# What qualifies as a collectible?



## orangespot (Nov 29, 2010)

I saw this on ebay, and wondered if it would be considered a collectible and whether collectible cameras go up in value with time.
Minolta Maxxum 9xi, mint cond with lots of extras!!! - eBay (item 180591061079 end time Nov-29-10 18:00:37 PST)


----------



## Allen (Nov 29, 2010)

Minolta is middle of the line in terms of quality, and I wouldn't consider that one particularly collectable (not that it's a bad camera, it's not).
Cameras are technology driven in much the same way as computers and their values tend to follow a similar curve. 
Oft times when a vintage camera is worth more than its purchase price it is due to inflation more than intrinsic value. 

And if you are looking to purchase collectables as an investment, you would be better served looking at stamps, coins, or even comic books.


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 30, 2010)

A collection can be anything from a random group of to a full representation of.

Generally when talking about a camera a collectible means one which you store on a shelf where you can see it instead of a closet or drawer.

It's an individual opinion- but the more individuals that share the opinion do tend to drive up the cost.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 30, 2010)

For cameras, I doubt that anything is going to go "up" in value, unless it is exceedingly rare.  Lecias and Rollies are expensive these days, because of all the people that always wanted one but could never afford it--I doubt the younger "digital generation" will be so enamored.

What will remain collectible and increase in value is anything with historical significance. A camera owned by a famous photographer, or used to take a famous photo--things like that.


----------



## Mitica100 (Dec 1, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> For cameras, I doubt that anything is going to go "up" in value, unless it is exceedingly rare.  Lecias and Rollies are expensive these days, because of all the people that always wanted one but could never afford it--I doubt the younger "digital generation" will be so enamored.
> 
> What will remain collectible and increase in value is anything with historical significance. A camera owned by a famous photographer, or used to take a famous photo--things like that.



Exactly! Well put!

What is collectible and what is it not? Well, everything can be collectible to someone but if we are talking valuable collectibles, then there are different parameters one should go by in collecting. For example, everyone likes to collect *Brownies*, they're cute, cheap and at every thrift store in town. Some collectors go as far as collecting *Brownies* made in various countries or various sizes. Others, including myself, like to go after the rare cameras, the ones that hold their value in time. *Leicas*, *Contaxes*, *Rolleiflexes* are all collectible because their values hold. That being said, a *Contax* that came from a German U-Boat (_Kriegsmarine_ issue) holds a lot more value than a *Contax* of the same make but made for general public. I happen to have one like that. Also, a *Hasselblad* which belonged to someone famous will be considered more valuable than a user *Hasselblad*. I have one like that as well.

The name of the maker is really not that important though when it comes to collectibles. Of a lot more importance is how rare one camera is, in other words how small of a run that camera had in production. For example, a *Kodak Ektra* 35mm camera in good functioning order is a lot more valuable than most *Leicas* due to the fact that they only had a small run of over 2,000 cameras. Same goes with the *Kodak Super 620*, small production run and also important historically, being the very first camera with an automatic exposure. The very first 35mm SLR camera, *Sport*, made in the former USSR in 1933-34 is historically valuable and so is its main competitor, the *Exakta* (many claim Exakta was first, but really they were the first successfully marketed 35mm SLR). A *Red Flag*, Chinese copy of a *Leica M2* is very hard to come by due to restrictions imposed by the Chinese government, hence is valuable. These are just a few examples.



> And if you are looking to purchase collectables as an investment, you would be better served looking at stamps, coins, or even comic books.



Rare cameras hold their values as well as the other collectibles mentioned, sometimes even better. The trick is to know what cameras you collect. And that needs a lot of camera manufacturing study.

If you want to start collecting cameras, go for it! Start small, then study as much as you can, read as much as you can on the web and then decide what suits you best. Some collect cameras from the 19th century, some collect stereo cameras, some collect toy cameras. It's up to you what you end up liking.

Take a peek at my collecting page below my signature, if interested.

Good luck!


----------



## usayit (Dec 2, 2010)

I collect lots of things including cameras that are considered "collectible" but they rarely appreciate in value (except to me).    Camera's as an investment is a bit crazy.  It is a strange world that I don't totally understand.   Heck, some non-functioning demo pieces are fetching $$$ over the real functioning version.  A beat up Black painted Leica M3 is several times more valuable than a mint Chrome M3.  Why?

Anyways, Mitca pretty much gives good advice if you wish to start a collection.   I would like to add that you should decide on a "theme", "model", "type", etc.. of which to build a collection on.   I think a collection is more appealing when you have some sort of direction rather than just accumulation of all sorts of stuff.  Examples:

* Toy plastic camera collection
* Box Kodak cameras
* (In my case) Takumar/Pentax screwmounts.
* Leica (expensive)
* Russian copies of Contax and Leica

etc...

Speaking of minolta....   I have one in my collection which was my father's passed on to me thus sentimental.   A minolta Maxxum 7000 which was the first "successfully marketed" 35mm body which incorporated autofocus.   It sits right next to my Pentax ME-F with matching zoom lens which was the first "failed" attempt at marketing a 35mm autofocus camera.  You can look at the two examples side by side and clearly see where "Pentax went wrong..."


----------



## compur (Dec 2, 2010)

usayit said:


> It sits right next to my Pentax ME-F with matching zoom lens which was the first "failed" attempt at marketing a 35mm autofocus camera.  You can look at the two examples side by side and clearly see where "Pentax went wrong..."



The ME-F was not the only SLR in this category. Two other very similar 
competing cameras were the Olympus OM-F/OM-30 and the Canon T80.  

All were similar in that they relied on most of the AF electronics and 
mechanisms being in the lens alone. All three designs bombed.  Pentax 
moved to integrated AF SLRS like the successful SF-1, etc and Canon 
quickly went to the integrated EOS models which were also successful. 

Olympus tried various other systems (OM77, OM88) but never really got a 
successful interchangeable lens AF film SLR design.  Instead they went to 
fixed lens "ZLRs" (fixed Zoom Lens Reflex cameras) like the IS-series.

You might also add the Nikon F3/AF to this list of not-so-hot first AF SLR
designs though I think it was more successful than the ones mentioned above.
It also has considerably higher collectible value today than the others.
A few years after the F3/AF was introduced Nikon released the N2020 which 
was successful (I still have one that works perfectly) and they continued on 
with their N-series, etc.


----------



## usayit (Dec 2, 2010)

compur said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > It sits right next to my Pentax ME-F with matching zoom lens which was the first "failed" attempt at marketing a 35mm autofocus camera.  You can look at the two examples side by side and clearly see where "Pentax went wrong..."
> ...



Yup...   All of them introduced after ME-F (1981).   There were earlier examples of AF but not in the form of SLRs.   Many of them failed because of the idea that you can take existing manual focus based design and "tack" on AF.   This included the ME-F.   Minolta decided to do a ground up design which is why their systems were quickly accepted into market.    

Interesting enough, one of the early pioneers in autofocus was Leitz (Leica).  It was a business decision that autofocus wouldn't become popular.  As such, they used their AF patents to leverage an agreement with Minolta to help launch their SLR line while Minolta continued to improve where Leica left off.   Leica didn't embrace autofocus at all... even today...  only starting with the awfully expensive S2.   I think they f'd up! 

My ME-F's autofocus is PAINFULLY slow and clumsy but I had a kick out of searching for a usable combination (AF only with the supported lens) and using it for a short time.  Its slow enough that you can manually focus the lens in shorter time.  I first found the ME-F  35-70mm f/2.8 AF zoom lens at a camera swap in box and purchased it for $35.   Its decent zoom for its time.   The original receipt was inside... for a WOOPING $500.. that's a lot of money in the 80s.   It took a few more years to track down an operational ME-F body to go with it... I think it was an ebay find out of Canada.   I still get a kick out of it once in a while...  12 batteries total to power the camera, winder, and lens.  lol


----------



## compur (Dec 2, 2010)

Vivitar also marketed some lenses with built-in AF capability around the same 
time in various mounts.  They were also pretty slow but they worked.


----------

