Price for used top end photo gear

[Bob Riebe]

  I have a goodly amount of top end photo gear, bought when I took a fair amount of pictures.
Sadly as I got the top end stuff, my taking of pictures dropped off to near zero.

Twenty years ago, when I  was taking pictures, I still sold of some of it as I needed money and I had bought it over seas (Ebay) when the dollar was strong so to U.S. buyers prices were much lower.
I made money on it, and some was redundant, but now I look at prices for similar pieces online; prices of film photo gear is going up considerably over just five years ago.
BUT
 Some thing I sold in 2005 for 300 dollars is going for near 500 dollars; some thing I sold for 800 dollars is now going for over 1,000 dollars.
I thought I should have kept it and sold it later - then - I checked inflation amounts.  What I sold it for then is very close to the same amount that amount would be worth today.

Kind of like the old - I put gasoline in my car for thirty cents a gallon! -- Big problem there is factory workers in my area  were earning 3 some dollars a hour or so, back then.
For 3 dollars an hour, an hours work would get you a whole 10 gallons. Some thing people often forget when thinking about how , supposedly cheap, things once were.

Twenty five years ago , when I went to places: races, fairs, just plain vacation, I always took  cameras along.  Some where down the line I stopped doing that -  - old and stupid I guess.

[ironglow]

  With the new technology today...things are sadly, outdated within months of buying the stuff. My son buys a new drone for 2-3 thousand dollars; and
     within 6 months or a year, it is nearing obsolescence.

    Now; I don't pretend to know much about the intricasies of photography technology, but I do know trhat he is continnually learning and updating
    methods and techniques.  Of course, he is involved in straight up photography, as well as videography and drone work.

  He talks of lighting use and manipulation, angles, shadowsand Kelvins etc..may as well be Greek to me..

   He and another videographer, just contracted for a regular, weekly TV show with a nearby NBC affiliate..for this, one has to keep up with the latest
  technology, so as to bne compatible with that of the affiliate.  ...Guess at my old age, I wouldn't have the patience...LOL.

  Yes; he rareley goes anywhere, without at the least, a camera & tripod..  His vehicles actually carry much equipment as a regular habit..
 
 

[Bob Riebe]

Your son probably has five figures invested in new digital photogear.

Your son seems to be what back in he day was a studio or arts photographer, which is a world apart from the dudes who covered new or sporting events.
GENERALLY, the two required differeent , bucks-up photogear.

In the odditiy of photgraphy, some of the gents, who are more into the arts of photograph, have never let go of, or are going back into film , but only to a degree. They still have thousands invested in digital.

Your son may know this well, but Nikon, has stopped production of its F mount leses, as of two years ago. F mount was the standard lens mount for Nikon since the late Fifties.
Now they have the New Z mount for their cameras with a mirrorless view finder.
Not to get too technical, but the new totally digital cameras , with no view finder at all,   you view by the screen on the back of the camera, others have view-finder that looks like the old school type but you actually see digital screen in it.

From what I have gotten from reading , and speaking to those who use them, holding the camera out in front of you  makes aligning your photo not as precise, as hold the camera against you eye-ball steadies the camera better.

The new top line cameras, in Z mount, are actually a few thousand cheaper than top line F mount. IF one goes to true studio cameras, Hassleblad, etc., the 6 thousand for a new Nikon D6 is chump change, although lenses for the Medium format cameras is where the dollars really flow profusely.

Now those shooting off of a tripod, not having a view finder may be far better that scrunching up against a camera.
I  used to follow photography things closely, but when photo magazines started to cease to exist, and I was NOT a lover of the new digital stuff, I just in the past 15 years, pretty much quit paying much attention.

At, that, 15 years ago, I came very, very close to buying a 4x5 field camera.
Now , used ones, are quite affordable, and that urge of using what once was the standard for new photography, still is floating around the back of head, thinking , HMM, just maybe I should....

[ironglow]

  I'm sure you are much more knowlegeable than I, so far as photography is concerned.

  My son's photography, videography and drone work just about covers the gamut..real estate, model/actor portfolios, industrial, commercials,
   food, time lapse, magazine photos, manufacturing processes, corporate headshots..and whatever..

  I know only part of his equipment..his studio is full of lights, tracks, filters, reflectors  etc..  I know his cameras are Sony.

      Here's his work..      https://www.facebook.com/eagle1photo

   Video production for a TV series, is a new venture for him however. Here is he (on right) with his co-producer..

[Bob Riebe]

LOL, his photo gear cost is probably in six figures.

More power to him.

[darkgael]

As I have aged my interest in photography has become more focused on film and way less on digital imagery - despite the fact of digital imagery in this post. It started years ago by resurrecting my father’s old folding bellows medium format camera that he used to take all the snapshots of my childhood. Then I bought a used twin lens reflex camera. Then I bought another. And another pair

[ironglow]

 Surely, there is a genuine interest in the old, film style cameras and equipment..same as there is a powerful interest in in classic cars.
 
   Many people can be extremely interested in a 1954 Corvette, a '57 Nash Metropolitan or a '37 Ford "slant back"..

  Sure, the old cars won't perform with today's cars, but they are infinitely less complex, and can be worked on in the owner's garage.

  ..Then of course, there is the nostalgia interest, a charm which can only come by seasoning of years gone by..

[darkgael]

Well said.

[darkgael]

More recently my attention has moved on to medium format cameras. Not being able to afford a Hasselblad, even used ($1500 and up)  I picked up the poor man’s alternative, a Bronica S, and a couple of extra film backs. It is quite heavy and a tripod is useful.

[Bob Riebe]

More recently my attention has moved on to medium format cameras. Not being able to afford a Hasselblad, even used ($1500 and up)  I picked up the poor man’s alternative, a Bronica S, and a couple of extra film backs. It is quite heavy and a tripod is useful.

Nice camera with a huge choice of lens.

Due to the focal plane shutter, their lens often have a larger maximum aperture whilst the shutter has quicker settings.
Enjoy!

Addendum:
     WAAAAY -- back when I was in Vo-Tech taking photography classes, and wanted to be a motor sports photographer, I went to  races with two 35mm cameras, one hada 70-350 zoom and a Mamiya 6x7 hanging around my neck.
Good, and I mean GOOD, wide leather camera straps make a huge difference.

[Bob Riebe]

Surely, there is a genuine interest in the old, film style cameras and equipment..same as there is a powerful interest in in classic cars.
 
   Many people can be extremely interested in a 1954 Corvette, a '57 Nash Metropolitan or a '37 Ford "slant back"..

  Sure, the old cars won't perform with today's cars, but they are infinitely less complex, and can be worked on in the owner's garage.

  ..Then of course, there is the nostalgia interest, a charm which can only come by seasoning of years gone by..

     Film, still produces a better photograph than the digital images.
The closest digital gets to a film photograph is in the RAW image; what digital now produces, often,  is a a manipulated image, not a photographic picture of what the camera saw.

Now even with film, one could and did, in the dark room , at times , manipulate the negative to produce what the photographer wanted to produce.
A lot of work; with digital, one sits by a computer and pushes buttons (still work but not even close to what one has to do in a dark room).
My aunt did do touch up work on studio photographs, also a lot of work.

What one can get between film and digital images, can be similar, but are not the same, which is why film is making a come back, ALTHOUGH, some of the new films being used, are just as much in a not normal world as the digital modified images.
Studio photography is in world of its own, but then so are nature, and or landscape photogrphers.
The landscape images, to me, seem to be the ones most heavily modified in a computer.

Now sports photographers LOVE the new digital cameras.  In the past the top pros had a gopher with them who carried film and cameras, whilst the photographer took  photos, the gopher  reloaded the cameras and changed lenses giving  the phtotgrapher a new reloaded camera as needed.
They now carry multiple digital cards, but changing is seconds verses minutes.

[ironglow]

Ummmm..evcen though I am no photographer, I still have to dispute that assumption.  There is no real point in posting some of the finer digital photos on here, because the web will not begin to support the resolution that can be obtained with digital.

  My son uses something called 5G for some of his editing.  He can take a headshot across his studio..about 30 ft., then he can take it to his computer
    station and bring the face to what seems 2 ft...and still every eyelash and in between them is in full clarity.

  When he does real estate or nearly any photo shoot..he uses a tripod..and his camera has a program that takes 5 shots to one trigger pull, then selects and combines the best of all 5 shots.  Of course, he doesn't us a trip button on the camers, but a remote push button controller.

  I'll try to find some examples of high res, distanceshots..

[Bob Riebe]

The internet cannot show difference between any form; the difference shows up in paper prints.

Even at that usually photo experts, especially those who judge photos, most easily see the difference.

The difference is:
             
     Digital images which are composed of pixels, film images are created by a continuous, analog medium that captures light and creates a physical emulsion with varying grain and texture, rather than discrete pixels

   Pixel:
A pixel is one of the small dots or squares that make up an image on a computer screen.

     That, is why film has not died and is making a kinda-sorta come back, especially among old proffesionals.
As I was told, the only reason digital images are getting closer to film, is they stopped seriously developing improved film twenty years ago.
      Kodachrome was the finest of color film , with a life long product; when they ran out of develping chemicals, Kodak decided it was not worth the money to make more of either.
      It can be improved or recreated IF some one has the money and desire.

[ironglow]

  From my limited knowledge, it does appear that on paper, certainly the resolution in governed by the size of the grains on the paper..

  Surprising to me, is that my son does very little on paper, since in today's world and for commercial usage, most goies over the web, and even the
   web as the usual person uses it, normally goes only to something like 1072 pixels..

     Here's an inyteresting website.. note how the photo (using your scrolling wheel) you can go from a broad scene..down to showing details that normally would not be viewable in a coinventional photo.

  Note how by scrolling down, thingscan be brought into close view from miles away. Pick out a building miles distant and peek into offices.

    See people,  cars, etc. in the streets that are  miles distant..
 

   https://www.jeffrey-martin.com/nyc360skyline-panorama-gigapixel

[ironglow]

Enjoy more of same, use link, then click onto gigapixels..    https://www.jeffrey-martin.com/

[Bob Riebe]

 This is the reason film did not die and a fair number of photographer are still using it , for SOME purposes.

Images

The resolution of a digital sensor is measured by the number of pixels they contain, while the resolution of film is measured in “angular resolution”. The resolution of 35mm film is 4K or higher. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 87 Megapixels. However, each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. If we were to put a 120mm negative against a 35mm full-frame digital sensor, the film’s resolution would trump the digital camera.
ExpertPhotography

     IF, what your son did, only with film, he would need more people, or have to shop out to a film developing and print lab and spend even more hours on a shoot, with no easy way of know if the shot was good or needed a redo.( Decades back , although not as many as some think, Polaroid backs for 35mm cameras, gave photographer a quick way to check out some shots, before shooting film)

I have done both color and black&white dark room work.
It is a LOT of work, especially in color as color is done in Total darkness.
     A fair number of the processes are similar, beyond developing but your son or his compatriots do with a computer, mouse and screen what would take hours of footwork labor with film. (Now there are auomated  developing machineses, that are far, far easier and quicker than the one man do it by hand days)

      For those who want film and paper printing (with an enlarger and no scanner); many have to do it them selves as labs that print without a scanner are getting to be few and far between.

      I do not know how many of the special films for lab work, reversal film and such ,still are around, but at least right now, if is far from dead.

      The Nikon D6 digital cameras still had some analog manual functions for pros who wanted them but I do not think any of the new no mechanical shutter less digital cameras do.
       The very best lenses, some from he fifties, such as Kinoptic, have never been exceeded, while they no longer are being developed for utmost speed and sharpness. (Over the counter lenes, not NASA or such specialty items.)
       The best lenses are sharper than the finest film and digital sensors can handle less than film, plus a lot of work is done in a computer lab with computers analysing changing  an image to what the users want, so eceptioanally sharp lenses of the past are becoming a rarer beast.
Prbably worse is that the new lenses built for mirrorless cameras, have zero analog functions, there is no they work is the camera computer goes on the blitz.
     With film the old no photometer trick was, ASA at F16, which in daylight often saved the day.

       NOW digita photo labs , at times,  CAN save or technically fix bad photos, which many photographic people should fall on their knees and thank God, for; this is especially a way to save over a century old photographs without a negative , or scan a bad negative and make adjustment.

       
       

 

[ironglow]

  Yes; clearly there is a use for both. As I see it, the digital is useful for commercial as well as artistic work, while the resolution film is almost purely for
   the artistic..correct me if I am wrong.

 My son started as an avid photographer when he was a teenager, so he spent many darkroom years before the digital came out !

   My only experience was at the hobby shops on army posts where i was serving.  Back then, , most posts had a hobby shop that includes a dark room.

    The digital system must be a boon for training new photographers, since they can shoot a hundred photos and see the results without any cost..

  Again; I think it a good thing to do, preserving the old way of doing the job. I once worked with a guy who had a collection of glass emulsion
  negatives, probably civil war era..

  Some glass emulsion negatives shown below;

  https://www.etsy.com/listing/1540250865/34-glass-negatives-glass-photographs?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_a-home_and_li

[Bob Riebe]

IN ONE of the odd things of tody, not really odd as the norm today is odd,  is that schools,  that teach photography are smart enough that student must learn on film cameras, and NOT the latest electronic whizz bang camera.

The NIKON FM10 has a built in meter but no motor drive, no auto F stop, speed settings. The students to set exposure and focus for each picture, but, while the cameras built for and sold to schools say Nikon, they are really made by  Cosina.

 Cosina is a well known and very  large company that made/make mid-level , and and in last years of film cameras some very high end cameras but also dioes a lot of  work for other Camera companies.
I may be wrong but with the discontinuation of the FM-10 (CT-1) in 2017, there may be zero film SLR cameras now being made.

The Nikon FM10 is based on the CT1 chassis
The Canon T60, another model based on the CT1 chassis

In addition to being sold in its own right, the CT-1 chassis also forms the basis (with variations) of several SLR bodies including the Nikon FM10, the Canon T60, the Olympus OM-2000

A bit of history on the camera that was the basis for Nikon's last film camera: https://www.35mmc.com/11/10/2019/cosina-ct-1-and-its-lengthy-legacy-by-ben-okeeffe/

11 October, 2019
Post Categories: Camera History SLRs

 Cosina CT-1 Cosina SLR SLR Camera

On an undisclosed date in September, 1979, Cosina released the CT-1 to little fanfare. After all, it was hardly a game changer. The CT-1 is a 35mm SLR with a Copal Square shutter, similar to that of the Nikon FM; a self timer providing a ten second delay and mirror lockup; and a Pentax K mount. The plates are plastic and the body feels rather cheap. The Cosina CT-1 is the distillation of all of the compact budget SLRs of the 1970s and has no distinguishing feature other than its legacy.

Cosina, having manufactured SLRs since the Hi-Lite of 1968, produced more on behalf of other manufacturers than under their own brand. If you’ve ever browsed through boxes of off-brand SLRs in thrift shops, you’ve more than likely encountered a Cosina CT-1 without realising it. The CT-1, CT-1A and CT-1 Super were sold almost unmodified throughout the eighties with Ricoh, Vivitar, Exakta, Petri, and Miranda badges along with countless others which I have neglected to mention.
All of the photographs in this article, excluding those of the cameras themselves, were taken using either my Cosina CT-1A or CT-1G.

In 1990, the Cosina CT-1‘s chassis provided the basis for the Canon T60, the last Canon with an FD mount; in 1995, the humble CT-1 began masquerading as a Nikon FM10; in 1999, it shed its mirror box to become the Voigtländer Bessa L. Now, you might be struggling to suspend your disbelief when faced with an article claiming a twenty-year-old SLR to be the basis for a scale focus camera with a Leica Thread Mount but this image should set your mind at ease:

2003 brought the Voigtländer Bessaflex TM, a premium SLR and the last hurrah of the M42 screw mount. Despite being unmistakably a Cosina CT-1 with a new mount and a more refined finish, a Bessaflex now demands a price in excess of an order of magnitude greater than that of its progenitor. The following year saw the announcement of the first digital camera built on Cosina CT-1 underpinnings, the Epson R-D1, the first digital rangefinder and likely the catalyst for Leica’s entry into the digital market.

The Epson R-D1 went through two revisions before being discontinued in 2014. The Voigtländer Bessa rangefinders soldiered on until the following year. The final nail in the Cosina CT-1‘s coffin came with the discontinuation of the Nikon FM10 in 2017.

 A thirty-eight year legacy had finally come to an end. I bhttps://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/Smileys/default/cool.gifelieve that the FM10‘s demise and thus the demise of the Cosina CT-1 was likely catalysed by the discontinuation of Copal’s mechanical shutters in 2016.

Some times the posts that people make at sights like this are just as interesting and informing as the article.