When I made the jump from digital point and shoot cameras to DSLR, I did a lot of research into the major brands. I found that outdated Canon and Nikon cameras still had a resale value rivaling new prices for some other brands. I did in depth comparisons of technology and found that the differences between the brands was becoming smaller and smaller.
I looked into the world of camera lenses and discovered that glass was just as important as camera bodies. With major camera manufacturers inventing and refining image stabilization built into lenses, it made little or no sense to switch brands after investing in a few decent lenses. But in order to use the newest lens technology, you eventually need to upgrade your camera body, right?
But why, with tens of thousands of Canon and Nikon cameras available, would a five year old camera still cost $600 - $1,000 with a kit lens and 60k already on the shutter? Then it hit me; the resale value is not based on current market comparison, but on the original sticker price. If I paid $2,400 for a camera five years ago, and it was time to upgrade, shouldn’t I get at least $1,000 for it? Simple depreciation.
This type of thinking is what has kept prices on certain brands high. “We can keep the price of this model at $2,400 because it is shown to keep its resale value.” But are they really worth it? Does a $2,400 camera perform twice as good as a $1,200 camera? My opinion is HELL NO!
I had to agonize over which camera to buy when I wanted to purchase my first DSLR. I was overwhelmed at first by the wide assortment of cameras, and the price range. I quickly decided to stick to researching “entry level” cameras.
After the aforementioned research, the decision boiled down to the lenses. After learning that the IS or VR was built into the lenses of some brands, I discovered that there was an improved version. How could I feel safe investing in a camera that would last for years when the lenses might become (more or less) obsolete before the body?
Some of you may think that irrational, but I chose Sony because of this. There are millions of lenses available that fit Sony A mount, and they are a fraction of the cost of the IS and VR lenses. I have paid as little as $25 for some autofocus lenses, and they will perform admirably on all Sony A mount cameras. (not withstanding the limitations of DT lenses on FF cameras)
I wonder what will happen to the resale price of DSLRs now that mirrorless cameras have hit their stride?
I looked into the world of camera lenses and discovered that glass was just as important as camera bodies. With major camera manufacturers inventing and refining image stabilization built into lenses, it made little or no sense to switch brands after investing in a few decent lenses. But in order to use the newest lens technology, you eventually need to upgrade your camera body, right?
But why, with tens of thousands of Canon and Nikon cameras available, would a five year old camera still cost $600 - $1,000 with a kit lens and 60k already on the shutter? Then it hit me; the resale value is not based on current market comparison, but on the original sticker price. If I paid $2,400 for a camera five years ago, and it was time to upgrade, shouldn’t I get at least $1,000 for it? Simple depreciation.
This type of thinking is what has kept prices on certain brands high. “We can keep the price of this model at $2,400 because it is shown to keep its resale value.” But are they really worth it? Does a $2,400 camera perform twice as good as a $1,200 camera? My opinion is HELL NO!
I had to agonize over which camera to buy when I wanted to purchase my first DSLR. I was overwhelmed at first by the wide assortment of cameras, and the price range. I quickly decided to stick to researching “entry level” cameras.
After the aforementioned research, the decision boiled down to the lenses. After learning that the IS or VR was built into the lenses of some brands, I discovered that there was an improved version. How could I feel safe investing in a camera that would last for years when the lenses might become (more or less) obsolete before the body?
Some of you may think that irrational, but I chose Sony because of this. There are millions of lenses available that fit Sony A mount, and they are a fraction of the cost of the IS and VR lenses. I have paid as little as $25 for some autofocus lenses, and they will perform admirably on all Sony A mount cameras. (not withstanding the limitations of DT lenses on FF cameras)
I wonder what will happen to the resale price of DSLRs now that mirrorless cameras have hit their stride?
