Am I wasting money buying used cameras?

[tomhongkong]

OK, I am by nature thrifty, and have tended to buy used, on the basis that someone else has taken the biggest hit in loss of value. However, does that really work in an environment where technology advances? Here are some numbers to think about, and please make them more accurate with your comments.

Say a new OM-1 costs $2000 and has a life of 6 years when I sell for $200. Ignoring interest it costs $300 per year average.

I could buy an EM1iii for $1000 and will have a future life of 3 years when I sell for $200 (pushing it?) It costs $270 per year. I then buy used OM-1 after 3 years for $1200. It lasts 3 years it's then 6 years old and worth $200. It costs me $330 per year

So, my buy used strategy costs the same new purchase option and I don't have the benefit of new features for the first 3 years. But I have to resolve to stick with one toy for 6 years.

I don't have to find $2000 up front, though.

Can anyone more skilled with numbers than I am flesh out the argument? (It has to be good enough to convince the CFO at home)

Interestingly if I run the numbers on my older Olympus IL cameras, My EM1 mk1 bought new, on offer, now sold) cost $200pa, my EM1ii has cost $250pa if I sell it now for US$400, (bought new from discount HK dealer 3 years ago) I will keep my EM5iii as a backup/travelling light camera, that cost $600 nearly new 2 years ago in HK.

Happy shooting

tom

 

[finnan haddie]

...IF you buy neither a new nor a used camera at all!

 

[Interceptor121]

I don’t buy used cameras but I don’t mind used lenses

if a camera has a feature that I need right now I may even buy it on pre-order if it comes with freebies

there are many ways to acquire a new model at discount price and normally I sell my cameras st good value

I dont look wt cameras as investments just as cost as the return I make on them is none compared to the acquisition cost

for your calculations you need to take into account that 2000 does not equal 200 per five years. And 200 in five years for your sale is not 200 in current value

you can use an NPV formula to model the value of your future sale in today terms. Subtract acquisition- nov of your future sale this is what your net is today

no point talking about the value next year you spent the money now the rest is notional

the key of all of this is seeing the value of the newer item. No comparison will give you that it is subjective

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[ahaslett]

We are now returning to a world where you have to factor inflation, investment volatility etc into the calculations.

Having lived through such a world, I spent my camera savings on upgrading an EM1.2 to an OM1 plus extra lenses as soon as the reviews persuaded me it was the right move.

Buying used is fine, provided you have no intention to upgrade. I bought a used Sony A7Riv a while back, when the A1 launched. I don’t see what an A7Riv could have that would persuade me to upgrade.

Andrew

 

[Skeeterbytes]

My broad brush opinion is cameras retain a good deal of their purchase price value until they're discontinued, then they plunge. 25%? If you're lucky. This is more evident with higher end cameras that are not heavily discounted before the next model is released--something that varies a good deal.

Surely over the long haul, lenses retain value much better than camera bodies, which can become nearly e-waste with time. Does not mean they don't work the same as new (except maybe clock batteries or peeling skin) but enthusiasts will be tempted by higher performance of the newest models and the old ones become paperweights.

Once the lens collection gains "critical mass" then the camera price is a small component of a complete system.

We can all agree smartphones are even worse!

Cheers,

Rick

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

you're not wasting your money if you use it, i stopped buying new years ago, no regrets just lots of savings

 

[novalaker]

I think it just depends how much money you are able to spend up front. Because if you buy a camera for $1000, sell it for $200 three years later and buy another camera for $1200, you would have spent $2000, which is the cost of the second camera right now, and you spend 3 years without the new features. Now, if you wanna factor in time value of money you can, but you have to weigh that against the cost of inflation.

One thing I've learned about cameras is that while GAS is certainly an issue at times, I've found that being too cheap can end up costing you.

 

[Boone4911]

Most of the time I buy used lenses and have never received a bad one but when it comes to cameras, I look to buy a manufacturer refurbished body. I save a few hundred dollars and still get a warrantee long enough to be sure everything is in working order.

 

[grsnovi]

...on how many you're buying.

Do you use the ones you buy?

Is there a reason you're worried about it? You have a camera and internet service, I'll assume you're not starving or living under a bridge.

 

[NikonBiologist]

OK, I am by nature thrifty, and have tended to buy used, on the basis that someone else has taken the biggest hit in loss of value. However, does that really work in an environment where technology advances? Here are some numbers to think about, and please make them more accurate with your comments.

Say a new OM-1 costs $2000 and has a life of 6 years when I sell for $200. Ignoring interest it costs $300 per year average.

I could buy an EM1iii for $1000 and will have a future life of 3 years when I sell for $200 (pushing it?) It costs $270 per year. I then buy used OM-1 after 3 years for $1200. It lasts 3 years it's then 6 years old and worth $200. It costs me $330 per year

So, my buy used strategy costs the same new purchase option and I don't have the benefit of new features for the first 3 years. But I have to resolve to stick with one toy for 6 years.

I don't have to find $2000 up front, though.

Can anyone more skilled with numbers than I am flesh out the argument? (It has to be good enough to convince the CFO at home)

Interestingly if I run the numbers on my older Olympus IL cameras, My EM1 mk1 bought new, on offer, now sold) cost $200pa, my EM1ii has cost $250pa if I sell it now for US$400, (bought new from discount HK dealer 3 years ago) I will keep my EM5iii as a backup/travelling light camera, that cost $600 nearly new 2 years ago in HK.

Happy shooting

tom

Given the crazy rate of inflation, you'll get more for your money today than in the future. Tell the CFO your money is just sitting in the bank losing value every day!

If you can wait a few months, you can get the OM-5 for less than the Om-1 now, or get a discounted OM-1--that may put your annual cost close enough together to not matter.

 

[Lepewhi]

I have never bought a new car, and my cars survived years, my last one lasted for 19yrs(sold it). So, I have no real issue buying used. Just make sure you have a reasonable guarantee. For example, MPB offers 6 months, plus have gone through testing, and I'm sure other stores do.

 

[addlightness]

I always bought new when my kids were younger - newborn to middle school - when there were photo ops everyday. Higher ISO (for indoors when flash are not allowed), more pixels (for cropping). Canon/Nikon dSLRs, SonyNEX/Nikon1 MILC, Olympus/Panasonic compact waterproof cameras, etc. I still have all of them (except Sony NEX-5N which I gave to my BIL).

For the past 6 years, I bought new when I really like the cameras - GM1, EM10.i, GX85. My PEN-F, EM5.ii and EM5.iii were all refurbished.

As for lenses, I tend to buy new those I use often - e.g. 15/1.7, 25/1.8, 30/1.4, 45/1.8

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Seems like we're a bit spoiled in the States, or at least I'm not aware of equivalent resources like the refurb store. A LOT of my gear came from there and the one time I had a technical issue, they replaced it promptly (after speaking on the phone with a real live tech person). Has saved me thousands and built a more complete system than I'd otherwise own.

I'm hopeless on the selling side of things. Ebay schmeebay. Having a kid to dish gear off to helps.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[JosephScha]

I think a better phrase is you are taking a risk, that you MIGHT be wasting money.

If the used camera you get works in every way, and is in good condition, then obviously you won. On the other hand if the used camera is not fully functional and you paid for it as if it was fully functional, that's the risk. I think you should look at MPB.com . I'm not necessarily suggesting that you buy from them, but they give a grade to their used gear and you can get an idea of what price hey are charging for good used gear.

 

[jalywol]

If the used camera has the features and output that you want, then why not get it?

On the other hand, if you are going to wish you had bought the latest model, and end up doing the camera churn, then yes, you are wasting money. But, more than that, you are wasting something else far more precious, and that's time.

To be honest with you, I don't buy used bodies, as they are more likely to get outdated sooner, and you never totally know how the original owner treated them, or if they had a subtle problem that made them trade them in. Lenses (not all, but some of them), on the other hand, I will buy used, as long as there is a good return policy if they have a problem.

You're going to take a hit on the value either way, so, if there is any way to come up with the funds for the new body that does exactly what you want, then go for it. You are more likely to keep it longer and enjoy it more, and reduce the camera churn thing anyway if that's the case.

Life is short. If you can wrangle the $ out of the budget, then just get what you want in the first place, rather than waiting for a well used hand-me-down of that model to trickle by in a few years.

YMMV, of course.....

-J

 

[Interceptor121]

Assuming a rate of 5%

Your first case is in today money £1722

Your second case is £1686

You are saving effectively £36 for a 3 years delay

With higher rate the case for not buying a new camera improves but not so dramatically

If the realisations of your sale and purchase are accurate you are effectively making a mistake by delaying your purchase as the saving over a 6 years period in today's money is minimal

 

[mchnz]

In respect to bodies, whether I buy is driven by the level of desire for features on offer. Sometimes I go many years without being tempted. When a must-have feature turns up, I jump reasonably quickly (maybe waiting a while for the bugs to be flushed out).

As I move toward my own use-by-date, the perceived cost to of waiting has increased. In recent years I've tended to upgrade the bodies with less consideration of the value proposition, I now place more weight on the fun-factor.

On the other hand, many of my lenses are second hand. The m43 lens lineup has been filled out for a long time, all the features I desire are already out there. I feel no need to pay a premium for new. I may pay a bit more and buy from a retail-dealer that offers a no questions asked right of return.

 

[River Photography]

I buy what ever i can afford at the time. new k100d.k10d.k7.epl5.em5.em52.em12 all 2 years after release for half there original price and sold for half the price i paid. all my lens are used except for 2, again for half price. the only camera i have bought within the first year of release is the a74 and a new 28 75, will not up grade now for 10 years so the combo will cost $600 per year, but will also earn 20 times its cost along the way

Rp

 

[meow]

We are now returning to a world where you have to factor inflation, investment volatility etc into the calculations.

Having lived through such a world, I spent my camera savings on upgrading an EM1.2 to an OM1 plus extra lenses as soon as the reviews persuaded me it was the right move.

Buying used is fine, provided you have no intention to upgrade. I bought a used Sony A7Riv a while back, when the A1 launched. I don’t see what an A7Riv could have that would persuade me to upgrade.

I actually did factor inflation. I was on the fence about the OM-1. When I realized how much less my saved money would be worth in a year I ordered the camera.

In fact, if you have the money, it's probably a good idea to buy everything now that you know you will buy anyway the next year or two Maybe wait a little with wine castles and luxury cars though. ;-)

 

[Bobapingu]

That's a fairly good assessment but money is just one criterion. What else you haven't factored in, is that buying used, you are buying something someone is dissatisfied with for a reason. Also, you no longer have the factory quality control to rely on. You have only the good will of the seller. Your risks are higher and that costs too.
If cash flow is not a problem, financially you are better off buying new and keeping it till it's broke or at least no longer able to perform the intended function.