Neare
Well-known
For a real reference, Norita's have doubled in their used market value over the past year.
There are plenty of other cameras on the used market that are also slowly increasing in value as well. Does not apply to anything digital.
There are plenty of other cameras on the used market that are also slowly increasing in value as well. Does not apply to anything digital.
Most of the sought after cameras have increased... too many more have stayed the same. There are still a huge amount of film SLRs that are dirt cheap and they will continue to be. Niche cameras will continue to rise and former mainstream cameras will stay the same.
GSNfan
Well-known
Imo there is a simple reason for the price hike in film cameras. A lot of disaffected amatures who shot mostly digital have suddenly become aware that creativly they've hit a dead-end and pretty much have lost interest in photography, in order to invigorate their passion for photography and feel creative again they have turned to film.
But then again, this is not a long-term solution because film is expensive, hard to get and if you could not feel satisfied creatively with digital, there is very little chance film will change all of that... There is a placebo period with film but after things settle down it could be back to square one.
Still photography has become the victim of its own success. Its popularity has made it common and boring. The quantity of output is so great that everyone's work gets lost in the deluge. This realization is slowly beginning to be felt by many and this only means one thing, no more pushing the credit card limit on camera/lens purchases.
But then again, this is not a long-term solution because film is expensive, hard to get and if you could not feel satisfied creatively with digital, there is very little chance film will change all of that... There is a placebo period with film but after things settle down it could be back to square one.
Still photography has become the victim of its own success. Its popularity has made it common and boring. The quantity of output is so great that everyone's work gets lost in the deluge. This realization is slowly beginning to be felt by many and this only means one thing, no more pushing the credit card limit on camera/lens purchases.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That might just be the hype cycle.
There weren't that many Noritas to begin with. Now if enough people get GAS attacks after seeing Flickr shots with the Noctilux-esque DOF of the 80/f2, it doesn't take many buyers to drive up prices in the small used market.
Wait for a year or two and they'll go down again. Happens with a lot of gear as it gets hyped up on the web.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
+1
I've been puzzled by this for as long as I have monitoring ebay. Film cameras are bought and sold every five minutes, maybe more there.
kuzano
Veteran
This is a "law" of the market place.
This is a "law" of the market place.
It's called the law of "perceived value" and it's been around forever. It works particularly well if these 3 components exist:
1) you ask high prices, bordering on the ridiculous
2) You look and act as if you know what you are talking about. Even better if you really do.
3) The product is clean and operational.
Price then becomes the attraction if high. There are always people around who will pay inflated prices under the above conditions.
However, the catch is your willingness to wait out the market. Your product and it's price have to be presented to the market. Furthermore, you will more likely get your price if you are firm and unwilling to haggle much below your high price.
I sold new Mercedes cars for about three years. I always had a desire to see what selling cars was all about, so I did it at a Mercedes/Saab dealership in Cincinnati.
That's where I learned the phrase (and found it true), "There's a butt for every seat". It was also predicated on price not being a conclusive consideration, if you had the time for the right buyer to see your product.
Even in this terrible economy, there are still tons of people with too much money and diminished brain capacity.
This is a "law" of the market place.
It's called the law of "perceived value" and it's been around forever. It works particularly well if these 3 components exist:
1) you ask high prices, bordering on the ridiculous
2) You look and act as if you know what you are talking about. Even better if you really do.
3) The product is clean and operational.
Price then becomes the attraction if high. There are always people around who will pay inflated prices under the above conditions.
However, the catch is your willingness to wait out the market. Your product and it's price have to be presented to the market. Furthermore, you will more likely get your price if you are firm and unwilling to haggle much below your high price.
I sold new Mercedes cars for about three years. I always had a desire to see what selling cars was all about, so I did it at a Mercedes/Saab dealership in Cincinnati.
That's where I learned the phrase (and found it true), "There's a butt for every seat". It was also predicated on price not being a conclusive consideration, if you had the time for the right buyer to see your product.
Even in this terrible economy, there are still tons of people with too much money and diminished brain capacity.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Amen to that! Compared to the pricing for the Pentax 6x7, Noritas recently have entered the domain of the ridiculous. They once were nice a cheap alternative to a Pentax with 105/2.4 (which has just as shallow DOF, given its longer FL and image area) - but at several times the price I cannot help noticing that they are inferior on just about every count...
Sevo
doolittle
Well-known
They definitely aren't putting much film through them!
My theory is that, in part, cameras formally used by high volume pro shooters are being sold to amateurs. It stands to reason that there is a large difference between amount of film that was once used in a commercial studio setting to the amount now used by the average hobbyist. I am thinking of medium format cameras here, but I am sure it applies to 35mm too. Plus the whole mass consumer film compact market has gone with digital.
Also where once the market was flooded with low price film cameras from photographers who had gone digital, the market is settling down a bit more now. The prices of many film cameras are still a fraction of what they were new. I do think it is a great time for shooting film now.
On digital cameras, I have never seen prices lower for what is offered. Entry models in particular. The camera manufacturers do their best to up sell the more upmarket models, where I am guessing profit margins are higher.
ferider
Veteran
That's just not true. Some films might not be available anymore, but the available film is as cheap as never before. And very available by ordering online from anywhere in the world.
Regarding the current used film camera prices, it's a short term fluctuation, based on an improved economy. Just last year, used Leica prices, for instance, were at an all time low. In one year, much Leica equipment has tripled in used value.
Much like houses, you should buy in down-turns. Of course, not everybody can.
Lot's of negativity in this thread, about those waistful consumers, etc. Be happy that the recession is over. Be prepared for the next one ....
Roland.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I'd put it in much simpler terms. Film usage does not correlate to the number of cameras in circulation at all. If anything, it correlates to the number of camera users.
People may collect gear like crazy, driving up used gear prices, but it's not like they'll put 100 films through their 100 cameras. Twenty years ago this was the same, but it didn't matter because there were enough normal people with one camera each.
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
There are exceptions to every rule of course, but in the grand scheme it seems used cameras have gotten much cheaper. Some things, like M's, Norita, whatever have fluctuated for various reasons. Most things though, are considerably less expensive used than they were 10 years ago. My cost for most things a decade ago was more than I can sell them for now.
One of the very few things that has declined pricewise.
One of the very few things that has declined pricewise.
GSNfan
Well-known
Lets say I'm shooting slide film, and I use on an average 3 rolls a week (at the least).
$15 for the three rolls, $30 for processing. That is $45 a week. Even if I shot C41 it would on the same range if I wanted them scanned.
Speaking of scanning, a good scanner costs more than a high-end DSLR not to mention the time it takes to scan, which means of you're busy and have a family, its almost impossible to make time for scanning.
But going back to my post, if digital didn't do it creatively, film is not a long-term solution either.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Speaking as one of the benighted identified by Roger, I have purchased in the last three years several cameras that I could not afford new, but could afford now that pros have dumped them. They include:
Mamiya 7
Mamiya RB67
Bronica SQA
Leica R5
Hasselblad 501CM
The Mamiya 7 cost approximately 1/4 of what it did new. The RB and SQA cost roughly 1/10. You get the idea. My rationale, if it adds anything to this list of observations, was that if I wanted to experience what it was like to use these cameras, I had better do it now before the experience of shooting film becomes a rare event. Wondering out loud, may I speculate that the rise in film camera prices may be linked in part to the steady drum- beat marking disappearances of favorite film emulsions and/or formats as that market contracts? And I know that the market has answered this question for us, and I know that there are things I can do easily with my digital cameras that I could not do easily with my film cameras. But I have been scanning a bunch of negatives from the 1980's and 90's this weekend as part of a project and -- ye gods! -- it has a nice look.
The cameras still on my want-to-use list are: Widelux, Alpa, Fuji 6x9, and a fully cammed Linhof Master Tech V. Film, don't fail me now . . .
Mamiya 7
Mamiya RB67
Bronica SQA
Leica R5
Hasselblad 501CM
The Mamiya 7 cost approximately 1/4 of what it did new. The RB and SQA cost roughly 1/10. You get the idea. My rationale, if it adds anything to this list of observations, was that if I wanted to experience what it was like to use these cameras, I had better do it now before the experience of shooting film becomes a rare event. Wondering out loud, may I speculate that the rise in film camera prices may be linked in part to the steady drum- beat marking disappearances of favorite film emulsions and/or formats as that market contracts? And I know that the market has answered this question for us, and I know that there are things I can do easily with my digital cameras that I could not do easily with my film cameras. But I have been scanning a bunch of negatives from the 1980's and 90's this weekend as part of a project and -- ye gods! -- it has a nice look.
The cameras still on my want-to-use list are: Widelux, Alpa, Fuji 6x9, and a fully cammed Linhof Master Tech V. Film, don't fail me now . . .
Keith Fleming
Member
One of the reasons for the spike in camera prices is the reality that the US dollar has fallen in value respective to many foreign currencies. That's cited in explanation for the current rise in gasoline prices. Oil sells in US dollars, so to maintain the oil producers level of profit, the price has to increase. For used film cameras, the drop in the dollar means used cameras in the US are now much cheaper for those using foreign currencies, which has led to foreign collectors (and users) snapping up all those "bargains" here in the US.
I write all this sadly, because now I've developed a desire for a Leica M4 (or should that be M$?). Good ones now seem to be going for about $1,200, and that's out of the range of my budget.
Keith Fleming
I write all this sadly, because now I've developed a desire for a Leica M4 (or should that be M$?). Good ones now seem to be going for about $1,200, and that's out of the range of my budget.
Keith Fleming
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well, to take your M4 example, I don't think it's the dollar's fault. If I check German eBay for used M4s, I find that over the last month they sold for $717, $870 and $885. Buyers inside Germany could get them for $654, $677 and $723.
When buying an M4, you can save 30-40% by buying it in Germany and shipping it to the US. Interestingly, when buying an M8, it's the other way round, probably because the US used market is getting saturated as people sell their bought-on-credit M8s to buy M9s, D700s and X100s. In a conservative market such as Germany, people engage less in hype-driven try-and-dump buying. I don't think, for example, that there were many X100 preorders from Germany.
I think it's just that the economy in the US has recovered ever so slightly and that people have started spending money again on hobbies (such as collecting gear). Which is actually good for the economy, as long as they're spending their own money. If they don't, it's probably more of a binge.
furcafe
Veteran
I agree w/doolittle's post above (#36). I think most people who buy them are shooting them, but if you're referring to "pro" gear (& the only film cameras that I've seen going up in price have been in that category), they're not shooting nearly as often as the rate that the original owner(s) did.
For example, a few months ago, I picked up a beat-up black Nikon F from the RFF classifieds that once belonged to a newspaper shooter. I'm a serious amateur & shoot a fair bit, averaging about 8-10 rolls/week (not including digital), but even if the F were my only camera that would be a tiny percentage of how much the original owner would have shot on the job in '62. And to reiterate rxmd's post (#39), back in the '60s there were plenty of amateurs who owned black Fs, but their successors now own D700s or whatever.
For example, a few months ago, I picked up a beat-up black Nikon F from the RFF classifieds that once belonged to a newspaper shooter. I'm a serious amateur & shoot a fair bit, averaging about 8-10 rolls/week (not including digital), but even if the F were my only camera that would be a tiny percentage of how much the original owner would have shot on the job in '62. And to reiterate rxmd's post (#39), back in the '60s there were plenty of amateurs who owned black Fs, but their successors now own D700s or whatever.
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
The low value of dollar is another factor in the price of 'new' cameras, which means it will lead to further inflation in prices of an already saturated and stagnant market.
It will be interesting to see how things play out, but one thing is for sure, the camera prices are not sustainable at their current range.
It will be interesting to see how things play out, but one thing is for sure, the camera prices are not sustainable at their current range.
BillBingham2
Registered User
It's business pure and simple. Having photographed the NYC Marathon several times it's not really a spectator sport compared to football (either type), base ball or cricket.
Cameras have become very commodity driven just like computers from a pricing perspective. There are price points that manufacturers target and drive to shove as many features as possible into the camera/lens. It’s all about price point and life-span to insure you do not leave money on the table and can sell all of your production run.
Compared to what a good camera cost say 40 years ago I do not think they are too expensive. Also there are many more options to choose from.
Pricing is not something I can get too upset about. I’d rather pay a bit more for a product that I reallllllly like and make sure the company stays in business. If it costs too much I just do not buy and move one.
B2 (;->
Price of lenses has gone insane. I paid about $200 each for a pair of Canon 50/0.95's, $95 for a Nikkor 5cm F1.4 in LTM, $71 for a Canon 50/1.5, $125 for a mint Nikkor-SC 55/1.2, the list goes on and on.
At least it subsidized my Leica M9. I need to sell some more gear.
At least it subsidized my Leica M9. I need to sell some more gear.