Buying adivce: old and used or unused?

[Odot]

I am trying to figure out if its better to buy a camera that has been used for years or one that has been laying around for years. Thoughts?

 

[Sirius Glass]

First which format? Single/half frame 35mm, 35mm, 120, 4"x5"?
Folder? Range finder? TLR? SLR? Polaroid? Fixed Lens or interchangeable lenses?
Interchangeable film backs?
What type of photography? Travel, studio, street, portrait, landscapes, architectural?

 

[Odot]

First which format? Single/half frame 35mm, 35mm, 120, 4"x5"?
Folder? Range finder? TLR? SLR? Polaroid? Fixed Lens or interchangeable lenses?
Interchangeable film backs?
What type of photography? Travel, studio, street, portrait, landscapes, architectural?

35mm autofocus, fixed lens

 

[mgb74]

I think, if you want a useful answer, you also have to specify whether its heavily or lightly used and whether it was stored properly (low humidity, no temp extremes, and with batteries removed). For example, I'd avoid a camera - regardless of how lightly used - that was kept in a damp environment or an environment (like an attic) that was very cold in winter and hot in summer.

 

[guangong]

Serious raises an important qualification. However, giving a general answer where only specifics are important, a camera that has been unused for a long time will probably need at least a CLA. On the other hand a well used camera not abused by the owner is better than one that has been used professionally. All in all, there is no answer because each used camera is a particular case. I would, however, add that a camera made for the professional market would be a wiser choice than a less robust one, e.g. one of Serius’ Hasselblads would be a better choice than a Kowa or Bronica, all things being equal.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I am trying to figure out if its better to buy a camera that has been used for years or one that has been laying around for years. Thoughts?

It depends utterly on that particular camera, I have many of both including a Contax II that sat unused for about 50 years and looks almost new, and a Nikkormat Ftn that was used professionally for about 20 years and looks it, both are 100% reliable after thorough servicing.
Any camera over 15 or 20 years of age will need attention to function as it should with reliability.
I also have an unused OM 3, gummy foam and the shutter caps at the two highest speeds - still in the box and visually indistiguishable from new, but 30 years of waiting took it's toll.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

35mm autofocus, fixed lens

Coincidence! The camera fairy recently brought me a Minolta HiMatic AF2 from 1981 or 2, a test roll gave 24 out of 24 perfectly exposed and focussed frames, including flash exposures. No, I would not trust it for important pictures but the indications are that some maintenance will result in a reliable camera.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

35mm autofocus. These cameras are generally not older than the mid-1980s. I would prioritize low mileage/low usage.

Best scenario I would look for is new old stock from a known dealer/camera shop (Cathay Camera, B&H, etc.)

Then new old stock from a private seller.

Then a low mileage camera that looks clean (not stored in a root cellar down by the river).

 

[Paul Howell]

35mm autofocus fixed lens like Konica Hextar buy from a dealer like KEH with a good warranty, entry level 35mm point and shoots, buy and toss when broken. I have a dozen or so, all are working, if I see a decent PS at a thrift shop or a garage sale I will pick it up and toss into my box. A few look rough but work well.

 

[Chan Tran]

If you can check it out then it doesn't matter.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Auto focus, fixed lens might be more sensitive for dust, humidity and shocks. If camera was unused it is not something which might happen while camera is in use.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you are going to buy a high fixed lens like a Konica, Nikon, Minolta they might look and work perfect one day, dead the next, so I would tend towards a warranty. A year is better than nothing, for low end, Chan Tran is right, if it works it works, what else matters.

 

[Odot]

OK here it is: i found a dirtcheap Hexar AF which was owned by a teacher who had it inside a shelf for years. I took a gamble on it and hope its ok.

 

[k.hendrik]

(not stored in a root cellar down by the river).

PLEASE sell me that camera!

 

[Paul Howell]

OK here it is: i found a dirtcheap Hexar AF which was owned by a teacher who had it inside a shelf for years. I took a gamble on it and hope its ok.

Great Camera with a great lens. Unlike the Contax models the Hextar seems to have help up better over the years.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you are going to buy a high fixed lens like a Konica, Nikon, Minolta they might look and work perfect one day, dead the next, so I would tend towards a warranty. A year is better than nothing, for low end, Chan Tran is right, if it works it works, what else matters.

KEH is a great place to buy from. I have many times.

 

[Odot]

So my dirtcheap Hexar is here and as i took a closer look at the lens, i see that it has a scratch. The scratch is not a clean and sharp looking, its more soft and crooked (or wavy looking). I am going to develop a roll of film with it and need your advice:

Can the scratch get worse by itself with time? I was thinking, it the scratch is only superficial and not on the images to see, then i am thinking about keeping it.

https://imgur.com/a/biSx2

 

[Paul Howell]

If the scratch doesn't show on the negative and you got it for a good price then keep it, otherwise time to return it. My thinking is if it's a surface scratch then it should be stable, if it is crack even hair line the crack would show on the negative.

 

[Odot]

If the scratch doesn't show on the negative and you got it for a good price then keep it, otherwise time to return it. My thinking is if it's a surface scratch then it should be stable, if it is crack even hair line the crack would show on the negative.

Looks like the scratch does not show but i will have to shoot another roll to be sure because the result is crazy-

I dont know what i did wrong, i used a Trix400 and developed it with some leftover Rodinal 1+25 at 7 minutes with tilting at every minute. Any idea what could have went wrong?

https://imgur.com/a/jGLpq

and this one

https://imgur.com/a/jGLpq

I really hope its a development problem and not camera related Still, i never had anything like it

 

[E. von Hoegh]

So my dirtcheap Hexar is here and as i took a closer look at the lens, i see that it has a scratch. The scratch is not a clean and sharp looking, its more soft and crooked (or wavy looking). I am going to develop a roll of film with it and need your advice:

Can the scratch get worse by itself with time? I was thinking, it the scratch is only superficial and not on the images to see, then i am thinking about keeping it.

https://imgur.com/a/biSx2

That scratch looks like something could be stuck to the lens in the second picture. Try cleaning it. Also, what is that just outside of the "35mm" marking, on the retaining ring? Is it damage to the notch for the wrench?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Looks like the scratch does not show but i will have to shoot another roll to be sure because the result is crazy-

I dont know what i did wrong, i used a Trix400 and developed it with some leftover Rodinal 1+25 at 7 minutes with tilting at every minute. Any idea what could have went wrong?

https://imgur.com/a/jGLpq

and this one

https://imgur.com/a/jGLpq

I really hope its a development problem and not camera related Still, i never had anything like it

It looks like the film is fogged, or very badly stored, and the streaking above the perforations in the second (lower) frame make me wonder about agitation.

 

[Odot]

It looks like the film is fogged, or very badly stored, and the streaking above the perforations in the second (lower) frame make me wonder about agitation.

Its a possibility that the film was near a heater..ahhh. will try a different one tomorrow. As for agitation, i did it at a 45 degree angle in each direction (have been doing this with great results) at every minute. In order to prevent bubbles i hit the bottom with my hand each time.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Too much agitation. I don't see defects in the images that would come from a lens scratch. I see some black dots which could be stop bath that is too strong or powdered chemical that was not properly mixed.

 

[blockend]

If it is a scratch, it would restrict resale value hugely so I hope you didn't pay too much. If the seller didn't mention it they were seriously out of order, because it's patently obvious and the first thing people would look for. Whether the scratch shows up on the image is another question. All lens impairments are revealed under certain conditions, and sellers who claim fogging, scratches, fungus and the rest "do not show in the photograph" are ignorant or lying. Unless it was seriously cheap I'd want a partial refund.

That said, it might not show under the conditions you're likely to use the camera, and only by testing into the sun at various angles will you confirm one way or the other.

 

[Odot]

Update: i developed another roll and its totally fine looking. Whatever mistake i made, its not there anymore, haha.