Pro Cameras "dirt cheap" by 2020

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18482286
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.

.

I think there are reasons for these differences and lack of patterns though. The 5Dii represented quite a giant leap from the first generation 5D (12 to 21mp ... or 22 ... I can't remember and I own one), whereas the 5Diii did not represent the same leap, so there was less depreciation of the 5Dii. Even the 5Div isn't that same gulf as there was between the Classic and the Mark II.

The 1Diii however later had the 1DX enter the fray. A huge step was made within the same line of bodies - the One series. That hasn't really happened in the Five series bodies. Hence more depreciation for the one series body compared with the five.

We're seeing 5D2's go for $600~750 often these days now. It won't be much longer before they dip down a bit more.
And by then, the 5Dc will be hard to find in general probably (like how the original 1Ds is now).

I think "full frame" still carries a lot of weight with people shopping for these cameras. They're hyped up on the web and in media in general. Yet, more and more crops are being produced. For this, the 5D2 still maintains a little extra value compared to a similar crop. If you took the full frame sensor from the 5D2, no one would even pay attention to it for any reason because its features are not competitive today at these used prices. If the 5D2 was an APS-C or APS-H, I bet you'd see it at less than $400. At that point, a 60D is likely a stronger camera in general from an AF perspective alone. So again, full frame still carries a lot of weight when it comes to cost. The 5D2 and 6D1 will continue to be less than $900, but probably not dip below $600 for a little while more. By then the 5D3 may become a $1k used camera.

I think this pattern continues with the 1D series. All the old 1D series that were APS-H are dirt cheap. They're still great cameras, but the menus on some of them are archaic and not fun and have big heavy takes-forever-to-charge batteries. So those are dirt cheap even though they still are commonly bought/sold on the used market. Then the 1D3 comes along with a modern menu system and modern batteries, yet, it's a cheap pro camera. $500 or less easily these days. And it's a beast of a camera for what its used price is now. But, it's not full frame. The 1DIV is under $1k these days, following suit, also as a crop. Then you see the 1DX, a full frame, clinging to that greater than $2k+ mark, even with an end-of-life-shutter and it's quite old in terms of its release. I think if the 1DX were an APS-H, you'd see it's used price much, much lower, especially with the 5D4 around.

The old 1DS series that are full frames, carry a high used price tag compared to the APS-H version. Significantly higher. 1DS costs as much as a 5Dc often and is hard to find. 1DS II carries itself still anywhere from $400~600 and is not easy to find. And the 1DS III is crazy expensive considering a used 5D2 is cheaper and has a lot of advantages over it (other than AF and build). For the used price of a 1DS III you can get an used 5D3. Yet, the 1D3 is dirt cheap compared to the 1DS3 and the only difference is full frame vs APS-H. Full frame just helps hold value for some reason.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18482319
We're seeing 5D2's go for $600~750 often these days now. It won't be much longer before they dip down a bit more.
And by then, the 5Dc will be hard to find in general probably (like how the original 1Ds is now).

I think "full frame" still carries a lot of weight with people shopping for these cameras. They're hyped up on the web and in media in general. Yet, more and more crops are being produced. For this, the 5D2 still maintains a little extra value compared to a similar crop. If you took the full frame sensor from the 5D2, no one would even pay attention to it for any reason because its features are not competitive today at these used prices. If the 5D2 was an APS-C or APS-H, I bet you'd see it at less than $400. At that point, a 60D is likely a stronger camera in general from an AF perspective alone. So again, full frame still carries a lot of weight when it comes to cost. The 5D2 and 6D1 will continue to be less than $900, but probably not dip below $600 for a little while more. By then the 5D3 may become a $1k used camera.

I think this pattern continues with the 1D series. All the old 1D series that were APS-H are dirt cheap. They're still great cameras, but the menus on some of them are archaic and not fun and have big heavy takes-forever-to-charge batteries. So those are dirt cheap even though they still are commonly bought/sold on the used market. Then the 1D3 comes along with a modern menu system and modern batteries, yet, it's a cheap pro camera. $500 or less easily these days. And it's a beast of a camera for what its used price is now. But, it's not full frame. The 1DIV is under $1k these days, following suit, also as a crop. Then you see the 1DX, a full frame, clinging to that greater than $2k+ mark, even with an end-of-life-shutter and it's quite old in terms of its release. I think if the 1DX were an APS-H, you'd see it's used price much, much lower, especially with the 5D4 around.

The old 1DS series that are full frames, carry a high used price tag compared to the APS-H version. Significantly higher. 1DS costs as much as a 5Dc often and is hard to find. 1DS II carries itself still anywhere from $400~600 and is not easy to find. And the 1DS III is crazy expensive considering a used 5D2 is cheaper and has a lot of advantages over it (other than AF and build). For the used price of a 1DS III you can get an used 5D3. Yet, the 1D3 is dirt cheap compared to the 1DS3 and the only difference is full frame vs APS-H. Full frame just helps hold value for some reason.

Very best,

Interesting point I hadn't considered. Thanks for sharing.

Full Frame: a "larger" sensor that in reality only replicates the baby of film formats.

I had a contact at a local camera store chain who told me that a lot of stores are cutting staff simply because casual (and oftentimes many hobbyist) photographers are no longer buying DSLRs/interchangeable lens bodies. Instead, they're just using their smartphones. So now, the only people buying "real" cameras are either prosumers or professionals. With that said, this might even result in cameras becoming more expensive, since camera manufacturers are now putting "professional" features into all of their new camera bodies.

JohnnyKarate wrote in post #18484870
I had a contact at a local camera store chain who told me that a lot of stores are cutting staff simply because casual (and oftentimes many hobbyist) photographers are no longer buying DSLRs/interchangeable lens bodies. Instead, they're just using their smartphones. So now, the only people buying "real" cameras are either prosumers or professionals. With that said, this might even result in cameras becoming more expensive, since camera manufacturers are now putting "professional" features into all of their new camera bodies.

We're just going back to where we were before the digital explosion. Remember, it used to be that most people bought disposable cameras, P&S film cameras or polaroids, and only serious hobbyists bought SLRs. The digital revolution in imaging brought a lot of people in who were suddenly buying entry level kit, when before they would have gone for an instant camera or fully automatic unit (I still have a full auto P&S film camera somewhere). SLR sales numbers now are simply reverting back to where they were before the "boom".

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18484900
We're just going back to where we were before the digital explosion. Remember, it used to be that most people bought disposable cameras, P&S film cameras or polaroids, and only serious hobbyists bought SLRs. The digital revolution in imaging brought a lot of people in who were suddenly buying entry level kit, when before they would have gone for an instant camera or fully automatic unit (I still have a full auto P&S film camera somewhere). SLR sales numbers now are simply reverting back to where they were before the "boom".

There's something to be said for this line of argument.

ILC sales volumes (units and revenue) are going to slip, margins are going to be squeezed, one (maybe two) camera manufacturers will go under or pull out of the market. There will be a lot less investment in R&D and the pace of innovation (for stills cameras, at least) will drop significantly.

As a seriously keen, if not seriously capable, photographer, do I care? Not really. I'm not in this to collect fancy kit. There is fabulous machinery already available to me (and there still will be). I will continue to face the same constraints and obstacles as before (limited vision, questionable technique, doubtful determination) and will continue to delight in the odd occasion when I miraculously overcome them.

I will have lost nothing ... What will anybody have actually lost?