"Most camera equipment holds it value pretty well. "

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Voyager

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,003
Edit My Images
No
On a thread now removed a poster was asking the value of some newish kit and (presumably) being new to photography wrote "I'm being led to believe most camera equipment holds it value pretty well."

Well, newbies, despite what some sales folk may tell you when buying your kit, while some lenses may not lose value quickly (indeed over time may lose nothing at all) standard digital kit does. The more common the equipment you are selling (lenses and all) the quicker it will lose value.

The reality is that once you walk out of the shop with a new mass-produced camera and lens and it is not going to be 'worth' anywhere near what you paid for it. I suspect the 'best' way to find the value of disposable electronic kit these days is by looking at 'Completed listings' on good old eBay and (generally) it seems as if you will be losing 20 - 30% just by it not being 'new'. More, if it is in any way 'used'.

I guess the moral of the story is do not believe what sales people tell you - they'll say anything to get your money from you (it is their job after all!). If future resale value is important to you then don't be too willing to pay full price for the kit now and be very aware what you are buying and why. You don't need the latest and greatest to take some half-arsed snaps of a beach at sunset. You don't need a 300mm 2.8 for a 'wildlife' picture of a Robin in your garden. The fantastic choice of kit we now have spoils the new photographer in ways I could not have imagined 35 years ago as a photography mad youth - but the naive and their money are soon parted and it is a one way process. I've learned (the hard way!) not to buy stuff I don't need, with money I do not have in order to impress others who don't care.

Get a camera because you want to take photographs and not as some form of ego prop or male jewellery. Expect your heard earned to be 'lost' for ever - unless you can start selling pictures you will never recoup it. Consider it is a 'toy' that makes coloured images most of which you'll never hold, they'll just be pixels on a screen that are transient - and in time will be gone forever.

Now, do you really need that new camera? :D
 
Slimbert said:
However right or wrong you may be, you do realise that this will fall on deaf ears don't you??!! :thinking:
Click to expand...
I don't mind. It's your hard earned, post-tax, income that you are spending on ephemera.

Just don't whine when it goes tits-up and you can't get back what you paid for it. :p
 
Voyager said:
I've learned (the hard way!) not to buy stuff I don't need, with money I do not have in order to impress others who don't care.

Get a camera because you want to take photographs and not as some form of ego prop or male jewellery.

Consider it is a 'toy' that makes coloured images most of which you'll never hold, they'll just be pixels on a screen that are transient - and in time will be gone forever.

Now, do you really need that new camera?
Click to expand...

Great Post...and so true.
 
Voyager said:
You don't need the latest and greatest to take some half-arsed snaps of a beach at sunset.
Click to expand...

You don't need the latest and greatest to take some very accomplished and professional-looking photographs, either.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Great Post...and so true.
Click to expand...

Great post... but only partly true.

If you buy good stuff at the right price you will lose very little, or maybe nothing.

Cameras will lose value quite hard when they are superceded, so you should expect a hit there. But buy popular lenses, quality lenses, and it's quite possible to chop and change them (if that suits your fancy) at minimal cost.

For example, I recently upgraded from crop format to full frame. Took some pain on the 40D body (about 40% - now superceded twice) but the lenses I have sold recently held up well - all Canons, 10-22, 17-55 2.8, 100 macro, 100-400L etc. What's more, if the buyers want to move those on some time they will get every penny back.

If resale value is important, buy used off here and you'll lose nothing. If you want new, buy branded quality like Canon L, check www.camerapricebuster.co.uk or buy from our friend Kerso, and you can sell-on only losing 15% for high end stuff.
 
Yeah the way I see the devaluation is its all relative, compared to other electronic goods camera stuff holds its value exceptionally well, still you cant buy blindly and expect it not to devalue.
At the end of last year I bought a 2nd hand D80 as my first DSLR, I would have loved a D90 but it was to much ££ for me at this time and personally I felt the second hand value was more than I wished to pay even if I had the ££ for a second hand D90. my synopsis was that camera equipment does devalue, but not as much as other electronic equipment, but then when its superseded it devalues more ‘normally’.

Lenses are the greater investment, but yeah as above it varies lens to lens.

At the end of the day there not much point for me in buying camera equipment like it’s a stock market. Its good to justify in ones head or to the wife though ‘it hasn’t cost me anything, I could sell it tomorrow for the same price’. Eg for me any Lenses I will buy its because I want them and plan to keep them, when the D90 replacement comes out I may get a cheap second hand D90, but then My D80 will be devalued more so not much point in selling it, may aswell keep it as a spare body lol.
 
I think the fact is that most things you buy these days from a retail store at retail price, you will have to take a hit if you decide to sell on. But I have to say camera equipment, is probably one of the items that you lose the least, especially lenses.

I don't think people should be put off by this fact but more inclined to invest some of your hard earned cash if it is a hobby of yours, and you really enjoy taking photographs, of course, don't be silly and buy expensive equipment just for the hell of it if you can't afford it. Buying/upgrading lenses etc is also a way to keep things interesting and for me, is very enjoyable.....and if you do decide to pack it all in one day, you can downgrade your kit/sell off some lenses to get some money back.

Put it this way, if you go buy a brand new car, you are losing a hell of a lot more by driving out of the showroom than you would by buying a lens, but people still do it.
 
lauy said:
I don't think people should be put off by this fact but more inclined to invest some of your hard earned cash if it is a hobby of yours, and you really enjoy taking photographs, of course, don't be silly and buy expensive equipment just for the hell of it if you can't afford it. Buying/upgrading lenses etc is also a way to keep things interesting and for me, is very enjoyable.....and if you do decide to pack it all in one day, you can downgrade your kit/sell off some lenses to get some money back.
Click to expand...
I think you are agreeing with me... My point was this (novice - I guess) photographer thought he would easily be able to sell his (apparently) barely used kit for nearly the same money as he had recently paid for it. This is unlikely.

You might make a small fortune out of dealing with camera equipment - but (for most) only if you start out with a large fortune.
lauy said:
Put it this way, if you go buy a brand new car, you are losing a hell of a lot more by driving out of the showroom than you would by buying a lens, but people still do it.
Click to expand...
Sure - but at least you can get about in the car. A lot of camera equipment is (if the for sale ads are to be believed) essentially unused and lives in boxes until it is sold.

But I was not really trying to make this post 'anti kit' - really what you do with your money for your hobby is not for anyone, let alone me, to judge - but those that think the astonishing cost is somehow justified by a few images on Flickr are (in my opinion) insane! :bang:
 
Okay, I understand where you're coming from.......it does cost a lot of money, especially if it is a hobby and not professionally. I enjoy taking photos as a hobby and travelling around the world whilst doing so, not necessarily always for a perfect end product, but because I find it is relaxing and enjoyable to do so, when I'm not stuck in the office working to earn money. It all depends what you can afford I guess.....for me, I don't have any family to support, and I'm still young so can enjoy these kind of luxuries. I'm sure if I had other responsibilities, I would definitely think again before splashing a load of cash on a lens.
 
What about vintage cameras ;)

I bet some leicas, if anything, increase price over time
 
Voyager said:
I don't mind. It's your hard earned, post-tax, income that you are spending on ephemera.

Just don't whine when it goes tits-up and you can't get back what you paid for it. :p
Click to expand...

Easy tiger....

I agree with you up to a point, buying the latest and greatest purely for the sake of it is a bit daft imho, but me personally, I rarely lose anything on gear I buy (and sometimes make a small profit) as I buy nearly all my stuff second hand anyway!

But, your OP is a bit pointless as the vast majority of people understand that second hand goods are worth less than they were when brand new. It ain't rocket science!!

The point I was making is that your OP is intended for the silly few that don't realise that this is the case, and your OP won't make a blind bit of difference to that group of people....cos they are a bit daft! (y)
 
Reckon even in 10 years time my 24-70 f2.8 will still be worth £700 if I keep it in good condition and with the box etc.

That means it will only cost me a little over £1/month, and perhaps £2/month allowing for inflation.

My 50mm f1.4G will probably be worth £150 in 10 years time too, so that's just costing well under £1/month to own.

Great value in my opinion and there's not much else that you can spend money on these days, enjoy for 10 years, and see a good price for when you come to sell.
 
davidbridges said:
What about vintage cameras ;)

I bet some leicas, if anything, increase price over time
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell 'vintage cameras' are not the 'standard digital kit' or a 'a new mass-produced camera and lens' I specifically described at the start of the thread.

Do get back to me when you have given that some thought though.
 
Voyager said:
As far as I can tell 'vintage cameras' are not the 'standard digital kit' or a 'a new mass-produced camera and lens' I specifically described at the start of the thread.

Do get back to me when you have given that some thought though.
Click to expand...

You're lovely aren't you?

/sarcasm
 
Slimbert said:
the vast majority of people understand that second hand goods are worth less than they were when brand new. It ain't rocket science!!
Click to expand...
I know that, you know that but the person who got me thinking clearly didn't know that and nor (apparently) does the contributor of the post that follows the last one of yours who is guessing what the market will be like in 2020.
 
This is why the clever people by stuff that looses value second hand, my 30D has lost about £50 in resale in the two years I've had it. The previous owner lost more than that as he walked out of the shop with it! My Ancient 70-210 f4 has actually gone up in value since I got it which is ridiculous!
 
In my personal experience I have found some things hold their money better than others. I had a Canon 10-22mm (bought for approx £500 inc hood), and Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS (bought for aprrox £600 inc hood). Due to circumstances I had to sell them (poor student, couldn't find job, needed to pay rent etc), both sold 2nd hand each went for about £50/75 less from new, 1.5 years later.

This was due to several factors I believe. One being the demand for these lenses is high despite not being 'L' lenses they have excellent optic quality. Another being I bought them before the recession, then during the recession lens prices went up for brand new ones, therefore so did 2nd hand prices go up.
 
Some vintage cameras were mass produced back in the day?... One day many DSLR's will be vintage therefore increasing their price
 
Even the bestest Macbook or top end laptop are disposable ephemera after two or three years; more so for mobile phones, and definitely the case for compact cameras and camera bodies. Lenses, however, are different. You could buy a Canon EF70-200 f/4L when it came out in 1999, and, if you looked after it, it could still be sold for about two-thirds of the retail value now. How much do you reckon you'd get for any other peice of electronic equipment from eleven years ago? Unless it's some mint example of something that's turned into a collector's curio (and how could you predict that at the time of purchase?), about zilch. Fortunately lenses aren't subjected to being relentlessly superceded like everything else; one model of lens can last for ages, and even when there is a new version released, there's no guarantee it'll be superior.

Point is, only the greenest of green (and I haven't come across many people on TP who are) would assume that dabbling in lenses is like dabbling on the stockmarket. Lenses are 'investments' in a much broader and relative sense; at the very least, if you do spend a lot on this rather expensive hobby, you at least know that the outlay you make on lenses is offset by the value they'd retain for when you do come to sell them on. You'll get much more in terms of financial return from them than you would from the 2005 top-end 40" LCD TV and 5.1 surround system you could have spent your wad on instead ;)
 
davidbridges said:
Some vintage cameras were mass produced back in the day?... One day many DSLR's will be vintage therefore increasing their price
Click to expand...
The fashion these days is that if you wait long enough almost everything will become 'collectable' to someone - but that is really not the point.

Take an old digital body, say the original Nikon D1 which was massively coveted when new (9 years ago) when cost @£4k and had a 2.7mp sensor - it might be 'worth' something to a collector of Nikon history - but it is a technically obsolete camera even compared to the now 'outdated' D40.
 
Nifkin said:
Fortunately lenses aren't subjected to being relentlessly superceded like everything else; one model of lens can last for ages, and even when there is a new version released, there's no guarantee it'll be superior.
Click to expand...
Generally I agree, although there was quite a fuss when Canon dropped the FD mount (back along) and, although done for excellent technical reasons, all the lenses became (effectively) locked into history. There is nothing stopping any manufacturer doing that again (although to do so might be seen as commercial suicide) or for an unforeseen step-change in technology that makes current kit obsolete.

Anyhow my point was more about mass produced kit - and I can't see that the 'standard' 18-55 lens is ever likely to 'an investment'.
 
Voyager said:
Anyhow my point was more about mass produced kit - and I can't see that the 'standard' 18-55 lens is ever likely to 'an investment'.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but you're defining quite a narrow point there, Voyager; and I may say you're preaching to the converted. I reckon your OP would be better suited to a thread on the likes of AVForums, where there are gear fetishists galore :D
 
hubby read a similar thread on a bass forum a while ago.

My point (and hubby's) is why is selling on the equipment so important? - use the damn thing!

I openly admit that I'm a hoarder... but I wouldn't buy something now with the aim of selling it later. I may end up selling something later, but selling kit later is not a thought that crosses my mind when I buy something.
 
Nifkin said:
No disrespect, but you're defining quite a narrow point there, Voyager; and I may say you're preaching to the converted. I reckon your OP would be better suited to a thread on the likes of AVForums, where there are gear fetishists galore :D
Click to expand...
Well, I started thinking about this because someone posted a thread where they said they had apparently been told "Most camera equipment holds it value pretty well."...

I happen to think that it does not (it loses value like pretty much everything does) and that is fine as long as you are aware and can afford it. (But personally I still think people have a tendency to spend an astonishing amount simply to produce their 'series of 36 blurs in perfect focus' (although that allegory is way out of date!) ;))
 
MagicMynx said:
My point (and hubby's) is why is selling on the equipment so important? - use the damn thing!
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree too. But my point was (as I thought I spelled out in the OP) that this individual appeared to believe that mass produced camera kit was some sort of exception to the way the market economy works.
 
So basically instead of letting it die you wanted to throw more fuel onto the fire by starting a new thread, about something that is essentially your opinion? Nice.
 
trencheel303 said:
So basically instead of letting it die you wanted to throw more fuel onto the fire by starting a new thread, about something that is essentially your opinion? Nice.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is a fourm and this is the 'Talk Equipment' section.

I thought I would post my thoughts about the use of equipment on it. I didn't realise that that my opinion has to meet your approval before posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top