Cheap Is Not Good

[OM1234]

A common theme not just with this forum but other enthusiast forums (for watches, pens etc) is how cheap somebody has procured a valuable item and a lot of people say how good it that, jolly good fellow, what a hero.

Well actually it is very bad as when items have no intrinsic value they become a deposable item and nobody spends money to maintain them. And when nobody maintains them expertise in maintenance and overhaul of such items disappears. Very few people are going to spend $300 or more overhauling a $10 camera. The question you have to ask is not how cheap can I get a camera for but how much am I willing to pay.

Do you want film cameras to be available in 10-15 years time.

The ball is in your court.

 

[L Collins]

Your third paragraph makes no sense within the context of your first two.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

My dad always told me that quality pays, it doesn't cost - and I have to agree with him. There's very little I've ever bought "cheaply" that has lasted well and delivered what I regard as value for money. I wouldn't go as far as to say that "Cheap is not good" per-se as there are people who can't afford "expensive" and have to settle for the cheap option and try to make do.

The reduction in price of film cameras has little to do with quality and everything to do with relative popularity. I shoot a LOT of film and will continue to do so. I will buy the best cameras I can afford and will pay to have them serviced and repaired to prolong their working life - so long as film continues to be available - which looks like being for a very long time.

 

[KoNickon]

The contrary argument -- for gearheads, a big part of the joy is getting something well below its market value. That can add to its attractiveness, and make its owner even more likely to spend the money to keep it working because he/she spent less for it up front.

There's also the sentimental value aspect. Maybe your father's old Kodak Tourist folder has very little monetary value, but you want to keep it, and spend the money to keep it working so you can use it yourself.

On this forum, and I daresay on other enthusiast sites for watches, pens, etc., I think the standard economic cost benefit analysis doesn't apply.

 

[Nokton48]

I purchased six different Minolta SRT's, and two motorized SRM's. I spent $75 CLA fee on each, to have Greg Stelz strip them down to the bare chassis, and completely rebuild and recalibrate everything. He even oils and reoils the springs and tests and retests them until he is completely satisfied. They are now functioning like new. I probably would not have been interested in these cameras, if they were not able to be completely restored to my satisfaction. And now I am a happy camper.

 

[colyn]

On the contrary... getting a camera for well below market value makes getting it serviced more attractive. You buy at full value then have to spend that much or more to get service makes most think twice about it..

 

[jsrockit]

There are tons of film cameras in the world. Even if someone isn't servicing them, you'll be able to buy another working model. The really desirable stuff should be able to be serviced still for a good deal of time.

 

[Spicy]

I would much rather have bought a leica for $200 and spent 800 on a CLA than 800 and 200 for a CLA.

The cameras have already been made. This sounds like an obvious observation, but spent a moment and actually think about what that means.

The repair people are who keep them going as viable options. When this crop of experienced repairpeople go away, things are going to get tough. Hopefully by then, someone will have come up with a market-realistic and viable way to make and sell quality film bodies.

 

[squareshooter]

Cheap is not good or bad. It is just a fact with a lot of old film gear. I don't collect film cameras. I rescue them. If I want to spend money repairing an old camera I don't think of the money I spent purchasing it. That is beside the point. I think about what a great shooter it will be when the lumps are taken out of the batter. I think perhaps you are preaching to the wrong choir here.

 

[OM1234]

I think you are right.

 

[Mcary]

Why would anyone spend $300 to overhaul a $10 camera when they could spend $10 to buy another one? Now spending $300 to overall a $500 camera that you bought for $10 is different story.

 

[Boris Stupak]

Film cameras will continue to be worth something for many decades.

1) The collectible market for very rare items will remain high. Also, for fetishistic objects, like older Leicas, prices will remain somewhat high.

2) There will be a market for user film cameras as long as film and developing are still available. When this dries up, the market value of user cameras will drop to virtually nothing. They'll be curios, display objects for whatever the equivalent of a "hipster" is in the future.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I bought a 'cheap' Rolleiflex for £100 and then had it serviced. I will be able to use it until there is no longer film to put in it.

I also have the satisfaction that I took something that was not working perfectly and put it back to factory specs for very little money.

Or I could just pop a huge sum of cash for a mint one-which is better?

 

[_goodtimez]

I'm a real "cheap ass" so I buy cheap only. I have the GAS for cheap gear only which prevents me from ruining my income on this. I still have a lot of fun going after cheap bargains.
With the existing number of film photo gear on the planet I think we will still find some in use in 200 years from now 🙂

 

[35mmdelux]

"How much am I willing to pay" is a phrase I have heard on the used car lot. I do not frame my purchases with this strategy in mind. I prefer to think "How much can I afford?"

 

[lam]

Why do people buy junky old muscle cars then dump 100k into them?

The same reason why people will buy "cheap" cameras and pay to restore them, hopefully to use.

 

[wblynch]

I have bought more than a dozen nice 35mm film cameras very cheaply, as "parts" cameras.

For most of them it turned out all they needed was a little cleaning and a new set of batteries to get them going again. For others, I ended up making one good camera from two, or even three good ones from four.

I have given several of the cheap, good, working, rescue cameras away and the people that received them like them and take good care of them.

I'm not a qualified repair person and I killed a few cameras trying to fix them so I know my limits.

I guess my story is that cheap can be fun and using rescued cameras can be fun. Not everything has to be about spending a lot of money.

 

[kshapero]

Hogwash
I got a Nikon F for $25 and have had it recovered twice.
I got a Nikon FE for $35 and I use it all the time. I once got a Leica IIIa with 2 lenses for $125. Bargains are my best friend.

 

[Godfrey]

I've gotten great bargains and several gifts this year. I've also paid good money —more than they are technically "worth"—to have about seven of them overhauled so they work as they ought to.

Having a nice camera that doesn't work right is totally unsatisfying to me. A good price is nice, a good working camera is terrific.

G

 

[Rodchenko]

I hope that cameras stay good value. I'm npot interested especially in getting something below the market value, so I'll almost never buy the cheapest option. But, if cameras were any more expensive, I'd struggle to be taking photos right now. I've saved a nd agonised for a long while to buy a camera for just under 150GBP, which some folk on here think is pocket money. And there are plenty of poorer (and more talented) photographers than me out there who would be missing out (and whose work we'd be missing out on).