« 'The Big Beast' (aka Panasonic GX8) | Main | Open Mike: My New Favorite Thing (OT) »

Saturday, 18 July 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

$19.00 ??? that puppy folowed you home right?

Food and drink is even worse, use it up and then......

or just keep using them since for many things 6.3 good megapixels seems just fine

"Investing" in camera equipment...

The Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n sold for $5K during its short run from 2004 to 2005. I bought mine used, in excellent condition, in 2006, for $2K. If you can find one in decent condition, they're going for around $400 today.

In terms of percentage, that's not as big a hit as the 10D took, but in real dollars, it's an awful lot. The Kodak was no mainstream camera—it was way ahead of its time, and despite it's abysmal high-ISO performance, it's still very usable today—13.5 MP, full frame CMOS sensor, virtually noiseless ISO 6 through 50 mode, 11-stop dynamic range, no AA filter, dual memory cards, three different RAW file sizes, GPS capability, and full compatibility with the whole range of Nikon glass from AI to the current G lenses, along with a very special color rendition that set it apart from other cameras of the time.

My return on that "investment" was six years of regular use. It wasn't until the D3X came out that I started lusting for a replacement...

I remember trying to decide if I should upgrade my trusty d60 to a 10d. It was a pretty desirable camera. Ended up waiting for the 20d.

My first DSLR. (I had been using an Oly C-something and a Powershot p&s before then). I still have my 10D...it's a shock to try to use it today. Jarring to see it being given away.

At least I dodged a little of that depreciation bullet. The 300D/Digital Rebel with firmware hack had all the functionality of the 10D for fewer $.

It was my first DSLR, and I have quite a few images from it that stand up well today.

My 10d gave out 4 years ago. At that time it was my backup body. It was my first SLR of any kind, and I most definitely got my money's worth. I have 3 framed photos on my living room wall taken with that camera, and probably on the order of 70,000 images in my Lightroom library (and their associated memories). It was with that camera that I learned to see the world as a photographer sees. But enough nostalgia, my em5 is going to be jealous.

I thought at first glance that this was an EOS 10 (no 'D') and was interested because a friend has one they want to sell. It will be worth even less than $19. Oh well.

If I had a Canon system I would be tempted by this EOS 10D, just to be able to use another, knockaround body.

It's taken me a long while to get here. For years, from my first Sony f717, through canon, Nikon, Sony nex, now Olympus. I was always upgrading. But whether I've matured, or cameras finally have, I don't feel that need any longer. Sure I'm still intrigued, when a big new camera comes out. But it's gotten to a point where I'm not going to get better pictures, or a better experience than shooting what I do have. ( a well worn d700, and en equally worn, but not so old em1). Interestingly, I don't think I'm alone in this. my d700 still has used value, even if it's seven years old. I think it's a big reason camera sales are flat. Going from a d70 to d200 to d700 there was a big difference. I'm sure a d750 or d810 would be better, but would you see the difference in what I shoot? Not enough. Now when I get the bug really bad, I rent for a week. I've done that with the Nikon df, and the lx100. Nice cameras, and I was awful tempted, but the photos from them, although nice, didn't break any new ground for how I shoot.

"This is possibly the most horrible snapshot I've ever posted on TOP—a quick phone snap through glass, done casually. I'm appreciative of how good a photographer I can be sometimes, but I'm never surprised by how bad I can be."

What's horrible about it?? It perfectly illustrates the point of the article. We can see it is a used camera, in a dealer's showcase. We can see the price tag prominently displayed. What more could you (or anyone) have done??

I think that cameras like this are a great opportunity for people (like me) without much money buying second hand who want to try out various "dslr" or "full frame" setups on a shoestring. Pairing something like this with some old and/or cheap lenses is good fun! My forays so far are limited to older film cameras, but my second - hand FE, F80 and F4 work great with various MF Tamron lenses and a cheap Nikon 50mm f1.8. Got my eye on a D2 next maybe. Helps that I can use all of these lenses with adapters on my GX7 too...

I have a 10D I was considering selling. Maybe I should just donate it. :-(

Yes. My first digital camera was the Konica Minolta A2, which cost me A$1450 approx. (roughly the same as USD) in about 2005. Value now - about $10 if I was lucky. I have nothing worthwhile to show for it. Sigh. I still have it.

Mike, I was a holdout with a color darkroom, a slide scanner, and a customer base around film capture until 2007. Waiting for 35mm slides to be equalled, I agonized some weeks over whether to buy a $5,000 Nikon D2X or a D200 for $1500 AND a 15" MacBook Pro and load it up with software. Bought the D200 and the laptop, used the D200 less than 6 mos before the D300 was announced. Still using the D300 and the MBP. Almost can't give away a D200 these days. Just looked on Ebay to see them commonly selling for sub-$100 now.
(Not altogether unexpected, DSLRs are ordinarily not good investments and never have been.) But the past several years, Moore's Law has been tamed by the Law of Sufficiency. Problem with old computers is the software becomes unstable and unsupported. Problem with cameras and megapixel wars is that <12-16MP is superfluous for most subject matter.

Timely you should mention audio equipment. I went through a brief audiophile phase 20+ years ago before deciding there are other things I'd like to spend money on, like cameras. Since then I've had only passing interest in audio equipment.

Then today I happened to be browsing reviews on the CNET ipad application when I stumbled across this speaker review:


They look like something that landed from Mars. My interest was piqued until I got to the price.Ouch.

Actually for a quick snap, I don't think it's a bad shot at all... the angle of attack is interesting enough and it certainly supports your posting...

BTW, the similarly equipped D70 was a great little camera and some of my most memorable shots were made with it... in fact, two of them are on my walls... I think I am a better shooter now, but it's not because I use a more technically sophisticated camera...

You may recall we used to say that about Leicas. LOL

I still shoot since 2008 with mine as it was converted to IR years ago. It was a bargain when I got it off of ebay.

I had a 10D which replaced a D60. The 10D came out about a year after the D60 was released. The 10D sensor corrected some severe low light level nonlinearities in the D60 sensor. It was an OK camera/sensor for the time. I still work today on 10D RAWs shot 12 years ago and get better results with better RAW conversion and editing tools.
These things depreciate like rocks falling but if they are serviceable they probably produce the same output today as they produced when they were new; thus, if someone liked it at the time, someone may still like it today. IOW, it may sell for $19.00 but it may be worth a lot more to a current owner. Just a perspective on goods and depreciation.

I loved my 10D. I have many photos that I made with it that have a very nice look to them. I suspect that those big, fat, juicy pixels from the low pixel pitch might have something to do with that. My 10D died a horrible death, and I replaced it with another crop sensor canon, that cost me 1/3 the money, and gives me 10X the features....ahh, the good old days.

One more thing... I do like the article's illustrating photo. Quite good, actually.

Lenswork magazine a number of years ago had a spread of B&W images, I believe taken in Chicago, of urban landscape and structures, such as under bridges, in subways tubes, under highway overpasses, etc, and I remember being quite impressed with the tonality and the look, Taken with a 10D. I imagine it can still do that.

I still have its predecessor, the D30. A whopping 3 (count 'em! THREE!) megapixels, but still capable of beautiful color that's slightly different than Canon's subsequent SLRs render. I would use it more often, but ... Nah. I wouldn't. Enjoying my 70D too much.

I recall a few articles about starter cameras for young photographers. $19 for a body leaves a lot for good lenses!

The 10D was my first DSLR. I still have it, and it still works perfectly. It is capable of very nice photos, and in some instances it is all that you really need. Canon's DPP 3.14 will support its RAW files. It uses currently available Compact Flash cards. It takes all EOS mount lenses, which is its own statement about the relative value of digital camera bodies compared to lenses as investments. As you compared it to a Toyota Camry, a 2003 Camry will still get you where you need to go.
The 10D became my backup camera when I got a 5D. I still use a 5D body in my medical practice, where it is attached to a specialized medical camera, and has been used every working day for the past ten years.
There's a distinction between what we need, and what we want. And we know what the Rolling Stones had to say about that!

At some point these surviving old cameras must become rare, and therefore collectable. Perhaps the 19 dollars for the 10D is the rock bottom price, and will start to go up at some point as collectors want to own a piece of Canon's history.

Back when the Olympus E-M5 came out it was the camera I had been waiting for. I had been interested in the Micro Four Thirds system and lenses since the Panasonic GF1 and 20/1.7, but it wasn't until the E-M5 that I got the urge to buy into the system.

So, I bought the E-M5 as soon as it was available, probably full well knowing that if I'd wait a few months, I could save a bit of money. But I had been using my Nikon D40 for almost five years and… well, I had to do it.

10.000 SEK the E-M5 body cost me and now, almost three years later, it can be had new, from a reputable camera shop, for 5.000 SEK. I seem to recall seeing it offered new for 4.000 only recently. I wonder how much this wonderful little camera is worth used now…

Just hate the word "upgrading".

Sitting on the shelf opposite my desk is a Canon EOS 1N RS (a 35mm stills film camera with a mirror that doesn't move–it splits the light so some travels into the viewfinder and some into the film chamber during an exposure) and a Canon EOS 10D.

The 10D is literally shot to death. It no longer works. The shutter mechanism blew up and the cost of replacement was, well... let's say more than $19. It was no longer economically viable. I used it professionally. It did great work. I replaced it with a 5D Mark II, which I shall also shoot to death before I replace it.

The EOS 1N RS, on the other hand, barely got enough use to get scratched. I used it on two assignments alongside the 10D before ditching it in favour of a second 10D. It never made its money back. It is a big red entry in the business accounts.

The 10D, its twin, the 5D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark II (bought new 10 years ago) have been massive profits centres. The 5D Mark II is still going, as is the 1Ds Mark II. They have earned hundreds of thousands of euros in the years I've had them. (By the way, that's not very much money given the time span).

I won't replace them until they die. They shall not be retired like the EOS 1N RS, which mocks me from the shelf. That camera is a reminder of a financial decsion made based on ego rather than business sense.

I retired from professional photography 2.5 years ago and sold all my equipment at that time. I still wanted to take photos for myself, but didn't want to layout substantial cash, so I found a used Canon 30D (8 megapixels) and added the new 24mm STM pancake lens and the 50mm f1.8 STM. Then entire rig totaled less than $500 and works great. Old digital cameras have a lot to offer and if folks could get over the megapixel myth, much money could be saved and a rewarding hobby enjoyed.

Nice nostalgia for the old days of 10 or 12 years ago! I didn't have the 10D but I had its predecessor, the D60, also with 6MP. I leapfrogged the 10D for the 20D with the amazing total of 8MP. I still have them, and it's interesting to know their value is in the $19 range! Coincidentally I have just been looking at (and reprocessing in the latest ACR version) some photos from 2004-2005 with these cameras and they are amazingly good, even compared to the latest from my Fuji X-T1.

I suppose I'm a pretty fair representative of the secondary market for digital cameras. All the digital cameras I currently use on a regular basis (and many of the lenses) were bought on the used market. The exception is the bought-new Canon T2i Rebel, a camera that certainly is no longer "new". Since I've never been overly excited about the latest designs and newest features, I'm perfectly happy to just plod along with my ancient DSLRs while taking the kind of pictures I enjoy seeing. It's a wonderful thing to find excellent usable digital cameras capable of satisfying results for pennies on the dollar of their prices when new.

When I saw the recent TOP post on William Christenberry (one of my favorite photographers of vernacular architecture) I re-read his book "Working From Memory". The fact that he shot many of his famous photos with a Kodak Brownie before moving to large format and that he doesn't use or even know how to use the perspective adjustments on his 8x10 camera feels a bit like vindication for my own use of "out-dated" equipment.

It only loses its value if you sell it. If you keep it and use it, it has it's full value.

Also, that particular camera has "UG" in the number on its price tag. For all we know, the back of the camera has been chewed by a moose when the photographer ignored common sense and got too close.

This hardhearted economist finds digital bodies to be "film"; a consumable. Back in the day i averaged 3 rolls/mnth; about $430/yr. Every 4-5 years i buy a new dSLR body & sell the old one cheap (~$300). So far (i have a 3yr old d600) it has been worth it in DR & res in my images, and less than my film costs.
Lenses last many bodies but, er, their resolving abilities may not keep up. Plus, honestly, i am on more intimate term with--and spend more time thinking about--my lenses than my bodies. That's another discussion . . . but bodies are disposable in the digital era.

The 10D taught me a valuable lesson...namely that I can't trust my own photographic judgement. The pursuit of novelty will unfortunately tend to trump my reason and discernment.

When the 10D was released I concluded, "at last, a digital camera that's better than film", and I bought one.

I was wrong, and I wish I'd kept shooting 35mm film for a few years longer until a camera arrived where I could have genuinely said, "at last, a digital camera that's better than film".

Actually I have heard to two best days of boat ownership are the day you buy it and the day you sell it.

I think we have reached the point where cameras are responsive enough and have enough dynamic range and pixels that you just keep them until they are not serviceable.

Wow.... 35mm SLR film cameras go for more than that. Sad that the landfills will be full of this stuff. Enjoying the 1V by the way.

Dear Mike,

"They don't have but so much shelf life."

Uhhh, really? Yeah, if you're talking about wearing out or breaking the camera, but so long as it's making photographs technically good enough to satisfy the owner it's still within its "shelf life."

It doesn't have one damn thing to do with resale value.

pax / Ctein

Leica S2 with 70mm was about $26K. I was shocked to see a promo for Leica S Typ 006 with the 70mm for $14K and SE with 70 mm below $12K.

The 10D was the first camera I started making high quality 360's with. It was a very big uplift in quality for me. A few of the 360's on my personal site made with the 10D are still there. It was a great camera. I don't remember what I sold it for. I moved on to various Canon's from the monster high frame rate pro versions to the consumer "t" versions. I later switched to Nikon, but still have a Canon 50D with the 10-24 and a Sigma 70. It was and is still the perfect real estate shooting camera when combined with Magic Lantern. I was going to sell it, but realized the price I would get for it, was less than I was making from it every month. So I still have it even though I don't shoot much real estate at all anymore. I guess I should sell the glass and basically give the camera away.

Today, I still use Canon's 5D3, 5DS now, and Nikon D810, Sony, Samsung and just ordered a Lytro Illum. And they all are basically computers with lens attached. Anything that is a computer drops in value by at least 25% per year if not much faster.

Even most charities will not accept modern electronics - read computer based electrical device - if they are over 3 years old.

I just purchased a new supercomputer to deal with the Canon 5D3, in three years it will be worth 1/5 or less of what I paid for it.

This is what happens when technology is moving as fast as it is in the digital age. The rabid depreciation of camera bodies is just getting started, the cliff is getting higher and the rate of throwing existing bodies over the cliff is rapily increasing.

Why worry about resale value? You don't buy a camera as an investment. Use it until it no longer pleases you in terms of image quality. That time will be years beyond the next and the next product cycle. I have only been using digital cameras for about five years, but I have found they are pretty reliable and don't break.

Interesting point of view, second hand price.
Alternatively you can ask how long a good camera continues to produce good pictures. My Nikon D100 does, so does my D3, and Hasselblad HD3-II. All pretty worthless in second hand sales, but still performing well.

And knowing your interest in other toys, my B&O TV and audio system still perform perfectly, despite the register of hours of use recoded in them saying they should be dead.

Same goes for my model one iPhone.

Moral. Buy well and forget depreciation, just use the machines.


For all its virtues, the 10D was soon put at a disadvantage by the later Canon APS-C models which could all accept EF-S lenses. The 10D was the last 1.6-crop Canon that required full-frame EF lenses.

Okay, EF-S never did (In My Opinion) live up to its promise of making better wide-angle lenses by reducing the lens-to-sensor working distance. Mainly, EF-S became a sub-brand for less-expensive glass.

But that's my point: if money's no object, why buy an old camera like a 10D? And if money is an object, why buy a camera that needs more-expensive lenses, like a 10D? A 20D or, even better, a 30D will cost a bit more but you'll probably save that much on your first EF-S lens (compared to the EF lens you'd need with a 10D).

This is a good reminder, Mike. I just bought a new DSLR and I...must...go...shoot!

On today's tech becoming tomorrow's collectible: it doesn't feel like that's happening, does it? The ubiquity of today's tech triumphs means that years from now everyone is going to have an iPhone 4 buried in a drawer somewhere, and that's no ticket to paradise. About the only piece of tech from my youth that's worth anything at all is a Vectrex gaming console, where the vector display it's based on can still be seen as novel for some (though of course not state of the art). And that's worth just a few hundred dollars.


Think on the bright side, its a great camera for someone moving up from a point and shoot. Come to thing of it, I started on photography with an old Kodak 35 rangefinder given to me by a photographer - uncle. Great learning tool and I was THRILLED to have a real camera and not an instamatic.

Old soldiers like this just cry out for IR or full-spectrum conversion for one's own use, or to be donated, along with a Nifty Fifty f/1.8, to a would-be student photographer who doesn't have enough money to buy new. Phone cameras are ubiquitous, but poor students may welcome a chance to try the real thing. P.S. The local public library has a few Canon Rebels with early video capacity on offer.

Gary, it's an attitude change from the film days. Then, you could try a higher-end body and, if you shopped at all carefully, if you decided it didn't get you what you had hoped, you could sell it on with little loss (not so much if you'd bought it new; but with careful used shopping). These days things depreciate much much faster.

Just a month or so ago, I got my 10D off the shelf and began using it again for product photography for the web, and it is still excellent for closeup work. Like Richard said, 10D images have a very nice look and so it's become a workhorse for me again. Strange coincidence to see these recollections from 10D owners,

Ah, had one of those. Made many photos with it, which endure and delight, but the camera itself is long forgotten. My similar age Oly E-1 is still with me, still takes outstanding photos. No point to selling it.

As there is no needs to buying anything new beyond my E-M1 or M-P. Their lifespan is all in front of them and they surpass my needs easily.

So why do we keep buying new cameras? Marketing and the ill-founded hope that a new camera will make us better photographers? Or just the delight of enjoying new gadgets? Nothing wrong with the latter, as long as we don't kid ourselves that it is photography.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007