I like you Paul have always bought from reputable sources, I bought the large majority my stuff before The Internet existed and bought them from retailers that gave a warranty. I have a 2 F1N-AE, A1, EF, 2 T90s and and have had them so long that I can operate them without thinking, and as the old adage says, "The best camera is the one you're most used to", I prefer them to any of the subsequent models that Canon have made the T90 is about as high-tech as I wish to go, and if they need servicing I get it done by a professional, I'm not interested in their market value if I sold them because I have no intention of ever doing so, to me their value is in the pictures they make..
Originally Posted by Paul Jenkin
Last edited by benjiboy; 05-02-2010 at 08:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"It depends on the camera, some of my stuff has a sentimental value to it. I will go a little farther on the expense.
Years ago I took a 35mm camera to a local camera repair guy who, without even diagnosing the problem, informed me that it was not worth fixing.
Well, first of all nobody likes to hear that a piece of equipment they own is "not worth fixing" and admittedly, the camera was not a Nikon or a Leica, (it was, in fact, a lowly Ricoh, my first SLR). However, whether or not something is "worth fixing" is a decision that can only be made by the person who will pay for the repair.
Subsequently I had some one else repair the camera. It was not particularly expensive, certainly less than the cost of a replacement and if I should require service on something else in the future you can guess who I will use. Particularly since guy #1 is now out of business. Coincidence?
Very good point. I like to tell myself that I'm saving the camera from the junk pile and landfill, but I like this argument even better!
Originally Posted by Shaggysk8
They are so cheap to buy today, relatively speaking, that they are "worth" getting repaired while we can. I don't consider the price I can get when I sell the camera as it's "worth". I like using these older instruments.
When I returned to film a while back, I thought I wanted an autofocus due to my less than perfect vision that I now find myself with. I found out how cheap these cameras were going for, and have purchased a number of them, both fully manual and fully automatic. I find that most often, I'm taking the manual bodies out. I just like the process of working them. I haven't had all of them serviced, and won't, but the classics are worth it to me.
Last edited by LyleB; 05-02-2010 at 09:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Warning: a bit off topic
Reminds me of my first repair experience with Nikon. I had an FM2 that I had purchased new. While backpacking with it, I dropped it onto some rocks. The re-wind knob and back locking mechanism popped off. I was left with a small handful of loose parts including springs, the crank, various washers etc. There was also a small dent in the top plate.
Originally Posted by Ria
I returned the camera and parts to the shop where I purchased it, and they packaged it up and sent it to Nikon Repair for me. A couple of weeks later, I got word that the Repair shop had determined that the camera was "uneconomical to repair" and that they would be returning it to me. I was very disappointed, as I could not afford a new camera at that time. When the camera arrived back from Nikon, I was pleasantly surprised to find it back in one piece, fully assembled with a note that it had not been repaired, so no charge.
I tried it out and it worked flawlessly. The only part that did not function, was the back door lock. Just pulling up on the rewind crank would pop the back open - I could live with that. I used that camera without problem for another decade until it was stolen.
Sometimes not getting something repaired works out greatl
Back to the topic at hand...
I think it is misleading to use the price of a used replacement camera as a measure of a camera's value, unless that used replacement comes from a trusted source, with a meaningful warranty.
Many prices for used cameras are illogical - they are more likely to represent vagaries in the market than objective factors.
When considering repair costs, I find it useful to think of the cost of rolls of film. If a repair is going to cost me less than X rolls of film, and I'm likely to shoot X rolls of film with the repaired camera in the near future, it seems more clear that the repair cost is worthwhile.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Shaggysk8
To my mind it depends if one sees your equipment as a commodity to buy and sell or as a resource to use, I have my gear serviced because I'm happy with it, enjoy it and want to carry on using it, and don't want to sell it.
Originally Posted by MattKing
I figure it's a case by case situation. I probably would not spend more then the value of the camera on a repair. From my experience with having camera's repaired is they do not necessarily keep working for a long time. I had a real nice FE2 that I bought for $150.00 but it was gummed up so I sent it in for a CLA. They told me the meter was also defective and I paid $150.00 to have it all fixed up. Then 18months later it quit working and I called the same outfit and they said send it in with another $150.00. I then thought now I will have $450.00 in the thing and decided to sell it off for parts instead at Camera West. Luckily they felt it was worth $180.00 so I was happy to part company with the camera. I now have a N80 that I got for free. It is a 100% camera on the inside and outside. However I am not going to repair it when the time comes. I am going to go digital full time at that point as the last good lab is 40 miles away and it's to hard to get out there.