2005 SP market value

sp Limited Edition

sp Limited Edition

i did a search on terapeak, goes back to the end of September - today for sales on ebay,
listing of Nikon sp Limited Edition prices from $3799- $5400, none sold,

Nikon sp Limited, 2 sold $3300 & 3999, (same as above just edition removed from the listing)

lens 5cm 1.4 olympic reissue $1600

lots are listed from $3900-5400,
 
Thanks for the research...interesting. I'm surprised they've fallen this far; at the time it seemed like a really strong investment camera.
 
investment camera

investment camera

I don't think the s3 2000 or the sp 2005 will ever be a good short or long term investment, the lenses that came with them might, but not the bodies,
 
sp9107 said:
I don't think the s3 2000 or the sp 2005 will ever be a good short or long term investment, the lenses that came with them might, but not the bodies,
Click to expand...
Just thought I'd add my 2 cents... All I can do is select cameras that don't depreciate in value and keep up with inflation. Regardless of how irrational the collector market may seem, as soon as one of these Nikons is unpacked and loaded with film, the value drops significantly. So, I see no compelling investment potential. There are two distinct markets, the collector market and the user market each with substantially different prices.
All the best for the new year! David
 
Nikons also are curious cameras compared to Leica. When new, they were popular professional/enthusiast cameras only for about 9 years before the Nikon F's extraordinary success. So the RF cameras were never made in large numbers. They were popular mainly with some professional photographers and military personnel based in Japan. They were neglected/ignored in the 1960s and '70s, so quality examples in unused condition with packaging are scarce. Also, anything collectible but pricey (cars, cameras, perhaps watches) tends to have a generational thing going -- successful people in their 50s and 60s want what they couldn't afford in their teens and 20s. Thus the emotional Nikon collector/purhcaser is aging out.

Leicas, by contrast, were popular from the early 1930s on and were made in the millions. The branding was always based on a certain affluence/exclusivity so that well-to-do people would buy them in order to ensure they had top quality and workmanship, resulting in many more instances of "collectible" cameras and lenses, as well as advertising and business models positioning Leica firmly as a luxury product. People are much more attuned to buying special editions and collector/investment kits in this context.

With all this, the low buyer/collector base of Nikon means it makes little sense that the reproduction/reissues would ever be nearly as collectible as Leica. The main collector market for them outside of Japan would be Leica collectors whose first love is, by definition, not Nikon. For the most part, the Nikon reissue market seems to have driven by genuine users. The street prices quickly dropped to a level that people were willing to pay for a useable recently built camera that a devoted few consider to be among the best designed film cameras of any era. And Nikon's motive for building them seemed to be driven by a kind of corporate nostalgia/workmanship ethos that speaks most powerfully to collectors in Japan but less so to those in other parts of the world.

In any event, I'm awfully happy classic Nikons were briefly remade. They have extended my film usage by years and given me thousands of pleasurable images.
 
I also agree on this assessment, nikon rf collectors are getting fewer, funnily, initially targeted to collectors, only available as pre order, the re edition sp is probably the best actual "shooter" of the whole system.

You re getting a camera made in 2005 instead of the 60ies, good viewfinder, good rf patch, framelines, superb nikon rf exclusive multicoated lens, ah and looks to die for,,,
 
I discovered Nikon RFs as a young newspaper person in 1989-'90, just as collectors in Japan were driving the market crazy. If I'd only been a year or two earlier, I could've put together a working shooters kit much more affordably.
 
"Thus the emotional Nikon collector/purhcaser is aging out."

I don't agree. First, when I was in my early 20's and got my first job as a stringer for UPI, we all felt that rangefinders were old fashioned and the only cameras we wanted and often could not afford were Nikon F's. I don't think that the collectors of the reissued Nikons are aging out, nor are these people those who wanted or couldn't afford the Nikon Rf's when they were young. I'm 67 so you would have to be talking about collectors older than me who couldn't afford the Nikon RF's when they were new and, I would guess, that is a very small population. When I was a young photographer, I don't recall ever seeing a Leica or other RF cameras down on the field of an NFL game. They were all SLR's.

IMO the collectors of reissued Nikon RF's are not older, probably never lusted after one when these cameras were first made in the 1950's, and generally consist of individuals and dealers who thought they would cash in on an investment. That potential was never realized and now you can find many new, never loaded, still in the box examples waiting for the unsuspecting buyer who still thinks there is an investment to be made.

The value of original Nikon rangefinder models is high and not likely to begin to fall in the near future. That's because the reissued Nikons are great users but they are still reproductions and collectors generally do not like reproductions.

David
 
Last edited:
David,
Good comments. I do think many people equate professional photography with sports photography, as per your NFL observation, whereas sports is the one area of news photography where rangefinders are most ill suited. You probably are right that many of the original purchasers of the Nikon reissues were investor/dealers who quickly (or slowly) discovered the investment was going nowhere.

The original Nikon models in user and better condition tend to be quite affordable as well.
 
Your right about the sports photography. Most of my real life was spent taking photos of cells under a microscope, a Nikon scope and my Nikon F3, while I secretly lusted after those Leica microscopes and cameras. Later I collected Barnacks and now I suspect why.
Almost time to prepare for New Years Eve dinner here in Italy. Auguri to all!

David
 
Very interesting perspectives. Since I'm not a collector, never sell anything (with the exception of an F5 that was just too ridiculous to keep) and shoot everything I own, at <$4K this camera/lens makes a lot more sense that it did >$6K.
 
Sp 2005 kit

Sp 2005 kit

It's a very beautiful camera ,
I had one early this year - it was brand new and to tell you the truth
I was unlikely to use it due to the value .
I paid just under 4 grand which seemed cheap back then .
If you can afford it and are going to keep it $3600 is a great price .
The multicoated 3.5 cm 1.8 black rim is worth buying the kit for .
I sold the one I had and broke even , so was able to try it out .

I still use my Nikon s2 that i bought in New York City in 1974 .
Two lenses 5 cm 1.4 and 2.8 cm 3.5 . , Leitz 28 brightline finder I have less than $900 in
This outfit so it actually gets used .
 
Why do the reproductions cost so much more than the originals? Is it just a matter of being newer and therefore considered to be in better condition, or is there something inherently better about them?


I recall recent threads about pinholes in the cloth shutters of re-issue S3's; the originals mostly (all?) had titanium shutters. Does not sound like an improvement to me.

Cheers,
Dez
 
Thank you, Vince, for your thoughtful explanation.

I owned an SP in the 70s but – like many others – preferred the viewfinder setup of M4 & 35mm. Lately, however, I've been using S2 & 50mm, and also bought a black S3 2000 LE and the Sonnar 1.5 in S mount. I've recently seen both Exc+ S2s and 'new' Millennium S3s at better prices than I paid.

I find them beautiful, practical, and rewarding in terms of image quality:
--IMO they're beautiful works of Modernist design.
--I want my film cameras to feel quite different from my digital M, so that I don't take off the bottom to extract the card – without rewinding the film.
--And especially, Sonnar (Nikkor) wide-open bokeh is so attractive.

Collectiblend shows graphs of Nikon RF price decline. And I believe prices have dropped in just the half year I've owned the S3 2000. But that may be partly because people want to sell more than buy older user/collectible cameras at the end of a year?

PS to Dez: You can read on the Internet the story of Nikon's engineering project to recreate the Millennium cameras, at greater expense than they could be sold for. The bodies aren't inherently better, just less used; but the lenses differ (50mm in design and coating; 35mm in coating). And it was SPs, not S3s, that mostly had ti shutters. As to reproductions costing more than originals, it's not always so. The originals that collectors want (as distinct from originals in user condition) cost lots more than the reproductions.

Re: S3 2000 cloth shutters with pinholes, three of us have recently mentioned that. But Jon suggested this is coincidence and not an inherent flaw. I just don't know.
 
The originals were quite expensive when they were new.

And, as thompsonks's pointed out, the reproductions were primarily a labor of love, not a real money-making venture, on the part of Nikon.

Dez said:
Why do the reproductions cost so much more than the originals? Is it just a matter of being newer and therefore considered to be in better condition, or is there something inherently better about them?
Click to expand...
 
The price of the reproductions reflects the cost of hand-making a limited number of precision top-quality cameras. They were still made at a financial loss. Their origina selling prices were more or less comparable to the new prices for Leica film cameras and lenses, which sell in higher numbers.

A new Nikon SP with 50/1.4 lens cost $415 in 1958, which was about 20 percent of the average price of a new car - $2,000. These were expensive cameras.
 
thompsonks said:
<snip> but the lenses differ (50mm in design and coating; 35mm in coating).<snip>

Re: S3 2000 cloth shutters with pinholes, three of us have recently mentioned that. But Jon suggested this is coincidence and not an inherent flaw. I just don't know.
Click to expand...

The Millennium Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is a reissue of the rare "Olympic" Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 from the early 1960s (1962?), so although a different design from the older Sonnar Nikkor-S 5cm f/1.4, its not really a new design. The multi-coating is new of course.

With regard to pinholes in the shutter curtains on the reissue Nikon RFs, as I said in the other thread I've owned and used a lot of these reissue RFs (50 plus) and I've never experienced it. I have experienced other problems though (slow speed governor going out of whack, rangefinder misalignment, squeaky focus helicoid etc.).

With regard to prices, in Japan S3 2000 prices continue to plummet but SP 2005 prices seem to be creeping back up. I've seen a few mint condition kits sell recently for around 400,000 yen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom