Are Old Digital Cameras Worth Anything
Digital cameras are great — the applied science they are built upon is remarkable, underpinned by remarkably sophisticated designs. Non just that, but the pictures they larn are of such astonishing quality that they make anything that went earlier pale in comparison. So why and so do digital cameras accept such (relatively) short lifespans compared to picture show cameras?
The Value of Used Cameras
Leica'due south have never been cheap, but if you bought a new M3 back in 1964, it would have cost you lot a relatively svelte $297 (about $2,500 today). That is adequately like to the Nikon F which cost $330, although that came with a 50mm lens. Today a second-paw M3 in reasonable condition will set y'all back somewhere in the region of $1,600.
Okay, you're non going to brand a fortune selling antique M3s — unless of course you happen to take your granddaddy's M3 prototype sitting at the dorsum of the cupboard worth a rather eye-watering $400,000 — but that original ticket price hasn't actually gone downwards that much.
We are all familiar with this trend in the auto trade; for instance, the Mercedes-Benz South-Course takes the top spot for the fastest-depreciating machine in the UK, losing some 65.8% of its value in the first three years, equivalent to $123,000! So how practise cameras compare?
My kickoff serious photographic camera was the Nikon D700 which appeared on the scene in 2008, costing $3,000 (well-nigh $3,600 today). If y'all were to purchase a secondhand one today, it'd gear up you back ~$450 or about 87.5% depreciation. Of course, depreciation is a effect of perceived worth in the secondhand market and the Nikon D700 wasn't just a bang-up performer, just was also congenital like a tank and is supported past a vast array of high-quality F-mount lenses.
In comparing, the Pentax K20D had a list toll of $629 (nigh $750 today) but you are unlikely to find it at a reputable secondhand retailer; on eBay, you lot're probable to pay nearly $130 and that'll probably include a lens. The depreciation is nigh the aforementioned as the D700 but you now enter the ~$100 and below photographic camera segment where models are ane-step from worthless.
Suddenly that Leica M3 looks like a pretty proficient value.
The Strange Workings of the Used Camera Market
So what's going on here? New products — at least those manufactured in book — are priced to make a small markup on the manufacturing cost (which includes things like sales and marketing), equally well as compensate any research and evolution. You desire to cost your product to encourage consumers to purchase information technology, while likewise competing with other manufacturers in an open marketplace.
Hopefully, your new product has a value suggestion to consumers that makes them want to purchase: the Nikon Z9 is the first pro-spec full frame mirrorless camera to market place which makes information technology "worth" more. In this instance, Nikon has priced it very competitively to increase demand and push the popularity of the Z-system. As time goes by, that value proposition is diminished as new products get in, R&D costs are recouped and manufacturing costs approach optimal, all of which means the cost should drop.
Of course, every bit shortly as a product is "secondhand" it is immediately worth less than a new particular, fifty-fifty if it is unused and originally packaged. We see a small space — with a price premium — for refurbished, "as-new", and ex-display models, but, generally, as soon as it'south sold information technology drops in value which, equally we have seen with cars, tin can be quite dramatic. At what point an particular becomes collectible or an antique is debatable, but scarcity is clearly a factor at play hence the price tag for that Leica M3 prototype.
In contrast, I doubt a CD of Robbie Williams'southward Escapology volition fetch a loftier price anytime soon judging by the number of them available in secondhand stores.
Nonetheless, there is besides another gene at play here… yous can withal bulldoze a 1964 Ford Mustang and shoot photos with a Leica M3, which means, disallowment whatsoever hardware failures requiring you lot to source spare parts, you just need gasoline or 35mm film to become them working. The aforementioned isn't necessarily truthful of a Betamax video thespian or a Sony Mavica FD75: for the erstwhile, you lot'd need a Betamax tape and for the latter a floppy deejay.
The simple fact is that many applied science devices become obsolete because they are unusable.
Digital Cameras Quickly Get Obsolete
And then why will digital cameras become obsolete far faster than film cameras accept? The first reason is hinted at in a higher place: media is a real trouble for whatsoever digital device as storage formats have evolved over time. Floppy disks, CDs, and Retentiveness Sticks will exist increasingly more hard to obtain as time goes on; at what signal will these devices not be able to record images? And even if you can record them, can you lot actually transfer them to your computer?
The fact remains that digital cameras — and specially those through to the early 2000s — volition virtually likely be useless in l to 100 years' time (if not way sooner), at which indicate you may well yet be able to shoot with your Leica M3 film camera!
This is a stark reminder of the 2d problem: the epitome quality of early digital cameras was very poor and it has taken a long fourth dimension for digital to approach the allegiance of film in terms of dynamic range and resolution. Any camera older than 2012 (the point at which DSLRs significantly improved) will have pregnant limitations, but even much newer mirrorless models may already exist defunct.
Thirdly, another key camera component is the bombardment; while there are all the same companies, both big and pocket-sized, producing photographic camera motion picture in a wide range of formats, will the same be truthful of critical camera batteries decades from now? In 50 years, will you exist able to go that EN-EL3e for your Nikon D700? Most cameras are battery-but devices, meaning that they will lie dormant until you tin can effigy out how to power them up.
Fourth, modern cameras are more similar to computers (which quickly become obsolete) than the purely mechanical cameras of quondam (which can often alive on indefinitely with proper maintenance and repair). The high-tech electronic components in cameras tin neglect over time, turning digital cameras into paperweights unless an expensive repair is washed to replace failed components.
The final chemical element relates to software and is maybe less of a problem. Digital cameras have increasingly sophisticated firmware onboard that by and large remains proprietary and closed; this isn't essential, just it would exist a social good if manufacturers released firmware to the photographic community, rather than risking their loss. Related to this is the use of proprietary raw paradigm formats and while Adobe has been good at supporting the latest cameras, who knows if legacy formats will remain usable.
Will whatsoever computer or software all the same be able to read lesser-used raw formats in time to come generations? The LibRaw project does offer long-term support and this may well alleviate bug going forward.
How Long Should a Digital Camera Concluding?
The obvious question is how long should a digital photographic camera final? The points to a higher place have suggested some reasons why we may non be able to utilize digital cameras in the futurity, simply they miss one further betoken. While a camera might well work exactly as it did the twenty-four hour period yous bought it, it may no longer serve the need you accept. This isn't nigh the camera, but rather how yous intend to utilise it, which says more nigh yous and the wider photographic community. And, of course, Gear Acquisition Syndrome!
A great instance is something like the Nikon 1 J5: a great camera for many users, but with the 1-System discontinued and a limited lens lineup, information technology meets the criteria for obsolescence even if information technology is perfectly usable. And the J5 was simply announced in 2015.
What are your longest and shortest-lived cameras? Do you consider longevity when you purchase a new camera and are we finally entering an era of longer-lived models? Or are product lifecycles mirroring that of smartphones and becoming shorter and shorter? I, for i, am thankful that the desperately poor image quality of early on cameras is long gone and that digital is now arguably better than flick.
What I really want to meet is the next revolution: what is the next major step forward that isn't the smartphone?
Image credits: Leica M3 in header illustration by Andrew Basterfield and licensed nether CC By-SA 2.0, stick figure illustration from Depositphotos.
Source: https://petapixel.com/2022/03/28/why-digital-cameras-have-shorter-lifespans-than-film-cameras/
Posted by: mcclainrisfy1972.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Are Old Digital Cameras Worth Anything"
Post a Comment