Wanted: Prescience for the future values of camera and lenses

David Lyga · Oct 3, 2013

When digital still cameras first seriously arrived in the latter 90s there was a brief, half page article in one of the photo magazines showing what looked to be a film cassette with a few inches of film protruding. It was, in fact, a 'cassette' that was actually a digital capture medium, honed and sculpted to fit traditional 35mm cameras.

Then there was nothing else ever said. It was as if the digital manufacturers silenced this threat on the market for new digital cameras because the old film cameras (and their accompanying lenses) would have provided photographers with the ability to do quality digital photography without the consumer having to buy new equipment. - David Lyga

Dr Croubie · Oct 3, 2013

Well, there was also an April Fools joke based on that concept a few years ago, Re35 if i'm not mistaken.

Although that said, I believe what they've written on their site, that as there were so many people disappointed by i tbeing a joke, that there is probably a market for that sort of thing anyway. It couldn't have been done 15 years ago, maybe not even 5, but as an electronics engineer, reading about all these new things like graphene, curved oled, wearable plastic-circuits, I think this sort of thing may be possible in the next 10-15 years. I don't think it will roll up in the cartridge, too much chance to scratch the sensor, and it won't work with all cameras (that use the frame counter and auto-rewind), but it's possible.
Still, it's a long way off.
Lomos and Hipsters may be pushing a few of the price-rises of soviet junk cameras, digital-mirrorless-videographers may be pushing up old lenses, and newly-rich chinese-middle-class may be pushing up the prices of the old 'desirable-brand' collectibles like Leicas. But there are quite literally millions of old bodies and lenses out there, every week another old codger dies and his family throw his collection on ebay. The market is too big to make blanket assumptions, but in general (for lenses) I think we're past the bottom and nowhere near the top. The worldwide economic recovery is just starting, so if you want to invest, go get some old mint Leica and Rolleiflex bodies. If you want to get some 'was almost the best once' like FD and OM and Takumar, go get it, and shoot the hell out of it. If it doubles in price in 10 years, yay for you. If it halves in price, take the loss and average it over how many frames you've shot with it and you can easily justify such a small price...

Ian Grant · Oct 3, 2013

benjiboy said:
Some people know a price for everything, and the value of nothing.

Value is what you get from something, that might be a useful item - a lens, camera etc that helps you in the production of you're image making (in our context on APUG)

However value is also related to price , what you paid for an item and what it might be worth if you want to sell it at any point.

Prices are all over the place and relative to where you buy and sell, if you're selling you have to decide at what level, do you go for maximum profit. or a quick turnover at a fair price. I tend to buy from the latter and sell in the same way. That and fair prices for new items actually gets me repeat orders.

You once worked in this market Ben so I'm rather surprised at your comments.

Ian

David Lyga · Oct 4, 2013

Ian, I honestly think that Ben is sick and tired of people playing the 'make believe' game (as I am often guilty of!) about future values appreciating greatly. With Ben having been on the retail end of things for years he probably has had his fill of people lusting after such equipment, and for no rational, apparent reason.

But, for me, this cheap market is like I am a 5 year old kid entering a candy store with a $20 dollar bill. - David Lyga

blockend · Oct 4, 2013

I have a soft spot for late period consumer SLRs, and they can be bought for buttons. The metering is often the same as the pro versions, AF is great, and the manufacturers had learnt every trick there was. Yes, they're ugly and plasticky, but they're light, have built in flash and enough flexibility for every occasion. Very much underestimated cameras.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 4, 2013

David Lyga said:
When digital still cameras first seriously arrived in the latter 90s there was a brief, half page article in one of the photo magazines showing what looked to be a film cassette with a few inches of film protruding. It was, in fact, a 'cassette' that was actually a digital capture medium, honed and sculpted to fit traditional 35mm cameras.

Then there was nothing else ever said. It was as if the digital manufacturers silenced this threat on the market for new digital cameras because the old film cameras (and their accompanying lenses) would have provided photographers with the ability to do quality digital photography without the consumer having to buy new equipment. - David Lyga

Because it was a hoax.

Ian Grant · Oct 4, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Because it was a hoax.

There was a prodct shown at Photokina a few years ago and it nearly reached the market. I think what killed it off was the main DSLR manufacturers could develop and adapt faster and they were just way behind in terms of megapixel size/resolution.

Ian

E. von Hoegh · Oct 4, 2013

Ian Grant said:
There was a prodct shown at Photokina a few years ago and it nearly reached the market. I think what killed it off was the main DSLR manufacturers could develop and adapt faster and they were just way behind in terms of megapixel size/resolution.

Ian

Do you mean this? http://re35.net/

Ian Grant · Oct 4, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Do you mean this? http://re35.net/

No, I'm thinking of something in the late 1990's. If they'd managed to get a product on the market it would have stood a reasonable chance of success.

Ian

mr rusty · Oct 4, 2013

Take one film SLR and.............well this was the start of the rot for Kodak, because it was for them a dead end when the big camera companies did their own thing. Of course, it could now be miniaturised, but why bother?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index1.htm

I only recently discovered these - see my other thread in the lounge.

Xmas · Oct 5, 2013

mr rusty said:
...........well this was the start of the rot for Kodak, because it was for them a dead end when the big camera companies did their own thing.

Kodak were in intensive care when UK chemist shops changed from only yellow boxes to yellow and green boxes.

Trying to crush a minnow like Polaroid decades later ignoring patents cardiac arrest machine needed.

Fugi was their enemy Fugi are able to make Dcameras that sell and are closing down film varieties.

benjiboy · Oct 5, 2013

Fugi ?, you mean Fuji.

Someonenameddavid · Oct 5, 2013

the future

Analog users are pretty much a cult now: forums like this and rangefinder forum.com are the places we come for our rituals: we have our saints like Ansel our priests, prophets, wise men and fools (the concept of the holy fool is wideslread in many cultures) We used to be considered experts because we knew the arcane mysteries of the shutter speed and the kabbalah of the f-stop and the wisdom of the ASA selection. Kodachrome was our communion wafer. We store our relics in the hope of the second coming of film. The rest of the world has moved on. There is a clearing out of that which the nonbelievers consider to be junk: we should not expect to make money on it, because it is the end of the world as we know it.

"The End is Nigh"
David

dynachrome · Oct 5, 2013

It's hard to know what the bottom will look like. Many old film cameras are already there. The more interesting lenses are being used on DSLR and MILCs and this has kept their value up. I still collect and use mostly film equipment but I am the exception. I have an excellent film processor in my town and a very good repairman a short drive away. I also have Unique Photo nearby for buying film, paper, chemistry. If I did not have these local resources it would be a chore using the equipment rather than a pleasure. Recently I bought a Bronica GS-1 with an AE prism finder, a 120 back and a Speed Grip all in excellent condition for $116. How much lower can you get? The real question is, if someone just gave you the stuff would you be interested in using it? If the answer is yes then the prices are bargains.

pbromaghin · Oct 6, 2013

Someonenameddavid said:
Analog users are pretty much a cult now: forums like this and rangefinder forum.com are the places we come for our rituals: we have our saints like Ansel our priests, prophets, wise men and fools (the concept of the holy fool is wideslread in many cultures) We used to be considered experts because we knew the arcane mysteries of the shutter speed and the kabbalah of the f-stop and the wisdom of the ASA selection. Kodachrome was our communion wafer. We store our relics in the hope of the second coming of film. The rest of the world has moved on. There is a clearing out of that which the nonbelievers consider to be junk: we should not expect to make money on it, because it is the end of the world as we know it.

"The End is Nigh"
David

Wow, David. Good job. I wish I could write like this. Did you get an "A" in Creative Writing 101? Guys like you are why I switched to Computer Science. You belong in POEM, The Professional Order of English Majors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

Someonenameddavid · Oct 6, 2013

Actualy I was a biomedical chemistry major... now working as a humble physician in the salt mines of medicine.

fotch · Oct 6, 2013

One must also factor in the value of the dollar. Inflation can fool a person when comparing wages, purchasing power, etc.

whojammyflip · Oct 10, 2013

Ian Grant said:
It's patchy, some Bronica And Mamiya cameras and lenses are still very cheap,

I just cannot believe how cheap Bronica ETRSi lenses are in comparison to the Pentax 35mm lenses I also use. I picked up 50mm and 150mm PE lenses in excellent condition for about GBP 70 each. They include shutters and I hear the glass comes from Schneider. This is roughly half the going rate for an expensive or rarer Pentax lens, such as the 85mm f2 M series.

The one thing about cameras from the 80s is that their numbers are dwindling. I have personally destroyed accidentally (with the help of a toddler) a couple of ME Supers. However, the Pentax lenses are nearly indestructible.

EdSawyer · Oct 10, 2013

benjiboy said:
I can't think of a worst financial invesrment of my money than film equipment,it's value is in what it does for a photographer,not it's commercial worth.

well, anything digital would be a worse investment, by far. monetarily-speaking.

Prof_Pixel · Oct 10, 2013

EdSawyer said:
well, anything digital would be a worse investment, by far. monetarily-speaking.

Who buys cameras as an 'investment' (Other than Leica owners )

A camera is a tool to be used.

benjiboy · Oct 10, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
Who buys cameras as an 'investment' (Other than Leica owners )

A camera is a tool to be used.

I agree entirely.

Jeff Kubach · Oct 10, 2013

Same here.

Jeff

benjiboy · Oct 16, 2013

EdSawyer said:
well, anything digital would be a worse investment, by far. monetarily-speaking.

Who mentioned digital ?, the question was about film cameras, I.M.O. no cameras are good financial investments these days, what professional financial adviser in his right mind would advise his client to put his assets in cameras ?

EdSawyer · Oct 16, 2013

Like anything, there are items that turn out to be good investments, in any hobby. the key is to buy low, sell high. Easier said than done. but I bet there are plenty of camera/lens items that have easily beat the stock market or other fungible investments. Indeed though, using them for their intended purpose is the best use, rather than speculation.

benjiboy · Oct 17, 2013

EdSawyer said:
Like anything, there are items that turn out to be good investments, in any hobby. the key is to buy low, sell high. Easier said than done. but I bet there are plenty of camera/lens items that have easily beat the stock market or other fungible investments. Indeed though, using them for their intended purpose is the best use, rather than speculation.

"Buying low and selling high" is rather stating the obvious because it's the principal that all Western capitalism is based on, however there are I agree a few items that may be perceived to have appreciated in value but very few when you consider inflation and the difference in the actual value of money over the years, although I do agree entirely with your last sentence.

Wanted: Prescience for the future values of camera and lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency