Is some gear too cheap?

[Huss]

I was thinking about this. It seems that some gear is too cheap and so distorts our reality as to what things are worth and what they should cost.

I've been harping on about the Nikon N80 recently - a truly awesome camera that you can get for $20 if you are a little patient. And of course I happily paid that. But it's also a record scratch moment. $20? New disposable/reusable plastic cameras w fixed lens aperture and one shutter speed are $30+.
The Konica C35 EF3 that I love and use is at least $100. And I think the Konica is totally worth $100! But why?
One cheap/cheerful and sh1tty P&S camera is worth $10. Another that is basically the exact same thing, and takes the exact same quality of pics is $300! Because it is trendy, for no other objective reason.

Yes, I know about supply and demand but this seems so off. I think the lack of demand - and hence the super low prices - is because the avg consumer has no idea that these things exist!

From a practical viewpoint, this is what IMO will make it so difficult for someone like Pentax to re-enter the film market. How much would it cost them to make an N80 equivalent now? $1000? $1500? Leica can get away with their new M prices, because old M prices are so high.
How much would it cost Pentax to make a new P&S now? When you can buy a box load of old Pentax P&S for $50..

Used stuff is too cheap if we want anyone apart from Leica to enter the market.

One a completely unrelated side-note, I'll be selling gear at super premium levels, and you should all thank me for it. I am trying to save the industry.

 

[Autonerd]

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

 

[xkaes]

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."

One factor in the resurgence of film, is that great gear is so inexpensive. It used to be that the gear was expensive and the film was cheap. So it's turned around -- for the better. Sure there are some old and new "FAD" film cameras that sell for ridiculous prices, but they are easy to avoid. Start your own fad -- and then sell your gear at a high price, and buy the camera you always wanted for next to nothing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While the prices stay very low, more people may be attracted to film photography.

 

[Pieter12]

Personally, unless a camera offers something unique or would serve as a back-up to an existing camera I own, I am resisting buying any more even at bargain prices. I have more than I use already and I don't consider myself a collector. Guess if I put all my gear on display it would look nice, but as it stands, cameras are scattered in different locations in my house and workspace.

 

[btaylor]

I was talking to some of the young students in the B&W film class I am attending and I mentioned how absurdly cheap so many excellent 35mm SLR cameras are these days. My gorgeous near mint black Pentax Spotmatic sporting an SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 was $50 a year or two ago. They disagreed, no! film cameras are really expensive! How is that? First, if you buy from a dealer with a guarantee it's going to be a lot more. Second, if your knowledge is limited to what the "experts" are extolling on social media, the demand for those cameras is going to be much higher- raising prices.

 

[Steven Lee]

From a practical viewpoint, this is what IMO will make it so difficult for someone like Pentax to re-enter the film market. How much would it cost them to make an N80 equivalent now?

I agree with your post, but not with the quoted part. Why would Pentax try to sell a digital camera with a film track instead of a sensor? The market is clearly telling them that it doesn't want a camera like that. The shooting experience is "too digital". I'm sure that's not what they'll be launching.

Based on my eavesdropping on film hipster conversations, they want either manual+mechanical cameras, or reliable electronic point and shoots.

I have no idea how much it would cost to manufacture something like a brand new modern equivalent of Contax T2 or Nikon FM. On one hand, manufacturing techniques have improved, on the other hand the economies of scale aren't going to be great.

 

[Cholentpot]

Case in point.

I loaded up an Olympus Quickshoot Zoom. I got it for free from a junk pile. I've had it for years and never loaded it up because it's a bulky zoom point and shoot with a zoom lens. I looked up a little on it and it used to go for $480 new! That's almost $900 in today money! And here I am with a premium camera that I can't be bothered to shoot.

 

[gone]

Leica is the only camera company left w/ brand loyalty (some might call it brand zealotry). More times than not, some people use them as proof of income or snobbish taste, not necessarily as a "camera". Nikon, Canon and Pentax don't have brand loyalty. They did of course, but that was then and this is now.

Sure, we like them and value their brand names, but we ain't the general public who ALWAYS have one of these infernal phones w/ them, and not much if anything else in the way of snap takers. We generally live in the past w/ this stuff. The general public lives in the here and now. Who wants to carry a big clunky camera and lens on a strap when the phone can be slipped into a pocket? How many people other than us even know they still make film or film cameras? Most people rarely even make prints, they just email the shots or post them to twitter or facebook.

I wouldn't build a quality film camera in the current market unless it was aimed at actual photographers and in small production runs, or inexpensive plastic cameras that are aimed to the hipster crowd.

If you're talking about used cameras sold on eBay, etsy, here, etc, there is no telling why some cameras sell for a lot and some for peanuts, but I think forums like this one come into play a tiny bit when we test a camera or lens and show they're pretty cool.

 

[Pieter12]

Case in point.

I loaded up an Olympus Quickshoot Zoom. I got it for free from a junk pile. I've had it for years and never loaded it up because it's a bulky zoom point and shoot with a zoom lens. I looked up a little on it and it used to go for $480 new! That's almost $900 in today money! And here I am with a premium camera that I can't be bothered to shoot.

And it works?

 

[waynecrider]

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

Their great as long as a CLA is not needed. Of course you can just buy another but a lot of sellers are not honest. (I’ve had my problems)

 

[Cholentpot]

And it works?

Took some elbow grease and lighter fluid but it works. The zoom function is iffy but otherwise it's trucking along.

 

[SteveInConverse]

Cheap gear allows poor people like me to get into the game.

 

[xkaes]

I loaded up an Olympus Quickshoot Zoom. I got it for free from a junk pile. I've had it for years and never loaded it up because it's a bulky zoom point and shoot with a zoom lens.

There certainly were some horribly large P&S cameras made -- which in my mind defeats the entire purpose. You want something small and automatic -- something the submini cameras tried to do, with some success years before -- but the ubiquitous cell phone has now, largely, put the P&S market to bed. The exceptions are the cameras with exceptional features -- which most P&S cameras lack.

 

[Pieter12]

Cheap gear allows poor people like me to get into the game.

I don't think photography has ever been with a poor person's reach. When I was living on peanut butter sandwiches, there was no money for film or processing, much less printing.

 

[Cholentpot]

There certainly were some horribly large P&S cameras made -- which in my mind defeats the entire purpose. You want something small and automatic -- something the submini cameras tried to do, with some success years before -- but the ubiquitous cell phone has now, largely, put the P&S market to bed. The exceptions are the cameras with exceptional features -- which most P&S cameras lack.

I think this particular camera is good for what it lets you turn off. You can turn off the flash or the drive. The lens is supposedly top stuff. I won't know until I develop.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Some of the last minoltas manufactured had very sophisticated shutters and features as far as film cameras go, including a pretty decent inbuilt flash and metering. Used them to take some great wedding photos.

Cheap, not the cheapest, but feature rich bang for your buck cameras. We're talking cameras that cost >$2000 25 years ago. Not as prized as Leicas, but cheap in my books.

 

[Two23]

I have a different take. I'm mostly interested in very early photo gear. The last thing I purchased was a Voigtlander lens made in 1841. The next newest purchase was a Lerebours et Secretans lens from 1848, and before that a stunning 200mm Velostigmat in a pristine Volute shutter c.1910. Cameras from the 1990s don't interest me at all. Really, I own only one camera made after 1960 and that's a Nikon F3T, which isn't cheap. All the stuff made after that tends to be plasticky and has a lot of electronics in it. I just don't know how durable it will be. OTOH, my 1841 & 1848 lenses will certainly be working like new in another 180 years if taken care of.


Kent in SD

 

[KerrKid]

Case in point….

I just got my new Vivitar 420/SL today. It came with its case, manual and all original paperwork. It looks like it just left the factory and was never used.

I paid $5 for it on fleabay. No one else even bid on it. Unbelievable. It’s an attention-getter when a good camera costs less than a single roll of film.

On the other hand, there are a lot of cameras going for higher and higher prices. I’ve seen prices double and triple on some of them.

Grab those N80’s while they’re still inexpensive and leave those ugly N75’s to me.

 

[reddesert]

There's a lot of old film camera gear and, despite the resurgence, not as much demand as there is supply (except for niche items like luxury P&S). So much of the gear is cheap. I don't see cheap gear as a major problem except that it leads customers to be cheap, and not to understand what it truly costs to make things.

In part because we have the $40 Nikon N80 and the $100 Pentax K1000 (or whatever a K1000 costs now), the base of film camera users will see the relative prices and get agitated when film costs $10/roll, or when someone brings a $100 light meter to market and it's not perfect. I don't like $10 rolls of film either, but I think one has to understand that in inflation adjusted prices, even consumer cameras used to cost many hundreds of dollars, not tens. If we want consumables and accessories to continue to be made, we have to pay what it actually costs to design and make new stuff.

 

[250swb]

One of the biggest drivers in the market for a long time now has been Lomography, and the price of 'expensive' film hasn't put people off. And when the young crowd move on from their brand new Diana or LC-35 there are enough of them to fuel the market and determine second hand market rates. And as I see it the sexy brands of Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Nikon and Leica to name a few are doing very well for sellers in the second hand market. This of course means the sellers of less sexy equipment (but no less worthy, before somebody says it) can scrabble for a realistic second hand price. But these are the brands to look out for now, inevitably the market will drag them up. Pentax bodies have started going up in value, Takumar and many other M42 lenses are becoming the next sexy thing among the young, Rolliecord's are creeping up because Rolleiflex are out of reach, etc. It doesn't take much sentiment to shift the market, but it may take longer than we'd like (looking at a big box of cameras I haven't used in many years).

 

[Kino]

Cheap is a relative term. I still think film camera prices are relatively cheap, even with the additional interest and rising prices.

(old man ramble)

As a young man, I worked the entire Summer of 1976 pouring concrete to purchase my dead-basic Minolta SRT-MC II setup. That $400 purchase comes out to roughly $2,088 USD in today's currency.

Had an amusing conversation with another photographer I ran into a few weeks ago. He was sporting a Fuji GFX 100S medium format digital camera and I had an old Nikon F2 hanging around my neck. He expressed interest in shooting film but thought it too expensive, although that camera body hanging around his neck cost about $5K USD at the moment.

I could buy several cameras and almost a lifetime supply of film for the cost of that body alone.

Oh well. To each their own...

 

[Renamable]

It’s a shame to admit that here in China “using cool film camera” instead of “using film camera to take cool photos” is becoming a kind of new fashion. And since there is a (huge and growing) market, there are also (more and more) speculators who try to make profits from amateurs. It’s good that these people are really “saving” old cameras, at least those popular ones, from dusts and rust. But in my opinion the real value of cameras should never be defined by price or so called market.

 

[henryvk]

One of the biggest drivers in the market for a long time now has been Lomography, and the price of 'expensive' film hasn't put people off. And when the young crowd move on from their brand new Diana or LC-35 there are enough of them to fuel the market and determine second hand market rates.

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?

 

[BobD]

The nonsense pricing is all about what is or isn't "cool." You can buy an N80 for $20 because it isn't cool but a Nikon L35AF P&S sells for hundreds because it IS cool.

A certain popular movie featured an Argus C3 not long ago, so the prices on those shot up as a result (though it didn't last long). Certain Graflex flash models still sell for hundreds of dollars for the same reason to people who will never even use them as intended.

And, the craziness isn't just with photo gear. For example, there are portable cassette players from the 1970s-80s that now sell for thousands just because of popular movies that used them as props. And, there are many other examples of other types of vintage items.

There isn't much we can do about it. It's just human nuttiness.