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

[faberryman]

Not sure why you are surprised that some cameras are more popular than others, and in particular, that small cameras are more popular than large cameras.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

Around 1981 or so you can buy a brand new K1000 with the 50mm f/2.0 for $129. I know there is inflation but few cameras bought at that time can be sold for more than the new price.

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, the price differentials do not conform to my perception of value. Still, I do not understand the infatuation with the XA (other than its amazingly small size). Perceptions very among us, for sure, and whether those perceptions ever manifest into common sense remains to be witnessed. I have enjoyed all of your thoughts. If there are more, continue. - David Lyga

 

[BradS]

Around 1981 or so you can buy a brand new K1000 with the 50mm f/2.0 for $129...

...and this is why, in my opinion, every Photo 101 student was told to buy a Pentax K-1000 with 50mm f/2 lens...because it was CHEAP then.

I agree that the relative prices today are out of whack.

 

[David Lyga]

I guess the real reason this topic piques my interest so much is because of my age. I know how these cameras were portrayed way back when and, now, they seem to be 're-discovered' in a new light.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, the price differentials do not conform to my perception of value.

Different things are valuable to different people. That's why we have a wide variety of cameras.

 

[dmr]

Market conditions. Supply and demand. Econ. 101. Willing buyer and willing seller meet at the price point.

 

[Wallendo]

There were a very large number of camera models released over many decades.
A few cameras have achieved celebrity status and command higher prices. Beginners may receive a recommendation of a particular camera model and may not be informed of similar, and often superior, models. Hence, some cameras sell for higher prices than other similar cameras.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No focusable film camera has ever been made that has as good image quality as the Olympus XA that is also as small and light as the Olympus XA. You can put an XA in a jeans pocket, you cannot put a Canon in there.

 

[wiltw]

I guess the real reason this topic piques my interest so much is because of my age. I know how these cameras were portrayed way back when and, now, they seem to be 're-discovered' in a new light.

And representative of the downside of the same phenomenon, what I paid for a new medium format SLR body and finder and lens, costing multiples of what you had to pay for a new 135 format equivalent kit, today sells for 10% of the original retail price!

 

[TheRook]

Over the last 2-3 years there have been several well-publicized articles raving about the Olympus XA. As a result, this camera is now in high demand - it has become the latest rage among film cameras. Consequently, the price goes up. Of course, this doesn't mean Olympus XA is a superior camera than a less expensive model. Last year I found an XA at a flea market for $3 and purchased it. After using it for several months, I've come to the conclusion that although it is a nice camera in its class, there's nothing really special about it. Certainly not enough to justify what people are willing to spend to get their hands on one.

 

[John Wiegerink]

No focusable film camera has ever been made that has as good image quality as the Olympus XA that is also as small and light as the Olympus XA. You can put an XA in a jeans pocket, you cannot put a Canon in there.

Well, if you mean "has a rangefinder" then maybe yes. If you are just talking "focusing lens" then no as to the XA having the best image quality. Minox 35 easily fits the shirt pocket and I prefer its lens. Even the cheapest model Minox 35, the EL, will blow the XA in the weeds. And the very small Konica C35's are not far behind. My wife bought me an XA the minute they hit the shelves so I know first hand. It was a good camera as far as ease of use and portability, but it's lens never impressed me. Anything wider than f5.6 to f8 and you could forget anything close to a 16X20. I have owned several more after that trying to maybe catch one with a sterling lens. Never found one. If size and portability are important and image quality second then the XA is fine. I'll take the scale focusing Minox 35 myself. Of course I'm an old bow hunter and rifle shooter and can judge distance very well. The Minox trick is to find one in good working order as the shutter magnets get one speck of dust or debris between the contacts and your screwed. I'm not saying the XA is a bad camera and kept my first one until I bought a Minox 35. Oh, I think very highly of the Rollei 35's image quality too and would rate the 35mm Tessar version slightly better than the Minox 35, but I just can't fit it in a front shirt pocket. If it did fit it would be to heavy for the pocket. Plus, I never cared for it's sharper corners of the camera compared to the XA and Minox 35. Now that is just my experience, but at least I can speak from that experience. I hate some of the other sites and forums since some folks like to rate something they have never tried. Of course they lead you to believe they are experts on the topic. Not anyone in this thread. Kind of like all those instructors sending kids out to search down the Pentax K1000. I used to buy used cameras and do the show circuit and have had to privilege of owning many, many cameras. That ownership might have been short, but I got to tryout a lot of cameras in that time.

 

[benjiboy]

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

It reminds me of the old axiom David Question "what's 2 and 2? " Answer " are you buying or selling ? ".

 

[David Lyga]

Finally sanity prevails. At least according to both 'The Rook' and John Wiegerink'. The XA was never INTENDED to be something special. It is a good, novel camera but nothing more. - David Lyga

 

[John Wiegerink]

Finally sanity prevails. At least according to both 'The Rook' and John Wiegerink'. The XA was never INTENDED to be something special. It is a good, novel camera but nothing more. - David Lyga

David,
I hope I didn't sound to anti-XA, because I'm not. The XA serves the purpose it was intended to serve..................a light, ultra compact full frame 35mm camera. I believe that that is why it's still an extremely popular camera. If you are interested in "TOP" image quality I prefer something a little better. That's just me of course. I have a very nice QL17 on the shelf above my head as I search & peck this out. Is it's lens better than the XA's lens? I think so and that's why it's on the shelf instead of my old XA. My favorite "fixed lens" rangefinder 35mm is the Yashica GSN or GS. I have never been disappointed with its image quality or metering. Back to the XA. I actually like and think the XA2 is a better camera when it comes to image quality. Again, that's just me of course. Different strokes for different folks!

 

[wiltw]

Perhaps a read of this might give insight as to why the significantly higher esteem and price for the XA

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2018/06/20/olympus-xa-review-35mm-film-camera-rangefinder/

Other articles dub it a 'cult classic' and 'a pocket marvel'

"The XA’s diminutive stature, however, was achieved without need for a collapsible or folding lens, unlike its competitors in the pocket-sized 35mm category, the Rollei 35 and the Minox 135. No need for a case either, as its “capsule” design incorporated a sliding dust cover that protected the lens and locked the shutter when closed, and turned the camera on when opened."
​

and there is its association with the designer genius of Maitani who also designed the OM-1 which changed the world.

 

[warden]

Perhaps a read of this might give insight as to why the significantly higher esteem and price for the XA.....
and there is its association with the designer genius of Maitani who also designed the OM-1 which changed the world.

That tiny camera is amazing. Miniaturization is such a difficult task, and he achieved it without a CAD system to smooth the process. It's quite an achievement.

 

[GRHazelton]

Not surprising. Just look at the silly prices reached by the Pentax K1000 while the better specification KX and KM languished. Oh but students were told that the K1000 was the quintessential learning camera so prices went crazy.
Meanwhile, I paid all of $5 for a lesser known K mount, a Sears KS500, with it’s 50 f2 and good meter batteries no less.
It is a rebadged Ricoh KR5 but the Sears name on the lens drops the price from what is paid for even that pedestrian SLR.
A few less shutter speeds than the K1000, from 1/8 to1/500 + B, but really, anything you learn using the K1000 can be learned on the KS 500.

Tell it! I scored an immaculate KX with a f1.4 lens a few years ago for less, WAY less, than $150! I have a K1000 given me many years ago; it is only "adequate." The KX is what the K1000 should have been: while it lacks a winder and interchangeable screens it will support a learner far farther than the K1000. Here in the Atlanta area K1000's go for absurd prices, probably fuel by the local influence of the Savannah School of Art and Design which does, to its credit, still teach film. But still....

 

[AgX]

Saw a Monix 35 GT-E at a camera shop for 125€ or so. At that price they at least could have spelled its name right...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

"collectable paradigm" is no more relevant to photography than are old shoes in the closet.

AND the XA is more likely to remain functional after serious use than is that Canon. Better engineering design.

Well, the XA has some stupid cult value that is for sure and Canon is far more common. But $13 for QL17 is closer to free, $135 for XA is qual to stupid (to pay that much). But to state that XA has better "engineering design", that is beyond myth, likely derived from its ... well ... stupid cult status.

If Andy (Warhol) shot with either, that garbage would have gone for a million from either camera, if Joe Doe looked up what camera is going to help sell his garbage photo for more, he would have been told ... the XA.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Saw a Monix 35 GT-E at a camera shop for 125€ or so. At that price they at least could have spelled its name right...

The Monix is so rare, it could only by logical to sell for well above 100

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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

+1, what surrounds XA is beyond logic, yet always seemingly described as magical.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No focusable film camera has ever been made that has as good image quality as the Olympus XA that is also as small and light as the Olympus XA. You can put an XA in a jeans pocket, you cannot put a Canon in there.

This belongs to cult member oath of allegiance, not factual in its core sense.

When I think of XA, I cannot help but equate its enigma to Holga. Holga was just a brilliant marketing stunt that took the world by its horns and never looked back, despite where it actually stands in overall quality department or capabilities. But I have always given Holga credit where its due, it kept up film demand when it was dwindling quick, and we can all be thankful for that.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

...and this is why, in my opinion, every Photo 101 student was told to buy a Pentax K-1000 with 50mm f/2 lens...because it was CHEAP then.

I agree that the relative prices today are out of whack.

Back in 1989 I went to K-Mart to check out the K1000. Played around for a while and ... ordered Minolta X700 with 50/1.4 for about $80 more from B&H. Kept me smiling for years to come. Some years ago I "discovered" the Spotmatic, which made me to acquire most of Pentax M42 models and eventually the K-mount ones. For all these years doing so, I've been more and more in disbelief how the K1000 still maintains it's price point, especially given how mass produced this was. It is a good camera, just silly how propaganda, which continues to this day BTW, keeps its prices up there.

 

[AgX]

When I think of XA, I cannot help but equate its enigma to Holga. Holga was just a brilliant marketing stunt that took the world by its horns.

Not quite.
So far I never ever came across a used Holga.