Would you get a new or used camera.

[gmat]

I can get a D90 and 18-200 zoom used for about 100,000+ yen in Akihabara. It would cost 136-144,000 yen new at Yodobashi Camera, plus the 10% points added to my Yodobashi Card. Would the warranty with buying a new camera be worth the extra price? How would you check to see if the used camera isn't a lemon?

Any advice would be welcome.

Best wishes,

Grant

[Guest ___]

Personally, that's high, but you're in Tokyo. I have to admit, I have a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 VRII mounted on a D2Hs and love the image quality, but when I go to Japan to shoot trains, I do not want to carry that much weight with me and use an 18-200 VR-I (the original) on my D2Hs and it works great.  (The 18-200 VRII is a little bit better as it has a zoom lock as the 18-200 likes to creep when pointed down,, not a big deal) But with the D90's video ability, I think this is a good direction to go, and will be a vast improvement over what you're shooting with now.

[gmat]

Thank you for your comments. I guess that I'll be getting the new one.

Bet wishes,

Grant

[Guest ___]

Note, if you buy new, you'll be getting the VRII lens with it, which is a better lens than the VRI

[disturbman]

I'm actually been wondering about that. I don't know how it is with more expensive digital cameras but seeing how everything "digital" is being developed with a very short life span (thanks to the dogma of planned obsolescence), I would avoid second hand DC.

 

That said I have no problem buying old film cameras. I love those reflexes from the 60s/70s, very sturdy, very efty and they make beautiful pictures.

[KenS]

For myself, I'd buy new, but that's more about personal preference (I like new stuff).

 

I think the biggest risk with used is that you could be getting something that has a persistent electronic problem (which led the owner to sell) or in a DSLR someone attempting to clean the sensor could have scratched or otherwise damaged it.  Digital cameras are a lot more complex than film cameras, and replacement of expensive components may be the only option if there is damage you don't find until too late.

 

All that said, buying used from a reputable shop would be fine, assuming they're offering some kind of satisfaction guarantee or warranty.  I'd be really doubtful about private sales, although even there the real risk is probably fairly low.

 

I'm not so sure planned obsolescence is a big issue in practical terms.  Electronic circuits may not last a century, like a good film camera, but they're not likely to fail in a decade, or even two. The biggest risk there is probably the shutter.  A DSLR shutter can have a lifetime of 100,000 exposures or so.  Which may seem like a lot, but a pro can go through that in a few years. On the other hand, I use my camera a lot, and after five years I'm still below six thousand exposures.

 

A ten-year old camera would be fairly poor, because digital cameras ten years ago were in their infancy, but anything recent is another matter. Since cameras hit about 8 megapixels six or seven years ago, the technology has been advancing incrementally.  There are definitely benefits to a 2012 camera over my 2007 camera, and I've been looking at trading up myself. But it's not like the old one is any worse of a camera than it was when I bought it. It's still significantly better than a 2012 point-and-shoot.

 

If buying used lets you get something you couldn't afford otherwise, and you are comfortable with the risk, go for it. (I realize the OP is a couple of years old, and Grant either did or didn't go for it a long time ago, but take that as a general statement).

[disturbman]

I'm not so sure planned obsolescence is a big issue in practical terms.  Electronic circuits may not last a century, like a good film camera, but they're not likely to fail in a decade, or even two.

 

Maybe not (since old electronic reflex camera are still working basically fine) but I still have the impression digital camera are not made to last as long. First their is the constant evolution in sensors which was not an issue with film, then there is also those parts that are fragile enough to ruin your camera without anything important going bad (parts that are usually expensive enough to repair). I had enough problems with shutters and screens to make me cautious about the longevity of digital cameras

 

The biggest risk there is probably the shutter.  A DSLR shutter can have a lifetime of 100,000 exposures or so.  Which may seem like a lot, but a pro can go through that in a few years. On the other hand, I use my camera a lot, and after five years I'm still below six thousand exposures.

 

I had had problems with shutters before and encountered malfunctions after 2 or 3 years of intensive use on two successive cameras, though that was before affordable DSLRs and second price camera. Maybe things are better now.

[cteno4]

One thing i have noticed with digital cameras is they just get more abuse than older cameras did. they just dont get no respect...

 

the small ones folks throw everywhere and cram in their pockets. the slrs are now used by a lot of folks that in the old day would not have a slr and i see folks banging them all over the place, out in wet weather and w/o any cases or bags to keep them a bit protected. I even find myself doing this with my dslr. dont know what it is as the price is sometime more for the dslr than an old slr may have been!

 

i am amazed that the little digital point and shoots put up with the abuse they take! they have very fiddly little mechanics for moving the lenses in and out of storage mode and can take amazing abuse and keep on working! i could see those mechanisms getting mucked up fast, but they seem to keep pretty clean. lots of dry lubricants and coatings now as well to help things cleaner.

 

i agree with ken in that there can be many more issues with a dslr that could have been abused by a previous owner. but as a kid i always bought used slrs (all i could afford) and some of those turned out to be amazing workhorses. one yashica took amazing abuse over about 5 years of super heavy shooting. i shot 5+ rolls a day for a year and a half taking construction site record photos while also shooting yacht races from small skiffs with huge amounts of spray and a months of time in alaska shooting whale fluke ids with it in all sorts of nasty weather. it still works and is 40 years old now! the 135mm got dropped onto concrete, got a dent in the front (had to tape on filters), bit stiff focusing but no parallax issues! i could not do the same with the 20d!

 

jeff

[Hobby Dreamer]

One thing i have noticed with digital cameras is they just get more abuse than older cameras did. they just dont get no respect...

 

Almost all those with dSLRs use them as point and shoot cameras. They are "instamatic" photographers who in middle age can now afford more and make absolutely zero effort to learn about photography, lighting, exposure etc but rather rely on auto-everything.

 

Film was expensive so you thought about things more. And you would make an extra effort by lying down or actually walking 100ft to get a shot. Everyone today take their photos at face height no matter what!

 

So people don't respect their cameras; no effort plus low operating cost = no respect!

 

But I'd buy new if its important... New for most things.. One new thing well taken care of by you is better than 2 cheaper things that may have been abused. Sure, you can luck in a used purchase but for a small savings there is too much that can go wrong..

 

Also, digital cameras seem to have a lot of problems.. People always seem to be taking them in for repair...

[disturbman]

One thing i have noticed with digital cameras is they just get more abuse than older cameras did. they just dont get no respect...

 

Are you saying that my bad experiences are my own fault and I'm a bad owner?!  :grin

 

You are probably right but I must say' date=' my last digital camera died pretty fast on me. But I certainly used too much for what it was made for.

 

[quoze=Hobby Dreamer']Almost all those with dSLRs use them as point and shoot cameras.

 

That's for sure but the makers got things right, they had the possibility to offer expensive and iconic cameras to the public and it worked. People buy camera that are too expensive for the use they make. But I must say, I've seen "real" photographers use their dSLR as point and shoot cameras too. The task of going through all the options to have the perfect settings can be daunting too. I prefer analog cameras, the hand on is more straight forward.

 

As for this trend of excessive creation of valueless pictures, I've always been interested to read of its effects on art and the social view on photography but never took the time to look for essays on this subject.

[cteno4]

i think its sort of a cultural thing with our attitudes to things like tvs, electronics, cameras that use to be things that were seen as more precious, but now they are common place.

 

i agree with rick that there is vast overkill now in how folks use them and its no longer think first, shoot, its just shoot.

 

its funny since digital photography can be such a rapid way to learn the basics of photography quickly, seeing your results right away, experimenting, but the auto functions are good enough for folks that they dont bother and just snap away and will come up with some decent shots. i think many like the dslr looking cool, but just keep it on full auto and snap away! hey its just electrons!

 

i do see it as an opening to get more folks thinking of photography, but its also killing the professional end of photography as well. aaron im sure will chime in with the facebook/ap deals and the thousand monkeys on the typewriters.

 

jeff

[KenS]

As for this trend of excessive creation of valueless pictures, I've always been interested to read of its effects on art and the social view on photography but never took the time to look for essays on this subject.

 

I think another quote best sums it up:

 

"Somebody let the rabble in." (I've also seen it quoted as "Here come the rabble") - Rev. Charles L. Dodgson, wet-plate photographer, commenting on the invention of film (he also wrote some novel a lot of people have read  )

 

I think we got a lot of good photos after film was invented.  The thing is, crap photos are crap, and they end up on blog pages, in family albums because they're the only photo of "Uncle Billy", or in a shoebox nobody opens (or the depths of Flickr). But they fall by the wayside and disappear as fast as they're produced.  The good ones persist, and the photographers who take photos others consider to be good ones are more likely to find widespread visibility (though publishing, or these days just more blog hits) than Aunt Sue and her auto-everything snaps. That doesn't mean there won't be an impact, particularly to people invested in older technology or business models: I think we all lost something when Kodachrome died. And it doesn't mean there won't be change: film changed how even pros took photos, and the ease of use probably did remove a lot of the planning and thought that went into composition, just as digital is doing today.

 

But just because there are hordes out there using $3K cameras to take fifty-cent photos, or even because digital changes the way even good photographers take photos, I don't think photography fundamentally changes. Good photography is about taking images that mean something.  Whether done on copper plates with silver, on glass with collodion, on acetate film, on on a flash memory card, it's not the technology that matters. Technology makes new things possible (HDR, for example), but we still recognize good photos from a century ago as good, and for the same reasons we'd recognize a modern one.

 

All that's a bit off-topic, so back on the topic: I agree with you, digital cameras aren't built the way (good) film cameras were a few decades ago. Of course, neither are many other things in our "use it and toss it" society. And digital does encourage sloppy photography (but I took lots of terrible photos on film 20 years ago; it's not the technology, it's the guy holding the camera that's at fault...). But it can also enable amazing new photography: low-light street and nightscape photography, good HDR (admittedly hard to find amongst all the bad HDR), sports photos that freeze action AND have depth of field, and so on. And some of the people doing that actually care enough to learn what the buttons do.

 

The idea I find interesting about all these point-and-shoot auto-everything DSLR owners is: how many of them will get curious and figure out how it works when you take it off auto?  How many will use the "free" nature of images to experiment more with composition than we could when we learned on film that cost dimes per image (and a dime was a lot back then, why I remember...  ).  I think we could be at the beginnings of a massive wave of good photography (which still needs to be sorted from the crap photography; that's eternal).

 

BTW, I can't find an original for the Lewis Carroll quote above.  Bartlett's doesn't list it, and Google just turns up a bunch of people who seem to be quoting each other (of which I'm one now).  Maybe it's apocryphal.  It's a good enough quote that somebody ought to have said it. 

[Martijn Meerts]

I've got both a point & shoot and a DSLR. The point & shoot is easy to take along (and takes better pictures than any phone :)), so when I go somewhere where I might want to take some pictures, I bring the point & shoot. If I go somewhere and I KNOW I want to take pictures, I take the DSLR with 2 or 3 lenses and external flash. For example, when I finally go to Japan, the DSLR is most definitely coming with me :)

 

I have somewhat older DSLRs (Sony alpha 100 and Sony alpha 700), and several lenses. Especially the 700 (which I use most often) is still a very good camera. I also have a Carl Zeiss lens as my main lens (I also have a macro and wide-angle), which takes MUCH better pictures than the kit lens (obviously, just didn't expect the difference to be as extreme as it was)

 

As for going 2nd hand, I wouldn't, but that's just because I've had more bad experiences with 2nd hand than good ones :)

[disturbman]

Ken. I was mostly referring to the fact that the over abundance of pictures today is fundamentally changing our approach to photographic medium and the act of taking a picture. It's like digital cameras changed our relationship to cameras, like we were saying people are more rough with them than they used to because they don't perceive digital cameras having as much intrinsic value as before.

 

And I was also referring to the fact that those "valueless" (everyday life pictures, instantanés) are now gaining aesthetical value (it is nowadays quite easy to produce a beautiful/pleasing picture without it having more value than that) they might not have possess before.

 

So yes, our relationship to photography has been in my humble thinking changed a lot by the apparition of digital and dSLR cameras and the endless possibilities of software like photoshop. And the work of photographers, the way they think the picture also have changed. Obviously.

[summer]

Yes go for a new one. And the price is ok. Luckily you are living in Akihabara. I have heard most of the items are cheaper over there? Is it true? Because I need to buy a camera too.

Edited March 25, 2013 by summer

[gmat]

It depends. I've been looking at a Sony HD camcorder. The domestic models don't have an English menu and the Export models are much more expensive. 20 to 30 thousand yen more expensive for the high end models.  At Akihabara a used model is about 30 thousand yen cheaper. I'm talking about this one. It's without the built-in projector. It ends up comparable to buying it overseas.

 

Sony HDR-CX630V BC Digital HD Video Camera Recorder Handycam

http://www.yodobashi.com/ソニー-HDR-CX630V-BC-デジタルHDビデオカメラレコーダー-Handycam（ハンディカム）-ブラック/pd/100000001001679640/

 

Best wishes,

Grant

[KenS]

I have one of the older CXs, and a cheaper entry-level one at that.  I haven't used it much, but it's a good camera.  Mine is comparable to a point-and-shoot in being without a whole lot of adjustments. You have to depend on the camera's idea of what's "right" for a given scene. The one you're looking at appears to have a lot more adjustable features (based on the translation of the ebay page), which I think is a plus. 

 

But I find the menus confusing even in English.  If you don't read Japanese, using those adjustable features would be difficult.  You could probably memorize the patterns for specific settings you cared about if you have someone to help you learn (if I recall, your wife can read Japanese). But the difficulty of use is somethign to consider in buying a domestic-market camera withough foreign-language menu support.

 

I don't think buying used is as big a problem with a all-in-one camcorder as it would be with a DSLR.  You don't have to worry about sensor damage from a failed cleaning, for example. There's still risk. If it wasn't obviously damaged, it's probably just something someone got rid of when they traded up, although it could have been dropped in water (but if so, it probably wouldn't work at all). You still need to worry about deceptive sales if you don't buy used from a reputable dealer (obviously Yodobashi is reputable), although presumably that's less common in Japan than other places.

[JR 500系]

Well luckily for me, i think Sillypore has very good prices on electronics. Most foreigners come to Sillypore to get stuff like lab-tops, cameras, LCDs etc.

 

Here's a look at the prices during promotional sales:

 

http://singapore-promotions.com/happenings/electronics-wholesale-expo-2013-singapore-expo-22-24-mar-2013-60981/

 

Heck that's almost a sale every weekend somewhere so prices are really competitve.

 

Speaking of which, i just bought my first 'GOOD ENOUGH' camera after years and years of using buget point-and-shoot. The Olympus PEN EP-3. Hope it's good enough to take macro shots which i really need for my layout! 

[KenS]

Looks like a good camera to me. 12MP, RAW-capable, and fully-manual controls if you want them, should do a fine job.

 

Did you get the MCON-P01 macro adapter?

[JR 500系]

Yes Ken, i read alot of reviews before deciding on this one, and the mrs liked the design so it's a go ahead...

 

Unfortuantely i couldnt find time to play around with the camera functions yet... I don't have the MCON-P01 Macro Adapter, but i do have a 17mm f2.8 wide lens that came as a bundle with the camera an 14-42mm II R f3.5 - 5.6 lens, and a couple of other freebies. Might be thinking of getting the Macro Adaptor, but would like to try out the 17mm wide lens first as the shop assistant told me that lens could handle marco well...

 

I'm a newbie at this... Don't understand alot of terms, what lens are for what, ISO, exposure etc... Reading up form the net when i find the time... 

[JR 500系]

Finally got the Macro MCON-P01 adapter and got to play around with my Pen EP-3 abit...

 

Some pictures i took:

 

Seems like it is still not so clear... Perhaps i'm missing some settings or forgetting something? The manual said AF and i tried using it, but still doesn't seem to come out so perfect like i imagine... Or perhaps i'm image-ing too much?

[cteno4]

jr,

 

picts look good. you just are running into the problem of depth of field, which really hits you in macro as the closer you get to the lens the less your overall depth of field. in most macro situations only a small bit of your depth of field will be in focus and thus you get what ever you focused on and a little in front and in back of that in focus and the rest of the stuff further forward and back out of focus. best way to increase depth of focus is to open the aperture up as much as possible with lower speed and also more light. getting back further from the object and zooming in some will also help give you greater depth of field, but usually you loose some detail this way.

 

AF also chooses what it wants to have be spot focus and that may not what you want. so play with manual focus to see if you can force the area you want your available depth of field to cover.

 

the same shot in real life that we do macros of in models has most of the scene in full depth of field area so most everything is in focus. this is the thing that tips the eye first that a shot is or full scale or model. tilt shift lenses and software will give the limited depth of field look to full scale pictures to trick the mind's eye into thinking its of a model not real life!

 

there is a trick of doing multiple shots in different focal planes (locking the camera in the same place) and then using software to combine all the pictures into one where every pixel is in focus. there is also the light field cameras that capture every pixel in focus and then you play with software with the resulting data to selectively play with the focus and exposure in all sorts of creative ways.

 

lots of theory on how to play with depth of field and what the minds eye will then do with what is in and out of focus.

 

cheers

 

jeff

[JR 500系]

Wow!

 

Thanks Jeff for the advice! Now i know why there are professional photographers... That's alot to it than meets the eye...

 

Well i'm just hoping to get some 'clear enough' pictures for records and safe-keeping... It's fun shooting the small cars & trucks and buses and seeing how far your camera can 'go'. Quite pleased with the Macro Adapter as it does help out in 'magnifying' the object, but i felt that the overall picture would turn out better?

 

Here's an example of a good camera in my lousy hands....

[Guest ___]

jr,

 

picts look good. you just are running into the problem of depth of field, which really hits you in macro as the closer you get to the lens the less your overall depth of field. in most macro situations only a small bit of your depth of field will be in focus and thus you get what ever you focused on and a little in front and in back of that in focus and the rest of the stuff further forward and back out of focus. best way to increase depth of focus is to open the aperture up as much as possible with lower speed and also more light. getting back further from the object and zooming in some will also help give you greater depth of field, but usually you loose some detail this way.

 

AF also chooses what it wants to have be spot focus and that may not what you want. so play with manual focus to see if you can force the area you want your available depth of field to cover.

 

the same shot in real life that we do macros of in models has most of the scene in full depth of field area so most everything is in focus. this is the thing that tips the eye first that a shot is or full scale or model. tilt shift lenses and software will give the limited depth of field look to full scale pictures to trick the mind's eye into thinking its of a model not real life!

 

there is a trick of doing multiple shots in different focal planes (locking the camera in the same place) and then using software to combine all the pictures into one where every pixel is in focus. there is also the light field cameras that capture every pixel in focus and then you play with software with the resulting data to selectively play with the focus and exposure in all sorts of creative ways.

 

lots of theory on how to play with depth of field and what the minds eye will then do with what is in and out of focus.

 

cheers

 

jeff

The simplist thing is just use a trip and set your apperture at f/16 or 22 and be done with it.

[E6系]

Hello Mr JR500

 

I do not know this camera.  Can you set ISO and Aperture manually?

 

For best result of the macro photography please add lots of light, set ISO to 1600 or fastest setting, Set Aperture to largest F stop that will not result in underexposure.  For example, F10.

 

Such settings will increase your depth of field.  In simple term, larger number F stop provide greater depth of field.  Thus, for photography of the portrait or wedding a low F stop of 4.5 is most effective.