Is some gear too cheap?

[Steven Lee]

It’s not even old fashioned “supply and demand”. Much of it is bubbles and a uninformed frenzied/fevered marked.

That's true for absolutely everything. There's no rational reason for any mass produced pants to be more than $20. So yes, it is very much the old fashioned supply and demand. Markets aren't supposed to be rational or even informed.

That's why we all hire demand generation specialists, not demand responding specialists

 

[Helge]

Used gear is not speculation when one buys from places that will issue refunds, replace or repair such as KEH.

The prices are speculation. When opportunists and speculators spring up, you know you got yourself some kind of bubble.

That's true for absolutely everything. There's no rational reason for any mass produced pants to be more than $20. So yes, it is very much the old fashioned supply and demand. Markets aren't supposed to be rational or even informed.

That's why we all hire demand generation specialists, not demand responding specialists

Congratulations, you just figured out modern economy.
It’s not supply and demand classic™, if there is an artificially induced scarcity to the product.
Common examples of this is gold and diamonds. Not anywhere near as rare as their market prices would suggest.

Also when the market centers on a certain iteration of a product, in this case a model such as the Mju II, and in some ratio of mix/synergy between herd mentality and fanning the fire/triggering of a buyer stampede by sellers.
Then it’s not supply and demand either. Because at any time can someone step in (with the right product) and take a slice of the cake.

 

[Steven Lee]

Congratulations, you just figured out modern economy.

There is nothing to "figure out". This is high school level economics, I was simply pointing out that your previous comment wasn't compatible with it. This IS what supply&demand looks like, there is nothing old fashioned about it.

 

[Helge]

I am not following. There is nothing to "figure out". This is high school level economics, I was simply pointing out that it's not compatible with your previous comment. This IS what modern supply&demand looks like.

Exactly. But people often forget it. Thinking that there is some fairness and reason to pricing, when that is very rarely the case with any commodity (including work).
I was talking about old fashioned/classic supply and demand, where the (naive) thinking was that there was a direct correlation between how much there was of a given good or service, how many people wanted it and the price.

 

[aw614]

Fortunately we can avoid the craziness completely -- for example, buy a MAXXUM 5 for $15 instead of a MAXXUM 7 for $150.

As much as I wanted an 80s Maxxum 7000 or 9000 for its look, the Maxxum 5 I picked up for 35 bucks on ebay (Plus two rolls of film) does everything I want for an autofocus film SLR.

 

[Pieter12]

It might also be about process as well as end result. The film process of both taking the picture and getting the results back (delayed) is different, and maybe that's a lot of what they want. Some of what new film users desire seems to be a respite from the deluge of immediately available digital imagery. (I'm not intending to get into any arguments about one being better than the other, just that the mode of working is clearly different.)

That wouldn't explain the popularity of Instax and New Polaroid. Also, if you have the discipline you can turn off automatic picture review in some cameras. If I am not shooting something critical, I usually won't look at my digital photos until I take a break or at the end of the day. Even sometimes a week later.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That wouldn't explain the popularity of Instax and New Polaroid. Also, if you have the discipline you can turn off automatic picture review in some cameras. If I am not shooting something critical, I usually won't look at my digital photos until I take a break or at the end of the day. Even sometimes a week later.

I bought new Polaroid cameras for one of my daughters and my grandson because they requested them.

 

[Cholentpot]

Speaking of used gear.

The EOS 10s started up no prob. Just jumped back in and it hasn't been used since at least 2014 because that's when the battery expired. Just right in it goes.

The Pentax Super Program though, it's being finicky. It's a neat little hybrid camera but the screen keeps flashing E or the shutter speed wont change. A quick rap on the bottom seems to set it straight. The rubber ring grip on lens came loose but it's back on via double sided tape.

 

[theboatdude]

There is more to pricing than what a thing is worth -- it's what the thing is worth to other people.

My favorite subject for this is the Pentax K1000, which in my experience generally sells for more than other K-series models (KM, KX, K2) despite having fewer features, less-robust construction (for later models) and being built in significantly higher quantities. It sells for a lot because many folks my age started out with them, and they want to re-live that experience as they get back into film. (Same for Canon AE-1 and Nikon FM2/3.) And then newbies hear about how great these cameras are, and they fuel the demand, because compared to the cost of digital, a $150 K1000 is inexpensive.

Is the K1000 better than the KX and K2? The answer, demonstrably, is new. But it's considered more desirable, so it commands a higher price. Same for Nikon FE vs Sears KS Auto. The KSA is not as refined but has a better feature set, and I personally think it's a better camera. But everyone has heard of Nikon, and few people know a Sears KSA is a Ricoh XR-2s, and good chance they don't even know what an XR-2s is. (Hint: An outstanding camera that sells for peanuts. I bought both of mine for <US$20.)

I too am amazed at how inexpensive some of those high-end Nikons are. I got a good deal on an N8008 and lenses from a friend, and have thought of supplementing it with an N8008s or an N90. I couldn't afford to breathe on those things in the camera store when they were new; now I can get one for twenty-five bucks or less. Amazing deal on an amazing camera.

And yet... I don't shoot with my N8008 much, because to me it's a bit too automated -- a bit too much like digital. I like the old-camera experience, so to me the Nikon isn't worth much. Yeah, I'd pick up an N8008s body for $20. But I'm also debating the purchase of a Spotmatic, which I figure will cost in the $50 to $75 range. Which is the more feature-filled camera? The Nikon, hands down. It does more, has better optics, shoots faster, and its lenses aren't radioactive. It has more value -- but not to me. And that's why I'll pay 4x as much for a less-capable camera.

Is gear to cheap? To a cheapskate like me, no, not possible. Personally I am glad there are still undiscovered bargains out there, and I hope that remains the case. It's nice that when people lament the climbing cost of some gear, I can say, "No, wait, there are great cameras that can be had cheap. Nikon N8008, Minolta Maxxum 5, and Sears KS Auto are all examples of top- or-close-to-top-of-the-range cameras of their time, and you can get any one of 'em for twenty bucks or less."

Long may cheap photography ride!

Aaron

Too cheap? Nah…I’m a sucker for a cheap camera…even when I don’t even need one! (OK, “need”)

 

[reddesert]

That wouldn't explain the popularity of Instax and New Polaroid. Also, if you have the discipline you can turn off automatic picture review in some cameras. If I am not shooting something critical, I usually won't look at my digital photos until I take a break or at the end of the day. Even sometimes a week later.

There doesn't have to be one single reason why people are interested in film. It seems clear that people interested in Instax are motivated by the physical object of the photograph. Some younger people who grew up with digital imaging are motivated by the non-instantaneity of the film process (I'm not just making that up, it is something one reads people saying in recent articles about film use), sort of the mental opposite of posting highly constructed selfies or manipulated photos to social media. Some think that film has an ineffable quality (which old film coots may be skeptical of). And some might be trend-followers.

Some years ago, photo forums were full of people arguing back and forth about image quality and number of equivalent pixels. When I read current articles about film revival, hardly anyone is talking about that kind of stuff, which is fine.

 

[Moose22]

Too cheap? Nah…I’m a sucker for a cheap camera…even when I don’t even need one! (OK, “need”)

Dude, I was doing time lapses with a digital during the lockdowns. I wasn't posting here, but I got involved in some random picture threads on a music forum, of all places. I have a few online friends there, and we were just desperate to be social so sharing everything, but they're as bad at GAS as camera lovers.

I was having lens fogging issues trying to do sunsets and stars moving across the sky, and spent a bit of money building a rig to keep my lens warm at night. Totally because we weren't allowed to leave the house so I was killing time in the yard with my camera, no practical reason. I mentioned it when showing a timelapse and the overwhelming response was that I should absolutely have a lens warmer and portable power supply! One person said, and I quote: "That's gear you need."

I'll admit, I've used that lens warmer on dozens of nights. But "need" is entirely subjective. If you ask me, I'll pass on the advice about a camera that you enjoy using. That camera is gear you need.

 

[Huss]

Used gear is pure speculation. It’s not worth anything really.
Everything was payed off and absorbed decades ago. It’s not even old fashioned “supply and demand”. Much of it is bubbles and a uninformed frenzied/fevered marked.

To take the N80 as example, the reason they are not hot, is simply that they look like arse.
The 90s 00s was the nadir of industrial design (and anything popculture really).
Not that it’s terribly much better since then.

That, and also that they get sticky and they require a lens that costs five to ten times the bodies price, if you want a good prime and not a slow, big zoom.

Demand is fickle and shallow. Informed purchases are rare. Look at the popularity of the insanely priced Contax Ts.
They look nice and clean, that’s why they sell.
That is Pentax chance.
Good industrial design and a little something extra in the way of features.

The N80 looks like arse? Looks like hot arse to me . The sticky is a one time 15 minute super easy fix. And you can buy a nice Nikon 50 1.8d for $60-$70 used or $103 new. Not sure where you got 10 times the body price? Or even 5 times.
I don’t even get your point about the lens. No matter what slr you buy, you will also need a lens - that‘s not limited to the N80!

Cameras like the K1000 are worth more/ more popular because kids are told by youtubers that is the camera to get. Even though the Pentax KM and KX are better cameras and have the same styling. Too late, youtube has spoken!

 

[250swb]

Excuse me, but I don't understand what you are trying to say at all. There are tons of very cheap second-hand Lomography cameras in the market where I live. They are the ones which are (relatively) cheap to begin with, like the Diana, Holga, Fisheye, Konstruktor etc. etc. and they are even cheaper when used. How would that "fuel the market"? Or do you mean that this drives down rates? The more expensive Lomography cameras (Belair, Lubitel 166+, LC-A 120) I don't see very often at all on eBay or in the classifieds. Maybe it's different where you live or I'm having a reading comprehension issue.

Anyway, is the plenitude of Lomography camera on the second-hand market proof that "the young crowd move(s) on" from their hobby, or do people maybe move on to different/"better" cameras?

I'm sorry you have difficulty with comprehension. The Lomography movement grabs the attention of young people especially. And it's growing, like the growth in sales of vinyl records, where much of the sales of film are not now because of the die-hards but to people abandoning their phone camera and buying a cheap film camera, something plastic. But the trend for film is now driving those same people to enter the 'proper' camera market, and given there aren't a lot of options for buying a new film camera they are buying second hand. Which drives up the prices of second hand cameras. Do you require any more words of explanation?

 

[Helge]

The N80 looks like arse? Looks like hot arse to me . The sticky is a one time 15 minute super easy fix. And you can buy a nice Nikon 50 1.8d for $60-$70 used or $103 new. Not sure where you got 10 times the body price? Or even 5 times.
I don’t even get your point about the lens. No matter what slr you buy, you will also need a lens - that‘s not limited to the N80!

Cameras like the K1000 are worth more/ more popular because kids are told by youtubers that is the camera to get. Even though the Pentax KM and KX are better cameras and have the same styling. Too late, youtube has spoken!

Nikon F mount primes are are still very much a live market. Just like Canon EF.
That’s why they are more expensive.
The other primes are a curiosity/niche market for people who have convinced themselves that the magic of film is in the optics used. They require adaptors and manual everything.

$103 could easily be five times what you pay for an N80. And most people will often not settle for a “simple” 1.8 once they go SLR.

No matter what you think of the design. The N80 looks like any old DSLR and that is really not what most new film shooter is looking for. No matter how good the camera.

 

[henryvk]

I'm sorry you have difficulty with comprehension. The Lomography movement grabs the attention of young people especially. And it's growing, like the growth in sales of vinyl records, where much of the sales of film are not now because of the die-hards but to people abandoning their phone camera and buying a cheap film camera, something plastic. But the trend for film is now driving those same people to enter the 'proper' camera market, and given there aren't a lot of options for buying a new film camera they are buying second hand. Which drives up the prices of second hand cameras. Do you require any more words of explanation?

I see, but maybe keep in mind that English is not be everyone's first language, so no need to be terse.

Maybe also look at it this way: While there aren't a lot of options for buying a new film camera, Lomographic Society International is one of the very few companies that actually *does* make new consumer-level cameras. Not all of which are that cheap and/or entirely geared towards lo-fi aesthetics either.

Personally, I'm seeing some cameras go up in price in some cases. There's a popular German instagrammer, for instance, who frequently shows off an Edixa Reflex C with the waist-level finder. This is a bit of a novelty for a lot of people; nobody cared about Edixas before (and they are overall only so-so cameras, firmly entry-level in their day) but prices have since increased from 30-40€ to about 100€ for an okay looking one. That's just how it goes, to borrow from Kurt Vonnegut, and there a still so many very cheap cameras in the classifieds that, personally, I find it hard to be bothered.

PS: I don't really shoot SLRs but I had a Ricoh that I really liked and those XRs are fairly good imo; you can often pick them up for, like, 10 or 15€ with a very decent Rikenon 50mm lens.

 

[250swb]

I see, but maybe keep in mind that English is not be everyone's first language, so no need to be terse.

Maybe also look at it this way: While there aren't a lot of options for buying a new film camera, Lomographic Society International is one of the very few companies that actually *does* make new consumer-level cameras. Not all of which are that cheap and/or entirely geared towards lo-fi aesthetics either.

Personally, I'm seeing some cameras go up in price in some cases. There's a popular German instagrammer, for instance, who frequently shows off an Edixa Reflex C with the waist-level finder. This is a bit of a novelty for a lot of people; nobody cared about Edixas before (and they are overall only so-so cameras, firmly entry-level in their day) but prices have since increased from 30-40€ to about 100€ for an okay looking one. That's just how it goes, to borrow from Kurt Vonnegut, and there a still so many very cheap cameras in the classifieds that, personally, I find it hard to be bothered.

PS: I don't really shoot SLRs but I had a Ricoh that I really liked and those XRs are fairly good imo; you can often pick them up for, like, 10 or 15€ with a very decent Rikenon 50mm lens.

I've also seen photos from people using often unpopular cameras that use waist level finders (a Miranda for example) etc. and they're getting great photos bringing a different perspective to common subjects like street photography. This is certainly and area where 'thinking outside the box' can get you a great bargain, and the lenses are often very good as well, it's just that we've forgotten. You are certainly right about not all Lomo cameras being for lo-fi aesthetics, and I suppose being new they have risen in price simply from the worldwide shortage of materials in the supply chain.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Used gear is pure speculation. It’s not worth anything really.
Everything was payed off and absorbed decades ago. It’s not even old fashioned “supply and demand”. Much of it is bubbles and a uninformed frenzied/fevered marked.

To take the N80 as example, the reason they are not hot, is simply that they look like arse.
The 90s 00s was the nadir of industrial design (and anything popculture really).
Not that it’s terribly much better since then.

That, and also that they get sticky and they require a lens that costs five to ten times the bodies price, if you want a good prime and not a slow, big zoom.

Demand is fickle and shallow. Informed purchases are rare. Look at the popularity of the insanely priced Contax Ts.
They look nice and clean, that’s why they sell.
That is Pentax chance.
Good industrial design and a little something extra in the way of features.

Then a 50-year-old used house or a used car isn;t worth anything either? It's not speculation if you can use it for something. A price is based on what a willing seller and willing buyer agree on. Frankly, $100 for an SLR camera seems like a bargain for what it can do. When I think of what I paid new for my RB67 lenses decades ago that people can buy today for relatively little. And that was when the dollar was worth something.

 

[Huss]

Nikon F mount primes are are still very much a live market. Just like Canon EF.
That’s why they are more expensive.
The other primes are a curiosity/niche market for people who have convinced themselves that the magic of film is in the optics used. They require adaptors and manual everything.

$103 could easily be five times what you pay for an N80. And most people will often not settle for an “simple” 1.8 once they go SLR.

No matter what you think of the design. The N80 looks like any old SLR and that is really not what most new film shooter is looking for. No matter how good the camera.

Little anecdote, I sold my F100 w 50 lens to a girl in art school here in LA a little while back. I actually dealt with her Dad online, and he arranged it for her to meet to pick up.
When she told me it was for a film course I was a little surprised as so many people had said that film course instructors require manual only cameras. She said, nope, all that matters is if it can be controlled manually.
I like that - common sense instead of following a fad.

 

[Helge]

Then a 50-year-old used house or a used car isn;t worth anything either? It's not speculation if you can use it for something. A price is based on what a willing seller and willing buyer agree on. Frankly, $100 for an SLR camera seems like a bargain for what it can do. When I think of what I paid new for my RB67 lenses decades ago that people can buy today for relatively little. And that was when the dollar was worth something.

You can get very cheap houses if you are willing to put up with geography and looks.

My point was merely exactly as you hint at, that price emerges in the psychological tension between seller and buyer.
The time and resources invested in procuring raw materials, the money to pay man hours and building equipment has long ago been payed off or been diluted away to a monetary homeopathic nothing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Little anecdote, I sold my F100 w 50 lens to a girl in art school here in LA a little while back. I actually dealt with her Dad online, and he arranged it for her to meet to pick up.
When she told me it was for a film course I was a little surprised as so many people had said that film course instructors require manual only cameras. She said, nope, all that matters is if it can be controlled manually.
I like that - common sense instead of following a fad.

I imagine that lots of kids have dads or granddads who have automatic PASM SLR's with manual settings. Why force a kid to buy a manual camera when they can get one that has manual mode for free?

 

[Huss]

My point was merely exactly as you hint at, that price emerges in the psychological tension between seller and buyer.
The time and resources invested in procuring raw materials, the money to pay man hours and building equipment has long ago been payed off or been diluted away to a monetary homeopathic nothing.

According to that theory, every transaction, no matter what it is, is based on psychological tension.

 

[Huss]

I imagine that lots of kids have dads or granddads who have automatic PASM SLR's with manual settings. Why force a kid to buy a manual camera when they can get one that has manual mode for free?

Well, her Dad did have to buy that camera for her, so it was not free

But I get your point, it is nice that a course lecturer like this allows for any camera to be used as long as it has a manual mode.

 

[Steven Lee]

According to that theory, every transaction, no matter what it is, is based on psychological tension.

Yes, Helge's right:

Behavioral economics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can get very cheap houses if you are willing to put up with geography and looks.

My point was merely exactly as you hint at, that price emerges in the psychological tension between seller and buyer.
The time and resources invested in procuring raw materials, the money to pay man hours and building equipment has long ago been payed off or been diluted away to a monetary homeopathic nothing.

It all comes down to supply and demand. Psychological tension and monetary homeopathic nothing both have nothing to do with it. A 60-year-old Bentley could cost more than what it cost when new. It's rare and still desired. How does the cost of materials affect the cost of the Mona Lisa? Why do old Leicas still cost so much? The labor and material costs have long be "used up". Yet a value for the product remains if there's a willing buyer who wants it. More buyers, and less sellers, means more value.

 

[Huss]

It is also interesting as to how we are conditioned to accept price points. Case in point - 50mm lenses. For example I have a Leica Summicron 50 f2, and a Pentax M 50 f2.
Without causing a furor amongst certain groups... both are frickin great lenses. And yet I thought it was reasonable to pay $1600 for the Leica (v5 used) but haggled until I could get the Pentax 50 for $20...

At this point, perhaps that is ok because if either needs to be resold, there could be, at the very least, no financial loss?