dougdarter
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,099
- Name
- Douglas
- Edit My Images
- Yes
............. with condition of equipment.
Here's a thing. I've been using cameras for 50 years, putting them in, and taking them out of bags/cases etc, changing lenses, getting them wet, putting them on the ground, and unintentionally abusing them. But I'm pretty certain that modern cameras, especially high end models are built to take such treatment, and they almost always survive in good condition.
The mere use of a camera out of doors (and often inside) will inevitably mean that it picks up small scratches, and the occasional ding (Nikon film cameras were very prone to collecting dents on the prism housing, but this didn't make them un-useable). They are battle scars if you like, and used to be the sign of a pro photographer.
Yet, time after time I see people bemoaning the fact that a camera (or lens) has small marks or scratches, and turning them down as unattractive purchases. I've often seen the first question on a sales post questions such as 'Close up photograph of any mark please', or please describe in details any small marks, scratches or grazes, marks on lens coatings, barrels, marks on LCD screens etc ad nauseum.
It seems to me the situation is almost 'tail wagging the dog'! Are people buying photographic equipment second hand, and then not using it as intended, because they fear marking it?? Do they think that any marks or similar damage make it any the less a camera? Are they not enjoying their hobby fully, because they are afraid that they might damage their equipment?
I understand that condition of a camera may, but only may be signs of careless abuse, or long life, but this is the exception rather than the rule. t probably only means that the camera is USED. I treat my equipment with care, and it doesn't often suffer, but if it does pick up a mark or two, it's actually quite liberating. Knowing that it already has a battle scar makes the next one so much easier to bear.
My favourite lens, an older Canon 200mm f2.8, is covered in scratches, front element covered in cleaning marks, a bit murky behind the rear element, and even the start of fungus, yet it still works, and it still produces bright, saturated and sharp pictures, unless you try and use it contre jour, in which case the many cleaning marks make it challenging. But it works, despite it's appalling condition. I sold a Canon 400mm f5.6L here a few years ago, which had 25% of the paint missing, because some pillock had used camouflaged gaffer tape to camouflage it for birding. I don't think he ever stopped to wonder what was the stronger - gaffer tape adhesive or Canon white paint! But it was a brilliant lens, and the buyer, who was more concerned with utility rather than looks, got a fantastic lens for a small price.
The simple truth is, that if you want a camera that looks new it's probably better to buy new, and don't always expect that used equipments should look the same. It doesn't always, and the reason it doesn't, and the reason it's cheap, is because it has been used, and it is SECOND HAND.
Have fun.
Here's a thing. I've been using cameras for 50 years, putting them in, and taking them out of bags/cases etc, changing lenses, getting them wet, putting them on the ground, and unintentionally abusing them. But I'm pretty certain that modern cameras, especially high end models are built to take such treatment, and they almost always survive in good condition.
The mere use of a camera out of doors (and often inside) will inevitably mean that it picks up small scratches, and the occasional ding (Nikon film cameras were very prone to collecting dents on the prism housing, but this didn't make them un-useable). They are battle scars if you like, and used to be the sign of a pro photographer.
Yet, time after time I see people bemoaning the fact that a camera (or lens) has small marks or scratches, and turning them down as unattractive purchases. I've often seen the first question on a sales post questions such as 'Close up photograph of any mark please', or please describe in details any small marks, scratches or grazes, marks on lens coatings, barrels, marks on LCD screens etc ad nauseum.
It seems to me the situation is almost 'tail wagging the dog'! Are people buying photographic equipment second hand, and then not using it as intended, because they fear marking it?? Do they think that any marks or similar damage make it any the less a camera? Are they not enjoying their hobby fully, because they are afraid that they might damage their equipment?
I understand that condition of a camera may, but only may be signs of careless abuse, or long life, but this is the exception rather than the rule. t probably only means that the camera is USED. I treat my equipment with care, and it doesn't often suffer, but if it does pick up a mark or two, it's actually quite liberating. Knowing that it already has a battle scar makes the next one so much easier to bear.
My favourite lens, an older Canon 200mm f2.8, is covered in scratches, front element covered in cleaning marks, a bit murky behind the rear element, and even the start of fungus, yet it still works, and it still produces bright, saturated and sharp pictures, unless you try and use it contre jour, in which case the many cleaning marks make it challenging. But it works, despite it's appalling condition. I sold a Canon 400mm f5.6L here a few years ago, which had 25% of the paint missing, because some pillock had used camouflaged gaffer tape to camouflage it for birding. I don't think he ever stopped to wonder what was the stronger - gaffer tape adhesive or Canon white paint! But it was a brilliant lens, and the buyer, who was more concerned with utility rather than looks, got a fantastic lens for a small price.
The simple truth is, that if you want a camera that looks new it's probably better to buy new, and don't always expect that used equipments should look the same. It doesn't always, and the reason it doesn't, and the reason it's cheap, is because it has been used, and it is SECOND HAND.
Have fun.
,years ago as a pro my cameras and lens would be in an open bag,and yes they did have a few battle scars about them.
but I do like my gear to look good. Have to look at it every day for years to come...
