AlexMax
Established
Hi
I have noticed something in the prices evolution of used gear, I will summarize :
1. Rangefinders with exchangeable lenses tend to retain their value longer than SLRs
2. Film cameras tend to retain their value longer than digitals ( and I am not speaking of exotic collectables )
3. MF lenses tend to retain their value longer than AF lenses, and among these, RF lenses tend to be more valued than SLR's.
Anyone care to comment ??
Is this a fact or a perception bias ??
If it is a fact, is there any rational justification for it ?
Best regards,
Alex
I have noticed something in the prices evolution of used gear, I will summarize :
1. Rangefinders with exchangeable lenses tend to retain their value longer than SLRs
2. Film cameras tend to retain their value longer than digitals ( and I am not speaking of exotic collectables )
3. MF lenses tend to retain their value longer than AF lenses, and among these, RF lenses tend to be more valued than SLR's.
Anyone care to comment ??
Is this a fact or a perception bias ??
If it is a fact, is there any rational justification for it ?
Best regards,
Alex
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Not a strange trend at all... rangefinder cameras and lenses are niche market. There's not nearly as many of them in the marketplace, and it seems that more and more folks are re-discovering the value of an optical viewfinder.
As far as lenses go, mirrorless camera owners are re-discovering primes. Before the "mirrorless" revolution, rangefinder lenses were actually dirt cheap. I can recall buying FSU Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 lenses for around $50 all day long just a few years ago. As the demand for native primes for mirrorless has climbed, mirrorless owners turned to RF lenses with adapters because they're small, light, and have excellent optical quality (for the most part) and could be bought for pennies on the dollar over a new native-mount prime.
Electronic-guts lenses with plastic barrels have a finite lifespan. MF, brass barrel lenses are pretty much a lifetime purchase... or at least as long as you care to own them.
I think your analysis is quite accurate.
As far as lenses go, mirrorless camera owners are re-discovering primes. Before the "mirrorless" revolution, rangefinder lenses were actually dirt cheap. I can recall buying FSU Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 lenses for around $50 all day long just a few years ago. As the demand for native primes for mirrorless has climbed, mirrorless owners turned to RF lenses with adapters because they're small, light, and have excellent optical quality (for the most part) and could be bought for pennies on the dollar over a new native-mount prime.
Electronic-guts lenses with plastic barrels have a finite lifespan. MF, brass barrel lenses are pretty much a lifetime purchase... or at least as long as you care to own them.
I think your analysis is quite accurate.
Scrambler
Well-known
For rangefinders, I think it goes like this: Leica lenses are great, and expensive, so it's worth paying more to get a Leica body that works with the lenses.
Leica bodies are expensive, so it's worth paying for lenses to go with the bodies (even if those lenses are not to Leica standards)
Leica compatible bodies are worth paying more for, to be able to use your non-Leica RF lenses on slightly cheaper bodies.
After all, my Mjnolta CLE was a bargain at around $250, but I have owned 2 of the equivalent Minolta SLR (XG-1) and together with two f2 normal primes and a telephoto zoom paid less than $50 in total. Do I need to mention that I couldn't get a native lens for a CLE for ten times that, let alone 3 lenses and 2bodies?
Guaranteed
Well-known
I'm going with the supply versus demand paradigm, meaning there's millions of AF cameras/lenses made yearly compared to the relatively few MF cameras/lenses. Certainly the m4/3 and focus conformation adapters market have had an effect on the MF lens market, heck I've even got some C/Y Zeiss lenses for my Canons.
Great glass will always retain it's value whether AF or MF.
Great glass will always retain it's value whether AF or MF.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
SLR gear was produced in larger numbers, I guess. A lot more available comparing to RF.
Small RF glass is better match for compact mirrorless, I guess. It is hard to find neat SLR lens, but most of RF lenses are metal and glass only.
Small RF glass is better match for compact mirrorless, I guess. It is hard to find neat SLR lens, but most of RF lenses are metal and glass only.
AlexMax
Established
You are right about that Ko.Fe. ...
When my friends hold a Komura 200mm ltm that I have, or a Lux 50mm f1, or an Elmarit 21mm asph... they say stuff like..
"So, you have become a war correspondent now...?"
...kind of... you can hammer nails with a Komura 200mm thie thing is plain glass, and metal.
Last but not the least :
I had ( dispatched it fast ) an M8 ... Suddenly my ultra wides were no longer ultra wides, ...
Sold it, a few months ago... the M8s have been dropping the price all time... The M7 is still quite expensive... I bet that in 1-2 years, the M7 will be more valuable in 2nd hand market than an M8...
BR
Alex
When my friends hold a Komura 200mm ltm that I have, or a Lux 50mm f1, or an Elmarit 21mm asph... they say stuff like..
"So, you have become a war correspondent now...?"
...kind of... you can hammer nails with a Komura 200mm thie thing is plain glass, and metal.
Last but not the least :
I had ( dispatched it fast ) an M8 ... Suddenly my ultra wides were no longer ultra wides, ...
Sold it, a few months ago... the M8s have been dropping the price all time... The M7 is still quite expensive... I bet that in 1-2 years, the M7 will be more valuable in 2nd hand market than an M8...
BR
Alex
moreorless
Member
You are right about that Ko.Fe. ...
When my friends hold a Komura 200mm ltm that I have, or a Lux 50mm f1, or an Elmarit 21mm asph... they say stuff like..
"So, you have become a war correspondent now...?"
...kind of... you can hammer nails with a Komura 200mm thie thing is plain glass, and metal.
Last but not the least :
I had ( dispatched it fast ) an M8 ... Suddenly my ultra wides were no longer ultra wides, ...
Sold it, a few months ago... the M8s have been dropping the price all time... The M7 is still quite expensive... I bet that in 1-2 years, the M7 will be more valuable in 2nd hand market than an M8...
BR
Alex
Its partly down to digital products tending to be newer(so with more room to depreciate) but also there very nature makes them less durable than a good quality film camera. Your dealing with an advanced electronic device after all plus the tech within it cannot be altered where as shifts in film tech can benefit any film camera.
Its probably helping that film now looks to have stabilised in terms of userbase, its unlikely to ever be more than a minority market but the market does look large enough for the foreseeable future to maintain the production of multiple higher quality films.