the newer ones with the plastic parts. Mine is the older all-metal ones and I can feel the difference when picking up the partly-plastic ones.

 

[warden]

For those who care, since the K1000 has been mentioned, and since that was my main shooting camera from the 1980s to the early 2000s, curiosity got to me and I checked current prices.

KEH is selling the bodies for $189.82 in excellent shape, which is almost as much as I paid for mine with the stock f/2 lens back in the days. They also have "bargain" ones for $129 and "ugly" ones for $69.

Checking That Auction Site, prices are all over the place with "mint refurbished" ones with the f/2 lens going for $159 and others that look like they are in decent shape, many with what I would call grab bag lenses, going anywhere from $70-ish to $180-ish,

Nobody seems to qualify if they are the older Japanese all-metal ones or the newer ones with the plastic parts. Mine is the older all-metal ones and I can feel the difference when picking up the partly-plastic ones.

I had a K1000 when I went to college in the '80s (art school, they required a camera to document work, and suggested a manual 35mm, so my dad picked a Pentax which I really loved and took care of.) That camera was lost in a flood in the late '90s and I replaced it with several other cameras until present day.

Just this year my dad said he had an old camera to give me that he no longer used. It's a K1000! I had no idea that he also bought one for himself back when he got mine as a senior in high school. It's in perfect condition and is now a prized possession. I'll never be without it, and I imagine that's how a lot of people that started with K1000s feel after a few decades. I wound it and fired off a few frames with him and it really made him happy to hear the old shutter work. It's a good, sturdy, simple and unpretentious camera.

As for the OP and being "absolutely floored" at KEH's offers for used cameras, I don't know what to say. I didn't know anything about that particular Canon or Olympus until today when I watched happy Youtube reviews about each of them. Aside from both being 35mm cameras they're quite different really and I would not expect them to be the same price. That Olympus is incredibly small and cool, and obviously aimed at a different buyer than the Canon. At any rate, they both are cheap cameras that have something to offer, and if you like selling cheap cameras to KEH I guess you need to negotiate to get your margin like everyone else in sales.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In Like New Minus condition, KEH is offering to buy your Canon QL17 with 40mm / f1.7 lens for a whopping $13.

In Like New Minus condition, KEH is offering to buy your Olympus XA for $135.

Now, does ANYONE HERE think that the Canon is any way 'inferior' to the auto-only Olympus? There is more than a 10X differential folks. Why? Trendiness plays too large a part in today's collectible paradigm. - David Lyga

nuts

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Desperate salespeople in camera stores sold Ricoh only to get the "spiffs" (usually forbidden bribes by brand salesmen).

So all the years I used the Ricoh didn't happen, and the thousands of pictures I took do not exist. You can not tell the difference between the pictures shot with the Ricoh, the Nikon F, or any of the Minoltas I have.

 

[reddesert]

Why are we even arguing about these things? It's not like an Olympus XA is a Diana or Lomographic box camera. If people revisiting film want to spend $100-200 on a Pentax K1000 or an XA with a seller's guarantee of operability, let them. It doesn't seem unreasonable, even if I could find one cheaper with no guarantee; you'll spend more than the camera price in less than 10 rolls of print or slide film and processing anyway.

For the sake of whatever, I looked up the contemporary retail prices by skimming ads in an old issue of Popular Photography on books.google.com. I took January 1981. There were a lot of stores listing the XA (also a several page Olympus ad spread including the XA and XA2), and relatively fewer listing the Canonet (because it was not a high end item). Here's one that had both, the Midtown Foto ad on page 148: https://books.google.com/books?id=rzH31j84pn8C&lpg=PP1&dq=popular photography&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=false
The street price (not MSRP) of an XA was US $120 and a Canonet G-III 17 was $88. For comparison, a Nikon FM with 50/1.8 was $230 from the same store. The Pentax K1000 with 50/2 was $137 (typical introductory SLR outfit - I nearly bought one around that time, but it didn't have a split image focuser, only microprism, so I bought a Yashica).

 

[Ozxplorer]

From my point of view... the Canon, although a fine camera, comes up short against the XA in 3 value aspects... The former camera was released in 1965 making it a nearly 15 years older model than the XA. The Canon employs a shutter priority exposure system which makes it less desirable for current users who mainly think “aperture priority” these days... considered more convenient? Lastly, and more importantly, the Canon requires 1.3v mercury oxide batteries & they’re no longer available! Thus, to fully utilise the Canon automatic exposure features it is necessary to spend more on repair to compensate for the higher voltage of modern batteries (or buy adapters). Whereas, the XA uses easily obtained 1.5 silver oxide batteries... These factors might contribute to the price differential but do they make the one camera better than the other? I don’t think so. Each camera probably just appeals to a different consumer market? I do know which of the 2 models I would go for... and it is not the “plastic” camera!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Actually, there are too many things to carry. Always, I carry a briefcase because I have stuff to carry. But, maybe the young ones, the ones who care ONLY about looking at their phones and NOTHING else, carry nothing else. - David Lyga

This is what I see in Toronto, GTA. Fourth largest city in NA.

 

[ciniframe]

Just conducted a experiment as if I were helping a neophyte shop for a basic 35mm SLR, this is what I found.
From Roberts Camera in Indianapolis;
A VG rated Ricoh KR5 Super II fully functional with a 6 month warr. $27
A Pentax 50mm f2 w/G rating, functional w/internal dust. $29
Free shipping, Washington st. sales tax 9.3% brings total to $61.21
Save at least $140 over buying that K1000. For that $140 the student could get a changing bag, B&W film, tanks & reels, HC110 and fixer.
Get them off on the right mind set.