arthur_smith1

On 6/16/2023 at 1:38 AM, kmac said:

Strictly speaking, this thread has no real purpose unless the OP conveys to us the eventually outcome. The OP has offered a "very fair offer". It would be nice to know what it was, after the completion of the deal, if a deal is actually struck. And any offer/price adjustments that were made, if any.

A gentleman never discloses such information. That's how I was properly raised. 

9 hours ago, orsetto said:

Previous replies summed it up neatly. Whether we like it or not, since its rise to dominance nearly thirty years ago, eBay has been the one and only metric for used camera pricing. If you want to know the current demand and value of a camera or lens, you search for it on eBay, filter the results to show only "sold" examples, and average the prices the item sold for over the past few months (in the same condition as the example you're considering).

Then you can break it down a little further to work out a mutually satisfactory deal for you and the seller. Lets say the average recent sold price on eBay in this condition is $200. Selling on eBay costs a roughly 14% commission, and entails the hassle of packing and shipping (and hoping an obnoxious scammy buyer doesn't decide to return the camera and stiff the seller out of additional return shipping fees). Traditional used camera dealers are quicker and easier but will offer far less to the seller: often just 35%-50% of current eBay sold prices. So one could quite reasonably offer an in-person, for-cash seller approx 15% - 25% below the going eBay price (offer $160 for an item that typically fetches $200 on eBay).

Individual situations may vary in terms of the buyer/seller dynamic. You might factor in how well you know the seller (will they remain in your life as a friend or will you never see them again), what their motivation to sell is (are they desperate for cash or just idly want to unload a surplus camera), and whether you think the seller had enough friggin brains to do their own eBay price check beforehand (which even my long-deceased grandmother knows to do at this point, but...).

Such considerations might lead you to offer significantly less than (or closer to) the going eBay price. i.e., I wouldn't be comfortable buying a camera from a social acquaintance for a ridiculous lowball price, because I'd feel bad and they might feel resentful if they realize later they let it go too cheap. With a total stranger, the onus is more on them to know the value of what they are selling: if they seem happy to accept a lowball offer, theres really no ethical dilemma. Of course the risk of a too-lowball offer is annoying the seller, who may just walk away in disgust instead of negotiating to an agreeable counter-offer. 

I agree with previous replies that there is indeed a definite, tangible value to a seller allowing you take a vintage camera home for an extended film test before purchase (or declining). The certainty of knowing it either works perfect or needs repair before laying out the cash avoids a ton of potential aggravation and hassle you'd otherwise experience with eBay or a web dealer. 

The precise dollar value you place on that peace of mind is up to you, but its worth something. Personally, I'd value the in-home trial at the differential between average eBay sold price and the discounted cash price I'd typically offer an in-person seller. Without a trial, I'd offer $155 to $175 for an in-person purchase of a $200 camera. With in-home trial, I'd gladly offer the full average eBay "sold" price on a properly-functioning item.

I am offering a very fair offer. If he agrees, great. If not, no harm no fowl. I don't think a trial should command a premium. That was his suggestion, not mine. 

13 hours ago, James G. Dainis said:

 The latest McKeown's 12th edition was published in 2006; quite some time ago. I wonder if the prices in the book would be higher than since eBay started flooding the market.

Most of the offers on eBay seemed to be highly optimistic and got no bids. Offers within the McKeown's price range did get bids.

Which is why you should not look at "asking" prices. People can ask whatever they want. Which does not mean they will ever sell at asking prices. 

17 hours ago, Colin O said:

you don't pay more just for the sake of paying more. You pay for the added value of being able to "road test" your purchase - and the peace of mind that gives you. Like I said, you should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. The aim (I would hope) is that nobody gets swindled out of any money.

I live in America. The 'value" of things are determined by what someone is willing to pay for them. Without criticism of the transaction. This indeed is the definition of a Free Economy. 

On 6/10/2023 at 11:37 AM, Colin O said:

I would also query the virtue in this. Everyone likes a bargain, but if the seller can sell it on eBay for x dollars, why should you cheat them out of that price (or thereabouts)? Plus, you should actually be willing to pay a premium for the peace of mind you get by being able to test your purchase first, which generally isn't so easy with eBay purchases. You should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. Having said that, look only at "Sold listings" when checking eBay prices. Current, unsold listings are no indicator of what the market actually pays.

So I should pay more? That makes no sense. 

On 6/11/2023 at 10:03 AM, James G. Dainis said:

McKeown's Price Guide lists that camera as $70 -$150

I wouldn't trust that book as a credible source- hopelessly out of date. 

May physically be possible. Optically, it will give you poor images, if that is what you want. 

The seller let me borrow this beautiful Rolleiflex Old Standard for the weekend, to take it through its paces. I shot a roll of Pan F Plus today, and loved it. It's in clean vintage condition, everything works well, including the frame counter. Sure, the slow speeds do seem a little slow, but to be expected at 89 years of age. 

Ignoring the auction site prices, what does this community think is a reasonable offer for this camera? No, It's not a 2.8F, but it's a piece of history. What should I offer for it?

Issue resolved. Thank you.

Hi, I recently bought a beautiful little Rolleicord IA Type 3, the one with the little red window on the bottom. Turns out the previous owner seems to have dropped the camera, and as a result, the back door does not fit well to the body, And yes, I have light leaks. I like the Holga/Diana lomography look, but not on this camera. The lens is amazingly sharp. 

Does anyone have an extra door? I tried making light seals, but the door fit is so off, light is always going to get through as is. 

Thanks! Arthur

<p>Really surprised no one has mentioned KatzEye split microprism screens. Not cheap, but well worth it. I had one installed into my Nikon D300. And it almost made digital photography enjoyable again. Now I can use all my Ai and AiS glass, and have a pretty accurate focusing aid. The green rangefinder light is less than useless. </p>

<p>I can only comment on the 2.8- it is far and away the best telephoto lens I have ever used. I got mine a few years ago as a "throw in" with the F3HP that I bought. Now that The Angry Photographer has caused demand and prices to go through the roof (I love the guy- he is usually spot on), the lens is that much more enjoyable. </p>

<p>Thanks- I have never heard of Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer charts- will have to look into that. I have been using my iPhone Pocket Light Meter, and Gossen Luna Pro F, and the more I compare now, the FM's meter looks to be within a half stop. Not bad for an almost 40 year old camera. </p>

<p>New 55 recently released a pretty cool looking product, and published a home brew formula, for a monobath developer that can be used for Tri-X, and HP5 Plus. Has anyone tried it? If so, thoughts?</p>

<p>Ask 50 photographers what the best 35mm camera to use is, and you'll get over 100 responses. I don't think not using a light meter makes someone a better photographer. They are tools, and can be used nicely in the right hands. They are never 100% accurate, but it's always nice to have a guide that can make an accurate recommendation as to what exposure to use for most given situations.</p>

<p>Your matrix meter is not the "end all". It makes suggestions. And sometimes, those recommendations are not correct. It is says 1 stop under, it may be, but does not mean that your shot will be. It's a guideline. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, we live in "zoom nation" these days, and the latest myths are that zooms can outperform primes. It will never happen. They are convenient. But even the less expensive prime lenses can be spectacular. of course, with the D300 you have the goofy crop factor. But a 35 for normal, and a 50 for short portraits, is a nice combo. <br>

Kind of hard to look at slow zooms again, when you can open up to 1.2, 1.4, or 1.8 on normal primes. 2.8 might be as fast as a zoom can get. </p>

<p>The 17-55 is fairly sharp wide open. No lens is "perfect" wide open, and sharpness is only one measurement of many as to what constitutes a good image. But it sounds here as though you have multiple issues. </p>

<p>An update- I shot another roll over the weekend, and developed using Rodinal and semi-stand developing. Got some beautiful exposures, and the process seems to hold highlights beautifully. So, maybe it was my development. In any event, very happy! Still think the F3 meter might be the best out of the Nikon manual focus bodies.</p>

<p>The best deal I got at Photographica this year was a Nikkor 80-200 push pull zoom with factory Ai mod, and the somewhat hard to find C (coated) designation. It really is a great, sharp zoom.<br>

The crazed frenzy to the dollar table is not worth it anymore. I used to do it- my life is far too valuable. </p>

<p>I was hoping to get help on here, not have my purchasing or troubleshooting skills critiqued. This is far from my primary camera, and the good exposures I have taken have already helped the camera more than pay for itself. </p>

<p>The DOF preview lever was not opened up all the way. Guessing this may have had some impact on proper exposure. </p>

<p>Might use the FE2 to compare metering. That meter is usually dead on. </p>

<p>I dont want to overengineer a solution for an otherwise great camera that I paid less than $40 for. But, I did have a few good exposures that I spotted in scanning last night. And they required very little, if any, adjustments to highlights. Sending it in for a CLA would cost more than I paid for it. I have replaced the seals, mirror dampener, light meter batteries, and a few cosmetic things. I am going to keep working the shutter and live with it. </p>

<p>Important to note is that I did have a few nice exposures. But to my eyes, the light areas seemed very light, almost washed out. Out of all of my cameras, I think the F3 has a great light meter. I may use that one to compare, as well as Pocket Light Meter. </p>