Pro Cameras "dirt cheap" by 2020

mdvaden wrote in post #18481247
I know that some photographers enjoy speed and convenience. But aside from "horsepower under the hood" I think that clients may become the arbitrator for what's a professional camera.

If they can get photos that they think are beautiful ... and certainly can be beautiful ... I think that's what will matter. They may not have a clue or care if the image came from a T6i, Canon 5D mk iv, or Sony a9. But if it looks nice, that will probably set the bar.

You can designate "pro" to be equipment used to generate income, but I see it a bit differently. I see the "pro" designation, as it concerns equipment, as equipment designed to be used consistently, while maintaining a high level of performance and reliability. Think of it this way, you can walk into a Harbor Freight and buy all the tools you need to renovate your home or restore a car for dirt cheap, but those won't be the tools you see the pros using because they aren't reliable. They simply don't last, or they don't do the job well enough, or are frustrating to have to work with (often all three).

When it comes to a "pro" camera, it should be easy to use (ergonomics), durable (build quality), and produce high quality images (pretty much every ILC out right now). It should also perform well in terms of responsiveness and data throughput, and be able to function in a variety of professional situations, from fast paced event shooting with on camera flash to tethered studio work with a PC Sync connection for strobes.

Disregard megapickles, resolution, mirrorless vs. DSLR, and simply look at build, ergos, handling/responsivenes​s and studio compatibility and you'll see a certain stratification of bodies that remains despite the outdated nature of sensors. Of course, as we all know, it still doesn't matter in the end. The quality of the tools matter to the artists, not the buyers. There are kids out there turning out work with their phones that makes me want to sell all of my kit and take up stamp collecting.

mdvaden wrote in post #18481243
That's basically what I wrote in reply #8 ... unless you replied to the person of the post prior to yours.

That is just what I did........and I thought the fact that I did so was rather clear:

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18481309
That is just what I did........and I thought the fact that I did so was rather clear:

To me, it was unclear.

Because you wrote that I was "assuming" something about prices or depreciation, when my post ... #8 ... stated that more recent cameras now will hold value better or longer. In other words, a change in depreciation, phrased differently. So what I wrote didn't seem to align with your reply. That's why I thought you were commenting to the person in the post above yours.

mdvaden wrote in post #18479712
Exactly.

Although the best and most recent cameras today will lend an advantage, I can see excellent portraits or wedding photos stemming from the top end of consumer cameras and pro cameras half a decade old. A good used model now will probably hold value longer for a few years. About 4 years ago, I bought two Canon 5D mk ii's in Portland with about 5000 actuations each, for $900 each, from two photographers. I put less than 10,000 on each body and sold them in southern Oregon about a year ago for $900 and $850.

mdvaden wrote in post #18475642
There are so many good camearas available now, it looks like cameras for professional photography will be dirt cheap by 2020. I'm making the estimate based off the fact that thousands of photographers made images that wowed clients, using the likes of Canon 5D mk ii, Nikon D700 and other bodies. Good images were taken, photographers claimed they were "professionals" using cameras deemed old now, and many clients were satisfied. So with current cameras as good and better, and new models coming out, it seems that by 2020, photographers could use any new or used models dating 2008 to 2016 and still take great photos. And they should be able to find such cameras for $800 to $1500. I consider that as fairly "cheap" or inexpensive to crank out very nice photos. Not knocking $3000 or $6000 cameras. But it crossed my mind today that today's cameras are damn good, and will still be damn good 4 years down the road or 8 years down the road after their price value drops like a brick. This probably won't dictate the best bodies I upgrade to. But seems promising for for backup option costs.

On another note, it's unimaginable that Canon would never release a pro grade mirrorless. So I can only imagine what each manufacturer will be producing for options and technology 12 years from now. For those who can afford new gear and make income, it's certain that for plenty of them, that technology streamlines their workload enough to compensate much of the extra cost.

Meh, look at medium format digital. Just being a niche market doesn't mean the price has any downward pressure - it's taken this long for Pentax MFD to even be as affordable as it is.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18480787
For me, "dirt cheap" would be a camera body that pretty much meets my professional needs, that I can get used for about $900. . Or a camera body that kinda meets most of my professional needs, for around $600, shipped and PayPalled.

For instance, a Canon 1Dx would pretty much meet my professional needs. . If I could get one now for about $900, I would consider that dirt cheap. . Unfortunately, I don't think used 1Dx bodies will reach this price point for another 6-8 years.

If I could get a 6D or a 7D Mk 2 for $600 right now, that would be what I'd consider "dirt cheap", because it's about 1/3 less than the typical going rate, and they are both something that would be useful to me and that I could make do with, and at this time I could afford to part with $600 and still manage to pay my bills for the next few months. . Unfortunately, I don't think either of these bodies will reach that price point for another 2-3 years.

I really miss the days when a used DSLR would drop to about 35% of it's original retail price within 3 or 4 years. . Bottom feeders like me really thrive when we can allow the early adaptors to suffer enormous amounts of depreciation......but sadly, that just doesn't happen to the same extent that it used to.

.

Well since I asked I figure I should give my definition. I consider it similar to yours except to me it really depends on where you live. If you are in an area of the country with a median income of say $80k then dirt cheap has a different meaning than it would to someone in an area with a median income of say $40k. (we see this on those HGTV shows where what seems like a $150k house in my area is being bought for $850k in CA) Or one can think of the actual wording. Dirt cheap, meaning bottom, lowest one can go, pennies on the dollar, etc.

Then we get into your idea of devaluation. There is an amount each year as the camera is in it's current production cycle but declines exponentially as new generations are introduced. So a 6D that sells for $1k right now will likely instantly drop in value to roughly $500 when a 6D3 is introduced. The same thing happened with a 1DIV and a 5D2 as well as a 60D etc. So while any of those cameras may have dropped in selling price, they are old and outdated.

So for all practical purposed, I have to assume that dirt cheap will mean selling price of a new model camera in comparison with what others in the past have sold for. This would indicate to me that they should be selling for roughly half of what you see new models going for now.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18481309
That is just what I did........and I thought the fact that I did so was rather clear:

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=184​81309&i=i65150465
forum: General Photography Talk

.
.

mdvaden wrote in post #18481600
To me, it was unclear.

Because you wrote that I was "assuming" something about prices or depreciation . . .

How could it possibly be unclear when it says, right at the top of my post, that I was replying to Wilt ? ? ?

I didn't write that I assume anything about what you wrote - my reply was to WIlt, and only to WIlt, as it clearly stated at the top of the post.

mdvaden wrote in post #18481600
That's why I thought you were commenting to the person in the post above yours.

Well of course I was! I do not understand why you ever thought that my reply may have been to you, given the very distinct, clear graphic that says that I was replying to Wilt.

.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18481866
How could it possibly be unclear when it says, right at the top of my post, that I was replying to Wilt ? ? ?

Since you didn't include any quoted text from anybody, it was unclear to me whether you replied to the OP, the post before yours or another since I hadn't noticed the tiny reference to "Wilt"

It may be that I'm still used the old POTN forum layout.

It says right at the top of every post if it was a reply to someone, and says which post it is a reply to. . Have you really not seen this? . It's been one of the features of AMASS ever since it's inception a few years ago.

Again, look at what I am posting here (image below). . Don't you see these notices right a the top of the posts??? . It seems like there's this big obvious notice RIGHT THERE at the top of each reply, and you are just completely unaware of it's existence.


This was done so that we could reply to someone without having to quote them, and everyone would still know just what post we were replying to. . You seem to think that the only way for us to know for sure is to quote the text we are replying to, but this entire feature was designed and implemented to make it so that we don't have to do that.

mikeinctown wrote in post #18481612
There is an amount each year as the camera is in it's current production cycle but declines exponentially as new generations are introduced. So a 6D that sells for $1k right now will likely instantly drop in value to roughly $500 when a 6D3 is introduced. The same thing happened with a 1DIV and a 5D2 as well as a 60D etc. So while any of those cameras may have dropped in selling price, they are old and outdated.

About a year ago, my 5D suddenly refused to power up. I looked at prices of 5DII and 5DIII. Then the 5DIV came out...somewhat surprisingly, the prices of 5DII and 5DIII did NOT decline a significant amount due to the launch of the 5DIV. That the prices held pretty steady had a significant impact on my decision making.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18481979
It says right at the top of every post if it was a reply to someone, and says which post it is a reply to. . Have you really not seen this? It's been one of the features of AMASS ever since it's inception a few years ago.

Apparently the few times I've looked up in that corner on ocassion, there's been the date or hours only and I must not have been looking at times when there was a name in connection to a reply.

Odd I missed it considering how many years I've been on various forums.

Wilt wrote in post #18482018
About a year ago, my 5D suddenly refused to power up. I looked at prices of 5DII and 5DIII. Then the 5DIV came out...somewhat surprisingly, the prices of 5DII and 5DIII did NOT decline a significant amount due to the launch of the 5DIV. That the prices held pretty steady had a significant impact on my decision making.

I have been affected by the same thing.

I'd like a 5D2 as a backup, or a 5D3 to split duty with my 1D4, but because the prices (used) have not decreased the way I expected, I am still just getting by with the 50D as a backup. . I sincerely hope that I don't have any problems with my 1D4, because the 50D is not something that I consider a capable camera anymore.

I guess I could sum this up boy saying that I wish that old, used, professionally capable cameras were "dirt cheap", but they are not even close to it, and so I have not bought a backup or upgraded for upwards of 4 years now.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18481979
It says right at the top of every post if it was a reply to someone, and says which post it is a reply to.

Just a little heads up for you, those of us browsing the forum on our phones using the mobile layout don't see that. Signatures don't show up either.

My daugher is paid for taking pictures. She is using 5D MKII with new shutter. And absolutely no needs for 1D series. In opposite, she might benefit from small FF camera. Like Sony makes. A7 is now bellow 1K$ and new with warranty.
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …rless_digital_c​amera.html

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18482065
I have been affected by the same thing.

I'd like a 5D2 as a backup, or a 5D3 to split duty with my 1D4, but because the prices (used) have not decreased the way I expected, I am still just getting by with the 50D as a backup. I sincerely hope that I don't have any problems with my 1D4, because the 50D is not something that I consider a capable camera anymore.

Last summer, I sold two 5D mk ii bodies for $900 and $850. Each had about 10,000 to 15,000 actuations. I chose a selling price based off what I read on Craigslist and the marketplace of this forum, etc.. I had expected prices to drop a bit lower, but was also surprised to see the value held near $1000. I consider that a good sign, even though I enjoy getting a good value for less sometimes.

I noticed that the Canon 5D mk ii refurbished at Canon USA is close to $1700, not that much less than a 5D mk iii refurbished.

mdvaden wrote in post #18482223
Last summer, I sold two 5D mk ii bodies for $900 and $850 . . . I had expected prices to drop a bit lower, but was also surprised to see the value held near $1000.

It was reasonable to expect that. When the 5D classic was 7 years old (7 years after release date), used prices had reached $500. . So I expected the 5D2 prices to follow suit. . They obviously haven't, which case leaves me with no viable backup camera.

It seems really weird to me that the 1D mk 3 was so much more expensive than a 5D mk 2 when they came out (within a relatively short time of one another - like just a year or two), but that a 1D mk 3 is now so much cheaper than a 5D mk 2. . It just goes to show that depreciation does not follow any kind of pattern or regularity . . . which kinda sucks for me.

.