Use value and exchange value

I bought a M6 millennium as my first M , thought that if I didn't like it I could easily sell it again for a good price , because it is a special edition . Later I exchanged a Nikon F3P for a regular M6 , and used that . I even like it more than the millenium , which to me is like a woman with to much make-up .
 
E.M said:
I bought a M6 millennium as my first M , thought that if I didn't like it I could easily sell it again for a good price , because it is a special edition . Later I exchanged a Nikon F3P for a regular M6 , and used that . I even like it more than the millenium , which to me is like a woman with to much make-up .
Click to expand...
This is a slightly different argument from that of Jamie123, however. Viewing a buy/sell differential as a 'rental' is not the same as selling a camera because you need the money. Also, arguably, the 'use value' in this case can be viewed as the 'rental' cost, and the value of the camera as the deposit -- though of course you have to be able to afford the deposit as well. .

Cheers,

R.
 
buzzardkid said:
Apparently this distinction between use value and exchange value has many people's interest, this thread was viewed over a million times in a week! 😱😱
Click to expand...
Dear Johan,

Well, clearly, RFF users are interested in such philosophical questions. Even more clearly, there's something wrong with the counting software. UNLESS... (light bulb comes on over head) search engines being used by lazy economics students are driving lots of traffic here.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think anybody should 'invest' their savings into camera equipment but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have a sort of fixed budget for cameras. By that I mean that when they want to buy some new camera/lens/etc.they try to first sell some other camera item to free up the money so they don't have to use money that is reserved for more important things like rent and food.
Even though I make some money doing photography I still like the fact that if I'm smart about my purchases (mostly used) as far as the 'exchange value' goes I can often sell it for the same price later so I'm basically 'renting' a camera for free thus I'm getting a lot of 'use value' for little or no 'exchange value'. Being smart about how you spend your money on gear and being serious about taking photographs are not mutually exclusive.

Of course I suspect I know what you're getting at with this thread, which is the constant bickering of people over the price of Leica gear. I totally agree with you that this is silly and that people should just get over it. Either you can afford it or not and no amount of complaining will change that.

But the simple fact remains that most of the time when exchange value is disregarded for the sake of use value we're in the realm of luxury. Most of us can afford to occasionally treat ourselves to some luxury be it some expensive meal, a nice clothing item, a nice vacation, or, in some cases, a nice camera. The reason why a lot of people on RFF keep bickering about digital Leica M cameras is that one side cannot ackowledge that they are luxury items while the other side cannot accept that they can't afford them.
 
The way to try gear, for lots of us, is to buy.
The less I am sure I will, indeed, like the new toy, and use it, the most likely I will be careful of buying at a price I can sell down the road.
I have spent what is for me a huge amount of money (for me) for my 0.58x MP, and consider it a good buy, because I KNEW that it was what I want.
I have bought on a whim pieces of gear that I wanted to try because their price was low enough, and after not warming up to them, I sold them without too much problems.
I am not trying to make money, but at the price Leica gear is (and that's what I want to USE) I need to be careful about the price of what I buy.
Now of course, I would be delighted if tomorow all leica gear (including mine) would be worth 1/10th of its today's value. I could worry less about what I have, and try lots of stuff I can't.
 
Jamie123 said:
I agree, I don't think anybody should 'invest' their savings into camera equipment but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have a sort of fixed budget for cameras. By that I mean that when they want to buy some new camera/lens/etc.they try to first sell some other camera item to free up the money so they don't have to use money that is reserved for more important things like rent and food.
Even though I make some money doing photography I still like the fact that if I'm smart about my purchases (mostly used) as far as the 'exchange value' goes I can often sell it for the same price later so I'm basically 'renting' a camera for free thus I'm getting a lot of 'use value' for little or no 'exchange value'. Being smart about how you spend your money on gear and being serious about taking photographs are not mutually exclusive.

Of course I suspect I know what you're getting at with this thread, which is the constant bickering of people over the price of Leica gear. I totally agree with you that this is silly and that people should just get over it. Either you can afford it or not and no amount of complaining will change that.

But the simple fact remains that most of the time when exchange value is disregarded for the sake of use value we're in the realm of luxury. Most of us can afford to occasionally treat ourselves to some luxury be it some expensive meal, a nice clothing item, a nice vacation, or, in some cases, a nice camera. The reason why a lot of people on RFF keep bickering about digital Leica M cameras is that one side cannot acknowledge that they are luxury items while the other side cannot accept that they can't afford them.
Click to expand...
Ah; my apologies for misreading you. But you will no doubt have noticed that we do read reports on RFF from people who spent more than they could realistically afford, and ended up selling at distress.

But it's not just Leica gear, and it's not just luxury. For the former, very often, 'users' complain that 'collectors' are 'forcing up' the price of certain cameras: S-series Nikons might be a good example. And people complain that other expensive cameras are 'not worth' the money either: Linhofs, Alpas, even Gandolfis.

I completely agree with your point that "most of the time when exchange value is disregarded for the sake of use value we're in the realm of luxury", but "most" is not "all". An M9 is in the unique position of being the only option for Leica users who want full-frame RF cameras and who may well already have many thousands invested in M-fit lenses. For some (perhaps the great majority), those lenses (and Ms) are no doubt luxuries; for others, they are not; or at least, no more so than any other camera system.

Given what I do (writing for the photo press) the only alternative to an M9 would have been to spend a lot more than the price of an M9 on switching to an SLR system that I don't like as much. Admittedly, my situation is unusual, but if I really thought my M9 were a luxury, I doubt I'd have bought it.

Cheers,

R.
 
sanmich said:
The way to try gear, for lots of us, is to buy.
The less I am sure I will, indeed, like the new toy, and use it, the most likely I will be careful of buying at a price I can sell down the road.
I have spent what is for me a huge amount of money (for me) for my 0.58x MP, and consider it a good buy, because I KNEW that it was what I want.
I have bought on a whim pieces of gear that I wanted to try because their price was low enough, and after not warming up to them, I sold them without too much problems.
I am not trying to make money, but at the price Leica gear is (and that's what I want to USE) I need to be careful about the price of what I buy.
Now of course, I would be delighted if tomorow all leica gear (including mine) would be worth 1/10th of its today's value. I could worry less about what I have, and try lots of stuff I can't.
Click to expand...
A beautiful and indisputable analysis, but I suspect that there are quite a few who would be horrified by your argument that "I would be delighted if tomorow all leica gear (including mine) would be worth 1/10th of its today's value. I could worry less about what I have, and try lots of stuff I can't", as they would see their 'investment' (exchange value) plummet and would not realize that (as you point out) they'd be doing a lot better on use value.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Ah; my apologies for misreading you. But you will no doubt have noticed that we do read reports on RFF from people who spent more than they could realistically afford, and ended up selling at distress.

But it's not just Leica gear, and it's not just luxury. For the former, very often, 'users' complain that 'collectors' are 'forcing up' the price of certain cameras: S-series Nikons might be a good example. And people complain that other expensive cameras are 'not worth' the money either: Linhofs, Alpas, even Gandolfis.

I completely agree with your point that "most of the time when exchange value is disregarded for the sake of use value we're in the realm of luxury", but "most" is not "all". An M9 is in the unique position of being the only option for Leica users who want full-frame RF cameras and who may well already have many thousands invested in M-fit lenses. For some (perhaps the great majority), those lenses (and Ms) are no doubt luxuries; for others, they are not; or at least, no more so than any other camera system.

Given what I do (writing for the photo press) the only alternative to an M9 would have been to spend a lot more than the price of an M9 on switching to an SLR system that I don't like as much. Admittedly, my situation is unusual, but if I really thought my M9 were a luxury, I doubt I'd have bought it.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, people do actually spend more on cameras than they can realistically afford although circumstances can also change quickly. Some people buy cameras they can realistically afford during good times and when times get tough they have to sell them. I think this could happen to most of us so I think even at times when you have a decent amount of money you should be smart about how you spend it.

It's true that people also complain about other cameras not being worth the money and in a sense they're right. I've occasionally worked on an Alpa12Max (not mine). It's a very nice piece of equipment but then again it's just a piece of metal with a few holes and gears. It costs what it costs simply because that's what the company has to ask for their products in order to make it worthwile, not because the material is so precious or the labor is so intensive or design so complicated. If you want someone to do things very well it comes at a price. Same goes with Leica. I'm sure if Leica made a sub-$1000 camera a lot of people would start complaining about them not being what they used to be etc. etc.

As for the luxury issue in regards to Leica, I think what you're alluding to is the general argument that it's a tool, not a luxury item. Isn't that like saying a Prada handbag is a container for personal items, not a luxury item? The two are not mutually exclusive. A lot of luxury items actually serve a purpose.
I don't believe you when you say an M9 is the only possible camera for you. I'm sure if you lost everything you own tomorrow but you still had a job writing for the photo press you could probably do your work with a half decent P&S. Would it have the same quality as the work you do with the Leica? Probably not. But you would simply have to make it work with what you have.
When people say something is not a luxury item they often seem to mean it's not a status symbol. The worth of a status symbol is, as the name says, purely symbolic. It shows others what you can afford. But that's not the same as being a luxury item. Most luxury items are simply better than their non-luxury counterparts. Whether or not one can or wants to afford that level of quality is subjective.
 
Jamie123 said:
Yes, you're right, people do actually spend more on cameras than they can realistically afford although circumstances can also change quickly. Some people buy cameras they can realistically afford during good times and when times get tough they have to sell them. I think this could happen to most of us so I think even at times when you have a decent amount of money you should be smart about how you spend it.

It's true that people also complain about other cameras not being worth the money and in a sense they're right. I've occasionally worked on an Alpa12Max (not mine). It's a very nice piece of equipment but then again it's just a piece of metal with a few holes and gears. It costs what it costs simply because that's what the company has to ask for their products in order to make it worthwile, not because the material is so precious or the labor is so intensive or design so complicated. If you want someone to do things very well it comes at a price. Same goes with Leica. I'm sure if Leica made a sub-$1000 camera a lot of people would start complaining about them not being what they used to be etc. etc.

As for the luxury issue in regards to Leica, I think what you're alluding to is the general argument that it's a tool, not a luxury item. Isn't that like saying a Prada handbag is a container for personal items, not a luxury item? The two are not mutually exclusive. A lot of luxury items actually serve a purpose.
I don't believe you when you say an M9 is the only possible camera for you. I'm sure if you lost everything you own tomorrow but you still had a job writing for the photo press you could probably do your work with a half decent P&S. Would it have the same quality as the work you do with the Leica? Probably not. But you would simply have to make it work with what you have.
When people say something is not a luxury item they often seem to mean it's not a status symbol. The worth of a status symbol is, as the name says, purely symbolic. It shows others what you can afford. But that's not the same as being a luxury item. Most luxury items are simply better than their non-luxury counterparts. Whether or not one can or wants to afford that level of quality is subjective.
Click to expand...
I cannot argue with a word you say, especially the useful distinction between a luxury item and a status symbol. In all fairness, though, I did not say that an M9 was the only possible camera for me. I merely said that it made a great deal of economic sense in my particular circumstances: more than buying another system. Although, as you point out, I could probably survive with a decent bridge camera (not so sure about point and shoot), I could also survive without a camera at all, just from writing, but I suspect that most craftsmen care about their tools. The unique feature about the Leica is that it is the only FF RF camera. The unique thing about a Prada handbag is that it's got Prada written on it, so the two examples are not really comparable.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
R.
Click to expand...

But that assumes that that when it ceases to have a 'use value' to you, either because your requirment changes or the equipment ceases to function, then the written down value is nil. That is reasonable in some cases but in others the residual value does matter: 'use value' is in effect the same as depreciation.
 
Roger Hicks said:
.......... Admittedly, my situation is unusual, but if I really thought my M9 were a luxury, I doubt I'd have bought it.
quote]

Roger - exactly why I have just backed out of a very attractive deal on a M9P, having agonised for days over whether to take the plunge or not - I could afford it (just) if I sold all my other camera bodies, but where's the point in that? Especially as I may end up with a camera so "valuable" (in market terms) that I would never dare take it out and actually use it?

I'm much happier with an old Barnack or my M3 - they have great use value, regardless of what they cost, or what I could sell them for (both of which are largely irrelevant - the purchase cost I consider as a "sunk" cost, and I'm not looking to sell anytime soon).
Click to expand...
 
DtheG said:
But that assumes that that when it ceases to have a 'use value' to you, either because your requirment changes or the equipment ceases to function, then the written down value is nil. That is reasonable in some cases but in others the residual value does matter: 'use value' is in effect the same as depreciation.
Click to expand...

Very true. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the whole question is to look at the camera as a store of value (or not). Really, it's all a question of how you approach camera ownership. No single approach is ever wholly appropriate; it was more a question of pointing out the value of considering what a camera is worth to you, and how it is worth it -- as John also points out.

I'd like to thank everyone for clarifying my thinking on the subject, and I hope that others may have derived some use and clarification from the thread too.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I cannot argue with a word you say, especially the useful distinction between a luxury item and a status symbol. In all fairness, though, I did not say that an M9 was the only possible camera for me. I merely said that it made a great deal of economic sense in my particular circumstances: more than buying another system. Although, as you point out, I could probably survive with a decent bridge camera (not so sure about point and shoot), I could also survive without a camera at all, just from writing, but I suspect that most craftsmen care about their tools. The unique feature about the Leica is that it is the only FF RF camera. The unique thing about a Prada handbag is that it's got Prada written on it, so the two examples are not really comparable.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

You're right, I misquoted you in regards to a Leica being the only possible camera for you. What I meant, though, was that, while I'm sure it's true that an M9 was the economically most sensible choice given your image quality requirements, one could still argue that this level of image quality itself is a luxury. It's a bit like when I do a photoshoot and want to use film. Even though often I'd like to do a shoot on 4x5 I just cannot afford it most of the time so I have to opt for medium format.

I agree that the Prada handbag example isn't the same as a Leica since there are other handbags to chose from. Still, one could argue that the unique thing about a Prada handbag is not just the label but also the design, material and workmanship so it's not entirely uncomparable to a Leica.
All this is, of course, just for the sake of argument. In reality Prada handbags aren't really made that well. (I don't have any interest in handbags but my ex had a bunch of them so I know a thing or two 🙂 )
 
For my use, I don't care for pristine, in demand, expensive equipment. Since my chosen film platform is Olympus OM a case in point is the Zuiko 40mm f2 lens.
I have had two of these lenses pass through my hands and they were both like new. I had already bought the first one for $75 when about a year later I realized how much they were worth. That one I sold for $450. The next one was $200 to purchase and I got $500 for it and a free OM-2sp it came attached to.

That is what I mean when I say too expensive to use. Too expensive to rattle around in the camera bag and get banged up . I don't think I'm overly hard on gear but the dings and marks just seem to accumulate.

I originally bought the 40mm as I was dreaming of how small I could make my OM-1 with lens. But the specs don't tell all and in use it's not much different than the 35mm f2.8 Zuiko that replaced it and only cost $50.

So for myself, I'd rather buy already dinged and worn equipment that works fine, take advantage of the lower value and save some hardware money to spend on film, paper, and chemicals.

Now I know there are some hobbyist photographers who are psychologically unable to deal with "flaws" on their equipment. Everything must be pretty and near perfect. I watched a guy drive himself to distraction trying to buy a new zoom lens that does not have a speck or two in between the elements. This was a Nikkor zoom and I watched the guy have the sales people unbox 3 brand new lenses in an attempt to find a "perfect" sample. Finally the store owner suggested the guy should try a different camera store.

Ever look at the front element of a lens you *very carefully* cleaned last night in the bright sunlight of morning? Yeah, you know what I mean.

I hardly ever clean a lens, except when I forgot and left my camera where a 3 year old toddler could get to it and left a nice greasy paw print on the lens.
 
Roger writes from the point of view of a purist about taking pictures, as if he lives with perfect information and knows exactly how gear will perform. Fact is a lot of us have to buy sight unseen nowadays and we don't know if our new gear is going to satisfy us- probably because we are focusing too much on the gear's limitations instead of our own. Normal mortals have to be wary. I do agree it is circular to complain about the prices of the best and rarest equipment.
I see a lot of truly worthless photos to me that are just concerned with sharp images and vivid colours but I wouldn't think to criticise the takers of them because I know that just serving a gear fetish is a kind of satisfaction for a lot of them too. Those with eyes, let them see.
 
nikkor-watching said:
Roger writes from the point of view of a purist about taking pictures, as if he lives with perfect information and knows exactly how gear will perform. Fact is a lot of us have to buy sight unseen nowadays and we don't know if our new gear is going to satisfy us- probably because we are focusing too much on the gear's limitations instead of our own. Normal mortals have to be wary. I do agree it is circular to complain about the prices of the best and rarest equipment.
I see a lot of truly worthless photos to me that are just concerned with sharp images and vivid colours but I wouldn't think to criticise the takers of them because I know that just serving a gear fetish is a kind of satisfaction for a lot of them too. Those with eyes, let them see.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. Only VERY rarely have I bought something I'd not already tried, the more so as most of my gear-buying and gear-swapping was in pre-Internet days. By the time eB came along, I had settled down pretty much on what I wanted, and besides, by then, thanks to my job, I could generally borrow whatever I wanted to try before I bought it. Sometimes there were surprises, too: I didn't think I wanted a Thambar until I tried one, as detailed in http://www.shutterbug.com/content/leitz-thambar-90mm-f22brwhy-it-considered-legendary-portrait-lens

As I said, I am very grateful to all those who have looked at the question from other angles.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom