Does beater looking gear make the best user gear?

[StepheKoontz]

Years ago I started noticing some of my better working cameras and lenses were the ones I bought that looked fairly rough.

The lenses with most of the paint worn off the barrels and a straightened filter ring. Maybe even had a lot of cleaning marks but they still produced outstanding images. Same with camera bodies, some that I found in like new condition seemed to end up at the repair shop more often, while the beater ones with the scratches on the base plate and the dent in the prism kept on working.

My theory is, equipment that works really well, people will tend to use more while the mediocre samples end up sitting on a shelf somewhere. I know collectors love the pristine examples but if I plan to use the gear, I will always pick the sample that has some wear from use. Those always seem to work the best!

 

[removed account4]

IDK ... it might all depend on the camera, lens and the person who owned it. .. and if the "beat on" is only "cosmetic"

 

[Ariston]

Mechanical things need to be used to keep from gumming up, seizing up, rusting, etc. I think a camera that is left unused for a long time is much more likely to be a bad performer. Not to mention likely to have fungus.

I love beat up, ugly cameras because they are cheap. And often they work just fine.

 

[jvo]

depends on the origin of the wear, careful use or abuse! The former is likely to be a winner.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Cameras, like cars, are designed to be used, not to sit around doing nothing. A camera that has lingered cooking in a display case is unlikely to be fully functional for very long if at all, just as that low mileage car is the one where all the rubber hoses have perished, the clutch seized and the handbrake stuck on!

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

A properly used and maintained car, camera or instrument will work well and preform so it give the owner joy.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

My experience with beat-up cameras is the same as it is with beat-up cars. They're junk, and cause nothing but headaches. Cameras wear out from use, and most used gear for sale is for sale because the owner knows it has problems and is getting rid of it. I've never been happy with any used gear that I bought that was beaten-up.

 

[BrianShaw]

There’s not rule... not even a rule of averages on this issue.

 

[BrianShaw]

There’s not rule... not even a rule of averages on this issue.

Well, maybe there’s a rule of thirds: one-third will agree; one-third will disagree; and one-third couldn’t care less.

 

[BrianShaw]

... but interesting observation about your gear.

 

[Kino]

There is a difference between heavy cosmetic wear and being "beaten up". Wear is no sure-fire indicator that the equipment won't perform well, but heavy dents and grime ground into surfaces is a warning sign for sure...

 

[flatulent1]

A beat-up Nikon F4 or EOS 1 has likely seen far more use than one in very nice condition, and may have a shorter life as a result. This is certainly true from my personal experience. On the other hand, a beat-up 5x4 may work just fine for years.
Also, I have found that I respond more favorably to a pristine old camera than I do one that looked like crap.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Like many questions, the answer is "it depends".

My Pentax SP500, bought new in 1971, shows moderate signs of wear, but not abuse. I've taken this camera all over the world and have used it in all sorts of weather. For protection, I use mostly the lower half-case (soft) , though I've got the fold-over top. For 15 years, I put a lot of film through this camera every week. The camera works perfectly and I still use it.

In 1988 I bought a new black Nikon F3/T and it became my workhorse camera. Today it is indistinguishable from a new or never-used F3/T because I always kept it in a nice padded bag (rectangular case, actually) when not actually using it. Even though I've put a lot of film through it, there isn't even any wear near the strap lugs. Also, since I always turn the camera off between sequences of photos, I'd thought there should be at least a little sign of wear where my fingernail touches the on-off switch. But no: no wear at all.

 

[swchris]

Another POV:
When I'm using a pristine looking camera I'm always taking extra care not to introduce a scratch or dent.
When I'm using a beaten-up looking camera, I don't care much and focus on taking pictures.
So for me it works better to use a camera which looks worn out.

 

[guangong]

I treat all of my tools with respect...cameras, fountain pens, brushes, chisels, ...even computers. Bought my two M4s and M5 new way back when. Bought my M3 used but in like new condition even earlier. Same with Leicaflex SL. Heavily used for five decades but still look ( as the camera dealers say) excellent. Some wear on accessory shoe and baseplate. Still use my Mont Blanc fountain pen bought in the Columbia university book store in 1950s ( since then MB doesn’t sell pens of same quality, but they do sell at unreasonably high prices...does it remind you of a famous camera?).
I saw plenty of beat up cameras in the Associated Press camera bank in early 1960s. As a great past president of USA observed, nobody washes a rented car.

 

[jim10219]

I would suspect there's no real correlation, and what you've experienced is the luck of the draw. I bought out an old professional photographer once, and most of his stuff fell into the "beater" category. He did take good care of his stuff, but he used them a lot. As a result, some of it looked bad, but was in good shape, and a lot of it looked bad and was worn out beyond what reasonable repair costs could cover. I kept the good stuff, sold the bad stuff for parts and any of the good stuff I didn't need. I got it all for a good price, so I still made a good bit of money on the deal. But it taught me that just because something was well loved and used often, doesn't mean that it was in good shape.

I also have bought a few cameras from the late 80's and early 90's that were hardly ever used, and didn't work or only worked for a short while. They looked mint and often came in the original packaging, but the inactivity wasn't good for them. All in all, I think the best used gear is gear that is lightly used and carefully maintained over it's lifetime. That stuff is hard to come by, because those people usually aren't selling. The next best gear is gear that is easy to repair. As with anything, luck plays a major role. That's why "try before you buy" is so important.

 

[Luckless]

I'm not sure there would be reliable data to support such an idea on a large scale.

Wear on gear really depends as much on the user as what it is used for. One of my friends has a similar kit as one of mine based around a Canon 7D. One of us hikes with the gear, takes it out on boats, etc. The other rarely sees anything more challenging than walking from a car to the side of a sports field... Guess which of these cameras looks like it has been dragged behind a tank in a war zone?

Some photographers have the natural ability to predict drops, scrapes, and other things, and avoid them before they happen, or at least the reflexes to catch a falling camera safely. Others have the natural ability to not only drop their cameras on a regular basis, but also a weird reflex to do things like accidentally kick their gear off a cliff while trying to catch it with their foot when it falls...

[But I will admit, I've been impressed with how much punishment those old mk1 7D bodies put up with.]

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had Kiev 4AM as my first Kiev RF.
It was fresh. Once I refreshed light seals, it was working as good as old Keiv 2, which was in service recently.

I prefer clean looking cameras and lenses with known history.

 

[MattKing]

Some cameras show usage wear more than others - such as this perfectly well working Olympus OM-2s:

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Some cameras show usage wear more than others - such as this perfectly well working Olympus OM-2s:
View attachment 226641

I bet there's some stories that old workhorse can tell. Nice.

 

[blockend]

Pre-worn cameras are the ones I reach for. Pristine examples tend to stay on the shelf to keep them shiny. Honest wear, brassing, the old dent, no problem. What I object to is getting a camera with a heavy patina, especially cigarette smoke. A couple of memorable examples come to mind. One was good condition A-1 with a heavy nicotine coating. The seller must have had a permanent cigarette on the go, it took years to get rid of the smell. Another was a Konica encased in fluff and hair, really grim. I can't imagine selling a camera without a deep clean and foam replacement.

I once owned a Nikon F2AS that looked absolutely worn out, cosmetically terrible with plenty of surface knocks - it worked beautifully, smooth with no play anywhere. Also a number of seriously bashed up high mileage Nikkormats all of which work fine.

 

[CMoore]

To answer the OP title, if we are talking ONLY about aesthetics..... Yes.
Most of my 35mm bodies show some brassing, a dent or gouge here and there.
Its is embarrassing to be seen with a "Closet Queen".
It is tantamount to all of your neighbors that have expensive, 4x4 vehicles, and they do not have So Much As A Scratch on them.
WHY have a four wheel drive vehicle if you are not going to take it off-road.? Why have a four wheel drive vehicle if you are going to worry about scratching the paint.?

If you use your hammer, stethoscope, camera, guitar and amp.....they are going to look like it they are used.
Don't be a poser...people will laugh at you behind your back.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

If they laugh behind my back it's of no concern. Live your own life and allow others theirs.