The one thing the nutty retro film movement has succeeded in accomplishing and it's not great photography ...

[miha]

... is the wild escalation of the prices of some of the classic cameras of the 1950s and 1960s.

from: https://pindelski.org/Photography/

I’ve been an avid reader of Pindelski’s blog for a while now. While he has been taking photographs for over 50 years, he’s mostly focused on digital photography and often praises its merits. I enjoy his posts when he talks about photography and photographers, but I’m curious to know if others here agree with his stance on the film movement and its consequences?

 

[ntenny]

I mean, it’s true in the sense that if no one shot film, the demand for film cameras would be way lower. Subtract the snark, and what he seems to be saying is just that tools are more expensive because people use them. Shrug.

-NT

 

[miha]

What about the great photography aspect of his claim?

 

[loccdor]

Great photography is subjective, camera prices are objective. It's easier to make the case for objective statements because the logic and rules are clearly defined. Most people using most cameras, digital or film, are not making extraordinary pictures. That's always been the case. It's not truer because of a trend of returning to film.

If you go on Reddit, you'll see tons of usually not very good pictures from people very new to film photography, making very basic mistakes, perhaps more following a trend than real photographic interest, who may be the type he's thinking of in his blog here. That's fine - let them shoot and thank them for helping keep the market alive. Some of them will progress into more serious photographers, most will put it down and move on to something else.

 

[Saganich]

I'm not sure about the wild escalation part. People dumped their film equipment on the market all at once and the prices were low at that time. A few years prior to that my friend sold his M4 for $1200 and another traded an M3 for a VW van. I think prices are just about where they should be for decent working equipment. What's tragic is all the indecent non-functional needs a 'cla' being priced about 2x the value...buyer beware. As far as 'great' photography is concerned...same as it ever was

 

[BrianShaw]

Prices are based on market and economics. The fact that the cameras we like are higher priced now is sad, but so is a lot of stufff higher priced now than before. Not a new phenomenon. Personally, the price of at least one camera I'd like to get is higherthan I'm willing to pay, so I'm very happy that I bought what I did back when I was willing to pay the price I paid.

 

[reddesert]

It's true that if one wants certain film cameras - usually cameras that were always high end, like a Rollei, Hasselblad, Leica, a Carl Zeiss lens, etc etc - they may have gotten rather expensive compared to the recent past. If one wants to take pictures more so than fondling the greatest gear, there are a vast array of functional film cameras that are still comparatively inexpensive. The film revival may have boosted the price of say a Bronica or Nikon from 10% of its original price to 20% (adjusted for inflation), which makes it still good use-value for money. In the US at least, one can still buy an M42 slr with lens for a handful of dollars. So the hardware is still quite inexpensive - the expense of film is more of an issue.

There is a genre of complaint that is like "I'm so annoyed that more ignorant novices have come in and started using X, driving up the price for my connoisseurship." I find it hard to sympathize.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The prices of all kinds of used camera gear has gone way up in the past couple years, even doubled. What is driving this might be wishful thinking in terms of the sellers, and keeping up with the Jones' in that respect; but it is a conspicuous trend. And since it's affecting pro medium format gear even more than 35mm, and large format gear too, it can't merely be attributed to a transient consumer film fad. But what goes up must come down, once the inflated pricing strategy stops working.

I suspect certain people or dealers see wild fishing expedition prices on EBay, and then use that as their own basis when listing similar items. The higher the price, the more it tempts people to put up for sale their own equivalents. But then, "rare and collectible" ends up on a dozen of the same model of lens or camera in a row on the site listings, and that leads to more competition, and inevitably to lower pricing once again. These things go in cycles.

 

[BrianShaw]

The prices of all kinds of used camera gear has gone way up in the past couple years, even doubled. What is driving this might be wishful thinking in terms of the sellers, and keeping up with the Jones' in that respect; but it is a conspicuous trend. And since it's affecting pro medium format gear even more than 35mm, and large format gear too, it can't merely be attributed to a transient consumer film fad. But what goes up must come down, once the inflated pricing strategy stops working.

I suspect certain people or dealers see wild fishing expedition prices on EBay, and then use that as their own basis when listing similar items. The higher the price, the more it tempts people to put up for sale their own equivalents. But then, "rare and collectible" ends up on a dozen of the same model of lens or camera in a row on the site listings, and that leads to more competition, and inevitably to lower pricing once again. These things go in cycles.

YES!!! And this is why it's a good idea to do the homework of researching asking versus sold prices... and then being very patient until a resonable priced item is found. (Or just biting the bullet and buying at a higher price to satisfy a "want"... that's just as valid.)

 

[Don_ih]

Lots of excellent cameras sell for peanuts. Most Minolta and Pentax SLRs are cheap. You can usually get a lens with them. I have a pile of those not worth trying to sell. All those autofocus Canon and Nikon slrs are also cheap. If you can't take a good photo with a Rebel 2000 with a kit lens, then you can't take a good photo at all. The expensive cameras are the ones that have the greatest number lusting for them, due to actually being good or just because some online person hypes it.

 

[wiltw]

The prices of all kinds of used camera gear has gone way up in the past couple years, even doubled. What is driving this might be wishful thinking in terms of the sellers, and keeping up with the Jones' in that respect; but it is a conspicuous trend. And since it's affecting pro medium format gear even more than 35mm, and large format gear too, it can't merely be attributed to a transient consumer film fad. But what goes up must come down, once the inflated pricing strategy stops working.

During the heyday of film, I had paid $3000+ for a medium format camera setup (not counting the many accessories and lenses) that I found had plummetted 15 years later to $300...I see any apparent 'price increase' to actually be a restoration of MORE REASONABLE valuation on the market, but even now it fetches only about $600-800, still a very deep discount from original value!

 

[Milpool]

Don’t worry, it’s largely a fad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not everything is a winner, Wiltw - Some items lose value or simply depreciate with age or wear, while others take on a cult lens or cult camera status, worthy or not. I just noticed that my model of 8x10 camera, purchased about 40 yrs ago, is selling (or trying to sell for) twenty times as much as what I paid for it. That's on average! Most of my 8x10 lenses have quadrupled in asking prices from just a few years ago. When it comes to MF, my beloved 6X9 rangefinder cameras have doubled in price in just the last two years from comparable condition ones, and it certainly isn't due to any lack of scarcity of those models out there.

Then you have exchange rate games. There was a year when the Japanese Yen was at a low against the dollar, but the German Mark quite high. So I sold off all my heavily used Schneider lenses and made enough profit to replace them with brand new Fujinon lenses of even later engineering.

It's all in the timing. But for me now, I'll refrain from selling anything as long as I need it or can realistically still use it. If it's redundant to me, or when I simply get too old to lug it around anymore, then it's fair game.

The local market is interesting too. The main camera store nearby would accept trade-in vintage 35mm and MF cameras, and they'd
almost immediately sell, after inspection and cleaning, especially anything classic mechanical Nikon or Canon. When that same store was massively burglarized one night, the used camera cabinet was totally emptied, and only afterwards, apparently, new digital stock partially taken. Either the burglars had their own photographic preferences, or more likely, knew that it's easier to sell off something older at a flea market somewhere than what looks just too obviously heisted. But if the demand wasn't present, they wouldn't have bothered.
They knew what they were doing ... the cops showed up 3 hours later than the alarm went off, and slightly after the thieves themselves were gone. Convenient, especially for a city which boasts in a 3 minute emergency response time. But that's another story.

 

[xkaes]

It's funny to see so many Pentax K1000's (a very nice camera) sell for well over $100, while Minolta SRT202's (a much better camera) go for $15. And that's just one example. There are still super deals out there.

 

[MFstooges]

and I was just thinking if you bought the camera 10 years ago and sell it now with appreciation you are on the hook to pay capital gain tax. Although that appreciation is actually just the money losing it's buying power. But the tax man still wants to rob you.

 

[MattKing]

and I was just thinking if you bought the camera 10 years ago and sell it now with appreciation you are on the hook to pay capital gain tax. Although that appreciation is actually just the money losing it's buying power. But the tax man still wants to rob you.

An analysis that only makes sense if you bought the camera, put it into a safe deposit box, and then only took it out to sell it.
But if you used it, enjoyed it, benefited from it and appreciated it for ten years, and it still made you some money when you turned around and sold it, the fact that it also turned out to be a decent financial investment is gravy.

 

[loccdor]

It's funny to see so many Pentax K1000's (a very nice camera) sell for well over $100, while Minolta SRT202's (a much better camera) go for $15. And that's just one example. There are still super deals out there.

This is the advantage that doing your research about cameras before you enter the market gives you. People who aren't interested enough to do so (a casual trend follower) lose that advantage.

Photography is far from unique in this phenomenon - every interest has its grizzled veterans and its casuals. It's less of an investment to be a casual, so they end up outnumbering the deep knowledge people by many times over.

I don't see any big problem with this, it's just the way it is and was always going to be.

 

[Don_ih]

The K1000 has been casually mentioned as a good "starter" camera so many times because it has been used in many schools for photography programs and has all the bases covered for what you need to learn to take pictures while also being capable of taking very good ones. So, in a sense, it deserves the hype. The older ones are also quite robust and fixable. In a sense, it's completely worth $200. You don't need another slr if you have one, not really, unless you actually need the features of more "advanced" ones (and no one actually needs those at this point in history).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Are there any collectors of "rare and valuable" disposable cardboard cameras out there? They should limited edition issue those with pictures of athletes or celebrities on them, like baseball cards. It would be easier to do than selecting which endangered species of lizard or snake skin to apply to a collector edition camera.

 

[xkaes]

Are there any collectors of "rare and valuable" disposable cardboard cameras out there?

The Konica WaiWai should be. It has a 17mm f8 lens -- and a FLASH.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Konica_WaiWai_Wide

Instead of re-using the camera, a lot of people use the 17mm lens -- fixed-focus, of course -- on OTHER cameras. This guy moved one to a Leica M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npj9ChfdZj4

 

[Sirius Glass]

Generally anything I am interested in will usually get more expensive while the things I am not interested in loose their value.

 

[DREW WILEY]

But how does one distinguish that WaiWai camera from a Cracker Jacks box? Maybe the lens was just the free toy inside!

 

[albireo]

... is the wild escalation of the prices of some of the classic cameras of the 1950s and 1960s.

from: https://pindelski.org/Photography/

I’ve been an avid reader of Pindelski’s blog for a while now. While he has been taking photographs for over 50 years, he’s mostly focused on digital photography and often praises its merits. I enjoy his posts when he talks about photography and photographers, but I’m curious to know if others here agree with his stance on the film movement and its consequences?

Are you referring to the paragraph I'm quoting below, the beginning of this post on the Rolleiflex 2.8D?

The one thing the nutty retro film movement has succeeded in accomplishing – and it’s not great photography – is the wild escalation of the prices of some of the classic cameras of the 1950s and 1960s. Quite why anyone would waste time processing film with its poor quality and great fragility compared to digital images beats me. Yeah, I know. And LPs sound better too, right? Uh huh. Just go easy on the funny cigarettes.

I had to stop reading and move on to doing better things.

You often read this drivel and my working explanation is that these are people who are jealous that other people are passionate about something they are not passionate about.

I can't possibly see other explanations apart from the fact that whoever writes something like this has never really -truly- liked the photography at all.

 

[reddesert]

The Konica WaiWai should be. It has a 17mm f8 lens -- and a FLASH.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Konica_WaiWai_Wide

Instead of re-using the camera, a lot of people use the 17mm lens -- fixed-focus, of course -- on OTHER cameras. This guy moved one to a Leica M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npj9ChfdZj4

I remember getting Konica ultrawide panoramic disposable cameras with the 17mm plastic lens when they were new in the 1990s. The ones I got were not labeled "WaiWai," did not have a mirror on the front, and had a green cardboard covering. I opened and reloaded them with black and white film a few times, which was fun. You could also snap out the panoramic insert to expose more of the frame, although the image quality (never perfect) really did fall off, especially since the central panoramic strip follows the curved focal plane but the corners did not. I may still have a couple of them.

The K1000 has been casually mentioned as a good "starter" camera so many times because it has been used in many schools for photography programs and has all the bases covered for what you need to learn to take pictures while also being capable of taking very good ones. So, in a sense, it deserves the hype. The older ones are also quite robust and fixable. In a sense, it's completely worth $200. You don't need another slr if you have one, not really, unless you actually need the features of more "advanced" ones (and no one actually needs those at this point in history).

Of course, the K1000 was also frequently named as a default starter SLR when it was new. So in some sense the current hype is merely a continuation of the previous reputation. I considered buying a K1000 for my first SLR in ~1980, but I got a Yashica FX-3; IIRC the decision was tipped by the fact that the Yashica had a split image RF while the K1000 had just a microprism (I am not sure if the K1000 SE with split image existed yet).

 

[mtnbkr]

It's funny to see so many Pentax K1000's (a very nice camera) sell for well over $100, while Minolta SRT202's (a much better camera) go for $15. And that's just one example. There are still super deals out there.

Canon FL vs FD equipment. FL cameras tend to be more robustly built and have the same general features but are tarnished by the dreaded "stop down metering" and "breechlock" lenses. Neither "feature" will really hold anyone back, but you can't hardly give away an FL camera while the FD equivs such as the FTb maintain a demand. FL glass lacks the more advanced coatings but are robustly made and delivery beautiful images when used correctly. I was actually trying to sell my FL gear because I don't need an FL system and FD system, but changed my mind when I found myself perusing some of the images I took with that gear (including some images I took with the lenses adapted to my M43 camera). The rendering of the FL glass really speaks to me whether it be on film or digital.

Chris