[gatorguy]

I was interested as to whether falling prices for Pentax kit had been discussed on Pentaxforums and found this thread. A Pentax DA 40mm went yesterday on Ebay for GBP 75. Strikes me that folks are abandoning Pentax. Its quite sad, I really rate Pentax kit.

I bought a Sigma 500 4.5 for Nikon on Ebay for just $500 including shipping several weeks ago. I also bought a Nikon D500 with a Nikon 16-80VR and a Nikon 70-300 and paid under $1000 a few months ago.

So it's not just sad folks might abandon Pentax, it's sad they're abandoning cameras altogether, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony included. You can buy some great flagship cameras for 60% or less of the price paid new just 3-4 years ago (a Sony A7RIV for roughly $2000 today, was $3500 new 2 years ago) and, with careful shopping, well-reviewed pro-grade lenses for even less.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 02-18-2023 at 03:54 PM.

[EssJayEff]

it's sad they're abandoning cameras altogether

I wonder what percentage of people are abandoning cameras altogether, compared to just DSLRs for mirrorless . . . including new lenses rather than using adapters.

[gatorguy]

I wonder what percentage of people are abandoning cameras altogether, compared to just DSLRs for mirrorless . . . including new lenses rather than using adapters.

Mirrorless sold slightly better than DSLR's last year, and the total for all ILC's was around 5 million units total, a shadow of the sales from just 10 years ago. Even mirrorless sold better five years ago than it does now.

[Aaron28]

prices maybe falling on digital but film has gone way up n film bodies seem to have gone up a tic or two.....

[PPPPPP42]

I won't sell my K-1, but if I didn't have it I wouldn't even consider buying a camera at all. Maybe I'll pick up a decent fast telephoto to go with my good short zoom just in case I get back into it.
As ridiculous as it sounds I don't even know what lenses I have. Ive been using Pentax cameras since the film era and I used to be able to list in detail a dozen or more different lenses I owned.
Maybe It'll say in my signature or something. I don't remember that either because I'm not sure I even post once a year on here anymore and I used to be on several times a day.

I can't even tell you the last time I took a picture using any more than my phone. Otherwise its all video now and I have a gopro for that.
If things are cheap its because so few people are doing it anymore. I'm glad I dumped so much of my good stuff and just kept the K-1 with the two lenses (actually I may have a few other good film era ones left too.)
EDIT: Oh hey, accord to my signature I kept my 35-105 F3.5 because it was my favorite Pentax lens ever and I still use it in a macro config with my A equipped extension tube thingy.
Nother edit: looks like the 70-210 F4 finally came out as a D FA. I loved my old A series slide trombone with a FF film body. Maybe I'll pick that up used at some point soon.

[Jonathan Mac]

Remember that cameras from the last few years are far more capable now than ten years ago, so there's far less incentive to upgrade if you already have one. I think people are keeping their existing gear and using it for longer, both for economic reasons and because upgrades would yield relatively little benefit, though I'm sure many are also abandoning cameras for phones (which are also much, much better than they used to be.

[jersey]

I recently sold 15, 35 and 70 Limiteds for less then price of new 15. And I still have 40mm with a year of EU warranty for half a price compared to new that no one wants. So yeah, at least in Poland and at least in Pentax land both prices and interest are down. Judging from polish Pentax forum it is little surprise, people are either staying in old cameras land (like K-3 II, KP, K-1) or migrated to MILC.


Dunno how it translates to rest of world, but if it is the same that low scale "manufacturing-like" production process may be another of good moves from Pentax. It also puts into perspective both rise or prices and slow release pace - at high prices and current value loss people will keep their gear longer, choose more carefully and high profit per unit may be requirement for survival. Not that I am happy about it, but I learned my lesson with Limiteds - never buy a lens you are not 100% sure you will use.

[gofour3]

prices maybe falling on digital but film has gone way up n film bodies seem to have gone up a tic or two.....

Yep especially I've noticed the rise in some Pentax Medium Format gear.

Example the used price for a Pentax 67II body has gone up over 200% since I bough mine in 2015. Same for the Pentax 67 105/2.4 lens.

Phil.

[Jonathan Mac]

Yep especially I've noticed the rise in some Pentax Medium Format gear.

Example the used price for a Pentax 67II body has gone up over 200% since I bough mine in 2015. Same for the Pentax 67 105/2.4 lens.

Phil.

All Pentax medium format prices have shot up in the last few years. The only one I own is a 645, for which I paid 125GBP around 2012. Nowadays I couldn't buy one for less than four times that.

A 67II would be my dream film camera but it's way out of my price range now.

[pentax_amateur]

Most of us seem to be surprised by how quickly prices of used photo gear are falling.
I am in the opposite camp: I am shocked by how slowly those prices are falling.

To me it seems that photographic gear should be depreciating faster than cars and phones, because:
1.these are "wants" and not "needs", unlike cars and phones.

2.it is impossible for an average Joe to asses photographic gear for hidden damage. It is a lot easier to asses a used car ($80 trip to the mechanic), and a lot easier to repair if there is an issue (there are about 10 mechanic shops within walking distance of me. How many camera repair shops are there on the CONTINENT? I am aware of one).


I never pay more than 30% of the original price (that's for mint condition items) for any used photo gear. If there is any issue whatsoever I do not pay more than 20%. Here are more reasons why:

1.When I buy new items with electronics inside, I am already at least 2 generations behind (gear in the upper price range is 1 generation ahead, and the new model that's almost ready for release is 2 generations ahead of what I am ready to buy). "Used" means I am even more behind technologically. Don't tell me old cameras and lenses photograph just as well as the latest model (Pentax AF-C anyone? SDM?); or that it's the biomass behind the viewfinder and not the gear that matters, and even a pinhole can produce masterpieces (I have shot with pinhole. It is amazing what a simple hole can produce. I can also walk pretty amazingly, but that does not replace my car). How much would a phone cost when it is 2 generations behind? At best, 20% of the original price.

2.What about those cameras "with 100 shutter actuations" in "new" condition? My question is "Why did the seller shell out over $1000 and never used it?" Is it because he all of a sudden "lost interest"? Yeah, sure. My suspicion is it is because he dropped the camera and knows that AF/shutter/etc. is likely not working the way it should, and might fail completely at any moment. I do not even consider those.

3.I can neither return the item, nor produce the original receipt for warranty. That must cost something.
4.I am paying for shipping and transaction costs; something that is baked into the retail business model.
5.Photo gear market is very close to a perfect free market, meaning that the primary driving forces are supply and demand. What about the supply and demand? The camera market is rapidly shrinking, meaning there is excess supply and very little demand.

[gatorguy]

Most of us seem to be surprised by how quickly prices of used photo gear are falling.
I am in the opposite camp: I am shocked by how slowly those prices are falling.

To me it seems that photographic gear should be depreciating faster than cars and phones, because:
1.these are "wants" and not "needs", unlike cars and phones.

2.it is impossible for an average Joe to asses photographic gear for hidden damage. It is a lot easier to asses a used car ($80 trip to the mechanic), and a lot easier to repair if there is an issue (there are about 10 mechanic shops within walking distance of me. How many camera repair shops are there on the CONTINENT? I am aware of one).


I never pay more than 30% of the original price (that's for mint condition items) for any used photo gear. If there is any issue whatsoever I do not pay more than 20%. Here are more reasons why:

1.When I buy new items with electronics inside, I am already at least 2 generations behind (gear in the upper price range is 1 generation ahead, and the new model that's almost ready for release is 2 generations ahead of what I am ready to buy). "Used" means I am even more behind technologically. Don't tell me old cameras and lenses photograph just as well as the latest model (Pentax AF-C anyone? SDM?); or that it's the biomass behind the viewfinder and not the gear that matters, and even a pinhole can produce masterpieces (I have shot with pinhole. It is amazing what a simple hole can produce. I can also walk pretty amazingly, but that does not replace my car). How much would a phone cost when it is 2 generations behind? At best, 20% of the original price.

2.What about those cameras "with 100 shutter actuations" in "new" condition? My question is "Why did the seller shell out over $1000 and never used it?" Is it because he all of a sudden "lost interest"? Yeah, sure. My suspicion is it is because he dropped the camera and knows that AF/shutter/etc. is likely not working the way it should, and might fail completely at any moment. I do not even consider those.

3.I can neither return the item, nor produce the original receipt for warranty. That must cost something.
4.I am paying for shipping and transaction costs; something that is baked into the retail business model.
5.Photo gear market is very close to a perfect free market, meaning that the primary driving forces are supply and demand. What about the supply and demand? The camera market is rapidly shrinking, meaning there is excess supply and very little demand.

While I might agree with the premise, and yes on the surface it makes some sense, there's not a lot of relatively recent and well-reviewed "desirable" gear that you can buy for 20-30 cents on the dollar, and the ones you can are nearly always listed as "for parts only" or are not-operational in some regard even if not stated. (ie those "dropped cameras" you mentioned earlier). There is almost ALWAYS a reason nobody else wanted it for more than you were willing to pay. Simple supply and demand. Underperforming stuff sells for less because fewer people are willing to buy it. High-performance photo gear will have a market for several years and won't be given away.

That said I won't turn down a 20% of new $260 Pentax H-DFA 21 with cosmetic scratches on the plastic and clean glass, or a $360 K1II with a cosmetic blemish and 25000 shutter count if you find either one. I keep watching but with my luck I'll be too old to enjoy either one by then.

[UncleVanya]

20-30 cents on the dollar is rather out of line with most items I see for sale. It’s also lower than my target.

[Rondec]

Most of us seem to be surprised by how quickly prices of used photo gear are falling.
I am in the opposite camp: I am shocked by how slowly those prices are falling.

To me it seems that photographic gear should be depreciating faster than cars and phones, because:
1.these are "wants" and not "needs", unlike cars and phones.

2.it is impossible for an average Joe to asses photographic gear for hidden damage. It is a lot easier to asses a used car ($80 trip to the mechanic), and a lot easier to repair if there is an issue (there are about 10 mechanic shops within walking distance of me. How many camera repair shops are there on the CONTINENT? I am aware of one).


I never pay more than 30% of the original price (that's for mint condition items) for any used photo gear. If there is any issue whatsoever I do not pay more than 20%. Here are more reasons why:

1.When I buy new items with electronics inside, I am already at least 2 generations behind (gear in the upper price range is 1 generation ahead, and the new model that's almost ready for release is 2 generations ahead of what I am ready to buy). "Used" means I am even more behind technologically. Don't tell me old cameras and lenses photograph just as well as the latest model (Pentax AF-C anyone? SDM?); or that it's the biomass behind the viewfinder and not the gear that matters, and even a pinhole can produce masterpieces (I have shot with pinhole. It is amazing what a simple hole can produce. I can also walk pretty amazingly, but that does not replace my car). How much would a phone cost when it is 2 generations behind? At best, 20% of the original price.

2.What about those cameras "with 100 shutter actuations" in "new" condition? My question is "Why did the seller shell out over $1000 and never used it?" Is it because he all of a sudden "lost interest"? Yeah, sure. My suspicion is it is because he dropped the camera and knows that AF/shutter/etc. is likely not working the way it should, and might fail completely at any moment. I do not even consider those.

3.I can neither return the item, nor produce the original receipt for warranty. That must cost something.
4.I am paying for shipping and transaction costs; something that is baked into the retail business model.
5.Photo gear market is very close to a perfect free market, meaning that the primary driving forces are supply and demand. What about the supply and demand? The camera market is rapidly shrinking, meaning there is excess supply and very little demand.

Relatively new photographic gear, particularly lenses, should last years without problem. If someone has all the original boxes for an item and it appears to be in good condition, then 60 to 65 percent of the new price is reasonable. For lower end items like the DA 35 f2.4 or DA 50 f1.8, they may sell for less than that simply because there isn't a whole lot of demand and the price for new is pretty cheap. But a K-1 camera in good working order and low actuations should get 1200 or 1250 if the seller is willing to wait for a buyer.

[reh321]

Most of us seem to be surprised by how quickly prices of used photo gear are falling.
I am in the opposite camp: I am shocked by how slowly those prices are falling.

To me it seems that photographic gear should be depreciating faster than cars and phones, because:
1.these are "wants" and not "needs", unlike cars and phones.

2.it is impossible for an average Joe to asses photographic gear for hidden damage. It is a lot easier to asses a used car ($80 trip to the mechanic), and a lot easier to repair if there is an issue (there are about 10 mechanic shops within walking distance of me. How many camera repair shops are there on the CONTINENT? I am aware of one).


I never pay more than 30% of the original price (that's for mint condition items) for any used photo gear. If there is any issue whatsoever I do not pay more than 20%. Here are more reasons why:

1.When I buy new items with electronics inside, I am already at least 2 generations behind (gear in the upper price range is 1 generation ahead, and the new model that's almost ready for release is 2 generations ahead of what I am ready to buy). "Used" means I am even more behind technologically. Don't tell me old cameras and lenses photograph just as well as the latest model (Pentax AF-C anyone? SDM?); or that it's the biomass behind the viewfinder and not the gear that matters, and even a pinhole can produce masterpieces (I have shot with pinhole. It is amazing what a simple hole can produce. I can also walk pretty amazingly, but that does not replace my car). How much would a phone cost when it is 2 generations behind? At best, 20% of the original price.

I am 75 years old, so most cameras and most lenses were made after I was born - but I have no recollection of their “original selling price”, and I’m too lazy to look it up. The important thing to me is the utility to me. Incidentally, the same thing is true of phones, also.

[Jomar]

So it's not just sad folks might abandon Pentax, it's sad they're abandoning cameras altogether, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony included. You can buy some great flagship cameras for 60% or less of the price paid new just 3-4 years ago (a Sony A7RIV for roughly $2000 today, was $3500 new 2 years ago) and, with careful shopping, well-reviewed pro-grade lenses for even less.

I recently put in the highest bid for a Sony A9 (launched in 2017, firmware last updated in 2019) for $1,075. If I win the auction in 2 days' time, that's a greater than 75% drop from the initial $4,500 retail price.

I can't help but compare this with the price of a used K-1 II. Initial retail price of $2,000 now selling at $1,000. It makes me wonder if the market's settled on $1,000 as the floor price for flagship full-frame cameras.