Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

what are the biggest bargains you have found?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
No, I wanna hear about the guy that picked up that Noctilux in Prague for €400. I wanna hear about people picking up a mint Zuiko 21/2 for $60 (ahem). Dok's post was good… that was green envy material right there Very Happy My 2c… (wait, who picked up what for 2 cents??)
hope you´re kidding. if not, possibly I will spend my nights in prague restless till end of my life Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
rawhead wrote:
No, I wanna hear about the guy that picked up that Noctilux in Prague for €400. I wanna hear about people picking up a mint Zuiko 21/2 for $60 (ahem). Dok's post was good… that was green envy material right there Very Happy My 2c… (wait, who picked up what for 2 cents??)
hope you´re kidding. if not, possibly I will spend my nights in prague restless till end of my life Laughing


Attila can tell you about it Very Happy Ah, so I was wrong, he's in Budapest, Hungary LOL still, unbelievable.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
.....Personally, IMHO, I think this thread really is about reporting outrageous bargains that will make other members green with envy.....


Going off the original post's content, I think this thread is about whatever you consider a bargain. I am unlikely to ever spend 400 pounds, euros or dollars on a secondhand lens, exotic or not, so don't see the Noctilux as a bargain - just expensive.

Please: Let us bottom feeders have some fun too. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
In Blyth Market today, there was a house clearance/second hand stall and as I was browsing I saw a Pentax SLR camera case. As I hurriedly picked it up it squashed in my hand - no camera Crying or Very sad

I looked inside and found a lens with the legend on the front: "SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 28mm 7254178 ASAHI OPT. CO. JAPAN". I let the sun shine on the lens front and rear elements and, other than a smeared fingerprint on the front, absolutely clean. The iris movement was very snappy (much stronger return spring than Zuikos). The focus was very smooth and the aperture ring worked fine. I put on my disappointed face and asked "Where's the rest of it?" The stall holder replied "That's all there is. I wish I had the camera to go with it!" "Damn! I would need to buy a camera body to go with it. How much?" "I know what I paid for it, so what is it worth to you?" "Fiver?" I replied, frowning. "OK" he said.

I don't have any K mount cameras, so this one is going straight up for sale. I can find how much people are asking for them on ebay but what I really need to know is how much they are selling for. Attila? Didn't Attila have a tool for looking up completed items?


I'll give you six quid for it. Wink

Seriously, I might be interested.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A couple of months ago:

Zenit E with: Meyer Orestor 135/2.8, Meyer Orestor 200/4, Pentacon 30/3.5, Helios 44, Tokina 2x TC for $105. Everything was in excellent condition, with both caps, the Meyers and the Pentacon were in nice cases. The only issue was some minor oil on the Helios blades. The most amazing thing of all is that I found the lot on ebay and it was an auction with pretty decent photos, I just ended up as the high bidder.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just bought the following:

x2 Smena-2 cameras in mint cond.
Liubitel-2 camera almost mint
Leningrad-6 lightmeter
Volna-9 lens very good cond.
Industar-22 very good.
Vega-13A lens that I`ve never heard of. good cond though it needs work.

Payed 33USD for the whole thing


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sun Sola 9cm LTM - $39 Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just bought today,

Helios 44M-4 - Mint

Pentacon 200/4 15 blade, manual aperture - Body used but glass mint.

Soligor 300/5.5 12 blade preset, chrome aperture ring - Body fair, glass very good.

Two zooms, Helios 70-150, Hanimex 80-200. Both very good.

I didn't particularly want the zooms but everything came together for £25 at a local charity shop.

I'm very happy with the Pentacon but haven't tried it yet.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90. He then went on to tell me that he had just bought a new D3000 & that this lens did not work (focus) on the new camera. He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly! I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AussieBob wrote:
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90. He then went on to tell me that he had just bought a new D3000 & that this lens did not work (focus) on the new camera. He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly! I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!

That sounds like you fiddled the "old gent" out of a decent price for his gear. If you were a "young gent" you would at least give him the $270 you made on the sale. Shocked


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
AussieBob wrote:
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90. He then went on to tell me that he had just bought a new D3000 & that this lens did not work (focus) on the new camera. He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly! I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!

That sounds like you fiddled the "old gent" out of a decent price for his gear. If you were a "young gent" you would at least give him the $270 you made on the sale. Shocked


+1 Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AussieBob wrote:
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90. He then went on to tell me that he had just bought a new D3000 & that this lens did not work (focus) on the new camera. He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly! I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!


That sounds like being an asshole, not like a bargain...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't get what all the bashing is about. What's a "great bargain" if it were not a "huge loss" from the perspective of the seller?


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tend not to bargain down someone when it's already a good deal but I'm with rawhead on this one. I guess whenever we sell a lens/camera that we got originally for a good price, we should send the profit to the person we bought it from? That is what you're saying.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
guardian wrote:
ChromaticAberration wrote:
As far as I know spores are everywhere in the environment so the chance for fungus growth is there from the moment you take your lenses out with the camera. What makes them develop or not are damp, dark, humid storage areas which is not the right way to do it in the first place anyway.

Just clean what you can (without taking too much risks while disassembling the lens) and keep the lens in dry places. Of course, using the lenses every once in a while is a very good idea, and that was what they were made for!

PS: I have recently bought some silica bags and put one or two inside lenses cases and storage bags. I guess it is another way of preventing humidity. Very cheap.


+1

I'm a believer in silica gel, too, as a dessicant. Have been making my own bags from crystal cat litter, which is 100% silica gel, and paper towels; very inexpensive. Store all my lenses alongside these bags. Agree moisture is very bad for lenses, very good for fungal growth.


Yup, it's estimated that there are between 5 and 10 spores inhaled with every human adult breath depending on your location. Of the kinds that typically grow on lens glass with dust/debris as food; 50% to 55% Relative Humidity (RH) is required for germination (sprouting) and most strains like it cool (under about C 25˚). The idea that they like it dark is somewhat of a myth. Almost all lens glass will shield fungi from the UVc rays which they actually do hate - so even sitting on a window ledge during a bright day will not kill spores already inside the lens - assuming the lens doesn't heat up to C 30˚or so that is - and also assuming that the lens isn't made of quartz glass (I dunno of any that are tho!). Quartz glass will pass the UVc rays and kill the fungi - no other glass that I know of will.

If the lens is in a climate where 55% RH is common then typically sized (two or three of your thumbs in volume) Silica packets are pretty useless. And also such packets become saturated and then work in the opposite way - giving off moisture when humidity is lower than their saturate point - thus actually prolonging the amount of time fungi have to sprout and grow. Additionally many types of lens lubricants begin degassing and drying out at under 25% RH and new desiccant packs can and will bring the RH down to between 17% and 20%. So this is bad - physically for the lens!

But there is salvation! Smile RH is co-related with temperature. The higher the temp : the lower the RH will be. And it doesn't take much! At about C 35˚ it's nearly impossible for RH to reach over 45% - in a closed space in normal weather where humans live. At C 30˚ to 35˚ usually an RH of 30% to 35% is maintained - depending on the climate and/or home weathering. At around C 25˚ to 30˚ an approximate RH of 45% to 35% is maintained.

By placing a small incandescent light (or a 50cm ultra-thin fluorescent tube) in a closed cabinet of approximately 100cmx50cmx50cm this temperature and RH coefficient can be maintained (indoors) during all seasons. This is how expensive lens cabinets work in fact. With the good ones, the power to the light bulb is switched on when RH reaches past your preset and off again when it is obtained. Usually that lightbulb is behind a rear or side panel so you don't see the light switching on and off - but hiding the light isn't necessary. Using a home made lit cabinet to about the mentioned specifications also will almost never bring RH down below 25% and if it does (like during a VERY dry winters days), just turn off the lights manually and you're good.

Here's my rig which cost me about $75 all total including the three untra-slim light fixtures on a cold and humid (C 12˚ / RH 65%) winders day (the perfect kind for growing fungi in lenses BTW):



With this setup so far (in 2 years) the RH has never gone over 50% and never under 25%, I did need to turn off the lights a few times in 2 years tho to prevent it from going under 25% RH. Also with the lights in these positions and the glass front like that it makes a really nice display and night-light in my bedroom! Very Happy


Sorry for the late reply. I was browsing through the whole thread, starting from the end, when i found this post.
Sorry for going a little off-topic, but i am finding more and more posts about fungal infections, and just yesterday i posted a small message about fungii and cement separations. I am going to add a few more thoughts here.

All the proposed solutions make sense, and the last one is a very elegant one.
Adapting a cupboard for lens storage, or building one, and fitting it with small lamps, is a perfect solution to control humidity.
Just two observations:
optical glass is NOT totally impervious to UV rays: lenses with thorium glass elements (some WWII aero lenses, Cooke Apotals, some early Pentax M42 optics, and then many more), which start to yellow about 6 years after manufacture, can be "cured" with prolonged exposition to UV rays. Whichever the side that is exposed to UV (UV lamp or LONG permanence under daylight), the yellowish element/s slowly get back to their original state (well..almost).
Therefore there is some UV light which goes through.
It is true that quartz lenses are transparent to UV light, in fact, some specialized objectives for UV photography were made with quartz elements. There was even a soft-focus lens for large format cameras that had the option of quartz element, which was only slightly more expensive than the ordinary one.

In the past i used those large plastic containers, which are filled with "recharge" bags, with a bottom tank where the water absorbed from the ambient is collected.
They last long time, and you will be amazed by the amount of water that is collected.
Less elegant than other solutions, but very good for larger storage areas.

When it comes to damage due to fungal growth, IMHO there is too much hype about it.
Most fungii can be cleaned without leaving any trace.
AFAIK cobweb-type is more dangerous than spore-like one.
Interestingly, the lenses that are more prone to permanent damage are either very old, or post-WWII (coated).
Coated lenses have a very thin layer of coating, which can be etched by the acids produced as a byproduct of fungal growth.
The very old ones are the early "new glasses" made at the and of 19th century. Some early formulae were soft and easy to scratch, and sometimes were even prone to superficial "glazing", if not stored with extreme care. Of course a fungus can easily damage such lenses, especially after so many years.
The modern coated lenses that 99% of the forum users are using/buying, and of course the vast majority of the "bargains" reported on this thread, albeit not as old as my examples, are sometimes affected by a fungus.
The reasons have been already explained.
I am adding another one:
fungal growth takes place in somewhat recent lenses because modern 35mm/MF optics are almost air tight.
Those who are not, like zooms (especially push-pull ones), act like pumps, sucking the air from outside.

As many zooms are not very easy to dismantle/reassemble, if you see a fungus that is starting to attack a glass surface inside the lens, the easier approach is to buy an UV tube from an electronic supply store, and expose the lens to the UV light.
The tube must be as close to the lens as possible, and kept on for a week or so.
The infection should stop, and leave a perfectly usable lens.

They are still a small minority, but i find it amazing that there are far more recent lenses with fungii, than vintage ones.
Here you see more than 80 large format vintage lenses, which are about 50% of my entire collection (nearly all shuttered lenses are stored in a separate place).
Believe it or not, only 3 objectives were affected by fungal growth, and all of them cleaned nicely.

Just to write at least a few lines in-topic:
the Cooke Portrait Series IIe 10.5", visible on the top platform, second line (recognizable for the spectacle/knuckler used to dial in the softness level), was purchased as a Buy It Now offer on Ebay Italy, together with a 4x5" Kodak Master View, a 135mm Symmar, and a diaphragm lens holder, for a total of 100 euros, plus shipment!
The Cooke Portrait alone should fetch about 1000 USD if auctioned on Ebay, maybe even more.

Finding a similar bargain these days, on Ebay or elsewhere, would be like finding a needle in an haystack, but there are still many bargains available, namely MF cameras and lenses (excluding Hasselblads), and 4x5" monorails with "sharp" lenses made in the seventies/eighties.
Price vs. performance, 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5" formats are the best, especially if you follow an hybrid workflow (scanning analog film).
With a cheap scanner you can get high quality digital files, and still have a large negative which will be in good shape, and perfectly usable, when all present time computer technologies will be obsolete.
Those who share my views should better act quickly!
Nice 16mm lenses were awfully cheap, then the advent of four thirds cameras changed everything.
Even M42 lenses aren't as cheap as they used to be, especially the nice ones.
A 50mm f/1.2 PK Porst/Tomioka lens was almost valueless, now there are people who pay stupid prices for them.




PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
I don't get what all the bashing is about. What's a "great bargain" if it were not a "huge loss" from the perspective of the seller?

themoleman342 wrote:
I tend not to bargain down someone when it's already a good deal but I'm with rawhead on this one. I guess whenever we sell a lens/camera that we got originally for a good price, we should send the profit to the person we bought it from? That is what you're saying.

I'm surprised I have to spell it out for you. Maybe it's my boy scout/Sunday school upbringing, but I'd feel very uncomfortable telling this story about myself.

Please read again what he wrote. First he barters down the price of the lens...
AussieBob wrote:
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90.

That part is not a problem for me at all, but after already getting a great bargain he then goes on to con the "old gent" out of what turned out to be a perfectly good camera for free...
Quote:
He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly!

At that point I would most certainly have felt guilty. I would have contacted the old man to tell him there was nothing wrong with the camera and ask if he would like it back, or if I could pay him something for it.

Quote:
I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!

I would feel bad every time I used this camera.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
rawhead wrote:
I don't get what all the bashing is about. What's a "great bargain" if it were not a "huge loss" from the perspective of the seller?

themoleman342 wrote:
I tend not to bargain down someone when it's already a good deal but I'm with rawhead on this one. I guess whenever we sell a lens/camera that we got originally for a good price, we should send the profit to the person we bought it from? That is what you're saying.

I'm surprised I have to spell it out for you. Maybe it's my boy scout/Sunday school upbringing, but I'd feel very uncomfortable telling this story about myself.

Please read again what he wrote. First he barters down the price of the lens...
AussieBob wrote:
I saw an ad in the local classifieds for a Nikkor 70-300mm AF zoom (old screwdriver type) for $120 AUD. When I went over to the old gent's house, I bartered with him & got it for $90.

That part is not a problem for me at all, but after already getting a great bargain he then goes on to con the "old gent" out of what turned out to be a perfectly good camera for free...
Quote:
He also said that he still had his old D50 which did not work anymore. I asked him if he would throw in the camera as well for the price. He agreed. I got it home, popped a new battery into it & it worked perfectly!

At that point I would most certainly have felt guilty. I would have contacted the old man to tell him there was nothing wrong with the camera and ask if he would like it back, or if I could pay him something for it.

Quote:
I ended up selling the camera & lens for $390. I then bought myself a D200 body for $400. So all up, I laid out $100 for a D200!

I would feel bad every time I used this camera.


I'm with peterqd on this. Maybe we're not all upright with honest intentions. Wonder how it'll be when Aussiebob becomes an old man and some cocky young fellow comes along to con him out of his D200?


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wait, so did he know the camera was going to work? Was the seller tricked into believing that there was no way that the camera would still work so that he'd give it away?

The camera was lying around not being used because the seller decided it doesn't work, and he could afford to let that be and go ahead and purchase a new camera.

The buyer took a risk (however slight) to spend the time & effort to check out the camera (putting a new battery in, etc.) and was rewarded for:

(1) the time he spent going back and forth from his place to the seller's place: who knows, this is Australia, that could've been 500 miles for all we know (LOL)
(2) the time he spent chatting with the seller and spotting a possible bargain
(3) the time he spent investigating, and possibly the money he spent buying a new battery for the camera (that part is speculation; he may already have had a battery that fits).
(4) the time he spent preparing an ad to sell the camera, and the effort he spent to meet up with the new buyer, go forth with the transaction, etc., etc.


Now, would he have been a "real gent" had he gotten back to the original seller and paid him for the camera? Sure. But I fail to see that as being a moral obligation.

Read over this entire thread, there are plenty of cases where people have gotten these "great bargains" because the seller was unaware of the true value of the items. Attila recently talked about his local shop that had a Noctilux for 400€ (or something like that) that somebody snatched up just before him.

Clearly, the shop owner is unaware that it could be sold for 10 times as much on the used market. Now, if indeed you do something like that, do you have a moral obligation to go back to the shop owner and pay him the difference?

To repeat; I don't see anything that this guy did as being fundamentally and essentially different from what most people writing in this thread have been doing and have been reporting about.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I don't see anything that this guy did as being fundamentally and essentially different from what most people writing in this thread have been doing and have been reporting about.


+1

How bout if it was a different scenario connected to the purchase? Say it was the lens listed on ebay for BIN 120AUD with a best offer. The seller said in the listing that they are including what they think is a broken d50. AussieBob offers 90 and they accept. I think if that was the story he told we'd all say "great bargain!" yet they are not fundamentally different.

Quote:
I'm surprised I have to spell it out for you.


You don't have to spell out anything to me. I knew your objection was based on some morally ambiguous, it's-the-right-thing-to-do mentality. Yes, returning the camera or offering back some money would be nice. That does not make it objectively right. You posted on the second page that you got a Flektogon 2.4/35 for £4.00. Was that just a scrupulous ebay or flea market purchase? That lens can bring £150.00 or more which is about 220AUD profit if you were to sell. Do you feel guilty every time you use/d it?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Buying lenses cheap from second hand shops/flea markets/charity shops is different to the situation everyone is talking about because they will have paid very little (or nothing in the case of charity shops) for the stock, so the comparison isn't really valid.

Having made that point, I don't think AussieBob has done something terribly wrong. He did get something for nothing, but if the seller was happy at the time of the deal, fair enough. If AussieBob hadn't taken the camera, who's to say it wouldn't have gone in the bin? If I had been in the same situation I may have felt a little bit guilty, or not; I don't really know.

We need to cut him some slack.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
I don't see anything that this guy did as being fundamentally and essentially different from what most people writing in this thread have been doing and have been reporting about.


+1

How bout if it was a different scenario connected to the purchase? Say it was the lens listed on ebay for BIN 120AUD with a best offer. The seller said in the listing that they are including what they think is a broken d50. AussieBob offers 90 and they accept. I think if that was the story he told we'd all say "great bargain!" yet they are not fundamentally different.

Quote:
I'm surprised I have to spell it out for you.


You don't have to spell out anything to me. I knew your objection was based on some morally ambiguous, it's-the-right-thing-to-do mentality. Yes, returning the camera or offering back some money would be nice. That does not make it objectively right.


Well, you certainly don't seem to understand the decent morals I was taught, but I suppose that's because I come from an earlier generation with different standards of honesty than today's. Some of the stories in this thread about how people find massive bargains in thrift shops and then have the cheek to barter the price down even further really appal me - for God's sake, they're trying to collect money for charities.

Quote:
You posted on the second page that you got a Flektogon 2.4/35 for £4.00. Was that just a scrupulous ebay or flea market purchase? That lens can bring £150.00 or more which is about 220AUD profit if you were to sell. Do you feel guilty every time you use/d it?


If it's any of your business, the Flek was bought fair and square on a normal Ebay auction 6 years ago when prices were lower. I took a risk actually, because you couldn't see for certain what lens it was, but I had a hunch and I put in a much higher bid expecting there would be stiff competition, but nobody else bid against me. So I was lucky and no, I don't feel guilty about that. It's a whole different situation to coercing an old guy to "throw in" his defective camera for nothing and finding it only needed a new battery.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:

If it's any of your business, the Flek was bought fair and square on a normal Ebay auction 6 years ago when prices were lower. I took a risk actually, because you couldn't see for certain what lens it was, but I had a hunch and I put in a much higher bid expecting there would be stiff competition, but nobody else bid against me. So I was lucky and no, I don't feel guilty about that.


So you took advantage of someone who probably (1) didn't know the worth of the Flek (even 6 years ago, 4 quid would've been a steal), and (2) didn't know how to present his/her item properly on Ebay so that it would get proper exposure and recognition it deserves so that people would pay a "fair" price for it.

The seller may have been a widow, selling off some of the camera equipment that her husband left behind, eqiupment that he paid half his monthly salary for back in the days prior to the falling of the Berlin wall. She, of course, didn't know this, but understanding that what she had was ancient film-era equipment that is worthless in this day and age of digital, she wasn't surprised it sold for so little. Of course, she knew less about how to properly photograph the item to put up on Ebay so that prospective buyers can see what it was.

Think about that one before the next time you use that Flek without a speck of remorse.


Quote:

It's a whole different situation to coercing an old guy to "throw in" his defective camera for nothing and finding it only needed a new battery.



As far as the seller knew, the camera *was* defective; I don't see any coercion anywhere in the story that was told. The seller said "it's broken" the buyer said "hey you want me to take that off your hands?" the seller said "sure, son".

Now, is it not reasonable to expect that the seller gave the camera to the buyer with full understanding that there was *some* chance that the camera could be resurrected or otherwise put to good use? Of course it is. Why else would the buyer ask for it? Was the seller OK with that? Of course he was. That's why he threw it in the deal.


This kind of thing ALWAYS happens with person-to-person transactions of used camera (and other) equipment. On the one hand you have a seller that's offering something for a price that he or she will be happy with. On the other, you have a seller who will be happy with that price. In some cases, the buyer comes away making a killing. I was quite sure that is the whole raison d'être of this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong.



Now, I understand different people have different sets of morals; for some odd reason, you draw the line where this Australian friend of ours went, but of course you haven't crossed that line when you bought that Flek. That's fine, suit yourself.

However, you now know that for other people, that is NOT where the line is drawn. Not only do you have the buyer, but you have at least three, vocal members of this community who agree that this buyer did not cross any line in this transaction.

So, you have a choice; you can continue to force-feed us your morals and values by publicly condemning a member of this forum, which was on the verge of growing into a moderate form of internet lynching; or, you can respect the fact that different people have different sets of standards and morals, and inasmuch as it does not infringe on your well-being personally, quietly leave those of us be.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
skida wrote:
Buying lenses cheap from second hand shops/flea markets/charity shops is different to the situation everyone is talking about because they will have paid very little (or nothing in the case of charity shops) for the stock, so the comparison isn't really valid.


I disagree. The camera in this case was, from the perspective of the seller, "spent". "dead" "worthless". It was lying around collecting dust. From his perspective, he'd already got what he paid for.

So, we surely can't use the original price that the seller paid to get the camera new as some kind of gauge to decide how much he "lost out" from this transaction. The only gauge we can use is "how much the seller could have gotten" had he known the true value of the camera, and had he offered it in an appripriate forum.

In this sense, the shop owner in Budapest lost out *big time*, more than 4000€ when s/he sold the Noctilux. The Austrlian fellow lost out a couple hundred bucks. Which is worse?

I would even go so far as to say that for the shop owner, making profits on his merchandise is a *living* and so it directly reflects on the quality of life of him and his family, and his employees. Imagine how much more happiness could've been brough to his home had he known what that lens was? Maybe that sale would've kept his shop afloat for another month without going bankrupt, and end up saving the business? Maybe he actually didn't need to fire that clerk last week? 4000€ can make a *huge* difference, and the buyer ripped all of that off of the owner. What a shame.

Or… is it?[/b]


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
The seller may have been a widow, selling off some of the camera equipment that her husband left behind, eqiupment that he paid half his monthly salary for back in the days prior to the falling of the Berlin wall. She, of course, didn't know this, but understanding that what she had was ancient film-era equipment that is worthless in this day and age of digital, she wasn't surprised it sold for so little. Of course, she knew less about how to properly photograph the item to put up on Ebay so that prospective buyers can see what it was.

Think about that one before the next time you use that Flek without a speck of remorse.

No, it wasn't. It was a fairly young girl actually. I sent her a message to ask if she wanted the old film that was left in the camera, which I'd paid to be developed, and she told me no thanks. She'd bought the Zenit camera with the Flek attached for £1 at a car boot sale and hadn't even opened it.

Quote:
Now, I understand different people have different sets of morals; for some odd reason, you draw the line where this Australian friend of ours went, but of course you haven't crossed that line when you bought that Flek. That's fine, suit yourself.

As I said before, I would have contacted the seller again to ask him if he wanted the camera back or if he wanted any money for it. Obtaining something so valuable in that way is indeed below my moral standards, and if you think acting like a cheap secondhand car swindler is perfectly OK then we have to disagree. I didn't cross any line when I bought the Flek, and you should be more careful before you make assumptions and false accusations.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
In this sense, the shop owner in Budapest lost out *big time*, more than 4000€ when s/he sold the Noctilux.


What I meant was that shops and dealers usually pay very little for secondhand gear. That Noctilux would have cost the shop very little indeed if they were selling at a knock-down price and they would have been happy to sell for a few hundred Euros to make a quick profit.

I don't think anyone should feel guilty if they get a lens from a shop at a fraction of the true market value, because the shop will have made a handsome profit at whatever price they sell at.

A lot of old secondhand stuff at flea markets is from house clearances, usually after a death. The house clearers often don't know what they are getting and so don't offer much or anything to those who want the house cleared. That's why I don't feel guilty about acquiring a Pentax lens for £5 from just such a stall, and yes, I had a very good idea of its worth at the time I was pretending it was of little value as I looked at it.

What AussieBob did was totally different from buying from shops and dealers, but I still don't think he ripped off anyone. What if the problem was a dead camera rather than a dead battery? He didn't know when he acquired it, speculatively bought a new battery and got lucky. Specialist camera and lens dealers have been known to lie to sellers about the value of items they are offered - AussieBob didn't lie to the bloke about the camera did he?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46 ... 117, 118, 119  Next
Page 45 of 119