Use value and exchange value

[Roger Hicks]

Use value is what it's worth to you. Exchange value is what you can get for it. WHO CARES? Buy something for what it's worth to you. Cameras are for principally for taking pictures. If you want to be a dealer/collector, fine. If you think people will admire you for owning expensive kit that you don't know how to use, fine. Both are different use values. But who cares if YOU think exchange values are too high (as some people think about Leicas or FSU cameras) or too low (as many think about obsolete and often economically irreparable fixed-lens RFs)?

Conflating use value and exchange value is a fundamental error in modern society, never mind RFF.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Murchu]

Good points, for me a salient factor though is capital value - ie how much money I have sunk in my camera kit. I am a pleasure maximiser, so can always think of ways to divert cash to pleasurable ends, so feel uneasy about too much money being sunk in something like photography, as I have numerous other passions and passing curiousities.

 

[Livesteamer]

I would think it's different for everyone. For you, Roger, it is a tool as you are a professional but for me it's closer to a toy. I'm a lucky amateur who does 75 to 100 rolls a year. In 1990 I got my first Leica and was delighted how well I could focus it where I wanted. Over the years I have accumulated a few more as money allowed but with the thought that one day it would be sold and hopefully, my investment returned. With my situation, an M8 or M9 does not make sense but that's OK as I'm having fun with what I've got. IIIc's for fun and M6's when needed. Joe

 

[john_s]

I agree. That's why I've bought a couple of lenses that would normally be quite expensive but they had chips on the front element into which I've put a smidgen of black paint to prevent reflections.

I do worry, however, that some spare bodies I've bought (medium format) in case I have excessive difficulty in having repairs done. I've had a very good run, but Murphy's Law dictates that if I reduce my inventory then I will have regrets. I guess it's like insurance or proper computer backups: if you have them you won't need them, but to moment you don't, fate strikes.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I think there's a lot of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing; but wasn't it ever thus? It's just a guess but I suspect there's as many people impressed by people owning expensive kit as there are people who own expensive kit - and they're probably the same people.

I'd be a liar if I said I don't take into consideration the possible trade / exchange value of the kit I buy but that's because I know I can be capricious when it comes to changing gear and trying new stuff. However, I have a reasonable idea how to use what I own - for the most part anyway.

I'm an amateur. It's fun and harms no-one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think there's a lot of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing; but wasn't it ever thus? It's just a guess but I suspect there's as many people impressed by people owning expensive kit as there are people who own expensive kit - and they're probably the same people.

I'd be a liar if I said I don't take into consideration the possible trade / exchange value of the kit I buy but that's because I know I can be capricious when it comes to changing gear and trying new stuff. However, I have a reasonable idea how to use what I own - for the most part anyway.

I'm an amateur. It's fun and harms no-one.

Absolutely! And resale value can matter, for the very reason you give. Likewise capital value (Murchu) and 'insurance'/back-up (john_s). It's just the idea that there is a fixed exchange-value that I was complaining about, and that this exchange-value can (or should) be fixed by one consideration: just as a picture-taking machine, just as an investment, just as a status symbol, or (worst of all) just as 'what the average person can afford'. Average where? In much of the world, 'average people' don't even have clean water or health care.

As soon as you point this out, most people say, "Well, that's obvious. Who ever says anything else?" And the reply to that is often, "Listen to yourself." (Obviously I'm using 'yourself' generically, not as you, Paul Jenkin, personally.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

lower cost to market is the way an accountant would do it ... but that presupposes the owner intends selling, or can sell for that matter. The idea that if he wont sell it's invaluable, or if no one will buy it, it is worthless is clearly silly, things have a value that is not related to cost

 

[RBruceCR]

My Yashica Electro 35 GSN was repaired and it's getting used in this new lease on life!

 

[loquax ludens]

I photograph for my own pleasure, and I buy equipment with that in mind. I'm not a pro nor a collector. I never ever buy anything related to my photographic interests with any regard for what it might sell for in the future (exchange value, as I understand it). I don't think of any of my gear as an investment. I buy it because I want to use it, and I can afford it new or used.

I know how to use everything I've ever bought, except for that Beseler PM2A Color Analyzer that I never really got the hang of. Some of the gear I own and use might be considered expensive by some, but that is always relative. I don't buy anything with the intent to impress others, and I know how to use all of it.

I don't really know what this thread is about. I don't think of any of my gear in terms of either exchange value or use value. What's the point in assigning a relative use value? How would I be able to determine if one of my 8x10 cameras had greater or lesser use value than one of my MF cameras or my M3 or M6? If I need a 6x4.5, I grab my ETRSI. If I need a 6x7, I use my RZ 67. My Hasselblad if I want 6x6. My Deardorff or my Cambo if I want 8x10. I could go on and on. They are all just as useful to me, depending on what I want to do.

I don't plan on selling my gear, so exchange value is pretty much meaningless unless I'm going to buy another bit of gear. Then I simply look for the best quality at the best price, more or less.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I photograph for my own pleasure, and I buy equipment with that in mind. I'm not a pro nor a collector. I never ever buy anything related to my photographic interests with any regard for what it might sell for in the future (exchange value, as I understand it). I don't think of any of my gear as an investment. I buy it because I want to use it, and I can afford it new or used.

I know how to use everything I've ever bought, except for that Beseler PM2A Color Analyzer that I never really got the hang of. Some of the gear I own and use might be considered expensive by some, but that is always relative. I don't buy anything with the intent to impress others, and I know how to use all of it.

I don't really know what this thread is about. I don't think of any of my gear in terms of either exchange value or use value. What's the point in assigning a relative use value? How would I be able to determine if one of my 8x10 cameras had greater or lesser use value than one of my MF cameras or my M3 or M6? If I need a 6x4.5, I grab my ETRSI. If I need a 6x7, I use my RZ 67. My Hasselblad if I want 6x6. My Deardorff or my Cambo if I want 8x10. I could go on and on. They are all just as useful to me, depending on what I want to do.

I don't plan on selling my gear, so exchange value is pretty much meaningless unless I'm going to buy another bit of gear. Then I simply look for the best quality at the best price, more or less.

That was indeed the point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

When you make a trade in the financial market, it takes two people in order to do that deal.
They must agree on price, but they have to disagree on value, otherwise nothing happens.
Today, I am buying film cameras for a fraction of their true value, only because people think that film has become obsolete.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When you make a trade in the financial market, it takes two people in order to do that deal.
They must agree on price, but they have to disagree on value, otherwise nothing happens.
Today, I am buying film cameras for a fraction of their true value, only because people think that film has become obsolete.

'True' to whom? But yes, the principal argument is indisputable, and elegantly and economically phrased.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

I'd rather get little or nothing in resell for a camera that I've enjoyed using then get a profit out of one that just sat in some display case.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I've always enjoyed the buying and selling of kit in the same way I enjoy taking pictures or printing them. As a consequence, and not from a financial aspect, I've found my photography very profitable.

It helps that I made a decent living from it, when that was my goal. 😀

 

[thegman]

Agree completely. It amazes me how you always see complaints about the $1699 price tag of the Fujifilm GF670, but rarely about the lens-less $4995 Leica MP. It seems to me that they are being valued as collectors items, not cameras to take photographs with.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agree completely. It amazes me how you always see complaints about the $1699 price tag of the Fujifilm GF670, but rarely about the lens-less $4995 Leica MP. It seems to me that they are being valued as collectors items, not cameras to take photographs with.

Sorry, which are?

Cheers,

R.

 

[nikkor-watching]

Put it this way. If you overpay for equipment you can never sell for near the price you paid, your hobby has become expensive. But if you pay at the market rate, it's easier to let it go. Particularly if you buy used, you sell used so there's no difference. That means you are more the custodian of equipment, which is more romantic don't you think?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Put it this way. If you overpay for equipment you can never sell for near the price you paid, your hobby has become expensive. But if you pay at the market rate, it's easier to let it go. Particularly if you buy used, you sell used so there's no difference. That means you are more the custodian of equipment, which is more romantic don't you think?

Hold on. This is EXACTLY the point. If you're buying a camera to use (use value), why do you care what you can sell it for (exchange value)? You can't 'overpay'. In fact it's a meaningless concept, because you will only pay what the camera is worth to you, to use.

Sure, as Sejanus.Aelianus said, "I've always enjoyed the buying and selling of kit in the same way I enjoy taking pictures or printing them. As a consequence, and not from a financial aspect, I've found my photography very profitable." But that is buying and selling, not photography. You could equally enjoy buying and selling pocket knives or antique glassware.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

Hold on. This is EXACTLY the point. If you're buying a camera to use (use value), why do you care what you can sell it for (exchange value)? You can't 'overpay'. In fact it's a meaningless concept, because you will only pay what the camera is worth to you, to use.

The flaw I see in your reasoning is that it starts from the premise that we all have enough disposable income to comfortably afford doing photography. Personally, I always have to keep 'exchange value' in mind because I might have to sell the camera to free up some funds. If I could afford it I wouldn't mind spending too much on camera equipment that I want.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The flaw I see in your reasoning is that it starts from the premise that we all have enough disposable income to comfortably afford doing photography. Personally, I always have to keep 'exchange value' in mind because I might have to sell the camera to free up some funds. If I could afford it I wouldn't mind spending too much on camera equipment that I want.

My argument is that you buy the camera(s) you can afford, in order to take pictures. What you can afford will vary: a second-hand film Pentax SV, a new M9M. But the 'I can always sell it if I need the money' strikes me as a VERY dangerous way to live. Yes, I've sold things when I was short of money (fortunately, not for 30 years or more). But I've never bought cameras with that in mind. The risks are too great, at least from my point of view.

Cheers,

R.