Shocking resale experience on P1 gear. Very disappointed!

[sbernthal]

Well...yes and no. I think the way they estimate the value of used backs for their trade-in program is very much a point of reference for many users.
And I think the PhaseOne lenses keep their value about as well as Canon lenses do - keep in mind that you're not 'forced' to use Phase lenses, you can also use Mamiya lenses and they'll work just as good - so people on the 2nd hand market (who want to save money after all) can get the same or similar performance for very little money these days.

If you want to get a 120mm macro you can chose between the old manual 120mm Mamiya 'A', the Mamiya 120mm Macro for AF (without AF) , the "D" Version, the PhaseOne without AF, the PhaseOne 'D', the PhaseOne with AF and the LS version...
With Canon in the other hand you can't use legacy lenses and that's kind of a big deal (or rather it was a big deal back when they ditched the FD-mount). I'd say the reason why PhaseOne lenses have a comparatively "low" resale value (compared to their initial investment) it that they were 'nice' enough to keep the Mamiya 645 mount. At least until now, who knows what future developments will bring...

I disagree.
The market determines resale value based on actual demand, not based on MSRPs.

As far as 120mm macro lenses, I've used pretty much all generations - this is a classic example where there was a marked difference between each and every generation. Every model you go back you lose either functionality or quality.

[JoeKitchen]

Sometimes I find the conversations here maddening.   

Guess what, things depreciate, and expensive things depreciate by larger amounts.  I hate to see some people here buy a car.   

If you really want to make money off of the resale of digital backs (or maybe not loose any), get a dealer license, buy wholesale and start selling them.  Or, buy your back, never take it out of the packaging, never shoot it, keep it pristine and in 50 or 60 years, blow the dust off, and perhaps someone will be willing to pay a high price for it, perhaps. 

Otherwise, don't buy on emotions, don't expect a great return from reselling, and don't be scared to use your equipment. 

Like I tell every green assistant who gets fascinated and nervous when standing near a MFD system, "it's just a camera!" 

[Christoph B.]

I disagree.
The market determines resale value based on actual demand, not based on MSRPs.

As far as 120mm macro lenses, I've used pretty much all generations - this is a classic example where there was a marked difference between each and every generation. Every model you go back you lose either functionality or quality.

If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.

As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.

[eronald]

Joe,

 I like your sense of humor and clarity of thought

 +1

 It's an interesting question whether the backs will still be restorable in 50 years. I have restored a bunch of old Powerbook 180C, that are more than 20 years old, even have a new battery and an SSD in one of them, and for artistic purposes -writing, notes- the functionality is good.

Edmund

Sometimes I find the conversations here maddening.   

Guess what, things depreciate, and expensive things depreciate by larger amounts.  I hate to see some people here buy a car.   

If you really want to make money off of the resale of digital backs (or maybe not loose any), get a dealer license, buy wholesale and start selling them.  Or, buy your back, never take it out of the packaging, never shoot it, keep it pristine and in 50 or 60 years, blow the dust off, and perhaps someone will be willing to pay a high price for it, perhaps. 

Otherwise, don't buy on emotions, don't expect a great return from reselling, and don't be scared to use your equipment. 

Like I tell every green assistant who gets fascinated and nervous when standing near a MFD system, "it's just a camera!"

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,

 I like your sense of humor and clarity of thought

 +1

 It's an interesting question whether the backs will still be restorable in 50 years. I have restored a bunch of old Powerbook 180C, that are more than 20 years old, even have a new battery and an SSD in one of them, and for artistic purposes -writing, notes- the functionality is good.

Edmund

Sometimes Edmund, I have no idea if you are being sincere, but I'll assume you are here. 

I think the problem with most is that they do not realize Phase One is in the business of selling cameras, so of course they are going to say they are the best and you need what they have to make a great image.  This is not true, sort of, just like my clients do not need great images of their product to sell, sort of. 

Of course, for certain types of work, a MFD system will enhance your ability and give you tools you otherwise would not have, but in others, it will greatly hinder your work. 

So you really need to be able to understand what you need and buy accordingly. 

I love my system, but I made my choose to buy after thorough research and looked at the purchase from the standpoint of a professional, which many here do not since they are not pros.  I did not allow my emotions to take hold of me and my viewpoints really came down to the value of my work and how it will help me standout. 

(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)

So I bought what I needed, a P45+ 5 years after it was released.  Not the newest back, but the only one that did long exposures well (at the time), and had enough MP to make client happy (and it still does).  I also, from what I heard, was a pretty hard negotiator, and the IQ260 had been announced along with the discontinuation of the P45+ to the dealers (not the public though) during negotiations, which I am sure, unbeknownst to me, helped me get a lower price. 

So, moral, don't buy on emotion and have an realistic expectation of what the back will do and the value it will offer and retain. 

Personally, if I were to buy a back now, I would get a refurb IQ260 with an XF body, and bitch and moan enough to get the value added warranty of the back to extend onto the camera body as well.  (And of course have my tech camera and lenses too  )

[eronald]

Who cares whether *I* am sincere or not, *you* are certainly knowledgable, and clarifying the equation for the OP better than I could ever do it.

I think in a few years large low-rez sensors will appear and there will be a renaissance of large format. However, my feeling is that just now MF is too much bother for too much money and too little advantage.

Edmund

Sometimes Edmund, I have no idea if you are being sincere, but I'll assume you are here. 

I think the problem with most is that they do not realize Phase One is in the business of selling cameras, so of course they are going to say they are the best and you need what they have to make a great image.  This is not true, sort of, just like my clients do not need great images of their product to sell, sort of. 

Of course, for certain types of work, a MFD system will enhance your ability and give you tools you otherwise would not have, but in others, it will greatly hinder your work. 

So you really need to be able to understand what you need and buy accordingly. 

I love my system, but I made my choose to buy after thorough research and looked at the purchase from the standpoint of a professional, which many here do not since they are not pros.  I did not allow my emotions to take hold of me and my viewpoints really came down to the value of my work and how it will help me standout. 

(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)

So I bought what I needed, a P45+ 5 years after it was released.  Not the newest back, but the only one that did long exposures well (at the time), and had enough MP to make client happy (and it still does).  I also, from what I heard, was a pretty hard negotiator, and the IQ260 had been announced along with the discontinuation of the P45+ to the dealers (not the public though) during negotiations, which I am sure, unbeknownst to me, helped me get a lower price. 

So, moral, don't buy on emotion and have an realistic expectation of what the back will do and the value it will offer and retain. 

Personally, if I were to buy a back now, I would get a refurb IQ260 with an XF body, and bitch and moan enough to get the value added warranty of the back to extend onto the camera body as well.  (And of course have my tech camera and lenses too  )

[JoeKitchen]

I think in a few years large low-rez sensors will appear and there will be a renaissance of large format. However, my feeling is that just now MF is too much bother for too much money and too little advantage.

Edmund

That would be pretty awesome. 

There are many advantages (when looked at from a certain perspective) to having longer lenses and a larger image recording plane. 

Depth of field, or lack thereof, is one of them. 

[eronald]

That would be pretty awesome. 

There are many advantages (when looked at from a certain perspective) to having longer lenses and a larger image recording plane. 

Depth of field, or lack thereof, is one of them.

I've noticed old landscape plate camera city imagery looks sharper and much more "3D" than the modern stuff. No idea why.

Edmund

[sbernthal]

If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.

As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.

You're expecting Phase to pay more than market value.
That would be nice for the customers, but Phase is not promising that nor doing that.
True that they are sort of implying it, but you can't sue them for that.

As far as 120, as I did say there is in fact a difference.
Mamiya D is much better optically than Mamiya non D.
Phase One D is optically better than Mamiya D from the period before Phase One D.
Mamiya D made after Phase One D is made, is the same lens.
AF lens is optically better than D.
LS is optically the same as AF, but functionally and cosmetically better.

[razrblck]

(Absolutely, my hobbyist inside wants an IQ3 100, but will it really make my work and business more valuable, probably not.)

That's me every day, even if I do it just for fun. Still, I really need something longer than 50mm on crop!

[Christoph B.]

You're expecting Phase to pay more than market value.
That would be nice for the customers, but Phase is not promising that nor doing that.
True that they are sort of implying it, but you can't sue them for that.

As far as 120, as I did say there is in fact a difference.
Mamiya D is much better optically than Mamiya non D.
Phase One D is optically better than Mamiya D from the period before Phase One D.
Mamiya D made after Phase One D is made, is the same lens.
AF lens is optically better than D.
LS is optically the same as AF, but functionally and cosmetically better.

No. I'm telling you that their policy is part of the general evaluation of the worth of second hand backs.

The differences between the Mamiya non-AF non-D and the LS version are so minute, that nobody will be able to tell the differences in the final image, especially when printed and with smaller apertures. Pixel peepers on a 100MP back might but they're not buying from the 2nd hand market anyway and that's the point.

[sbernthal]

The differences between the Mamiya non-AF non-D and the LS version are so minute, that nobody will be able to tell the differences in the final image, especially when printed and with smaller apertures.

In my actual experience that is not the case.
I'm sure you can design an experiment where the differences will be unnoticeable, but in my tests the differences are very noticeable.
There are a lot of different conditions under which a lens can be tested, and your statement is very far reaching.

[Christoph B.]

In my actual experience that is not the case.
I'm sure you can design an experiment where the differences will be unnoticeable, but in my tests the differences are very noticeable.
There are a lot of different conditions under which a lens can be tested, and your statement is very far reaching.

Well I can only tell you that I have the nonAf nonD version and it's as good as it gets on 60mp. That's all I care about and on the 2nd hand market you wouldn't realistically go much beyond 60 - if that.
And I'm talking about real life scenarios, not tests.

[sbernthal]

Well I can only tell you that I have the nonAf nonD version and it's as good as it gets on 60mp. That's all I care about and on the 2nd hand market you wouldn't realistically go much beyond 60 - if that.
And I'm talking about real life scenarios, not tests.

I am testing my real life.
My real life is not the same as your real life.
Not everybody uses their lenses in the parameters you do.

[Christoph B.]

Feel free to post comparisons and results!

Afaik they _all_ have the absolut exact same optical design and differ only in software and aperture/shutter design - and perhaps coatings. But the resulting differences should be close to 0.

[Theodoros]

If Phase 'paid' more their 2nd hand value would increase. It's as simple as that. If Phase values them as less their value would decrease. Someone who wants to trade up for the latest back would take every buck above what Phase offers - which is understandable - and word spreads about how much you can get for your old back.

I'm not sure I agree... P1 is consistently marketing their products as to turn a part of the market to funs of the particular firm... Hasselblad did the same until recently where they decided to "open" back the system... Now P1 blocked P+ backs (for no reason) from compatibility with the XF body, which (having a more capable platform) is exactly what their older customers where asking. They did that on purpose as to block third party backs (that are using the same interface as the P+ series) to be used on the XF body and thus blackmail them to change for an (overpriced) IQ series back since otherwise they'll have to change their lenses too if they decide to jump to a different platform... The aim is clearly to trap the customers in a (meaningless) upgrade path, where the customers will be forced, year by year with any new release, to spend a fortune as to feed the company... P+ series users now (like the O/P), are in a position where it is very difficult to find a customer for their backs (if it is in M645 mount) at all... If the O/P would be using a different platform, the back would have sold already at near to the asking price... The idea behind the policy, (it's an immoral policy, not a decision forced by tech advancement as they promote it - they could have both interfaces included in the XF and the let the customer decide as to when he would upgrade to a newer back and then select the later interface) is to force the customer as to trade his back for an (overpriced) IQ back and thus create customers out of nothing...

As far as I know the optical performance hasn't really changed and you can't tell the difference between the PhaseOne 'D' and the Mamiya 'D' or the AF or the LS version by its optical performance. Sure, the AF is nice but the MF is pretty good and in most cases faster. But that's not my point, my point is that by allowing users to take full advantage of legacy lenses the 2nd hand value of new lenses (which are in most cases as good as their predecessors) dops a bit.
Had PhaseOne decided to change the mount (which would have been a bad idea) the 2nd hand value of their new lens line would not drop as much as it does.

The optical performance hasn't change much for CCD backs either... only features have! The O/P's problem is that P1 has created an environment for him (in purpose) so that he can't find a customer at all of his back... The rapid devaluation is just a consequence...

[JoeKitchen]

I've noticed old landscape plate camera city imagery looks sharper and much more "3D" than the modern stuff. No idea why.

Edmund

Not sure if we will ever get that with digital, or not nearly as much. 

I use to do a lot of silver printing and toning.  When I started, I used cheap resin paper, then moved to Ilford fiber, which was a big difference. 

Then I moved to Bergger Warm-tone Fiber, which is beyond silver rich. 

Then, after toning the shadows with gold and the highlights and mid-tones with selenium, you could walk into those prints. 

Just something about heavy metals ingrained in the paper, as oppose to just sitting on top, that just made the image so much more 3-d. 

[Christoph B.]

I don't think that there are too few options on the 2nd hand market for PhaseOne backs with a Mamiya mount.

Mamiya AF, AFD, AFD II, AFDIII, DF, DF+ Phase One AF, DF , DF+ - all of them work with digital backs and are quite affordable on eBay etc. and still capable cameras, especially for beginners.

The P40+ simply isn't as popular as the 45+ but I don't think the price difference between the Hasselblad or Mamiya mount is huge. It's mostly depending on the condition and accessories and a lot of people make the "mistake" of offering the whole set instead of selling individual components and compare that price to the price of a back alone.

It's true, the decision to exclude the P/P+ backs may seem hard to understand but on the other hand you have to consider the fact that the last P+ back was designed/released in 2008.
Before the P/P+ there were the H and Lightphase backs, the last camera to support them was the Mamiya AFD II. The last H back was released in 2003. The Mamiya AFD III was released in 2008. Only 5 years between them but no cigar.

I think 7 years really is good enough - it's not a purely mechanical interface between the camera and the back after all.

@JoeKitchen: have you tried that process with 'digital negatives'? Printing your images as negatives on transparencies and then using them like negatives? I've had some success with several printing techniques.

[Theodoros]

I don't think that there are too few options on the 2nd hand market for PhaseOne backs with a Mamiya mount.

Mamiya AF, AFD, AFD II, AFDIII, DF, DF+ Phase One AF, DF , DF+ - all of them work with digital backs and are quite affordable on eBay etc. and still capable cameras, especially for beginners.

The P40+ simply isn't as popular as the 45+ but I don't think the price difference between the Hasselblad or Mamiya mount is huge. It's mostly depending on the condition and accessories and a lot of people make the "mistake" of offering the whole set instead of selling individual components and compare that price to the price of a back alone.

It's true, the decision to exclude the P/P+ backs may seem hard to understand but on the other hand you have to consider the fact that the last P+ back was designed/released in 2008.
Before the P/P+ there were the H and Lightphase backs, the last camera to support them was the Mamiya AFD II. The last H back was released in 2003. The Mamiya AFD III was released in 2008. Only 5 years between them but no cigar.

I think 7 years really is good enough - it's not a purely mechanical interface between the camera and the back after all.

The cameras up to DF have nothing to offer over an AFD but only some better AF... Heck, the H5X will work with any third party back, even one made 16 years ago... and with film too... I bet you that not many will share the opinion that their backs should be good on their platform for only 7 years... Especially if they are excluded on purpose by the maker! What P1 has to answer to those customers that bought a refurbished DF & P+ back only a few months before XF was announced?

[Christoph B.]

Every user who ever buys a products at any time risks every time that a new, better product will be announced shortly after his purchase - especially when you're talking about refurbished units.
It's not like P1 is required to stop people from buying stuff before they announce a new product - after all where do you draw the line? Someone might be alright having bought the camera a few days before the new one was announced, another customer might be unhappy even if he bought if 5 months ago.
Would you prefer a pre-announcement announcement? What would that do to the sales of the camera, that's still available?
If you buy apples at the supermarket and the tray is nearly empty but you still get a few good ones and after paying and walking out your realise they've put on another tray of apples on the shelve - would you demand to exchange your apples?

Nobody owes you anything. Nobody. The company owes only to support the product you've bought as long as your warranty is valid and honesty about the product itself. Nothing beyond that, even if it makes your life a little bit better. This isn't supposed to be mean but it seems people are treating certain companies differently based on their expectations alone.

If a computer from 2008 does not accept my cpu from 2016 (or vice versa) would I be annoyed? Sure. Would I be angry? Perhaps even that. But would I complain about that on a forum, expecting the manufacturer to support my quite 'old' product until the end of time? No. 7 years of support is quite enough for any digital gear. And it's still serviceable so if it breaks down you can get it repaired.

The cameras up to DF have nothing to offer over an AFD but only some better AF...

As far as I know each camera improved upon the AF and the communications and compatibility with digital backs and the AFDIII enables the use of LS lenses (but I don't know whether that includes the actual LS to be functional or just the aperture and AF to work). Those are surely minor but still noticeable differences - and that's over the span of many years.

To me even a slight improvement is an improvement and as far as I've heard many people were happy to get the DF+, especially with the Li-Ion batter back, which provided them with a very stable platform. Sure the XF has many bells and whistles and if you need AF it's good. But the DF+ is still a great camera, has amazingly long battery life and with latest firmware it's very stable. I don't know of any shot that the XF can take that a DF+ won't be able to take.