Sell it all? Serious question.

Hi all, I haven't shot much with my DSLR for the last 3 years.  It's been 5 years since I really planned and went trips specifically for photography.  Before that I was really into photography and active here.  I guess I just moved on to other hobbies.

I shoot with my cell phone frequently and with a go-pro occasionally.  Other than cropping or cutting video down to 5 seconds of action, I don't edit pictures anymore.  They are so convenient, why not?

I have about $4k in L grade glass.  100-400mm IS L, 17-40mm L, 100mm L macro, 10-22mm and a couple more.  I know I can sell them for the same price I bought them for.  Maybe even sell for profit.  The new same models are several hundred more expensive than I bought them for 5-10 years ago.

Also have 350D, 400D, and SL1 though I know those aren't worth much.

So... should I give it up and sell?  Should I store it away in the hopes I will get an interest again?

CityLights wrote:  Hi all, I haven't shot much with my DSLR for the last 3 years. It's been 5 years since I really planned and went trips specifically for photography. Before that I was really into photography and active here. I guess I just moved on to other hobbies.

Yes, I remember your name.  Photography is a hobby, so it is subject to ebbs & flows.  I have done the (sell them all):  I've got rid of my

• canon 30d + canon XTi + canon Xsi + 2x canon T1i (both of them) + canon T2i, canon eos-M, and a Nikon D3100 DSLR

• sold my canon 22/2 stm, canon 35/2, 2x canon 50/1.8 (twice), canon 85/1.8, canon 100/2, canon 200/2, canon 70-200 F4, canon 70-200 F4 IS, canon 17-85, canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 17-50 VC, Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro, etc......

My advice are 2 folds:

• Sell camera BODY QUICLY to minimized deprecation
• Sell LENS SLOWLY....to maximize the return

I have about $4k in L grade glass. 100-400mm IS L, 17-40mm L, 100mm L macro, 10-22mm and a couple more. I know I can sell them for the same price I bought them for. Maybe even sell for profit. The new same models are several hundred more expensive than I bought them for 5-10 years ago.

You have good Canon L lens that keeps it's value.  I recommend you sell them slowly and never take low-balling offers

Also have 350D, 400D, and SL1 though I know those aren't worth much.

I would sell the SL1 today (because it still have VALUE).  You should be able to get about $180~$240 depends on condition and the lens bundle.

Canon 350d/400d are Worthless in the used market.  I suggest you keep the 400D for your own casual used, and donate the 350d.  Chances are you won't be able to get-rid of everything, so you will have some lens leftover and need a camera body to use the lens.

I hate having stuff around which I no longer use.

I would not mind a 100-400L IS lens (I prefer the first over the second I think).

My hobbies come and go, but I would have a hard time selling something I invested so much time in and enjoyed....

Hi CItylights,,

you won't make it. Not you.

Unless you need new desert tyres

Best regards.

I agree with 007Peter... If you TRULY feel like that you will not want to dip into photography anymore, sell/donate the bodies, but take time on the lenses, and get what YOU want for them. Those lenses are really great pieces of glass, and with all that extra mulah, you can explore other hobbies more fully.

It's a shame you don't have time to dedicate to photography, your website shows amazing work. That said, this stuff isn't fine wine. Better to get rid of it while it holds value. Can always pick up something else at a later time.

I would maybe keep one of the bodies and the kit lenses (assuming you have them). Neither is worth a fortune and all will take the occasional photo.

As above, sell the older cameras and SOME of the lenses

Keep newest camera and that "L" glass which you used to make some of those fantastic photos from a few years ago.

regards

Colin

I would sell the gear now.  Who knows what will happen in the future?  Sell while your gear is still in use and in demand.

If you become interested again in the future, you might find you want newer gear.  Maybe you will want mirrorless or compact cameras or mainly video.  Five or so years ago, when I visited the national parks, DSLRs were very popular.  When I travelled again last Fall I noticed that there were very few visitors with DSLRs.  Flickr does not need another landscape of the Grand Canyon but a phone camera and a selfie stick are great for instantly updating friends on Facebook.

Heya CityLights,

I'm sure you know that only you can really answer that question.

My own answer to that situation was: I switched to a small Fujifilm "mirrorless" camera (X-T10). It's so much more convenient for hauling around -- that was one of the big problems I had with my XT/350D. And although I'm tangled up in the editing world (see my sig), I don't enjoy editing at all, and the JPEG images from the Fuji are great SOOC.

I also don't do video, which the older Fujis (like mine) truly suck at. I suck at video even worse than my camera does. However, I believe that video is the future, and that still imagery will be a niche like black-and-white became. Still photography is for old fogies like me. Perhaps you're more progressive than I am, in which case buying a new stills camera might be pointless.

I haven't sold my Canon gear. An XT/350D plus 17-85 wouldn't bring enough to make it worthwhile. Your situation is quite different.

CityLights wrote:

With camera phones advancing so fast do DSLRs have a future? I think their days are numbered. In 5 years, they will be an antique novelty, replaced by "jewelry" that shoots continuous high quality video like a car dash cam.

For the ordinary consumer, we're probably already there. I just came back from a week-long vacation, and I don't think I saw a DSLR the entire time (except for pro photogs). The vast majority of folks were using mobile phones and tablets, while some were using bridge cameras and mirrorless.

The enthusiast is always going to want better, simply because it's better, whether or not the better-ness makes any visible difference in their imagery. Better is better, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly an idiot.

But as I already noted in this thread, the big shift is (In My Opinion) going to be away from still photography to video. Still photography is dead, in the same sense that black-and-white photography is dead. Stills shooting is something that old-timers like me do and will continue to do, something that someday will be retro chic, and something that occasionally is actually useful, but the mainstream has moved on.

For the video enthusiasts, DSLRs have a big problem: no viewfinder. You have to use the rear LCD, and holding the camera stable is considerably more important in video than with still photography. This is where "mirrorless" cameras stand out -- electronic viewfinder.

So, the future of DSLRs is for enthusiasts and pros who choose to continue to work with still photography. Whether you consider that a "future" or not, that's your call.

I take several courses which involve photo critiques and artistic discussions.  Cellphone pictures are almost always easy to identify even when viewed on a cheap projector at less than 1000 pixels on the long side.

There is no way to correct the poor image quality.