Recently while hunting for cameras in Tokyo, I spoke with a couple of shop employees who advised me not to buy a used camera that was used by professionals because they might have much more wear and tear than advanced amateur/entry level cameras.
I didn't give this much thought because I've purchased used "pro" film cameras and entry level cameras and have had the same issues with both. I know that it all boils down to how well any particular camera has been taken care of and stored throughout the years, but that got me thinking about the odds of buying a lemon camera that dies shortly after you purchase it vs one that will last for several more years.
Arguments can be said in favor or against either choice;
- Used "pro" cameras are a safer bet because the working pros of yesteryear had their cameras serviced more often.
- Amateurs of yesteryear took better care of their equipment because it was a sizeable investment for them.
- Pros of yesteryear beat their cameras to the ground under harsh conditions, so internal parts are barely alive.
- Advanced amateur/entry level cameras were not built with parts as sturdy as pro models, so they are barely alive.
Yes, I am well aware that any used film camera you buy should be CLA'd by a professional repair specialist before running any roll of film through it.
How did you come up with all of the generalizations? How do you determine if a professional, or advanced amateur has used a particular camera? My best suggestion is to buy cameras where parts and service are still available and avoid cameras with little hope of repair. Another approach might be to buy cameras in pairs where you can pull parts from a donor camera to repair your primary.
bwcolor wrote:
How did you come up with all of the generalizations? How do you determine if a professional, or advanced amateur has used a particular camera?
Because I've been on this planet now for over 6 decades and I've developed a little something called common sense. I can break it down for you if you'd like, but it might take a paragraph or two. Not sure how willing you or others here are to read my detailed response.
snegron7 wrote:
Recently while hunting for cameras in Tokyo, I spoke with a couple of shop employees who advised me not to buy a used camera that was used by professionals because they might have much more wear and tear than advanced amateur/entry level cameras.
I didn't give this much thought because I've purchased used "pro" film cameras and entry level cameras and have had the same issues with both. I know that it all boils down to how well any particular camera has been taken care of and stored throughout the years, but that got me thinking about the odds of buying a lemon camera that dies shortly after you purchase it vs one that will last for several more years.
Arguments can be said in favor or against either choice;
- Used "pro" cameras are a safer bet because the working pros of yesteryear had their cameras serviced more often.
- Amateurs of yesteryear took better care of their equipment because it was a sizeable investment for them.
- Pros of yesteryear beat their cameras to the ground under harsh conditions, so internal parts are barely alive.
- Advanced amateur/entry level cameras were not built with parts as sturdy as pro models, so they are barely alive.
Yes, I am well aware that any used film camera you buy should be CLA'd by a professional repair specialist before running any roll of film through it.
I think overall this could work as a rule of thumb, however there are a couple of limitations that I can see. Mainly it assumes fixed rates of decay for parts and usage, it assumes all pro cameras were bought by pros and all amateur cameras were bought by amateurs, and all pros and amateurs behave the same way.
snegron7 wrote:
Because I've been on this planet now for over 6 decades and I've developed a little something called common sense. I can break it down for you if you'd like, but it might take a paragraph or two. Not sure how willing you or others here are to read my detailed response.
After reading (too) many of your nonsensical posts over the years, I think you've correctly predicted our willingness.
snegron7 wrote:
Recently while hunting for cameras in Tokyo, I spoke with a couple of shop employees who advised me not to buy a used camera that was used by professionals because they might have much more wear and tear than advanced amateur/entry level cameras.
I didn't give this much thought because I've purchased used "pro" film cameras and entry level cameras and have had the same issues with both. I know that it all boils down to how well any particular camera has been taken care of and stored throughout the years, but that got me thinking about the odds of buying a lemon camera that dies shortly after you purchase it vs one that will last for several more years.
Arguments can be said in favor or against either choice;
- Used "pro" cameras are a safer bet because the working pros of yesteryear had their cameras serviced more often.
- Amateurs of yesteryear took better care of their equipment because it was a sizeable investment for them.
- Pros of yesteryear beat their cameras to the ground under harsh conditions, so internal parts are barely alive.
- Advanced amateur/entry level cameras were not built with parts as sturdy as pro models, so they are barely alive.
Yes, I am well aware that any used film camera you buy should be CLA'd by a professional repair specialist before running any roll of film through it.
Film cameras are so old at this point you need to have them inspected individually and not make any assumptions about the owner and how they used it. I've seen both pros and amateurs that beat the crap out of everything including pro and cheaper cameras. I'd assume that all film cameras are unreliable if old.
Yes, I am well aware that any used film camera you buy should be CLA'd by a professional repair specialist before running any roll of film through it.
I wasn't and have never done that.
If it works - awesome. I check for that prior to purchase or make sure the return policy is satisfactory. If something seems off - get it serviced or get rid of it.
As for pro use vs amateur use? If it looks beat up and abused - fuhgeddaboutit. There will be plenty of others in decent shape.
Think about it from a used car perspective. What is better - a car with huge miles and dents on it that was used as a taxi cab but has full service history? Or a low mileage, beautiful condition one that had occasional use?
Sometimes you strike lucky...I bought a Canon 1V HS in original box etc and it looked unused. ...cost about £230. I later found it recorded the films that had gone through it...22 rolls. So virtually unused. Up to about 40 rolls now and thinking of selling it on as I use Bronicas mainly....but have a couple of EOS 3s for 35mm film.
Needless to say...the 1V still looks new, and functions perfectly. I've only had one film camera break on me....a Bronica etrsi...the wind on mechanism jammed.
Just a quick fact about some professional photo equipment usage that may be relevant. Many times, like at large corporations, or newspapers, there is "pool" equipment. Big items are shared like big fast lenses, and bodies with a zoom or standard lens may remain with one photog all of which belong to the corporation. Just imagine how grown-ass adults treat equipment they didn't pay for themselves? It was appalling. People that spend their own money on gear tend to take care of that gear much better than "pros" handed gear at no personal expense. Not all, but it was a much higher percentage than I expected.
Think you're putting too much weight into (debatable) broad statistics of behaviours of a manufacturers intended target audience for a given make/model, and not enough weight into the reliability track record, sample variation, actual condition, price, repairability (and associated cost).
My approach is to focus on 2 camera categories (both basically provide some form of financial loss control):
- Relatively inexpensive (can be sold for parts or binned);
- Repairable in the near future;
Personal stats:
Nikon: 2 semi-pro bodies, both reliable so far.
Leica: 2/3 bodies developed issues. Shelf queen M2 with 2 different faults after a few rolls (guess cosmetic condition does not always reflect mechanical health). On a 2 year old M-A (bought new) frame-lines stuck in 35mm.
Had a bunch of others but not long enough to form an opinion.
burchyk wrote:
Think you're putting too much weight into (debatable) broad statistics of behaviours of a manufacturers intended target audience for a given make/model, and not enough weight into the reliability track record, sample variation, actual condition, price, repairability (and associated cost).
My approach is to focus on 2 camera categories (both basically provide some form of financial loss control):
- Relatively inexpensive (can be sold for parts or binned);
- Repairable in the near future;
Personal stats:
Nikon: 2 semi-pro bodies, both reliable so far.
Leica: 2/3 bodies developed issues. Shelf queen M2 with 2 different faults after a few rolls (guess cosmetic condition does not always reflect mechanical health). On a 2 year old M-A (bought new) frame-lines stuck in 35mm.
Had a bunch of others but not long enough to form an opinion.
For important trips or shots bring a backup ...Show more →
I currently have a drawer full of failed cameras including a Nikon FM2N, Nikon F3, Minolta SRT, Nikon F Photomic with a bad meter, Konica T3, etc. I would love to learn to repair them all myself someday.
I think the larger issue is that in many cases no information is available on the previous owners of old film cameras. Of all the cameras I own, I only have that information on one of them, a Leica M2-R that I bought from an old friend; he bought it new in the 1970s so I'm the second owner. He is a serious but not professional photographer and had the camera regularly serviced, but then switched to digital and it sat unused for nearly two decades. I spent more on repairs and CLA than I spent on the camera.
For all my other cameras, I have no idea how many owners they had or whether they were professionals or nonprofessionals. I often wonder about my cameras' previous lives with different owners and the diversity of scenes that must have passed through their viewfinders, but that info is simply not available.
I would avoid most Nikon F4’s, unless it is in obviously mint condition. This was such a boat anchor of a camera that I suspect not many were sold to amateurs. They were very popular with press photographers.
For most other professional grade cameras my impression is that plenty were sold to amateurs. For example it is not that hard to find an F3 in very nice condition. Even F5s are reasonably easy to find in nice condition, most likely due to the short overlap period before professional DSLRs were being used by press photographers.
I would avoid the Pentax LX since this model is quite susceptible to electronic gremlins and no-one services them any more, due to lack of parts availability.
