RE: Nishika Cameras

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kersenbrock spake thusly:

>"Intrinsic value"?  Maybe not.  "Market value"  Yes.

Ah ha!  Here we have the crux of the biscuit.

>If supply and demand had it such that 3.5 Realists go for $1K on
>average, then that's its average market value (it's probably not
>the market value for each individual camera).  If really good digital 
>stereo cameras come out, then all those $1K ones may then be worth
>89 cents because that's all people are willing to pay.

You make what I believe is a flawed assumption that film photographers
would immediately flock to such a camera.  Perhaps some would, but I
think a better example might be if a camera like the RBT X2 came on the
market, widely available, for a few hundred dollars.  An event like
THAT would knock the bottom out of the '50s stereo camera market
because it's an apples-and-apples comparison (at least insofar as
media is concerned, i.e. film).  Yes, there would still be a collector's
market, but the user's market would be vastly undercut, with the usual
die-hard exceptions (and you know who you are).

>The value of THAT CAMERA THEN is what it sold for.  The value of any
>of the cameres that Dalia sells in her auction is was that which
>it sold at.

>This doesn't mean that ALL cameras of the same model are suddenly 
>worth that value.  It just means that specific camera was worth that
>amount, at that time, "there".

This is where we disagree.  The COST of that camera is what it sold
for.  This single transaction has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its
VALUE.  (Try telling your insurance company that you paid $5,000 for
the stereo Realist you lost in a fire, and watch them laugh at you when
you expect to be reimbursed in kind.)  That's why there are such things
as appraisers, who determine the VALUE of something, irrespective of its
cost to you.  They look at a large number of transactions, and transactions
involving similar items, not a single, possibly aberrent sale.

>It's the definition of market value for an item.  Doesn't mean
>all similar items are worth that.  Or the same one at a different
>time or place.

I thoroughly disagree!  "Market value" is what an item is worth, on
average, to the entire collection of possible buyers (the "market").
You are simply talking about the sale price, which only determines
market value over a large number of such transactions (and still is
subject to change depending on the market conditions, i.e. supply
and demand).

>If you say that a Realist is worth $100~150 where did that number come
>from?  Isn't that a *market* value?  The price that people paid, high
>or low?

Yes, it is the market value, the average price paid and accepted by a
collection of buyers and sellers.  This is nothing like your definition
quoted three paragraphs up, where the "market value" is determine by
a single transaction.

>There seems to be no way of attaching dollar (yen, marks, etc) value to pure
>"intrinsics" because dollar value is inherently a market-thing.

I'll admit that's a tough one.  Market forces are inherently dynamic.
Nevertheless, prices for utilitarian items like cameras do seem to
reflect, in a relative way, the functionality of the item.  Of course
there are exceptions, like when a camera becomes "collectible" for
some unknown reason, driving the market value up (but not the instrinsic
value!).  This is also known as a "fad" and has caused many otherwise
useless items to become temporarily very valuable, for no reason other
than popularity.

>About the relationship of value between a Realist and a Belplasca.
>If one uses the criterion of "how good" the pictures it takes as the valuation
>method, exactly how much "better picture" constitutes "twice the value",
>and how is it measured?

Yes, this was part of my point in asking the question.  Is the Belplasca
10 times as sharp, or 10 times easier to use or some combination of
better ergonomics and picture-taking ability which makes it 10 times
better?   An order of magnitude is a BIG improvement!  In the Bel's case
I think it is the scarcity more than any qualitative difference.  Didn't
P3D's own informal poll indicate there were about 10-15x fewer Bels than
there are Realists? (1x,xxx vs. 15x,xxx) 

>Further, is this the *only* criteria for how much stereo cameras are worth?
>Is the picture a camera takes it's ONLY basis of value?

Clearly not.  Part of them problem is that we're talking about items
which are collected, as well as simply used, and so condition is going
to affect market value.  A pure user may not care if the camera shows some
brassing, and a pure collector may not care if the shutter is slow, but the
market value takes BOTH of these into account, because the market consists
of both collectors and users.

        -Greg W.


------------------------------