The Future of Collectible Cameras

[JayC]

Is there one? Some of you raed my thread about the black paint m2 I bought recently. I am thinking of keeping it because I want to have a camera that will appreciate in value as it gets older. I don't need to sell it now - don't need the money. But I might need/want the money in 20 years.
With all the talk of Kodak sinking, and the long running talk of film dying and such, will a black paint m2 have any value if no one shoots film anymore? Will the collectors still be there?
I know there are so many collectible items that have no more use in today's society yet still demand a lot of money, but for some reason I feel that a film camera won't have the same future. Thoughts?

 

[Lauffray]

You seem to take this as an investment, I don't know about collecting but it seems to me that would mean keeping and growing the collection, no ?

 

[Frank Petronio]

It's a real good question since recent performance of collectibles has outperformed most other investments. But long term I doubt it is a wise plan. People collected cameras in the past too, I wonder how they've done?

 

[nemo2]

I don´t know anything about collecting cameras except the camera needs no film while exhibited on the shelf or hidden in the safe. 😉

 

[Pablito]

In 20 years, it will be just as rare but could be worth a lot less. Or a lot more. These things work in trends. Categories of collectible stuff appreciate and depreciate as times and tastes change. Utility is only one factor. Fashion / mode is probably more important in the long run in determining value.

 

[raid]

Last evening I was watching on TV a documentary of 125 years Mercedes Benz cars. One car sold for over eight million Dollars. It is discussed as "art" and not as a car to be driven. Five men were pushing the car in and out of a show room, wearing gloves.

The BP M2 will still be valued by some collectors, but it may be more difficult to quickly get a good price on ebay for it.

 

[batterytypehah!]

You're trying to predict if there will be collectors. More precisely, if the number of Leica collectors versus the number of surviving collector grade cameras will increase or decrease. I don't know the answer but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't bank on it.

Collectible trends indeed come and go. If you bought Persian rugs 20 years ago, you lost, if Chinese vases, you're way ahead. Or think of movie star memorabilia. John Wayne, Bogart, Monroe? Should be good for a long time to come. Shirley Temple? Uh, not so much.

I do think Leica has the cachet of the very best brands, in the Mercedes, Bugatti, Rolex, Tiffany, Elvis, Babe Ruth etc. sphere of collectability.

 

[clicker]

That is a great question.My thought is unless it is an exceptionally rare model it will not be a wise investment.The large numbers of standard issued models and the rise of digital cameras will see the decline in most film camera prices.Sure there will be exceptions, but by and large this is the direction we are already seeing take place. We may have seen the peak of pricing on the millions of film camera waiting for a home.

 

[Sparrow]

If film is dead then how long will these camera prices last? ... who can tell

 

[sevo]

With all the talk of Kodak sinking, and the long running talk of film dying and such, will a black paint m2 have any value if no one shoots film anymore? Will the collectors still be there?

Hard to tell. Camera collecting is a pretty irrational thing, not that far off the Dutch tulip craze - nobody can predict where it will go and what will kill it.

But the availability of film won't at least directly kill it - the "serious" collectors I know would never use any of their more cherished exhibits.

 

[sevo]

That is a great question.My thought is unless it is an exceptionally rare model it will not be a wise investment.

Rare models are no wise investment - "rarity" is only a value in itself as long as hoarding nice Leicas is a widespread hobby. If that vanishes, only professional collectors will keep the prices in their segment up - i.e. historical museums. And these don't care much for a mint black M2 that has only ever been touched by somebody as boring as a camera collector - they'll rather go for HCB's beater M4-P or a 1933 Leica III.

 

[Sparrow]

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ... makes one think

 

[pinkarmy]

when ball pen was invented people said it was the end of fountain pen
when computer invented people said it was the end of writing instruments and paper

when cinema invented people said it was the end of novels
when TV was invented people said it was the end of cinema

when CD invented people said it was the end of vinyls
when DVD invented people said it was the end of CD
when BluRay invented people said it was the end of DVD

what people said was merely about a medium, a container
what matters most is the content

we still write and read, still watch good movies, still listen to music
we will still take photo. or will we?

a BP M2 might worth over eight million Dollars 125 years later-- will we still be there and what do we care?

 

[abo_1970]

I wouldn't bet on an increase in value of any film camera, but on the other hand let's compare photography to vinyl records...
When the Compact Disc was introduced the vinyl record was declared virtually dead... you could pick up a good record player for almost nothing. But that has changed quite dramatically I believe... Nowadays the CD is losing market share to downloads, while sales of vinyl records and record players is increasing again... Looking at myself, when i thought i would be able to pick up a good record player for a bargain a couple of months ago i was quite unpleasantly surprised about the second hand prices! And besides that, the prices of vinyl (new or second hand) is way above the price of a cd or a download... But still people buy it...
So back to film photography... will it die? I don't think so, even when eventually Kodak would go down. There's plenty of alternatives and there still are brands that make new film cameras and film (same with record players and vinyl, still plenty of new players to be had, needles, records, cables, brushes...). And even when many people do not like or understand lomography, it does in it's own way contribute to keeping film alive! I do not think that film photography will get cheaper (rather more expensive), but it will not die... But if it is wise to expect a significant value increase of your camera?... I wouldn't bet on it...
But film WILL live!!!

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

camera lens are pretty good investments but i can't say the same for bodies.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I think I understand what you are getting at, but there is a crucial difference here. The instrument in question depends on an industry that can only function with economies of scale. Or put another way, it takes a LOT of technology to produce a roll of film. And you wouldn't crank up a factory that with a no-light-leaks, dust-free interior covering a city block in size for just a few hundred rolls of film. Think about film legacy film cameras that exist today (e.g. a folder from the 1930's that needed 127 film) and what they are worth. Nothing. That's your M2 in 30 years.

when ball pen was invented people said it was the end of fountain pen
when computer invented people said it was the end of writing instruments and paper

when cinema invented people said it was the end of novels
when TV was invented people said it was the end of cinema

when CD invented people said it was the end of vinyls
when DVD invented people said it was the end of CD
when BluRay invented people said it was the end of DVD

what people said was merely about a medium, a container
what matters most is the content

we still write and read, still watch good movies, still listen to music
we will still take photo. or will we?

a BP M2 might worth over eight million Dollars 125 years later-- will we still be there and what do we care?

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Probably, not within your lifetime. Raid's example is of a 125 year old item. The black M4 is nowhere near that in age. Most times people buy the item at retail prices and then sell them at wholesale which is quite a difference even taking into consideration inflation over a period of years that the item is held. (Inflation is about 2% currently.) Let's do an example of this: A $2k item purchased today at 3% inflation will equal $3612 in buying power in 20 years. For the item to increas rather than just hold its value it will need to be sold in excess of that amount. If you sell the item at auction then you will need to pay a commission which could be as high as 20%. Consider the old adage on collecting: Collect what you like and do not consider it an investment. If it rises in value so much the better...if it did not then at least you enjoyed the collection.

 

[sevo]

... it takes a LOT of technology to produce a roll of film. And you wouldn't crank up a factory that with a no-light-leaks, dust-free interior covering a city block in size for just a few hundred rolls of film.

It may have taken such a factory to produce the peak time output of Kodak - but that is not the size of a single coating line. That is really the issue, many current casting plants are huge multi-line factories. The scale of one casting line is comparable to a newspaper printing line, and would fit into a building smaller than many a truck workshop. Too big for a few hundred rolls, but much less than a million rolls a year might keep it afloat and profitable, at least concerning the real estate cost.

Think about film legacy film cameras that exist today (e.g. a folder from the 1930's that needed 127 film) and what they are worth. Nothing. That's your M2 in 30 years.

That comparison does not work out, 127 was superseded by better cameras using better formats each side - it is rather unlikely that new film cameras using new formats will displace the current ones, and digital is too far off to make that a comparable situation. That is, we cannot really tell where film will go - all analogies we can make are flawed in some way or other...

 

[batterytypehah!]

Think about film legacy film cameras that exist today (e.g. a folder from the 1930's that needed 127 film) and what they are worth. Nothing. That's your M2 in 30 years.

Not even remotely true. Maybe you should first take a look at what they still fetch on ebay before you launch into hyperbole like that. I'll take all the Vollendas, Korelles, Goldis, etc. you have available for "nothing"--and I don't even collect.

To say nothing of non-folders such as the Baby Rolleiflex and Exakta. Shooting 127 is around $1 per exposure now, depending on aspect ratio, unless you cut down your own from 120. So I don't think availability of film even has much to do with it.

 

[Thomas78]

...

That comparison does not work out, 127 was superseded by better cameras using better formats each side - it is rather unlikely that new film cameras using new formats will displace the current ones, and digital is too far off to make that a comparable situation. That is, we cannot really tell where film will go - all analogies we can make are flawed in some way or other...

That is true. Even more that double the image size of 4x 6.5 127 compared to 135 (41 x 62 mm vs. 24x36 mm) would not give you a higher image quality if the lens determines the image quality which is very likely with 1930s optics and modern films.
And most lenses of 127 film cameras (except some 4x4 TLR) are not as good as a 1930s Leitz or even Zeiss lens.

And given the high costs for film and development (you get only 8 images instead of 36-38) and the inconvenience of red window film transport it is no wondery why 135 took over 127 film.