Used Nikon equipment.

<p>Over the new year I had a thought of my equipment, as a result I sold the D2h which I hardly used. I bought used so don't expect to lose much. I'm in New Zealand I then had a look at a no. of the other lenses like kits or multi travel zooms become half price when they are used including the 2nd version of the 18-200. The pricey nano zooms were about 20% less.</p>

<p>Fortunately I got my 18-70 kit used with a 2nd D70 kept the lens sold the camera might have broke even. So I had a thought - like how new cars driven out of the showroom lose quite a bit of value instantly, is buying used photography equipment good way if we don't need equipment urgently?</p>

<p>The only lenses that didn't make much sense to buy used were cheap and good stuff like the 50mm or 35mm. I know that dSLRs bodies are huge bargain if they are 6yrs old, what about if they are 2yr old and still the current model or if they are 3 or a bit more when they are just been replaced with a newer one plus some slack time for the prices to stabilise after the annoucement?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know that dSLRs bodies are huge bargain if they are 6yrs old, what about if they are 2yr old and still the current model or if they are 3 or a bit more when they are just been replaced with a newer one plus some slack time for the prices to stabilise after the annoucement?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bargain means different things to different people, Ray. For instance, I think the RX100 is a bargain even at $600 because it helps me in such way that no dslr can. It's pocket size, good enough IQ, and quick and fast enough for what I do. One can buy a d5100 and a kit lens with the same money...It all depends on what <strong>YOU</strong> want in a camera. Life is short, figure out what's vital to you and go! And do it before you have a family...</p>

<p>If they're 6 years old, there's probably SO much about to go wrong with them that it might just be throwing money away... jus' sayin'... (cameras, that is, not necessarily lenses... although I wonder about the long-term last-a-bility of AF-S lenses, at least cheaper ones)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If they're 6 years old, there's probably SO much about to go wrong with them that it might just be throwing money away... jus' sayin'... (cameras, that is, not necessarily lenses... although I wonder about the long-term last-a-bility of AF-S lenses, at least cheaper ones)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a bold statement. I have seen older lenses function flawlessly after a life of abuse. Both the pro lenses and the consumer lenses. <br>

<br>

There is slight difference between probably, likely and presumably.</p>

<p>Ray, from what I've seen on auction sites and announcement sites, the best second-hand value to me seem to be the bodies that are just replaced; either second-hand or discounted new. They're usually still in great shape, new enough to not worry too much, and they take the biggest price-fall when they become "outdated". As Peter said, when they get much older, the risk of problems does increase a lot. Second-hand cameras that are still more or less current tend to fetch higher prices - even when they're older, heavier used etc. Just because they're still current, they do not seem old.<br>

Of course, the price-drop is relative, and sometimes the second hand market seems slow to follow. I bought my D700 a few days before the D600 announcement with warranty, brand new. The price was competitive with "light-used" 1-2 yr old D700 on eBay at that moment. </p>

<p>Lenses - if they're good, they keep value. Old Ai metal-barrel primes still can fetch high prices; reputation and availability dictate the prices most. Lenses with a lesser construction quality (zoom-creeping 18-200's, for example) drop more over time - possibly also because they attract a different audience, which believes that old equals "outdated"; as you know, for lenses this isn't quite as applicable as it is for DSLRs.</p>

<p>Arthur, I was mainly talking about cameras.</p>

<p>Most of us who use a computer every day aren't using a 6-year old computer. The cameras that are 6 years old are just waiting to fail.</p>

<p>I almost always buy used gear. I prefer it as I get more for my money. But then keep in mind the last camera I bought, two weeks ago, is a Voigtlander Bergheil made in 1928! All of my Nikon digitals were bought either used or as refurbs. I've had no problems. All of my Nikon lenses were bought used too.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>A lot of resale value is whimsical, if not downright fantasy. There are many eBay folks who try and sell their Nikon N80 for what they paid for it, back in the day, but there ain't anybody paying $300 for 'em. You can get good value from some used gear but not all.</p>

You need to be aware of the shutter count on used DSLRs as well.

<p>Have experienced 172 eBay transactions since 1999 on a lot of used equipment. It ran the gamut, from flawless to junk. From my experience: trust sellers with 100% positive feedbacks only, see detailed photos of the item, require return privileges, and from my experience highest rated commercial dealers with warranties are probably more reliable than many private sellers.</p>

<p>I haven't bought new gear in over 15 years, all of it has been used, SLRs, DSLRs, TLRs & lenses. I look for durable, sound opportunities, and some fixer-uppers from the 1950s which do a great job when properly adjusted.</p>

<p>Out of my well over 600 transactions on eBay, only 3 were bad experiences; and on one of those I got my money back much later. About half my gear is "used" (aka, pre-owned for the fancier items), which I buy depends on how close the used prices are to new.</p>

<p>Watch the vendor history, never send money orders (although I once sent a money order for a vendor that only did business that way, had a unique item, and a long positive record), and look at the description and pictures carefully before you bid.</p>

<p>Some lenses and cameras have well-known problems (see "Meyer Domiplan"). Look around on Google® before you go further.</p>

<p>Most modern equipment of the electronic source is very unlikely to "wear out" unless it has been abused. Electronic items tend to fail right away in their initial use electronically if they are 'bad', but a few do have things like stress failures on "flexing cables" or such like that show up after much use.</p>

<p>Don't be overly swayed by critics bad-mouthing some equipment - frankly many of them have never owned or used the items they are repeating rumors about. Look for more serious reviews and pay attention to the probable reliability of the source (hey, this is just like life in general!)</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=847873">Devon McCarroll</a> , Jan 17, 2013; 10:47 a.m.</p>

 

<p>You need to be aware of the shutter count on used DSLRs as well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, the very nature of digital photography encourages machinegun firing of the shutters because there's no cost. Even with film cameras there was a tendency to do this "dry firing" without film in the camera, but it was less likely.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, many DSLRs lack a shutter count mechanism.</p>

<p>I've bought some used gear but most of it older and more robust like old Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses. Unless mechanically abused or stored in the wrong places I expect these to last "forever".</p>

<p>Lenses with AF-S motors and also VR are very complicated both electronically and mechanically, just as modern DSLRs. So lenses and DSLRs have a shorter lifespan and will likely have been fired a lot more times during it's lifetime than gear from the film era.</p>

<p>Still if it's a bargain or not depends on the price. I find that DSLRs that are exactly one generation old and either bought new with warranty at a clearance price or bought used by someone who doesn't shoot much and always buys the latest model is a good buy. Soon the D7000 is expected to qualify when the replacement model been announced and is available in stores.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Over the years, I have owned 3 film bodies, and close to 10 lenses. Some I bought brand new, some used. Except for two lenses I recently acquired, the rest of lenses are more than 10 years old. Only one failed on me (55mm macro AIS). Three cameras that I have are all in good working condition, even the 20+ years old FM2. I don't know if the current AFS lenes or DSLRs can have this kind of track record. For this reason, if I buy used, I would look for models that are no more than 4 years old, specially DSLRs.</p>

<p>Many people have provided good tips on buying from ebay, but you will notice the auction that have detail pictures tend to sell at higher price. You are paying for that peace of mind.</p>

 

<p>Most of my Nikon gear was bought used and all have performed satisfactorily, at least considering the condition (a battered MD-4 motor drive finally began misbehaving after a few years). The F3HP, FM2N, several manual focus Nikkors and other bits of gear have worked well.</p>

<p>The only Nikon gear with which I've experienced significant unresolved problems was purchased new - the D2H. But even that isn't representative of most of my experience with new Nikon gear. The SB-800 flash, 18-70 DX, 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR and 50/1.8D AF Nikkors have all performed flawlessly. Last month I received a V1 and 10-30 VR kit as a gift and it has performed flawlessly so far.</p>

<p>Since 1976 I have used 4 cameras' - FT3, F3HP, D70s, D7000, all purchased new.<br>

My total camera body cost over that period - about $77 per year.<br>

Coincidentally I purchased 6 AIS lens - all gray market - for the F3HP - all new. Those lens prices were almost exactly 50% of USA warranty prices. I am frugal when possible.<br>

I still get to (AND DO!) use those AIS lens with my D7000. WOOT!<br>

I use 2 AF lens now with the D7000, the 18-70 kit, and a 50mm f1.8.<br>

In my history, new bodies have been worthwhile purchases, as well as lens.<br>

Total cost, what about $110 per year? <br>

I am happy. Do I need to "try" different technology every 3 months, no.<br>

Number of failures over 36 years - 0.<br>

Total equipment purchases over 36 years - under $4000<br>

Value of the resulting pictures over that time - PRICELESS<br>

My next camera to purchase - D7500 - about three generations from now.<br>

I am happy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep, but if you shot film bodies in the past there wasn't much of a need to upgrade that freq. In the digital era even for non freq upgraders it would still be more ... There is also the thing in the past that they were nominally less by the dollar sign but that is not adjusted to today's dollars. </p>

<p>Just in the digital era, D70 body ~10yrs or 9, assume 10. $1000US/10 = $100/year already for one camera.</p>

<p>Ray, but John's calculation misses one major component:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Total cost, what about $110 per year?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's excluding film and processing. So not really an apples-to-apples comparison to the cost of digital. So, suppose you shoot 1000 photos a year (and many people here will shoot way more). Let's say $5 for 24 frames of film and processing (a rough ballpark figures, I do not know exact US prices, sorry but I paid the equivalent in euros last time). Adds $200 per year. Suddenly, that $1000 for the D70 breaks even in 3,5 years.</p>