A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Marketplace » 35mm Equipment for Sale
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Price of used 35mm equipment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 25th 03, 07:42 PM
Don Coon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Spectre" wrote in message
. ..
Hi again,

I realize digital is the reason but that digital SLR these guys are

lusting
over will be yesterdays news in 6 months just like computers and other
consumer electronics. No matter what 35mm film is still a much better

medium
than digital for "quality" images right now.


Straight out of the camera film may be higher quality but the "digital
darkroom" wipes that advantage out easily. I couldn't imagine going back to
film, scanners, etc. IMHO, the end product of my DSLR is higher quality
than film.


  #22  
Old December 25th 03, 09:02 PM
Nils Rostedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Same here. My plan is to make the digital jump this spring, either the
Digital Rebel or the 10D. I plan to still keep my EOS5 and Yashicamat,
though I may sell my Rebel 2000. I still see myself wanting to shoot
film from time to time, though I'm sure it will be less and less.


A good strategy.

One reason for keeping a film body is wide-angle. I had to buy an 15-30 mm
lens for my 10D to enjoy the same wide-angle perspective that I used to get
with 24 mm and film. But it's absolutely amazing to mount that lens on the
film EOS body and get the real 15 mm super-wide angle perspective. Not a
focal length for everyday use, but IMO it's a sufficient reason to keep a
film body (Rebel 2000 in my case).

  #23  
Old December 25th 03, 10:17 PM
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shankar Bhattacharyya writes:
I do expect that my current stash of bodies, including two F2 bodies,
one N-80 and a Rolleicord Vb TLR, represent the end of my film days.
The next body is likely to be what Nikon introduces as competition for
the Digital Rebel, or some such thing. Perhaps when D-100
functionality gets well below $1000.


That's called a D70 and should be out in a few months.
  #24  
Old December 25th 03, 10:23 PM
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The Spectre" writes:
I realize digital is the reason but that digital SLR these guys are lusting
over will be yesterdays news in 6 months just like computers and other
consumer electronics. No matter what 35mm film is still a much better medium
than digital for "quality" images right now. Sure digital will certainly
catch up soon enough but it IS NOT there yet so why the mass panic to dump
35mm and go with what are really 1st generation digital SLRs?


I'd say DSLR's ones are 3rd generation or so. 1st generation =
Nikon/Fuji E1/D1, 2nd gen = Nikon D1, 3rd generation = current stuff.

Also, what makes a $1000.00 nikkor lens any less useful with a
digital camera than a film one? How can those lenses fetch such a
low price used yet be sold as new at same prices as ever?


If it's a recent AF lens it's probably holding up better than older
or MF lenses. However, I think SLR stuff in general may be taking
a beating because most of it is being replaced by non-SLR digicams.

Finally, a camera like a Nikons F series are built to take
punishment and withstand the rigors of professional use that I just
do not believe current digital cameras poses.


As far as I can tell, the D1/D2H/EOS-1D/etc. are just as tough as the
F series.

Not to mention they are works of ark in their own right. So how can
an F5 which is a state of the art, professional camera designed from
the ground up to be the best and sold in limited numbers as "world
class" sell for less than a mass produced DSLR that will be
surpasses in 6 months by the latest and greatest digital wonder.


That's basically what the F5 is, a digital wonder with a film train.
The F2 and maybe even F3 are another story, but those are ancient history.
  #25  
Old December 25th 03, 10:52 PM
Nick C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Don Coon wrote:

"The Spectre" wrote in message
.. .

WTF, is going on with the price of used 35mm equipment? I can not believe
that Nikon F5's, F4's, n90s's etc.. and associated Nikon f2.8 lenses and
accessories are selling for so little. I mean come on I saw an F5 with


MF-28

sell for $725.00!!! And that was after the seller reduced it twice. These
are still current production $1500 - $2000 cameras. Also, f2.8 glass is


many

times half of new price. Makes me wish I had an extra grand laying around.



I think you know the answer; only someone living under a rock doesn't.

However, I will say that used Canon EOS lenses are *NOT* selling anywhere
near half price. The demand for EOS lenses is so high that "out-of-stock"
is common at many etail sites and prices on Ebay are high. Sometimes higher
than the buyer could get the lens for new. Example: I just sold a Canon EF
75-300 USM IS without the box or warranty card for $425 + shipping on Ebay;
you can buy it new from B&H for $399 after rebate.



At the local camera fare, held every third Sunday, F4s' are selling for
about $800 in good to very good condition and less accordingly for those
that show signs brassing or other wear.

Nick




  #27  
Old December 26th 03, 12:14 AM
L Schultz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yep, film is a has-been. NOW, all of you Leica shooters, I'll be glad to
dispose of any of those crappy obsolete M2's through M7's.

But seriously, one of the most balanced essays on digital vs. film (with
links, etc) is this one, by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Until they make decent digital cameras so that they are upgradeable, I will
maintain that all digital cameras are disposable. I use digital gear, but
it isn't an either/or situation. Currently digital is very
transient/temporary, while I use Rolleiflex TLRs that are older than I am.
Magazines still want 35mm and MF trannies, but only newspapers will touch my
digital images. And daily work is a place where digital excels. So it
appears still to be apples and oranges in comparison.

--
Lloyd

Online photo portfolio:
http://www.geocities.com/lloydetc/photoart01.html
"Nollite illegitimus contarere vos"

"Clanger" wrote in message
...

"The Spectre" wrote in message
.. .
WTF, is going on with the price of used 35mm equipment? I can not

believe
that Nikon F5's, F4's, n90s's etc.. and associated Nikon f2.8 lenses and
accessories are selling for so little. I mean come on I saw an F5 with

MF-28
sell for $725.00!!! And that was after the seller reduced it twice.

These
are still current production $1500 - $2000 cameras. Also, f2.8 glass is

many
times half of new price. Makes me wish I had an extra grand laying

around.



DIGITALLLLLLLLLL that's what.






  #28  
Old December 26th 03, 12:40 AM
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"L Schultz" writes:
But seriously, one of the most balanced essays on digital vs. film (with
links, etc) is this one, by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm


I'm sorry, but that article is a ridiculous rant. He compares a shot
from a nameless digicam to one from a 4x5 view camera that can only be
used on a tripod. He says the best way to get digital images is from
scanned film, but not with a cheap consumer scanner like a $10,000
Imacon. To get a really fair comparison between film and digital,
according to him, you're supposed to use a $50,000 Heidelberg scanner
operated by someone with years of training. Sheesh.

Until they make decent digital cameras so that they are upgradeable, I will
maintain that all digital cameras are disposable.


True, but to many professionals, all cameras are disposable.

I use digital gear, but it isn't an either/or situation. Currently
digital is very transient/temporary, while I use Rolleiflex TLRs
that are older than I am. Magazines still want 35mm and MF
trannies, but only newspapers will touch my digital images. And
daily work is a place where digital excels. So it appears still to
be apples and oranges in comparison.


Nah, magazines are printing lots of digital images too.

It's obvious to me that film will always be with us, but will become
more and more of a specialty medium.
  #29  
Old December 26th 03, 12:51 AM
Howard McCollister
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


http://www.forbes.com/... ...kpinnacor_ii.html?partner=my_yahoo&referrer=


Interesting article. Yes, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford all continue to make money on
film, and will for years. But film is indeed dying.

It is very telling that Kodak has abandoned APS format as it became clear
that it really WASN'T going to pull people back to film cameras from
digital, and they are scaling back on film R&D. It is also important to note
that both Nikon and Canon report that digital now represents over 80% of
their photography unit sales, and growing. Nikon will release the N85 film
body (AF sensor upgrade to the N80), but that's their only new film camera,
and predictions are that that's it - no more. They have already dropped
compact 35mm camera development AND they have stopped development of film
scanners. Canon has a broader market base, so (to use Thom Hogan's metaphor)
they aren't going to scuttle that particular boat like Nikon is, they are
just going to drill a hole in the bottom of it and let it sink quietly.
Additionally, look at the other film camera companies. Minolta (now merged
with Konica to avoid bankruptcy) is on the ropes and moving into digital,
getting out of film. Same with Pentax - I bet we'll see a whole slug of
dSLRs from Pentax beyond the *ist (which is barely on the radar screen) or
they'll be dead too. Olympus has survived on digital, having deep-sixed
their film SLR line, the excellent OM series, a few years ago (very smart).

A contributing factor to Nikon's development of the N85 is not so much its
use as a film camera but as a body platform for the next round of $1500
dSLR's such as the Fuji S3 (or upgraded S2) and possibly/probably the Nikon
D200 (D100 replacement). It appeared that Nikon was letting the F6 program
slide because of the death of film, but rumors are that they have
resurrected it and will be introducing it within the year as a pro body with
the choice of multiple digital backs as well as a 35mm film back for the
holdouts, if there are any left by the time it's introduced. At least the
success of such a camera doesn't hinge on the future of an obsolete
technology. Clever.

It should be clear to anyone that follows technology issues that digital
EVERYTHING has a tendency to replace its analog counterparts. The only
reason digital photography hasn't yet dealt the final death blow to film is
that film still generally has the edge on dynamic range, and slightly (MF
anyway) better resolution for large enlargements. As sensor technology
improves , that film advantage is rapidly disappearing at a rate predicted
by Moore's Law and it's only a matter of a few years before film becomes the
province of a few hobbyists and some hold-out chemical curmudgeons. Film,
film cameras, and lenses aren't ever going to get any better than they are
now, but digital sensors obviously will.

Film is not dead. Yet. But it is definitely coughing up blood.

HMc


  #30  
Old December 26th 03, 01:08 AM
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Howard McCollister" writes:
http://www.forbes.com/... ...kpinnacor_ii.html?partner=my_yahoo&referrer=

Interesting article. Yes, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford all continue to make money on
film, and will for years. But film is indeed dying.


That url didn't make it, can you post the complete url? Thanks.

It appeared that Nikon was letting the F6 program
slide because of the death of film, but rumors are that they have
resurrected it and will be introducing it within the year as a pro body with
the choice of multiple digital backs as well as a 35mm film back for the
holdouts, if there are any left by the time it's introduced.


That sounds extremely unlikely to me. Chances are they just scaled
back the development. It will probably be more like an F100 upgraded
with the D2H's AF system.

Someone said used F5's are going in the $725 range. Anyone know what
a used F100 is going for?

I somehow think the F100 might hold its value better than an F5. What
good is an F5 these days? Its main advantages over the F100 revolve
around its faster shooting speeds and greater durability, but people
shooting at such high speeds and in such volume were probably the
first to switch to digital.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Voigtlander Vito CL (35mm vintage camera) Angelo P. General Equipment For Sale 1 August 4th 04 07:56 PM
FS: Voigtlander Vito CL (35mm vintage camera) Angelo P. General Equipment For Sale 0 June 26th 04 12:30 PM
FS: Nikon AF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (for Digital and 35mm slr) Angelo P. General Equipment For Sale 0 May 25th 04 11:08 PM
FS: Nikon F601 (N6006) 35mm AF body Angelo P. General Equipment For Sale 0 May 23rd 04 08:18 PM
Nikon 35mm and APS SLRs and related equipment for sale Mike Schnierle 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 29th 03 05:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.