Do you remember when a 2 year old pro DSLR could be sold used for not much less than the new price? When camera models didn't change so frequently that the prices of used tumbled. When the specs changed evolutionary and not revolutionary. I have a like new Canon mark III and mark IV. Used prices for these top of the line cameras are as low as $1,100.00 and $2,000.00 respectively. I cant' afford to upgrade to the 1DX with the used prices so being low. This is the first time that has happened in the 10 years of buying digital cameras for me. Now I have to think differently about future purchases. I'll be thinking used for the 1DX. I understand it's a new market now and I have to adapt. I'm wondering if any of the forum readers here feel the same way. What are your plans for your future purchases?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Remeber when?
- Thread starter marksee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos-1d
dSLRs have just about always been evolutionary and never revolutionary. Not sure what you're talking about. Their updates are baby steps.
Well that depends on the condition and who you are selling it to. Keh.com is selling a 1D4 at 'bargain" condition (which means quite beat up) for $2800. If your unit is in good condition and since the 1D4 is discontinued and aps-h is out of production it'll garner a good asking price.
Again, I think you are misinformed about the state of things.
PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
same problem here - got a 5d3 and planned to sell the 5d till I saw the used prices...$500ish is all its' worth! Terrible.
A 5D2 is barely $1400...I was hoping a 5D would be $1000 or just under. Maybe come tax time...
A 5D2 is barely $1400...I was hoping a 5D would be $1000 or just under. Maybe come tax time...
JulesJ
Forum Pro
If the cameras you want to sell are so useless that they will not work adequately for you, why would anyone else want to spend lots of money to buy them from you?
I had various cameras in various models of various generations, the differences were no big deal, as far as anyone could tell looking at a print on the wall or or a picture in a magazine.
What did matter was format; we'd switch from 35mm to 120, and some of us subdivided that to 645, 6x6, 670, 680, and 690.
BAK
I had various cameras in various models of various generations, the differences were no big deal, as far as anyone could tell looking at a print on the wall or or a picture in a magazine.
What did matter was format; we'd switch from 35mm to 120, and some of us subdivided that to 645, 6x6, 670, 680, and 690.
BAK
Les Berkley
Senior Member
Yeah, boy, those were the days. Way back in 2004. Ancient times. In fact, I can remember the Photo Paleolithic era before digital, when you bought a camera and used it until it was no longer economical to repair. When the word upgrade was used to refer to skills, advertising, etc. Why shucks, nobody even bothered to mention 'resale value' when they bought lenses. Can you imagine?
Then came gearheads. Oh, we always had the 'testers' with their endless lens comparisons, but you didn't hear much about them unless you joined some local Leica club. Now the Internet is swamped with back-focus, front-focus, 'bokeh' and Eye-Cue. "The Canikontex D1 Mk IV is two-year-old technology. We have to upgrade." Upgrade. Upgrade. We need ISO 6400 to take pictures of cats and brick walls. Serious high-end pros may need to keep up with tech; clients want it. The other 99%? I'm a Nikon shooter, but that original 5D was a hell of a great camera. For studio work, it's still tough to beat.
Want to know who to blame for the low prices on antique digital gear. You know, stuff that's more than three years old? Look in the mirror guys. Look at this site. Newer! Better! Improved! That camera is, like, so 2010. People read this stuff and take it seriously!
Then came gearheads. Oh, we always had the 'testers' with their endless lens comparisons, but you didn't hear much about them unless you joined some local Leica club. Now the Internet is swamped with back-focus, front-focus, 'bokeh' and Eye-Cue. "The Canikontex D1 Mk IV is two-year-old technology. We have to upgrade." Upgrade. Upgrade. We need ISO 6400 to take pictures of cats and brick walls. Serious high-end pros may need to keep up with tech; clients want it. The other 99%? I'm a Nikon shooter, but that original 5D was a hell of a great camera. For studio work, it's still tough to beat.
Want to know who to blame for the low prices on antique digital gear. You know, stuff that's more than three years old? Look in the mirror guys. Look at this site. Newer! Better! Improved! That camera is, like, so 2010. People read this stuff and take it seriously!
First, if you buy your used cameras from KEH camera you are paying top dollar. Your choice, but top dollar. Ebay has the more realistic prices and 1D series cameras are selling for very low prices (relatively) too soon after introduction. It is a revolutionary step as Nikon and Canon's newest offerings out-do the specs of any of the previous 1D series. My question was " what are your plans for future purchases?" Regardless of what MY cameras are selling for.
Les Berkley
Senior Member
My future plans are to buy things I actually need, and not give a damn about resale.
lbuclk=
Senior Member
lbuclk=
Senior Member
I have sold to & purchased from KEH in the past. They are one of the few companies that can repair cameras & so far, I've never had a problem with them, last year I spent $900+ with them and I have not regretted it.
dwight3
Senior Member
Depreciation is a fact of life. You have to build future capital expenses into your fee system (including inflation). I plan on using a tool until it is either unusable or is superceded by a new tool with new features I can't do without (that's a business decision right there).
Do you have a car or truck? Doesn't it depreciate? Can you do without it or do you need a way to get you and your camera and equipment to a job? Can you sell it for 50% of what you paid for it?
If the old camera still works, it will still get good pictures. OTOH, the newer cameras do it faster and they do some of the thinking for you (in terms of exposure and focus, anyway). Composition and lighting are still in your hands. Do you need the new one. Thats a business decision, based on whether it will make you more productive or not. (There is some consideration of whether your clients will perceive that working with old equipment will result in inferior work).
As a farmer, I have bought several used tractors. They all cost more than they cost the original owner new. That's due to inflation, and the fact that the new models are still much higher in price. Over 20-30 years, I will probably put into maintenance costs more than I pay for the tractor. But then, although the new models have GPS and automatic steering and all sorts of fancy things, I can still use them. I just have to do some of the work that the on-board computers do for the new models. I should also add that the new models require more maintenance than the old models due to their complexity. All my tractors were built between 1970 and 1980.
Cameras require lenses, and tractors require implements. Same principle. Same sort of costs, i.e. I can pay more for all the implements than the tractor. The lenses and farm implements last for decades (with proper maintenance). The tractors will also last for decades, but cameras tend to be replaced on a 5-10 year interval or even more frequently. That's due to additional features being added to new cameras. Electronics has changed both items to make them do more. (New features are added to tractors too, but I don't need them).
The same thing probably holds for cameras, although the maintenance requirements will depend on level of usage, and it's probably unusual for maintenance costs on a camera to exceed the purchase price.
They are both necessary tools of production. And the tractor costs much more than the camera.
Do you have a car or truck? Doesn't it depreciate? Can you do without it or do you need a way to get you and your camera and equipment to a job? Can you sell it for 50% of what you paid for it?
If the old camera still works, it will still get good pictures. OTOH, the newer cameras do it faster and they do some of the thinking for you (in terms of exposure and focus, anyway). Composition and lighting are still in your hands. Do you need the new one. Thats a business decision, based on whether it will make you more productive or not. (There is some consideration of whether your clients will perceive that working with old equipment will result in inferior work).
As a farmer, I have bought several used tractors. They all cost more than they cost the original owner new. That's due to inflation, and the fact that the new models are still much higher in price. Over 20-30 years, I will probably put into maintenance costs more than I pay for the tractor. But then, although the new models have GPS and automatic steering and all sorts of fancy things, I can still use them. I just have to do some of the work that the on-board computers do for the new models. I should also add that the new models require more maintenance than the old models due to their complexity. All my tractors were built between 1970 and 1980.
Cameras require lenses, and tractors require implements. Same principle. Same sort of costs, i.e. I can pay more for all the implements than the tractor. The lenses and farm implements last for decades (with proper maintenance). The tractors will also last for decades, but cameras tend to be replaced on a 5-10 year interval or even more frequently. That's due to additional features being added to new cameras. Electronics has changed both items to make them do more. (New features are added to tractors too, but I don't need them).
The same thing probably holds for cameras, although the maintenance requirements will depend on level of usage, and it's probably unusual for maintenance costs on a camera to exceed the purchase price.
They are both necessary tools of production. And the tractor costs much more than the camera.
Last edited:
KAllen
Senior Member
PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
cost is cost...but less cost is more profit.
What does a 5D3 or a 1Dx do that justifies it's price?
Like a new version of photoshop or LR?
I doubt CS5 makes me any more money or saves time (costs) as compared to PS7. Yet I've bought the newer versions and invested time in learning the changes/features.
With LR 4 everything slowed down...so I spent more time to do the same thing. Then invested more time finding ways to optimize it - it's better but 3.6 was still faster. So now I"m spending $900 on a new computer...and have to learn windows 8 and install my software - all to be as productive as I was a year ago...
That flushing sound you hear is my money.
I considered a new 5D2 instead of a 3, but that's a 4 year old 'design/tech' and if i don't buy a body for another 2 years I begin to fall behind the competition (newbies that do buy the latest greatest). The only real benefit I get from the 5D3 is amazingly useful high ISO - a slight cleanup and 12,800 makes large saleable prints!
What does a 5D3 or a 1Dx do that justifies it's price?
Like a new version of photoshop or LR?
I doubt CS5 makes me any more money or saves time (costs) as compared to PS7. Yet I've bought the newer versions and invested time in learning the changes/features.
With LR 4 everything slowed down...so I spent more time to do the same thing. Then invested more time finding ways to optimize it - it's better but 3.6 was still faster. So now I"m spending $900 on a new computer...and have to learn windows 8 and install my software - all to be as productive as I was a year ago...
That flushing sound you hear is my money.
I considered a new 5D2 instead of a 3, but that's a 4 year old 'design/tech' and if i don't buy a body for another 2 years I begin to fall behind the competition (newbies that do buy the latest greatest). The only real benefit I get from the 5D3 is amazingly useful high ISO - a slight cleanup and 12,800 makes large saleable prints!
KAllen
Senior Member
JulesJ
Forum Pro
JulesJ
Forum Pro
Too true. My wife has been in business shooting studio portraits for twenty five years. Two camesa, Bronica, then D2x. We have many others and they sometimes get used, but they are the work horses.
True
mgblack74
Senior Member
The difference from film cameras to now is that it was the "sensor" that changed every 12 or 24 or 36 shots. From roll to roll to roll you could select a different /brand/ of film, that gave you different colour, saturation, grain etc etc. It was the film that got the attention. And when film technology improved (less grain at same ASA/ISO speed or whatever), people sped to upgrade their images with new film tech.
Now, the film and camera are part and parcel. To change the film, you have to change the entire camera. And for the most part, it's still the "film" that is improving, not necessarily the camera itself. Camera bodies are still only seeing evolutionary improvements. Mostly with ergonomics and new buttons with the advent of video etc. I would love to keep my D3s forever, but time marches on and DR improves as does the benefits of having higher resolution. If I could swap out my sensor for $750 every two years I would in a heartbeat. But there is a $4250 camera attached to the sensor that gets in the way. (Nikon Rumors reported a year or so ago a patent for DSLR sensor swapping, so who knows?!).
Upgrading for me isn't about upgrading for the sake of newer, or me thinking that the evolutionary changes will catapult my photography. Upgrading is more about extracting maximum value for any given camera. So that $5000 camera made money for me and paid itself off, and in the end I essentially rented it for $800 by the time I sell it. Buying and selling and upgrading is just another part of business now.
Strongly disagree. The 1D X is not leaps and bounds beyond the 1D4. The 1D X does 2 more fps and has an updated autfocus system which is a natural progression of their autofocus system. Both cameras had top notch autofocus. Bigger image sensor? The camera still takes pictures all that does it make lenses seem shorter and lower the high ISO noise some by about a stop. Nothing revolutionary.
Same with nikon. nikon added a bit of video to the d4 but that honestly was catching up to their lower end dSLRs. There really isn't anything revolutionary in the d4 over the d3s. They added 4 MP? Big deal, not revolutionary.
Technically either Mk III is roughly a 5 year old camera (your camera may not be that old, but the model is). I'd be surprised if the depreciation rate from model introduction varied much between then and now, but with longer refresh cycles the new model introduction happens much further out on the curve.
I've always bought things a little way into the depreciation curve and don't plan to change that.
I've always bought things a little way into the depreciation curve and don't plan to change that.
Last edited:
M
Mark B.
Guest
Technological gear is not an investment. You have to give in to the fact that it'll lose half the value within a year.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum