Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
|
millsart wrote:
The question isn't if the price will go down, it will. That is a given. The RX1 when it first came out was something like $2600 I think ? I bought the camera new and paid the then current price. I also rebought the camera a year or so later for more around $1800 or so, which to some degree is another topic all together.
Lets say the price is now $1000 (though probably can score them a bit cheaper than that)
If I had kept my original new purchase I would have seen $1600 in depreciation. My used one would have seen $800 in depreciation since it was used to start with.
If I bought one today, or maybe a few months ago, and resold it in a few months, I'd likely get around what I paid for it, maybe $100 less
So, fiscally a new one could "cost" me $1600 for a few years use, a previously purchased used one $800 for a years use, or a current used one maybe only $100 for 6 months to a year use (speculative of course).
So there is the time value of money, but what that isn't factoring is the actual photographic value.
Basically no one buys a camera just to let it sit on a shelf and depreciate (and few if any modern camera's are going to increase in values so certainly not 'investments', so we need to consider the "value" of ownership in regards to images captures, shooting enjoyment etc.
Does it make more fiscal sense to wait another year or two before getting a used RX1 mkII ? You bet, its going to cost you a few grand most likely to own the camera for that time and its inevitable the value will decline with time.
What are two years of images worth to you though ? How do we put a price tag on that ?
Does a camera with faster AF, or that your more inclined to carry, thus giving you more captured memories of your children at a given age equate to being 'worth' $1000 or so a year ? To each his own.
I've certainly paid the early adapter "tax" on quite a few cameras over the years, because I had an immediate want/need for them.
I was going on a 2 week cruise and felt the RX1 would be the ideal tool for the trip, so I bought it new, paid a high price, and eventually sold used taking a fiscal hit on depreciation of $1600 or so.
It was worth it though, because I enjoyed traveling with it, got great images, and feel content that it worked better for my travel needs that prior cameras I was using.
Long story short, you will lose money on a RX1 mkII, and your RX1 is still a good camera. The RX1 mkII is largely a "better" camera, and a more capable one, so you likely can capture more images, maybe enjoy shooting it more, but what is that worth to YOU ?
NO ONE else can tell you that, Doesn't matter how many opinions you get, or how much you bump your thread. Its ultimately YOUR money, and YOUR choice. ...Show more →
I agree with what millsart wrote and it's true for all digital cameras. Usually, cameras with built-in lenses depreciate much faster than lenses. However, putting the used market aside for a moment, there is something significant that happened with the RX1RII model. It originally sold for $3,300 and now costs $3,900. 
|
