Sad Used Prices for EM-1 first edition

jwilliams wrote:

hindesite wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Probably one of the best buys in m43 right now is lightly used EM1 IIs going for around $800 or so. Fred Miranda is full of them. Probably people just dying to throw $1K to the wind to get the latest model.

I have noticed prices for m43 gear there are in a severe slump and often just never sell even at pretty attractive prices. Seems to be a flood of used m43 gear as people move to larger format systems.

May not be the case - we have a flood of barely used GH5 round here, as people sell them because they didn't have time to get into video after all.

Probably just going to use their phones in many cases.

Great thing is, the resale price for GH5 and GH5s have just plummeted.

Well I bought a PL 8-18 and Oly 40-150 2.8 last year and both owners said they were selling because they changed over to FF mirrorless. Small sample size indeed, but in my case 100% of sellers were going to a larger format. Both may be sold by me soon for the same reason, so there is definitely a trend.

I have an S1 - great camera.  I bought it to fourth* purpose my existing EF mount lenses on a new FF camera body.  But my expense was only an S1 camera body and a MC-21 adapter.

I have no intention of moving away from my first love the M4/3 format where I have also become heavily involved.  Nor am I about to sell off any of my gear.

There is such a thing as sunk-costs which means that you buy something because you can afford the full price at the time or at least afford to pay it off.  Money is gone - tied up in the asset - maybe I can sell it but I chose to keep it.  This is something like the mining industry where they can write off plant when it is bought and it is often abandoned on site when the mine ceases.  Scrap value only ... maybe.  But the intention is basically to use it until it dsoe become scrap.

It is a theory opposed to use-rent (depreciation) where the loss in value is accepted as rent and the old gear is replaced entirely by new gear (often before it is worn out and on a whim).  Probably more efficient in some ways than the sunk-cost theory - but I still use my old EF mount lenses and in use-rent I might have replaced them several times - with FE lenses during my flirtation with Sony FF.  Completely with M4/3 lenses with that mount system - I have had a good lash at doing that but the EF lenses are adapted as well.  Surely as a mad sunk-coster I could sell EF and M4/3 lenses and serially buy L-Mount lenses in future?

So sunk-cost is a recognition that the cost may not ever be recoverable and the cost can be afforded at the time of purchase. It gives use-rent in spades when first acquired then this tapers off (just like depreciation) of time and usage.  If I only use my EF lenses occasionally under sunk-cost rules then I still get some use-rent.  When I stop using it entirely it becomes scrap-value - which for camera gear is usually not much at all - especially in Australia - the ends of the earth

But surely the S1 plus a few great lenses does not really sit well with someone who also is a fanatical GM5 user? Can I swap from being pop-eyed about GM5 to being just as enthusiastic about my beefy L-Mount gear.  But I am still getting use-rent out of my long time written off sunk-cost EF mount lenses.

With the slow down of digital camera gear evolution sunk-cost (buy and keep) must be getting more economical than forever rolling over use-rent (roll-over) gear.

*

First purpose Canon EOS dslr user 15 years

Second purpose Sony A7R and NEX6 user 2 years

Third purpose M4/3 mount user 6 years

Fourth purpose L-Mount user 1 year

(There has always been an overlap in mount systems - I have used systems in conjunction)