[Rondec]

I have come up with several examples now, and people here react by commenting on those specific examples, somehow arguing that they are exceptions. Nevertheless, not one person has mentioned a used Canon or Nikon being offered at a lower price than a comparable Pentax body.

So maybe you can understand why I say that Pentax bodies generally lose their value faster.

And yes, I do compare cameras based on their initial release date being close together (say within 1/2 year). Because that to me is the definition of losing value: you measure it over time.

The K20 was released in January of 2008, the D90 in August. I would say that the cameras with Sony sensors have held up prices a little better than those having Samsung sensors (K20, K7). But I did agree with you that Nikon and Canon prices hold up a little better over time. I just don't think it is a huge amount. KEH is selling the D7000 EX for 430 dollars and the K5 with kit lens LN- for 450 dollars. There isn't a price on a K5 without a lens to compare, but I feel that the difference in prices is relatively small for these two cameras.

As I said earlier, I don't really think that most people purchase a camera figuring out what its resale value will be. Flipping gear is a losing proposition with any brand. You may lose slightly less money with Nikon, but I'm not so sure. The question is more where in the cycle did you buy your camera. K5s fell to, what, 600 dollars at the end of their selling period and if you bought one for 600 dollars and could resell it for 400 dollars, that isn't a huge depreciation. On the other hand, the D7000 never really dropped below 900 dollars, so if you got one for 900 dollars and can sell it now for 450, you actually have had a larger depreciation. It is folks who bought when a camera was just released who take the biggest hit and they know it and usually go ahead and get it -- either because they can afford it and don't care or, because they need a feature the new camera offers.

[starbase218]

I would say that the cameras with Sony sensors have held up prices a little better than those having Samsung sensors (K20, K7).

Again a comment specifically aimed at that example. If you look a few posts back, there's another one about the D7100 vs the K-5 II s. The D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor. But I fully expect comments on that too.

Btw, I don't agree. I don't care what brand my sensor is. I care about how it performs. And the K20D was pretty good for its day, better than the K-7, 50D and D300.

As I said earlier, I don't really think that most people purchase a camera figuring out what its resale value will be.

Well, this thread is about the discounts, not about what gear people should or should not buy or how to make up your mind on that. Resale value was never a consideration for me, and it still isn't. But what could be of interest - at least to me - is the reason that resale values are lower on Pentax.

The question is more where in the cycle did you buy your camera. K5s fell to, what, 600 dollars at the end of their selling period and if you bought one for 600 dollars and could resell it for 400 dollars, that isn't a huge depreciation. On the other hand, the D7000 never really dropped below 900 dollars, so if you got one for 900 dollars and can sell it now for 450, you actually have had a larger depreciation.

You are introducing another variable: when in the lifecycle did you buy the camera. First of all, that is not relevant to value depreciation in the product lifecycle itself. Second, you are using different values for that variable in the Nikon vs Pentax case. Then it becomes a discussion not about product value depreciation, but about what's the best time to buy a camera. Any camera, any brand.

[Rondec]

Again a comment specifically aimed at that example. If you look a few posts back, there's another one about the D7100 vs the K-5 II s. The D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor. But I fully expect comments on that too.

Btw, I don't agree. I don't care what brand my sensor is. I care about how it performs. And the K20D was pretty good for its day, better than the K-7, 50D and D300.



Well, this thread is about the discounts, not about what gear people should or should not buy or how to make up your mind on that. Resale value was never a consideration for me, and it still isn't. But what could be of interest - at least to me - is the reason that resale values are lower on Pentax.



You are introducing another variable: when in the lifecycle did you buy the camera. First of all, that is not relevant to value depreciation in the product lifecycle itself. Second, you are using different values for that variable in the Nikon vs Pentax case. Then it becomes a discussion not about product value depreciation, but about what's the best time to buy a camera. Any camera, any brand.

The number 1 reason for price of used values of gear is the price of equivalent new gear combined with the age of the gear. It isn't rocket science. And anyone who has been shooting with Pentax for awhile knows that there is an early adopter tax that is followed by price cuts. If resale value/not paying that tax is important to you, then you wait six months before you purchase your gear, or even buy it at the end of its selling cycle. Maybe Nikon is better in that respect, but they sure did drop prices on the D600 over time.

I think in the end, the answer to the OP's question is that if you are a seller, discounts are a bad thing, but if you are a buyer it is a good thing. From Ricoh's standpoint it just doesn't matter. They have a certain number of products they want to move and they will price their gear to sell that many. They could care less about the used market.

[bladerunner6]

I have come up with several examples now, and people here react by commenting on those specific examples, somehow arguing that they are exceptions. Nevertheless, not one person has mentioned a used Canon or Nikon being offered at a lower price than a comparable Pentax body.

So maybe you can understand why I say that Pentax bodies generally lose their value faster.

And yes, I do compare cameras based on their initial release date being close together (say within 1/2 year). Because that to me is the definition of losing value: you measure it over time.

I admit, I have not shown a lower priced Canikon, but that is not the relevant point.

We need to look at the total cost of ownership which includes the initial price, the amount of use and the final price. And then figure out how much you are paying per the amount of use.

I got my two lens K-50 for $440 after rebate and a credit card price match.(I also bought the extended warranty but that will pay for itself with a free cleaning). Because the current price of the camera is $300, I will consider that the value of the camera in my kit. If I were to keep the lenses until I buy my next camera in three years and buy another Pentax body on sale for $300 like the K-50 is now and sell my old camera for $75 bucks, then my cost of ownership is $225 for three years, which is $75/year. (And whatever price per click).

How does that figure compare to Canikon is the real question.