Tweet
2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
The second hand value of a lens seem to hold reasonably well unless the system is obsolete (4/3 as an example), on the other hand the second value of a camera body seems to be in free fall once it's purchased. Why do you think that is?
-
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
There is a lot more to wear out in a camera body, shutter, switches etc, plus it gets a lot more handling than a lens. Also, lenses get swapped about on the body, so dont get near as much use or abuse.
Plus bodies get updated far more often than lenses!It's often said photographs don't lie, well mine do! -
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Yes I agree with what you've said, but we've all seen examples of low mileage camera bodies, less than 12 months old, much less sometimes, and they go for a song, or there's little or no interest from potential buyers. Part of the reason, I suppose, is that it's down to model churning by manufacturers. The exception to this being with the iconic red dot camera.Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Because a good lens will serve you for decades. A body is out of date on the day it's launched.Comment
-
-
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Sorry to tell you but if it has a red dot it is a fake! I should bin it if I were you - I'll do it for you if you want.
Leica (yours is pretending to be a Leica 1 I assume) didn't acquire the garish red dot till much later - can't remember exactly when but well into the M series.
OK just kidding. I have a 1933 Leica lll and like your's it's still as smooth as silk and still a total pig to load. You'd think nearly 50 years practice would make it easier wouldn't you?
I don't know which lens you have but my matching 5cm Summar is OK still but very prone to flare being uncoated.
Occasionally I use it on my Sony A7, definition wasn't really up to the standard required for x2 crop factor of the Oly system.Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
I like the use of cm instead of mm when referring to the iconic lenses which hang around with red dot cameras.Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Basically a modern camera body is something that will wear out fairly quickly, a lens will out last several bodies. So lenses are worth more than bodies second hand and year for year.Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Latestarter's post above about his Leica manufactured in 1934, running like clockwork. Contrast that with modern cameras wearing out fairly quickly, what are modern cameras made from that makes them have such short life. Environmentally not very good, even if parts and materials are recycled.Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
The world has changed in manufacturing since high quality items made pre-WWII and middle range items made today.Comment
-
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Perhaps the point is that they were clockwork essentially. Simple brass wheels and steel spindles. It used to be said that good toolmaker could build an early Leica body from scratch.Originally posted by Ricoh View PostComment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
"In 1927 it cost exactly £20" - at a time when a labourer might earn something like £1-12-00 (as in pounds shillings and pence) a week...Comment
-
Re: 2nd hand value: Cameras v Lenses
Design and manufacture of cameras should be improved compared to pre wold-war II, given the modelling packages available and improved tolerances offered by NC. Couple that with solid state electronics, they could be designed and manufactured to have a design life of at least ten years (and longer). It's not the case because cameras are designed to be throw away consumable items.
CAD packages enable designs to be turned out rapidly, NC reduces labour content. Result could be better cameras at reduced cost compared to 1927.Comment
Comment