Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The inverse law of camera pricing

  1. #1
    xpatUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,949
    Real Name
    Ted

    The inverse law of camera pricing

    In England, it's called "Sod's Law" . .

    When you want to buy one, prices for your preferred model automatically increase.

    When you want to flip it and try to sell, prices plummet.

    Being a leftie, I used to get that with guitars.

    When buying, left-handed guitars are "special order", "custom", "rare", etc
    When selling . . . you get the idea ;-)
    Last edited by xpatUSA; 26th July 2012 at 07:15 PM.

  2. #2
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,788
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    Same with lenses; when I buy they are expensive then if I want to upgrade, nobody is buying that lens anymore.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Posts
    185
    Real Name
    Hero

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    You forget the first plummeting of price, the day right after you bought your equipment

  4. #4
    Dr Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    97
    Real Name
    Bob

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    There has to be a Murphy's Law for thar somewhere.

    Dr Bob

  5. #5
    Adrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    427
    Real Name
    Adrian

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    The solution being never buy new and never be a first adopter. Let someone else suffer the initial heavy depreciation and the new product teething problems.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian View Post
    never be a first adopter.
    I'm quite often a first adopter -- can't say it's particularly "bitten me in the bum" much -- just the odd compatibility issue or relatively minor nag. Just got a Canon 1D X - was missing the software disk (couriered overnight) - discovered one (inconsequential) bug (they'll release updated firmware, but "who cares") - and am still waiting on a RRS bracket that should be here in a couple of weeks - so "no real dramas".

  7. #7

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    High dollar item I would rather be the first adopter and have a warranty to go with it just in case, however I have never had to use a warranty on anything. I have had one item fail and returned it got a new one to replace it and it's off to the races.
    Buying second hand can mean having someone else's problems and they could be BIG.
    On the other hand some items second hand can be a big plus but not very often for me.
    If I decide to sell that just a hit I take, I know it going in and I am okay with it.
    Last edited by Carl in Louisiana; 27th July 2012 at 12:29 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greece (ex UK)
    Posts
    618
    Real Name
    Russell

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    Quote Originally Posted by xpatUSA View Post
    In England, it's called "Sod's Law" . .

    When you want to buy one, prices for your preferred model automatically increase.

    When you want to flip it and try to sell, prices plummet.

    Being a leftie, I used to get that with guitars.

    When buying, left-handed guitars are "special order", "custom", "rare", etc
    When selling . . . you get the idea ;-)
    Hi, Sorry mate but in the UK it's RIP OFF BRITAIN not Sod's Law"
    Many years ago (to many) the USA was more expensive than the UK but now if you look around the web and compare prices think you will find it would be cheaper to take a holiday in the USA from the UK and buy all you want within reason, (customs) but hey your returning from holiday with your camera strung round your neck full of photos of your holiday!!!

  9. #9
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    12,478
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: The inverse law of camera pricing

    Except for cameras, I have done fairly well in turning my equipment, especially lenses. I have sold four lenses; all of which I had purchased used: Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, 17-40mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L non-IS and a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX. In each case, I was able to get more than I paid for each lens.

    I bought the 24-70L right as the 24-105mm f/4L IS was introduced. The used prices of the 24-70L lens took a fairly deep and momentary dip as photographers were lining up to dump their old standby and purchase the newly introduced 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. I sold the 24-70L, after using it for quite a few years, because I was sure that Canon was going to introduce a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens with IS capablity and that this would result in an avalanche of 24-70L non-IS lenses on the used market with a corresponding dip in used prices. Additionally, I realy no longer needed the 24-70L because my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses have become my standby and favorite duo. I misjudged Canon in the case of IS on the newly introduced 24-70L ii but, I was still able to get several hundred U.S. Dollars more for my 24-70L Mk.i than I paid for it.

    I got more for the 17-40L and the 70-200L than I paid for them but, I did not rake in the profit like I did when selling the 24-70L.

    I am of the opinion that if you buy top line glass (such as Canon's L lenses) on the used market, you will almost always be able to sell those lenses for what you paid for them or in my case, a bit more.

    The 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX is an anomaly and bucks the "good glass holds its value" theory. It was only produced for a short time, had wonderful IQ but, the autofocus was rather slow. However, I got this lens for one hundred U.S. Dollars and sold it for quite a bit more than that.

    The only lens with which I have been burned is my 28mm f/1.8 Sigma. I bought it used to use on my Canon 10D which was my first DSLR. It was a very decent lens on the 10D but, when I upgraded to the 30D; I found out that due to Sigma's reverse engineering technique, the lens would not work. Contacting Sigma, I learned that they had replaced that model and thusly couldn't/wouldn't rechip the lens to work with newer cameras. I learned my lesson on that lens which is the last Sigma product I will ever buy. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, Sigma, shame on me! All is not lost, however! I have an old Canon D60 (not the new 60D) DSLR which I converted to full-time infra red. The Sigma works O.K. on that camera. If I ever sell the D60 (which I doubt that I will) I will sell it as a package with the Sigma lens.

    I bought both my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses new because I purchased them as soon as they were introduced. I knew what I wanted and did not desire to wait for used copies to appear on the market. By the way, I don't think it is a good idea to buy a newly introduced camera/lens on the used market; even if you happen to find one. Something is quite probably wrong with that lens if a buyer wants to dump it quite soon after he bought it. That however, is just my opinion!

    But, I cannot envision selling the above two lenses because they are my go-to travel and general photography duo. However both of these lenses have increased in price and if I were forced to sell; I would not take too much of a beating.

    Before I sound too smug, let me tell you that I have a plethora of camera bags. I always wanted a Domke F-2 bag but balked at paying the pice. So, instead, I have collected a batch of less expensive bags which, if considered in the aggregate; cost more than the Domke. I finally bit the bullet and purchased the Domke F-2 and my other bags are now gathering dust.

    BTW: I tend to keep my equipment for a long time and the amortised cost of this equipment over the time I own it is not that shocking; even if (in the case of the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lenses) the original cost makes one shudder!

    Again, the moral of this tale may be that good glass may hold its value and that you might just take a beating on a crappy lens...
    Last edited by rpcrowe; 27th July 2012 at 03:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •