There is a great deal of competition among camera companies and modern technology is constantly changing so that camera (and particularly camrea sensors) are changing all the time.

That being said, in many cases there are few "practical" improvements moving from one camera to the camera that replaces it the following year.

Still, so many of us insist on following the idea that "newer is better" and so the push to regularly replace cameras continues and the value of existing cameras drops like a rock.

I started to pay attention to this a few years ago when I noticed that my old Olympus E-1 (a FANTASTIC camera) had a used value of less than $200. I was reminded again recently when I was able to buy back a used Nikon D2X (that I sold several years ago for $1,450) from the guy I sold it to for just $300!

That's right, I bought a gently used professional grade Nikon DSLR for less than the price of a refurbished D3100!

Sure, part of me is happy that we can find such INSANE deals on quality used gear, but another part of me says this is just WRONG.

Older cameras like the E1 or the D2X (as long as they don't have any component failures from old age) are as capable of capturing a great image today as they were when they were new and people raved about how awesome these cameras were.

More to the point, I just read two different posts on Mu-43 and Dpreview from people complaining that cameras announced within the last 6-12 months have "old sensor technology" and "aren't good for (insert your type of photography here)."

Why have we bought into the idea that a new sensor is the most important element of a camera?

I feel like the crazy depreciation of digital cameras is a symptom of so many photographers getting sucked into the marketing hype around new cameras and believing the NEED (not "want" or "desire" but NEED) to upgrade exists.

So, what is new? This is not new behavior. But there is some weakness to your hypothesis, you are really only surveying the part of the population were this behavior is important, not the general buying population at large. Surveying drunks to find the average alcohol intake for the entire population is a flawed sample.

Photographers have common sense ?
... wait..

__________________
GF-1, E-M5, 20/f1.7, 45/f1.8

If you want to blame anybody, blame the manufacturers for flooding the market with loads of relatively minor updates of the same design, plus the rapid evolution of technology over the past 10 years. It's that flood (and the accompanying marketing) that to a large degree drives the demand. The technological improvements mean that cheap gear today outperforms expensive gear from yesterday.

DH

__________________
E-M5 | E-PM2 | mZD 12-50 | ZD 12-60 | P 14-42 X | mZD 40-150 R | PL 25 | mZD 45

Welcome to the digital world, where everything becomes old pretty much instantly.

__________________
Olympus E-M5, Sony A65, lenses.

Minor updates and rapid evolution???

I think we blame the consumer for creating the situation we have today. The camera companies don't drive the market. At least from my experience.

The continuous quest to shoot in absolute darkness is what primarily drives the sensor craze.

Case in point - the Foveon. The Foveon has superb IQ and if you're a studio photographer, strobist, daylight shooter, then arguably you should have a Foveon based body that doesn't perform well at ISO 800 and higher because you have no requirement to shoot in pitch black conditions.

__________________
Olympus E-PL5
M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ1.8 | M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 | M. Zuiko 14-42 II | M. Zuiko 14-150 ED | M. Zuiko 45mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75-300 ED II | Leica DG Summilux 25mm ƒ1.4 ASPH | Lumix G Vario 45-200 |

Just be glad that you don't "invest" in computer hardware... prices and resell values drop in a much worse way.

The best way to invest in technology is to buy Apple stock. But not Apple's stock...

But there's a long way between all that light and "pitch black".

Example: right now to get the flowers in the garden I need f2.8 at 1/100 at iso 400 (daylight in the UK is not daylight in Texas !) That's not ideal, and if I was wanting to take anything that moves, wildlife, birds I'm totally stuck. Clean iso 1600 would be great.

When and what can be shot is restricted in many circs for many people because of the technical limitations of the camera.