Are Users driving the prices up?

[nikkortorokkor]

I know that film camera prices are generally depressed, and that I've no right to complain, but I've noticed a trend which is the opposte of what used to happen. Some junk store cameras are attracting a premium beyond reason when the same junk stores offer very viable alternatives.

Now it is not just collectors who drive the price of certain cameras (usually beginning with the letters R, L and N) but bright eyed young enthusiasts keen to try the cult model junk store cameras.

Obvious Examples:
Yashica Mat 124G attracts a premium while Walzflex, Beautyflex, Weltaflex, Flexaret, etc, etc. go for much smaller money, regardless of rarity or quality. Sure, you might get a triplet in one of those older TLRs, but is the 124G really worth 4 to 5 times as much as a Flexaret VI if you are just after a user TLR that isn't a Rollei?

Then there is the price difference between Canon's New QL 17 or 19 and the GIII versions that superceeded them. As John has pointed out on these pages, they are functionally almost identical, and the New QLs are actually rarer than the GIII. Yet the GIII attracts all the attention and the $.

Heading to the Minolta camp, a Hi-Matic E goes for very modest money despite its fantastic build quality (somehow, when handling the E and the New QL19, the Minolta just feels better). Yet the E's decendent, the Hi Matic 7S II soars into triple figures on the Bay. The E's sin? It is fully auto, and so 'isn't as reliable' as the cultish 7S II. The fact that it is a beautiful handler that borrowed Yashica's uber-reliable and accurate 'electro contol system' counts for little. I wonder how many 7S II actually get switched to manual? I don't deny that the 7S II is the more versatile camera, but again, the price difference is phenominal.

This isn't a gripe, justy an observation. There are still loads of bargain users out there as long as we avoid the fads. For me, the E and the QL 19 are both small enough that I can carry them both in case the E - which really is a nice handler - fritzes out. Between them they cost me the grand total of $27, including P&P.

Am I right in my observation or just becoming a grumpy old man before my time?

[doubs43]

I've also noticed a rise in the prices of certain cameras, especially the higher quality ones. I'm also mystified by the prices being paid for the Yashica 124G which is NOT a Rollei by any stretch. I'd personally prefer to pay the same money and get a Rolleicord IV, V, Va or Vb. Maybe even an older 'Flex. I have nothing against the Yashica which is a nice enough camera but the Rollei is better IMO.

Walker

[kiev4a]

The prices go up--the prices go down. I suspect that within a few more years most film cameras (except for some really rare ones, aren't gonna be worth much more than a manual typewriter--which is pretty hard to even give away these days. There were just too many cameras made in the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s. I suspect even prices on common Leica models will drop considerable (they already are on many of the IIs and IIIs). I don't think the 124G prices will hold long because before long it will be tough to get 120 processed unless you do it yourself. My MINT Nikon F3HP isn't worth enough now to make me want to part with it.

I always was skeptical about digital replacing film any time soon. That was because not everyone uses a computer. But you can walk into Walgreen now, stick the memory card from your camera in a machine, view your photos, select those you want printed and the size, go get you prescription filled and by the time you are done your pictures are done, too. Five more years and most people dealing with film cameras will be collecting them, not shooting them. And because there were so many film cameras made, only the really unique and rare models will be worth anything.

[nikkortorokkor]

Wayne, I think you are mostly right about camera prices. Even now, the 'boom' in prices is limited to those models which the arbiters of fashion have dictated are 'great budget street shoters' - the GIII, or 'a cheap entre into medium format' - the 124G. The latter case is most perverse when one forgets about TLRs altogether and looks at the many Bronica and Mamiya kits going for an absolute song. Sometimes an ETRS body, back and 75mm lens can be had for less than the 'budget' 124G option!

The compact rangefinder prices make a little more sense, this style of camera having been deemed obsolete by manufacturers some 25 years ago. Elegant, affordable digital replacements are few and far between, though te Ricoh GX100 and Sigma DP1 spring to mind (next Chrstmas? - maybe)

I do have a couple of points which could affect future prices. Firstly, Leicas, Rolleis and Nikon rangefinders have long been obsolete to the majority of users. I know that some famous photographers continued to use TLRs and rangefinders through the 70s, 80s and 90s, but the vast, vast majority had converted to (AF) SLR.

An old Remington has always been an old Remmington: interesting to a folk museum or a very small group of typewriter collectors, but an old Leica is recognizeable not only for its intrinsic value, but because of the association with great artists and great events. Whether this cachet will remain after film becomes truly obsolete, who knows?

My final caveat is that here in NZ, where the pool of good gear is limited by population size, there has been a definite drop off in pro gear on our online auction site. 6 or 10 months ago, a lot of Nikon and Canon pro 35mm bodies together with Bronica and Mamiya medium format kits were going very cheap. Recently, not so much has been up for grabs. Have the pros all quit their film gear already? If so, it has already passed into the hands of people who have bought it for other than coldly logical reasons. I can't imagine any neo-pros or even advanced students will be investing much money in manual, film bodies now. Have those who snapped up complete RB67 kits for under a grand bought a dinosaur or an investment? Time will tell I guess.

I must admit, that a mortgage and a student income (not a combination designed to make one rich) have kept me from snapping up an F4 or ETRS, and I have thought that I'm better to wait and buy a truly competent digital, restricting my collecting to junk store cameras and rare bargains, so maybe I'm answering my own questions!

[nikonbob]

I confine my buying to what is available locally and can say that the amount of used film gear has virtually dried up in the last 5 or so years. Stores here, even pawnshops will not deal in them anymore. Personally I would not spend any large amounts on a film camera anymore as I have enough to last me and will use film until such time as a digital camera is produced that fits my wants at a price I am willing to pay. I don't think the vast majority of pros use film anymore and their gear has already been disposed of. That said, if an item is cheap enough and interests me I will pick it up not being constrained by a mortgage or other loans. I don't really care if the value of the gear drops to zero, I have had my fun. OTH I know plenty of people who frequent bars as a life style and have spent more with zero return. It is just a rewarding hobby to take an old piece of kit and see how well it still performs. Prices are determined by what the market will pay and there is no seeming rationale behind it at least that I can see. Anyone looking at film cameras as an investment is not going to see it. Just enjoy the large selection of film gear while we can as long as film is readily available and don't look a gift horse in the face. Now what was the original question? Sorry if I rambled.

Bob

[kiev4a]

I don't know of many pros who still are shooting film. I know an outdoor photographer who lugged his 5x7 view camera into some of the most remote portions of our state. About 6 months ago he spent about $24,000 for a digital Hasselblad..

Photography is a lot like writing. Five years ago we still would accept book manuscripts that were typewritten. Today, if we accept a book for publication, the author MUST provide us with a digital file. We won't accept hard copy. I think it's already getting pretty much that way in commercial photography.

[nikonbob]

Wayne

I'll almost bet that the digital files that are accepted for publication include the down trodden JPEG format. The necessity of sending in digital files does not preclude using film though, but the work flow is much faster doing it purely digitally. That has to be one of the big pluses for digital only. Time is money to a pro.

Bob

[PeterW]

Bob,

I'll almost bet that the digital files that are accepted for publication include the down trodden JPEG format.

Unless it's for what's usually called a 'fine art' book there's nothing wrong with JPEGs for publication.

The last book I wrote, published in 2001, and for which my son John took 200-250 pictures, was all digital, the text on CD and the pictures on a DVD. The publisher asked for JPEGs, 600 dpi and 600 pixels wide, so that's what we sent. We were told there was no point in using a higher resolution because with offset printing there would be little if any discernable difference on the finished pages.

We also sell to book publishers the repro rights for quite a number of images in our picture library. Some are pictures we've taken, but most are 'historic' photos from Victorian times to about 1950 which we've collected over the years. They're scanned in at 1,000 dpi, and after any necessary restoration they're saved as JPEGs at 600 dpi, 700 pixels wide, for sending out on disc. So far, no-one's complained about the quality.

PeterW

[doubs43]

peterw said:

We also sell to book publishers the repro rights for quite a number of images in our picture library. Some are pictures we've taken, but most are 'historic' photos from Victorian times to about 1950 which we've collected over the years. They're scanned in at 1,000 dpi, and after any necessary restoration they're saved as JPEGs at 600 dpi, 700 pixels wide, for sending out on disc. So far, no-one's complained about the quality. PeterW

Peter, that's good information as I hope to have a book of my father's pictures published. Once the format size of the book is determined, I'll have a better idea of the quality needed for good reproduction of the images.

The "Double-Header" train shot I posted earlier today I've saved at 800 dpi and 14 inches square. I promised my daughter-in-law some train pictures and I want that one printed 11x14 inches for framing. I scanned it as a tif file but the worked version is saved in jpeg.

Walker

[kiev4a]

In "picture books" we like to start with 300 dip at CMYK color pics--usually in tif format but more and more we're using photoshop (psd) files.

One needs to remember any time a .jpg file is manipulated in any way it loses some quality. My advice to anyone who has a great jpg photo to immediately save a copy in a tif or psd format. One reason it's hard for me to shoot jpgs with a DSLR is because a raw file contains ALL available information on the photo and if you handle to file properly you can alter it but the original information is never lost and you can always go back to it.

[doubs43]

Wayne, when I scan a negative (I use VueScan Professional) it's always saved as a tif file. I began scanning 35mm at 2400 dpi but went to 1200 to save time. My 6x6 and larger negatives are also scanned at 1200 dpi. Unless color, I save them as 16 bit gray scale.

When I work with the images for viewing on a computer monitor I go to 8 bit gray scale and 100 dpi. That seems to work well.

Walker

[SidW]

The thing about JPEG format is that it gets degraded every time you open/edit/save it. That doesn't matter when you do all your processing in e.g. TIFF and then convert to JPEG as the last step to the size and resolution requested by the publisher, because they won't need to do any more to it. That's definitely not the same as taking a picture out of the camera or scanner as JPEG at the outset, unless you know your final use it is even lower grade, like a picture of an arnchair yoiu want to sell through an ad in the local paper.

[nikonbob]

I suppose the file format that you use depends on the final end use as PeterW alluded to in his post. I have to admit I have not used in camera RAW or TIFF. My end use is strictly to get decent enough prints for my home and I have found that so far shooting in the highest quality JPEG setting of my digital has given me enough for that. I can accept the loss taken in camera and convert the files to TIFF for post processing. I can then convert the finalized TIFF, after saving a copy, to JPEG and printing commercially. OTH, I really should give in camera RAW a try to see if will make a significant difference in my final use.

Bob

[kiev4a]

On my Nikon D100 I shot everything raw to try to make up for the fact that it was older technology. Time will tell if that will be necessary with the D300. I'll probably still shoot raw on photos that might have wall display possibilities. Jpegs will do for most family stuff. One thing is you can get A LOT more photos on a memory card as jpegs. On the D300, on a 2 gig memory card you get 98 compressed raw photos or 276 jpegs saved at the highest resolution possible.

[daveinpasadena]

I too have noticed some price "inflation" on certain cameras and lenses (certainly the 124G is a good example). I think this is really good however, since it may lead to new production of film cameras as manufacturers take note of it. For instance most recently the infamous "Diana" camera is now being made again. At the higher end, we see the Nikon rangefinders and the new Zeiss rangefinder -- I hope more will follow. If Yashica ever brought back the 124G it would fly off the shelves's if sold at any reasonable price. One explanation I've heard for these film camera price increases is that the digital revolution has simply drawn more people into photography, or reinvigorated a latent interest in the hobby for some.