Used DSLR values.

Hi,

During a short period of eBay selling recently I have been perusing quite a few camera listings and it has struck me (along with valuations here) that used DSLR's, even quite elderly ones, still seem to command quite a strong value.

Particularly Nikons it must be said as well as quite baffling model organistions! Though I have been surprised at what Pentax *ists go for still.

The reason I'd be thinking about upgrading is that technology has improved the DSLR considerably even in the last couple of years and unusually for consumer type electrical products cameras still go for a premium.

How would a Nikon D70-D80 compare to a Kx for a similar used price?

Just find it interesting is all. Lens prices I can understand for good glass is desirable whenever it was made but the bodies?

In what way? The Nikons are good cameras, but older lenses may or may not AF or meter depending on the model. To a Pentax User the Nikon wouldn't be much use, and vice versa of course.

Ultimately second hand prices are governed by simple supply and demand.

You had a similar situation in the 35mm days but it just was not as obvious as it is nowadays with the internet giving you a price comparison from your home.
Nikon and Canon used to be seen always as the professionals choice, not because of their 'good lenses' or 'specialised lenses' but it was the customer services for the professional that was giving them the name they got today.
I remember that when I had my F2 and F2A serviced after a spell in the Arabian Peninsular to get rid of the sand etc. I got a FREE loan model so I never was without a camera (I have to admit that I have got a Nikon Pro Card that gives me certain privileges over the 'normal consumer'), but it is part of their legacy of those days that carried over.
Pentax lenses where always classed as exceptional good lenses but it was the cameras that let Pentax down and they did not have the professional service in the 35mm sector.
I always had a soft spot for Pentax but in the 35mm days it was not an option, nowadays I will stick with my K-5, no matter what the hype will be about the sensor (and yes I got some of the faulty ones as well) but every manufacturer had at one time or the other some problems.
Pentax always seems to aim more for the Amateur (in the nicest way possible) market then for the Professional unless you go to medium and large format.
There is not much any more between DSLR's which are in the same price class and you will find that the prices are quite stable and high in the second hand market when it comes to DSLR's with similar features.
This is only MY opinion to your question and others may well see it different!

I don't really know much about them, other than they have lower MP count and I would assume older tech. But, people still rave about the *ists. So these older cameras probably would still perform well? I was also thinking about it wandering about Leeds yesterday when I had a little handle of several cameras in PC World, Kx, K7 for Pentax and D3100 and D90 for Nikon.

I was commenting on the way cameras seem to hold their values really well, which would be good if I ever let my K200D go! Which isn't likely. But bad if you want to experiment without blowing too much money.......

The older cameras will process slower, but apart from that they are good and worth the money. I can see a market for lower cost second hand models for use in unfriendly environments, but less so now that we have WR bodies and lenses.

Same sensor. My Son-in-law came back from a trip to NY with a D80, flaunting it everywhere (yes, he did chance the customs). When I moved up to a K200D he just stopped mentioning it. Now, he has a 2-lens kit and I have more than I can carry.
Geoff

A few years ago SH electronic goods used to go for low prices, because they were unreliable and expensive to repair. Items such as HDD Video recorders, washing machines, probably do still sell for low prices.

The SH DSLR buyers are unbelievably dumb SH (or even new)DSLR's are unreliable and usually £200+ to repair. New ones come with a guarantee, so they are safe buys yet someone will buy a SH one for say £70 below the new price... say £500 and it will break down about 3 months later and they will be moaning that they have to shell out £250 for repairs and how it was boxed and looked new when they bought it

It's different with mechanical/film cameras or lenses they rarely go wrong.

Unless your the biggest gambler in the country always buy NEW DSLR's If you can't afford one you can't afford the repair costs either

I never take out Extended Guarantee's but with DSLR's it might just be worth it.

Dunno about that Algernon. I bought my K200D 2nd hand for £280, still working perfectly when I sold it for £90 less almost 2 years later. I'm sure it'll go on for another 2 years at least, judging by the istD's still in circulation.

That said, I went for a new K-7. As a higher cost camera, I felt there was more at stake. I was also influenced by K20 owners being given K-7s as replacements under warranty - in the unlikely event of my K-7 going kaput, I can look forward to a K-5 (or K-3!)

I spent a long time watching the 2nd hand market when I bought last month.
To be honest, I don't thing the prices are realistic, 2nd hand dslr's are way overpriced when you consider the cost of a new K-x. I was seeing ist* go for 170 and the K100D never below £200.
That is partly why I went for my K20D, I really couldn't face spending that sort of money for such old models compared to new prices. I got it for the same price as a new K-x, which seemed a trade off for me that I could accept as it is a better camera
That is the open market for you, if people pay it, then the price is OK

I personally would have gone for the K-x (and I have a K20D)
The high ISO performance is more important to me than the bells
and whistles I can't really use the K20D above 400ISO

Well, I'm obviously unbelievably dumb
I bought a second hand *istDL as I couldn't (and still can't) afford a new DSLR.
It cost me £130 about 2 1/2 years ago and, other than replace batteries, it has served me well.

I hope I haven't jinxed myself now

Even if it broke you've only lost £130.

K-7 owners may have seen their cameras reduce in value by £500-600 since they bought them last year. Still feel dumb?

You were lucky Father Ted, but the *ist range do seem very reliable.
I had a *istDS for years.

I know someone who was buying a SH K10D and I advised him to get the NEW K-x, but he bought the K10D and 4 months later he's deciding whether to pay out £170+ on repairs or buy a K-x

You have to weigh up the odds and what you can afford to lose when buying anything SH. A friend of mine used to always buy cheap heavily depreciated luxury cars rather than new, because he viewed them as disposable. No one else wanted them because repairs and parts cost a small fortune but he bought them with the intention of scrapping them if there was a serious fault. In 25 years I think he only scrapped one and saved a fortune on depreciation. He now buys fairly mundane/basic cars NEW because you become less of a gambler as you get older and want the security of a warranty.

and then have to find the money for a replacement on top of the £130 already paid out.

I would say that if I was buying new I'd probably buy a Kx!!! Mainly for high iso and complement the K200......... £350 for one with the 18-55 kit lens.... Ok, quite amazingly small though!