In general, if you think of photography equipment in terms of an investment in financial terms (e.g., getting 75% of money on sale) you're going to be sorely disappointed most all of the time. Don't think for a second that the Pentax is going to magically hold its value any better either. I've seen some pretty cheap offerings on the Pentax 645D of recent, less than 50% of new.
The point being is that I've found it best to look at photography equipment in terms of utility rather than financial return. If I want financial returns, I go to the stock market or other investment opportunities. It ain't in cameras. The utility or return that I get on my equipment is in generating income photographing for clients, and of course, the pure satisfaction I receive in my photographic endeavors. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ken, I never went into Dante's inferno thinking about getting any financial rewards. Photography is absolutely the wrong 'business' in that sense, I have always known that. However, one does expect some of the equipment to hold value, at least for a year or two. Like the big lenses from Canon, even my M9 and M240, my Summilux lenses. They all cost a whole lot of money but are still worth a lot even after many years in some instances.
THe fact is that Phase is priced too high to begin with, which makes its resale value that much lower. They are still selling a lot of units, particularly in the far east (just like Leica is) so they are not going to do anything about the price structure for a while yet.
I may be a minority of one here, but I feel there is far too much hype and not enough substance with some of the 'high end' photo gear. Bit like clothing or other 'fine items' of personal use. Does a $10K watch give you more accurate time? Or is a Lacoste T-shirt more enduring than a no-name (they are both made in China anyway)? I can see the 'value' in automotives to an extent and can understand the 'prestige' factor in many of these things.
But do people buy a camera because it makes them look good or because it makes their pictures look good? I bought into the Leica dream and soon realized that it did not deliver what I had thought it would. Sold it, but a year later bought the M240 when the virtues of CMOS were being sung from the rooftops in the photography world. Found it wanting again.
I am not a pro, just a serious enthusiast and quite passionate about photography. I am not averse to spending money on it either, heck I've done a lot of that already, not just in cameras and lenses but all the other things that go with them. I want the best that money can buy and yet there is the law of diminishing returns. If it costs ten times more to get that extra 10% then it is not for me. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter and maybe I realize that too late in the game.
If a camera doesn't provide some utility (generate income or photographic satisfaction) it's time to part ways. Quite frankly, I think you're moving kinda quick and it really has this forum worried. You break up with your IQ180 and you're already looking to get together with the Pentax. You don't even know her. It's a rebound relationship. She's a whore. She's cheap and let's almost anyone use her. I think when the novelty wears off, you'll dump her too. And get a boat.
Perhaps. Maybe it is justification of sorts. My first SLR was a Pentax, way back in the 80s (before that I had used a rangefinder, the Kodak Retina IIc for about 20 yrs). It is only fitting then that I should go back to it.
Which is why I do not mind the 'cheap whore' that the Pentax may be.
And as for boats, well, I'd rather drive my Tesla
