USED PRICES

[BlackRockArt]

It can be frustrating to see the prices you get when selling used gear. I've seen financial statements on one of the big used equipment shops. The information is a little dated now, but they make a lot less money than you think. They offer about half or less of what they expect to sell the gear for within 60 days. Their buying costs are before considering costs to ship, inspect, and repair gear being acquired. That runs around 10%. They typically have a gross profit of around 40%. Selling costs for used camera gear typically run around 28-30% - including shipping and handling costs on gear they sell. That leaves them with a profit before admin and overhead of around 12%. But there is a lot of gear that stays in inventory and continues to depreciate. And they usually have a very liberal return policy, so there is some warranty cost as well as a reasonable amount of returns. After all those costs, there is still a business to run so you need management, IT, facilities, etc. IT costs are remarkably high, and they can't cut IT costs. Overall, they net around 8%.

These companies have a substantial investment in inventory. The inventory they are carrying is going down in value pretty rapidly these days, so it's easy to lose 5-10% annually on their inventory (not sales). If they turn their inventory every 90 days on average, that's still 1-2% off their net profits. Slow moving items carry a lot more risk.

There are a couple of companies that will sell your equipment on consignment. They still charge 25-30% for selling costs. If you try to sell it on consignment, the dealer you work with will probably take 20-30%. With both of these approaches, you bear the costs of insurance, depreciation, and potential damage until it sells. The reality is whatever price you ask is probably above market and will end up being discounted to get the gear sold.

Thank you, Eric. Your notes are spot on regarding the inventory & cash flow, the profit margin is very thin for most brick-mortar camera stores, their most profitable gears are filters, 3rd party batteries, or any other photography acceossries.

Personally I don't have problem with the offered prices for the used gears, I did get upset a few years ago when I tried to sell some lens and bodies on e-Bay. Hidden in the user clauses & terms is: eBay charges & deducts 15% fee even I did NOT sell the items. I was robbed $800 of fees on UNSOLD gears.

I promptly closed my 20-year eBay accounts afterwards.



Oliver

 

[O]

Thank you, Eric. Your notes are spot on regarding the inventory & cash flow, the profit margin is very thin for most brick-mortar camera stores, their most profitable gears are filters, 3rd party batteries, or any other photography acceossries.

Personally I don't have problem with the offered prices for the used gears, I did get upset a few years ago when I tried to sell some lens and bodies on e-Bay. Hidden in the user clauses & terms is: eBay charges & deducts 15% fee even I did NOT sell the items. I was robbed $800 of fees on UNSOLD gears.

I promptly closed my 20-year eBay accounts afterwards.



Oliver

So they basicly are charging 15% of the value of the goods being advertised ??

 

[groob]

Thank you, Eric. Your notes are spot on regarding the inventory & cash flow, the profit margin is very thin for most brick-mortar camera stores, their most profitable gears are filters, 3rd party batteries, or any other photography acceossries.

Personally I don't have problem with the offered prices for the used gears, I did get upset a few years ago when I tried to sell some lens and bodies on e-Bay. Hidden in the user clauses & terms is: eBay charges & deducts 15% fee even I did NOT sell the items. I was robbed $800 of fees on UNSOLD gears.

I promptly closed my 20-year eBay accounts afterwards.



Oliver

I’m not sure what happened, but I definitely do not think that is the way eBay works. I’ve canceled numerous listings and didn’t pay anything.

 

[BlackRockArt]

Its interesting how things are changing, the other post reply regarding the stills future versus video i feel video is clearly diminished the use of stills.

Yes, i see surprisingly many long standing club members who have been doing stills for decades moving slowly and exploring some video, along with doing stills, why because they can now with newer .......................
Would i prefer to look at a still shot or video, in their lies the answer and direction of photography versus videography, will there always be a place for stills yes is my feeling.

Should we do what ever makes us happy ABSOLUTELY.

Totally, the photography is not going away, it's becoming a kind of "niche" art genre; I still print my photos regularly but do feel like a dinasour.

So they basicly are charging 15% of the value of the goods being advertised ??

I’m not sure what happened, but I definitely do not think that is the way eBay works. I’ve canceled numerous listings and didn’t pay anything.

I do not want to hijack the thread, but suffice to say, eBay does everything possible to squeeze last penny from the sellers. Duing the previous year just before those last two incidents, eBay charged me $2000 fees for the auctions, I understood and accepted the fees. So it was a real kick in the guts to see my accounts got deducted $800 for some listings, even though I did NOT sell or get any payment from the buyers.

In my opinion, EBay, and to a certain degree Paypal both engage in dishonest business practice.

Regards

Oliver

 

[Mal Paso]

Videos demand attention or require blocking out. I think that's why those electronic ever-changing photo frames didn't become more popular, they are too demanding. A photograph can be displayed and appreciated at the viewers discretion.

 

[O]

No - you just took the middle man out of the equation and did the work yourself!

Used DSLR Prices are they offensive or indicative of reality ?

Yes i see what your saying, however its unfortunate and the point where a lot of people don't understand,

the dealer needs to carry

finance cost for inventory,
pay wages to staff and them self,
401 k,
health insurance,
state and federal taxes,
business insurances,
rent,
provide service,
and above all warranty.

Used camera gear is a tough gig especially DSLR gear at the moment with no sign of it getting better.
Mirror less gear is slowly coming onto the market even the Z9 is on a ground swell.

Its not till you run your own business you would be blown away at the cost of doing so and the marginal profit levels.

Profit comes from unit sales volume or margins, if their is a glut of product or competition volume sales and margin is down, simple.

Cutting out the dealer and selling privately is defiantly the way to go, but to expect a dealer or business to be that generous and pay top dollar is just not possible.

E bay cost for doing business is on average 18% to 25% based on some people i know who make a modest living on Ebay, Pay pal do deals but cost 3 to 4% last time i looked, then you have to pay taxes on profits.

One positive out of all this DSLR gear available is, WOW, its like being in Willie Wonkers chocolate factory, all the good gear for almost nothing, why even go mirror less if you have skill sets.

There is some really good in fact amazing gear out there for absolute give away bargains and very hard to ignore in cases.

The mirror less market is for many the trend and way to go it seems, but gee some of the A grade outcomes in hi end competitions have surprised us when we see they have actually come from DSLR gear in capable hands.

I saw a Jurno, he was awarded a high honor for his outcomes delivered to his media group, he had several Z9 units with DSLR 24-70 G, yes G, equally i have seen as good if not better images delivered from another Jurno using a D5 same G lens, the strength of the both outcomes was the composition, both Jurnos said it doesn't matter what your using if you know what your doing.

I said why does one have the Z9 the other the D5, the answer was, as you rush out the door we just grab what ever is available or left on the shelf, we are photographers, story tellers.

So for those people who cant move to mirror less or sell their DSLR gear should never feel left behind, 90% of what you achieve comes from you not just the gear.


Only an opinion

 

[Mal Paso]

There shouldn't be a tax liability for the sale of personal equipment. If the equipment was deducted as a business expense the sale price would be taxable.

 

[O]

There shouldn't be a tax liability for the sale of personal equipment. If the equipment was deducted as a business expense the sale price would be taxable.

I agree with you if its personal goods,
In my reference above its to the dealer in business or any commercial business even ones operating on E Bay.

 

[O]

Used prices provides great ways for people to buy formerly very expensive F2.8 or F1.4 glass at a bargain.

The dealers will cherry pick the gems to only deal with and leave the rest to E bay land fill, i assume.

300 F4 PF, 500 PF, 200-500, 105 macro, 105 1.4E, 70-200 FL, i mean there will always be better, better by how much depends on who is using it.

Mirror less is fantastic, its the future and the gateway to videography, the glass is very good and defiantly in many cases has an edge over some of the DSLR glass, but it doesn't make FX glass or cameras unusable or obsolete for so many people.

Interesting, and i am surprised how many club members I see still just loving what they have and do, and don't want to re invest in a whole different system.

Its been interesting to see some peoples actual reaction and feed back, yet others that have moved completely to mirror less are over the moon at first then settle to yes it has some advantages.

Its all very personal i guess, as one member said, i let the images do the talking, not whats trending or popular.

Some people have actually gone back to film for the arty craft experience, also some have bought cheap very old manual prime lenses and using them on their Z8 Z9 with the adapter for video ?? beyond me sorry.

Only an opinion

 

[agrumpybirdphotographer]

I agree with all the comments regarding used/trade in prices and been both disappointed with and have reluctantly accepted poor offers in the past. Generally accepting offers for expediency rather than go through the pain of FB Marketplace, e-Bay and all the other ways. But hey that’s just me and my choice.

Since moving (partially) to mirrorless two years ago I have moved on several F-Mount lenses and puchased some Z mount replacements which have been great. However I still hold a couple of F-Mount lenses in the guise of 300mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.8 macro. I don’t mind being called sentimental or even daft but these two lenses are still brilliant even on a Z body and I’m loathed to move them on especially given the current used market.

Bottom line is I have spent alot (incredibly understanding wife) over the years investing in this wildlife photography “hobby/obsession” and paid a small fortune 12 years ago for the 300mm from new. The way I feel at the moment is that I’m more likely to hold on to these two lenses until either they die or fail such as they can’t be repaired, I love the 300 despite the weight and love how its built like a tank. I still use it as well as the macro but don’t use that near so much so not worth changing for me. I just feel it is incredibly unlikely I’d be able to afford a big prime fast lens again certainly not at £10k plus.

So finally for me its all down to personal preferences, circumstances and I guess in my case as silly as it sounds how attached you get to your camera gear.

But as I said at the start if selling then the used market prices and offers certainly leave a lot to be desired.

 

[O]

I agree with all the comments regarding used/trade in prices and been both disappointed with and have reluctantly accepted poor offers in the past. Generally accepting offers for expediency rather than go through the pain of FB Marketplace, e-Bay and all the other ways. But hey that’s just me and my choice.

Since moving (partially) to mirrorless two years ago I have moved on several F-Mount lenses and puchased some Z mount replacements which have been great. However I still hold a couple of F-Mount lenses in the guise of 300mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.8 macro. I don’t mind being called sentimental or even daft but these two lenses are still brilliant even on a Z body and I’m loathed to move them on especially given the current used market.

Bottom line is I have spend alot (incredibly understanding wife) over the years investing in this wildlife photography “hobby/obsession” and paid a small fortune 12 years ago for the 300mm from new. The way I feel at the moment is that I’m more likely to hold on to these two lenses until either they die or fail such as they can’t be repaired, I love the 300 despite the weight and love how its built like a tank. I still use it as well as the macro but don’t use that near so much so not worth changing for me. I just feel it is incredibly unlikely I’d be able to afford a big prime fast lens again certainly not at £10k plus.

So finally for me its all down to personal preferences, circumstances and I guess in my case as silly as it sounds how attached you get to your camera gear.

But as I said at the start if selling then the used market prices and offers certainly leave a lot to be desired.

If you look at he canoe being paddled not far behind you its me, i am on your journey also LOL.

In my case i also have the 300 2.9 VR II, i simply love it and always have as i use it so much and mostly at F2.8.

 

[Len Shepherd]

In the UK a used 400 mm F2 .8 AFS sells for about 10% less than a 600 mm F6.3 Z and a used D850 sells for about half the price of a new Z8, both prices retail with typically a 6 month warranty.

With these sorts of used prices I see no point in buying good quality F mount equipment new, though there is a saying some people do not look further than their nose end.

This aside with a new Z 400mm (with in built converter) costing about £9,000 more (£14,000 + ) while better - is it worth 3 times the price of the AF-S used, especially as a Z8 body effectively dramatically improves F mount AF capability.

This raises a potential conundrum. Should an aspiring wildlife or sports photographer buy the 600 mm F6 .3 Z - or a secondhand 600 mm F4 AFS at a similar price point. Probably slightly better optics v f2.8 - start the good fight

 

[O]

USED DSLR gear

Rent anything before you buy it.

600 F4 FL is getting cheaper to buy or rent.

600mm F4 prime lenses at F4 do very much the similar thing as a Prime F2.8 does on say a 300 F2.8.

If low light shooting and performance is very important for you, you know the answer.

If weight is an issue you know the answer,

The 600 F6.3 in very very good opticslly, very light, in good light conditions its hard to
tell the differnce optically easily between it and the exotic 600 F4 TC its hat good.

Rent both before you buy is the simple pathway.

If i need 600mm i rent usually a FL F4 as its cheap to do so, on the Z9, Z8 or D6 or D850 perfoms perfectly, i have used the 600 F6.3 and love it very much becuase of its size and weight, while its very good i did find it better in fair weather mainly,

On the FL F4 i don't mind changing a TC on rare occasions if ever needed.

Back to you, again if low light, weight and handling matters you know teh answers.

Its happy days,

Only an opinion

 

[O]

Thank you, Eric. Your notes are spot on regarding the inventory & cash flow, the profit margin is very thin for most brick-mortar camera stores, their most profitable gears are filters, 3rd party batteries, or any other photography acceossries.

Personally I don't have problem with the offered prices for the used gears, I did get upset a few years ago when I tried to sell some lens and bodies on e-Bay. Hidden in the user clauses & terms is: eBay charges & deducts 15% fee even I did NOT sell the items. I was robbed $800 of fees on UNSOLD gears.

I promptly closed my 20-year eBay accounts afterwards.



Oliver

I found the few times i used E bay i was unhappy with the type of buyers it attracted, they wanted everything for nothing, add to this the use of Pay Pal today its not cheap anymore, or no different to traditional news paper advertising was before they went digital.