Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   General Discussion (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/)
-   -   Quick depreciation of modern digitals (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/quick-depreciation-modern-digitals-37832/)

PeterP Nov 14, 2004 1:53 AM

Just had a sobering experience, I went to my not so local friendly big-box camera dealer and tried to trade in my 14month old Nikon 5400.


<SoapBox>

Their offer 0$. The clerk said they don't want any digital trade-ins of any kind at all, there is no market for yesterdays junk.
They hope most people skip their 12 month upgrade offer, it is intended as a incentive to buy from them, then forgotten.
They do want your old 35mm slr's apparently there is a good demand for the old bodes. (I agree, I won't sell off my old film bodies).


Oh Well, I guess I missed the boat by 2 months, they have a 12month 1/2 back your purchase price, upgrade offer.
Sigh, I guess I will keep the 5400 as a coat/car camera.

BTW: I was there to see about adding a 20d body to my dslrs.
Now that I realize that the drebel/10dalso apparently fall into the classification of "old/unwanted junk"
I am having a really hard think about adding another digital to my camera collection.
<Brain Hurt>Thinking</Brain Hurt> I suspect I will still add the 20d, from a different and much smaller local dealer.
<Brain Hurt>More Thinking</Brain Hurt>Ugh, I suspect this is probably exactly why the dslr prices are staying high,
we the lemmings keep on mindlessly lining up buying them as the stores create shortages and cause panic buying using the all to common tactic nowadays (Buy it now it is the latest and greatest, we only have a few left, don't know when more will become available!).

</SoapBox>

PhilR. Nov 14, 2004 11:26 AM

PeterP wrote:
Quote:

"there is no market for yesterdays junk."

I would have to disagree -- I just sold a 3.5 year old camera on ebay for $100. Yes, the price was quite a bit lower than what was originally paid, but a hundred bucks is a hundred bucks. I also sold a Minolta flash that is over seven years old as well.

There's a lot of people out there, and *someone* wants what you have.....

Phil

PeterP Nov 14, 2004 1:01 PM

Yes, I agree with you, I know I can sell it privately. What ticked me off what the stores not wanting anything at all to do with their old tech.

Especially when the same 5400 camera is still sitting for sale on their shelves. When I bought it, (first day on market) it was 1200$cdn. Now it is down to 730$cdn but still being sold as new.

Out of interest I asked them what some of my older film stuff would get:

They offered me 100$cdn each for my 420ez and 430ez flashes, and 20$cdn for a canon ef 35-70 kit lens that came with a rebel-g. 100$cdn for therebel-g and 125$cdn for a eos-10s. All this equipment is in about what they call 8+ to 10 condition and over 10 years old. I saw the 10s in their used window reselling for almost 400$cdn. and a 1v for over 2000$cdn used. So yes there does seem to be a good market for the older film stuff at the stores.They didnot even want myEX series flash! :!:

<conspiracy>insert sound from x-files</conspiracy>

To me at least it looks like the stores here are actively trying toprevent a used digital market from forming. Even though there is one, I just sold a Fuji 2mp for 75$, put a notice up ata grocery store and camera was gone is a couple of days.:G5$ less thanI paid for it a year ago:G





normc Nov 14, 2004 1:09 PM

This is why we have e-bay. I would not even dream about expecting a retailer to offer much on a used camera. Listing a camera with a good price gives another person a chance at enjoying a digital camera.

But, if you do want to trade in try B&H. They sell quality used cameras and have a good return policy.

eric s Nov 14, 2004 2:33 PM

Another place to sell used stuff is www.keh.com.

I've never dealt with them, but they sell a lot of used camera gear. I don't know if that camera is the type they are looking for or not.

Eric

Sivaram Velauthapillai Nov 14, 2004 2:52 PM

What you are saying is true for any product where the technology improvements are very rapid. In such cases, the technology improves so rapidly that the older tech products are highly undesirable to a purchaser.

Digital cameras have one of THE steepest technology cycles. Other examples of products include computers (particularly microprocessors, memory (of almost any type), and networking), DVD players, and mobile phones. This is simply the nature of the industry right now. At some point in the future (probably 15 years for digital cameras) the pace will slow down--and hence the depreciation will be far lower. But that isn't now...

There are advantages and disadvantages of the rapid technological development. The bad, obviously, is that the product signficantly drops in price. You would basically get a fraction of the price in 2 years for most digicams, computers, and mobile phones.

The positive side, however, is that the technology changes improve the industry and increase affordability and productivity. If digicams did not improve so much so quickly, the prices would not drop so fast and less people would be able to afford cameras. For example, you can get a pretty decent prosumer camera for US$500. In 3 years, you will likely be able to get a DSLR for US$500 (already the Canon Digital Rebel is under $1000 with basic lens and I expect a 25 megapixel DSLR with very large sensor for $500 in 3 years). This drop in price increases affordability to many who otherwise couldn't buy it (eg. me :) ). If technology didn't improve so fast, you still wouldn't be able to get the camera in 2020 for US$500!

An example of the impact of slow changing industry is the car industry. The prices of cars have not dropped that much in 50 years (note: cars dropped a lot in the beginning, circa 1920s/1930s to 60s). The good thing is that if you buy a car, the prices don't drop that much; but the bad thing is that the affordability of cars is very low. Lower class people have to spend a huge chunk of their income on cars whether they want to or not (if you are into cars that's another story). Furthermore, apart from being more environmentally friendly and safer, car technology hasn't changed that much since the 70's.

Which is better is a personal choice... I am more into tech (I'm a geek :idea: ;) ) and I like faster changing industries. Not only do technologies improve faster, but the affordability (or productivity if used for a business or from an economic point of view) improves significantly as well.

I think with fast changing industries, the key is to buy a camera with the "disposable" mentality. Buy something that you really want but assume you are going to get nothing. In 3 years, if you get something that's great, but if you get nothing that's ok too...

hedwards Nov 14, 2004 4:29 PM

Peter et al.,
I used to buy the latest and greatest, now i still have my 10d, and have no plans of upgrading anytime soon. For me if i were buying a new dslr i probably would buy a newer one, but the one i have will likely last me for quite a while considering the sherman like build. It takes the photos as well as i can, and still has yet to interfere in an appreciable way. The best shots seem to be taken by and large by those who own a camera long enough to get to know it. But at any rate i would kind of like the lower noise of the 20d;)

PeterP Nov 14, 2004 5:07 PM

I'm showing my age here :lol:, the first new car I ever bought was an AMC Gremlin for 2300$cdn :GTrying to find a new car (that actually works) for under 20k$cdn is nextto impossible.Car prices are steadily rising, my last truck cost more than my first house :-) but that is inflation foryou. :-):-):-)

I too fall into the tech-no-geek category, I'm always looking to upgrade or replace the the pc's and home theather, expensive hobbies.

Just hard to make that switch from cameras that held some value for long time to cameras that become unwanted every few months.

As Imentioned before,I'll hang on to this one as a coat/car camera, it is small and quite suitable for that, and still makes pretty good 5mp images.



Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:

Quote:

An example of the impact of slow changing industry is the car industry. The prices of cars have not dropped that much in 50 years (note: cars dropped a lot in the beginning, circa 1920s/1930s to 60s). The good thing is that if you buy a car, the prices don't drop that much; but the bad thing is that the affordability of cars is very low. Lower class people have to spend a huge chunk of their income on cars whether they want to or not (if you are into cars that's another story). Furthermore, apart from being more environmentally friendly and safer, car technology hasn't changed that much since the 70's.

Which is better is a personal choice... I am more into tech (I'm a geek :idea: ;) ) and I like faster changing industries. Not only do technologies improve faster, but the affordability (or productivity if used for a business or from an economic point of view) improves significantly as well.

I think with fast changing industries, the key is to buy a camera with the "disposable" mentality. Buy something that you really want but assume you are going to get nothing. In 3 years, if you get something that's great, but if you get nothing that's ok too...

Hedwards, That is my main problem, I keep saying I will stop buyinginto the latest/greatest toy. Yet I keepmanaging to convince myself to do so anyway. I really will have to stop doing that. :?.... someday, real soon.



hedwards Nov 14, 2004 6:48 PM

It took making myself broke through the last year in terms of pocket money to make it a reality. I grew up in the culture of buy a new one how can last years model possibly be any good? On the bright side you can save a bunch of money buying a new older model just as the replacement arrives.

nzmacro Nov 14, 2004 7:47 PM

Have you tried selling a 1 or 2 yr old 35mm Slr lately. Would also be very interesting huh :-). Our whole society is all about obsolesence IMHO.

Lets see, my Sony CD-1000 I'm still using 5 years later and I've added an FZ10. No way would I have used film for the last 5 years, it would have cost a fortune, so we have saved money on the deal, well and truly. At the end of the day IMHO, digital cameras are very inexpensive.

All the best.

Danny.

hedwards Nov 14, 2004 8:41 PM

I tend to think of it as renting 2500 pictures at poloroid prices i think i have really broken even. Plus quite a bit up on image quality.

Meryl Arbing Nov 15, 2004 12:05 PM

So why do you think we get stories like this?:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mp;refer=japan

which says that Nikon profits TRIPLED last year! Since they don't make any money from people using their digital cameras, the only way they can get that amount of money is by geting people to buy the newest and latest and greatest digital and scrap their old models!

Of course, if the trade-in value drops to zero, that shows that, even though the camera might be working just as well as it did when it was originally purchased, its 'technological lifespan' was only 14 months. (This is down from the average 18 month technological lifespan of a year ago.) :shock:

I have classic film cameras that are 60 years old and are still working perfectly...and still retain their value. My old Sony Mavica FD-7 (which is worth nothing as you might imagine) I gave away years ago! It is still being used!



Wildman Nov 15, 2004 6:21 PM

It might sound strange, but DSLRs might turn out depreciating less than "point and shoot" cameras if only because those expensive lenses you simply must have can be moved ahead for use on more advanced cameras.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Buying a DSLR locks you into a brand, because Canon lenses don't fit on Nikon or Minolta cameras, or vice-versa. There's always a chance the manufacturers will introduce cameras that aren't backward compatible (it has happened in the past), but in general, the camera body is a small part of the investment in the DSLR world.

TC3 Nov 16, 2004 7:57 AM

Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:
Quote:


An example of the impact of slow changing industry is the car industry. The prices of cars have not dropped that much in 50 years (note: cars dropped a lot in the beginning, circa 1920s/1930s to 60s). The good thing is that if you buy a car, the prices don't drop that much; but the bad thing is that the affordability of cars is very low. Lower class people have to spend a huge chunk of their income on cars whether they want to or not (if you are into cars that's another story). Furthermore, apart from being more environmentally friendly and safer, car technology hasn't changed that much since the 70's.

you know very little about how high car dpreciation actually is! You say car tech hasnt changed much over the years....it is obvious you are not familiar with the car industry or you would not have made such a daft comment



Sivaram Velauthapillai Nov 16, 2004 9:51 AM

Meryl Arbing wrote:
Quote:

which says that Nikon profits TRIPLED last year! Since they don't make any money from people using their digital cameras, the only way they can get that amount of money is by geting people to buy the newest and latest and greatest digital and scrap their old models!

What you are getting at is a valid point but picking Nikon is kind of weak. Their profits tripled but it includes their other divisions (the article even says the the LCD stuff has been driving a chunk of their income). In any case, profits tripling may or may not mean anything, given that a lot of the camera companies have been struggling throughout the late 90's (mostly because of difficulties transitioning from film to digital)...

Sivaram Velauthapillai Nov 16, 2004 10:06 AM

TC3 wrote:
Quote:

you know very little about how high car dpreciation actually is! You say car tech hasnt changed much over the years....it is obvious you are not familiar with the car industry or you would not have made such a daft comment
How much do cars depreciate exactly? Certainly nothing substancial compared to digicams, computers, etc.

I would not say that cars have changed much since the 60's. There are only two areas where there has been any significant changes: safety and environmentally-friendliness. Other than that, the changes are slow. If you look at the price of cars, it has not changed much. I don't have any real numbers but if I had to guess, I would say that cars have only decreased by around 20% in price since the 70's (adjusted for inflation). That is not anything major and that certainly hasn't improved affordability that amount. That vast majority of people now only afford cars by taking on debt.

I may be exaggerating a little bit but I still stick by my point that car technology and prices have not changed that much in the last 30 years...

Meryl Arbing Nov 16, 2004 1:46 PM

I didn't pick Nikon specifically. They just happened to be the ones who reported the excess profits!

KENNETHD Nov 16, 2004 2:44 PM

Great little discussion...I like the idea that Nikon made lots of money. It makes me look at the current prices, and when I compare that to the prices a few years ago, and consider how much more I can get for the same money, I am very hopeful that very soon I'll have me a Canon 20D or better! By making a healthy profit these companies are not going to stop creating newer and better equipment for us. If I thought my skills were good enough to fully take advantage of all the 20D has to offer, I would buy one right now. Lucky for me, there are good choices that fall short of the 20D but still have a lot of technical goodies that will allow me to improve and still have a great range of options to experiment with. I have had my Minolta Dimage 7i for going on three years. I can finally say I know how to use all the various settings and after over 12 thousand pictures I am ready for a new camera. Everything on my 7i works as well as it did when I bought it, with two exceptions. The rubber ring on the manual zoom has loosened and rotates a bit sometimes, but doesn't impede anything, or interfere with overall enjoyment or use of the camera. And the little plastic release lever on the battery compartment launched itself into the air about 10 ft one day while I was opening it to change batteries. Now I have to keep it in a small plastic container in my camera bag, and put it back into place to use it when I open the battery compartment to change batteries. I don't want to give up use of the camera while it gets fixed so I just keep holding it in place with my finger while I change batteries. I am happy to say that the equivalent amount of film for all those pictures makes this experience very cost effective. By continuing to buy newer technology, we are reinvesting our dollars, and in return we get better and less expensive equipment. And for as long as it takes me to make up my mind about what to buy next, I get better and better equipment to choose from while I ponder. Best regards,

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"KennethD

hedwards Nov 16, 2004 6:50 PM

I think all of this is interesting:dude: but, i think that it was when i started getting into digicams that i started to slow down on the upgrade mary-go-round. I suspect that a lot of people in the more or less mainstream uses are like me; Seeing no need to trade a well accustomed camera for a new may or may not work well model. There really is a lot to be said for a camera that works reliably for many years.;)

nzmacro Nov 17, 2004 3:06 PM

Yeah you are right. I can't see the point in changing if nothing is wrong. WhenI started looking around for an upgrade for the Sony CD-1000, I looked for two years before something came along that I wanted. The CD-1000 isstill used at 1.9 megapixel and takes fantastic shots that print out well. Not bad for a 5yr old. Both that and the FZ10are used for different purposes.

Tell you something I've never really understood. The "Crash test dummies" that pre-order cameras. Why the heck would anyone take the risk without picking it up and trying it first. Thats really got me stumped to be honest.How many times do we see in forums, complaints about focusing proiblems, CA, CCD aligment needs correcting, etc, etc and they didn't wait for the full reviews or to try it out first :roll:, rather them than me, thats for sure.

Anyway, interesting and I expect the FZ10 to last at least another 4 years. Probably about the same as I changed 35mm bodies.

Danny.







digcamfan Nov 17, 2004 5:48 PM

If you do sell a used camera (film or digital) on Ebay, be sure in your description that you are selling "As Is".

Unless the camera still has an extended warranty (and warranty is transferable), buyer is on the hook for any repairs.

If you are selling a film camera, do spend $5 and shoot a roll of film. This is to be fair to buyer and to protect yourself.

Yes, PeterP, dig cams are like new cars...drive it off the lot and it depreciates...sooooo...

"Appreciate" what the old venerable cam has "given" you...memories :-)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:41 AM.