ZebGoesZeiss
Established
Someone has offered me a Leica M6 and a pre-asph 35mm Summicron-M in what can only be described as "user" condition. There are wear marks, it looks higly used, but supposedly - it works fine. The price? $1700 for both.
I was just wondering, I see these ads: "I'm looking for a user M". Or "I'm looking for a beater M". Or how about "Don't care about looks, but it has to be in 100% working condition". Or my favourite: "Glass has to be flawless".
My take on this has always been: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck. That is: I stay away. Twice I have taken the chance, and both times there were issues that needed attention (ie: CLA). If it lookes like it's been dragged through Sahara for months, most likely the glass will not be "flawless" or pristine".
Let's say the M6 is $800. For $2-300 extra, you'll get an M6 that looks great, and stands a better chance of having been cared for. What I'm wondering about is: For those of you looking for "beaters" and "users": What is the rationale behind it? Do you calculate in the CLA costs?
I was just wondering, I see these ads: "I'm looking for a user M". Or "I'm looking for a beater M". Or how about "Don't care about looks, but it has to be in 100% working condition". Or my favourite: "Glass has to be flawless".
My take on this has always been: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck. That is: I stay away. Twice I have taken the chance, and both times there were issues that needed attention (ie: CLA). If it lookes like it's been dragged through Sahara for months, most likely the glass will not be "flawless" or pristine".
Let's say the M6 is $800. For $2-300 extra, you'll get an M6 that looks great, and stands a better chance of having been cared for. What I'm wondering about is: For those of you looking for "beaters" and "users": What is the rationale behind it? Do you calculate in the CLA costs?
Last edited:
cnphoto
Well-known
For a secondhand camera, I would say that it is safe to always factor in CLA costs if it a camera of moderate expense (if it's a cheapie, i'e less than $50, then whatever).
Of course, if the seller states that it has had a CLA / service etc in last 6-12 months I gather it is relatively safe to assume that no such service is required once the camera is purchased (depending on if it has infact been serviced previously and the seller is honest).
Given the costs of some 'beater' cameras as opposed to camera in mint condition, it can still often work out cheaper to buy a 'beater' and have it serviced if required. I really do think that some cameras become more endearing / attractive with age and obvious signs of use / brassing. But each to their own.
Of course, if the seller states that it has had a CLA / service etc in last 6-12 months I gather it is relatively safe to assume that no such service is required once the camera is purchased (depending on if it has infact been serviced previously and the seller is honest).
Given the costs of some 'beater' cameras as opposed to camera in mint condition, it can still often work out cheaper to buy a 'beater' and have it serviced if required. I really do think that some cameras become more endearing / attractive with age and obvious signs of use / brassing. But each to their own.
burninfilm
Well-known
Well, everyone has different opinions... nobody is really wrong. Just different mindsets... different ways of seeing things. What may be a "user" to one person may be "junk" to another. I have three Nikon F bodies, and about a dozen pre-AI Nikkor lenses, all of which are well used, dented, dinged, bruised, battered, etc. The pattern of bright marks, scratches, and scrapes on the bottom plate of a few of the Nikon F bodies could almost be passed off as a Jackson Pollock painting. All work fine (with a few minor exceptions), I even have an ugly old fully functioning F36 motor. My Leica M3 is the same way, along with its 50mm and 90mm Summicrons. They all came from working pros, who used and maintained the equipment for decades. Sure, they look ugly on the outside, but these camera bodies were built to withstand substantially more than they were usually subjected to. Perhaps that's the key... having the equipment serviced and/or repaired as necessary. A worn, dented, ugly camera can function better than a pristine, completely as-new camera. ALL of the images in the Blog I've linked to in my signature line were made with what you'd probably consider "user-grade" equipment.
So, in my experience, just looking like a duck doesn't mean everything. It may not even quack. In fact, it might just sing.
So, in my experience, just looking like a duck doesn't mean everything. It may not even quack. In fact, it might just sing.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
To me a user is one that is not in mint condition but at the same time not beat to hell. I won't buy a beater camera or lens for the reasons you mentioned, but one in absolute mint condition usually costs a fortune. Of the cameras I got new, my first Olympus OM-4T is a good example. It is a black version and is missing a little paint around the edges were its simply worn off, but it has no dents or major paint loss. I've had it since 1994 and carried it all over the country. I dont baby my gear, I'm a professional and I use it, and I often wonder how some of these cameras people buy and sell here in the classified look so godawful. I'm mostly talking Leicas, very expensive cameras, and some of the mare really beat up bad. I've met a lot of photographers in my career who simply mistreat their equipment, pure and simple. I've never ben rich and have usually been poor, so I cannot afford to be so careless.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have handled some cameras and lenses best described being in "user-condition" and to my surprise they all worked (more or less) quite well and as supposed to. Unfortunately, such equipment might work well right now but not necessarily anymore two or three month later ... That's why I always have stayed away from these items. 
cirque
Member
If I decide to buy something used, it is usually because of one of these reasons:
- I know the seller
- I get an extremely good deal on gear of "unknown" condition
- I get a decent deal on gear I know is in good condition
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Buy a new camera.
Use it hard for a while.
It'll turn into a 'user'.
That doesn't mean there are any problems with it, or that the glass is scratched or hazy.
On the other hand, with a second-hand camera you don't know how it got in that state. It is of course possible that the previous owner(s) was/were clumsy, careless, etc. Cirque's advice is good.
Cheers,
R.
Use it hard for a while.
It'll turn into a 'user'.
That doesn't mean there are any problems with it, or that the glass is scratched or hazy.
On the other hand, with a second-hand camera you don't know how it got in that state. It is of course possible that the previous owner(s) was/were clumsy, careless, etc. Cirque's advice is good.
Cheers,
R.
newspaperguy
Well-known
There's a world of difference in my mind between a 'User" and a 'Beater."
To me user implies honest wear, but fully functional.
A beater on the other hand almost screams neglect.
Just my .02 worth.
(...and yes, I've got a user Canon 7 in the 'Trade" ads.)
To me user implies honest wear, but fully functional.
A beater on the other hand almost screams neglect.
Just my .02 worth.
(...and yes, I've got a user Canon 7 in the 'Trade" ads.)
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Never mind 'beater' and 'users'....what the hell is 'mintish'? :bang:
nobbylon
Veteran
User to me means paint loss and the odd scuff or tiny dings on a body, barrel paint loss and or stiff, loose focus on a lens with minimal fine cleaning marks in line with the age of the item. All functions working and no image quality loss.
Beater means dents, dings and paint loss and on lenses, chips or deep, obvious scratches that will hinder IQ.
I sold an m6ttl that I described as 'user' a couple of years ago which had obvious paint loss and a scuffed base plate but with internals that were as new. For an M film body I think the number 400,000 exposures means MAYBE shutter parts. That's a lot of film! I think unless it's been rolled around in sand or dipped in a river that the exterior condition is more important a decision as to whether you will be happy with your purchase. Having taken M's apart in the past, there really isn't a lot in there! The main thing with the older ones, m3's that I have seen is lack of contrast with focusing patches and perhaps seperation of finders. I've not seen this with m2's myself. I did have a shutter curtain detach on my own M2 but that's an easy fix. Slow speed mechanisms get dry and again it's a very easy fix. The rest of the internals are just gears and levers. The internals of an M6 should outlast most people. Even if dropped, unless the dent actually bends something internally the mechanicals should be fine. Maybe just need the focus re adjusting, especially in the vertical. This is all based on my own experiences with m2's, 3's 4 and 6's.
Beater means dents, dings and paint loss and on lenses, chips or deep, obvious scratches that will hinder IQ.
I sold an m6ttl that I described as 'user' a couple of years ago which had obvious paint loss and a scuffed base plate but with internals that were as new. For an M film body I think the number 400,000 exposures means MAYBE shutter parts. That's a lot of film! I think unless it's been rolled around in sand or dipped in a river that the exterior condition is more important a decision as to whether you will be happy with your purchase. Having taken M's apart in the past, there really isn't a lot in there! The main thing with the older ones, m3's that I have seen is lack of contrast with focusing patches and perhaps seperation of finders. I've not seen this with m2's myself. I did have a shutter curtain detach on my own M2 but that's an easy fix. Slow speed mechanisms get dry and again it's a very easy fix. The rest of the internals are just gears and levers. The internals of an M6 should outlast most people. Even if dropped, unless the dent actually bends something internally the mechanicals should be fine. Maybe just need the focus re adjusting, especially in the vertical. This is all based on my own experiences with m2's, 3's 4 and 6's.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
almost minty … everybody knows that
Paddy C
Unused film collector
User is a useless descriptor IMHO.
A "user" to me implies that it is not in good enough condition to be suited for a collection. This could be anything from bright marks and some paint loss to a camera that's been to a war zone.
Of course, in the world of used camera sales, "mint" also seems to be a rather loose term.
I've long thought that I should start a web site (one page, simple URL) that lists a grading scale. Promote the page and have as many people as possible reference it when selling gear. It might catch on and you would have a universal scale.
A "user" to me implies that it is not in good enough condition to be suited for a collection. This could be anything from bright marks and some paint loss to a camera that's been to a war zone.
Of course, in the world of used camera sales, "mint" also seems to be a rather loose term.
I've long thought that I should start a web site (one page, simple URL) that lists a grading scale. Promote the page and have as many people as possible reference it when selling gear. It might catch on and you would have a universal scale.
"Beater" condition is when you drop the camera and can't find the new dents from among the old ones.
"User" can be brassing, nicks, paint loss, anything that prevents a collector from buying it and never using it.
The F3HP in the foreground is "Mint". All boxes, papers, original wrapping, etc for one just under SN 2M.
Worked real good in the Blizzard as well.
This Canon F1 and EF are "user" condition.
They work as well in the snow as the F3HP.
"User" can be brassing, nicks, paint loss, anything that prevents a collector from buying it and never using it.
The F3HP in the foreground is "Mint". All boxes, papers, original wrapping, etc for one just under SN 2M.
Worked real good in the Blizzard as well.
This Canon F1 and EF are "user" condition.
They work as well in the snow as the F3HP.
Last edited:
Beemermark
Veteran
I think that people that post these ads are assuming that if the camera looks heavily used they will get a great bargain. At the same time they want a heavily used camera that functions perfectly. Rarely are the two objectives met.
From pricing Leica for decades a camera that has seen little or no use commands maybe a 10% premium over one that shows normal amateur use. Cameras showing heavy use (but working well) go for maybe 10% ~ 20% less than the average camera. To me a heavily used camera needs to be at least 10% below the average price after deducting estimated repair costs. Note that all mechanical cameras probably need at least a CLA after 10~15 years.
Renzsu
Well-known
user = wear due to normal use in my book.. so that wouldn't include dings and dents or big scratches.. just worn off paint or shiny edges on the body. I would always mention scratches separately.
Beemermark
Veteran
I agree with that definition except the chrome and black chrome Leica bodies don't show worn off paint or shiny edges. Rub marks usually look like an eraser residue. I find it hard to describe a "user" body. Also some people think "user" denotes "beater". Also many buyers that are really want a user for taking pictures look for a detailed description that would classify a IIIG as collectible.
The old yellow Shutter Bug rag (how many remember that) used to carry a ratings guide that was widely accepted. KEH rating guide is way too conservative, and their prices reflect that. Maybe we should try to create a new grading system on this forum?
nobbylon
Veteran
I think that people assume a camera needs a cla more than they are really necessary. If the camera is working fine then it doesn't need one. If it's got an obvious problem like a rough wind on or uneven exposure then fine, yes, but not if it's ok. My dads old Yashica tl electro x has never been repaired or serviced and he bought it new in '76. Still working fine. One of my F2's has only just been done after 36 yrs and only because the mirror was not moving up correctly. If it had been used more it would have been fine. My old M4 only went in after 40 yrs to sort the squeaking dry wind on mech but it still worked fine. It just annoyed me with the noise! Don't fix what's not broken. Sure if you want any camera to feel like it did when new then you have little option. If however you want to use it then just do so until it doesn't work as you expect.
PS I subsequently figured out how to lubricate the wind on by asking a Leica tech how and paying for a cla wasn't worth it as the rest of the work didn't change my resulting pics!
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
I guess in a broad categorization, "user" is between "collector" and "beater". I buy new or newish bodies but for some reason like user lenses. My three most used-looking lenses; a 24, 28 and 35 are optically and mechanically perfect. My theory is that they were used a lot, perhaps even loved by their previous owners. If the lens has a good reputation for build quality the risk of buying a user really isn't that great.
wgerrard
Veteran
That makes sense to me. But, as Paddy suggests, it isn't much help.
Buying a used mechanical or digital object always incurs a risk. Examples: If you buy a used car from your grandmother, you are likely to know more about the car than if you buy from a dealer. But, grandma might not have known about those little metal shavings in the transmission. A 40-year-old camera that looks and feels immaculate may have been placed in a closet 39 years ago when the RF went wonky. Another 40-year-old camera may look like it's tumbled down the highway, but work just fine because it was used and maintained. Both cameras may have some balsam issues that are going to cause problems in a few months.
In other words, what's usually missing is the history of the camera.
Richard C
Established
This is about appearance rather than functionality but never mind.
I have found that the way that a camera or lens is described depends a lot on the sort of person that is selling it. Generally speaking someone who has never sold photography equipment before may describe a particular item as being worse than it really is i.e. as 'used' while someone who is selling it for a living may describe the same item as 'excellent' or even 'mint'.
The only way to decide what something is really like is to study the pictures that accompany it. If they are blurred or out of focus then give it a miss.
If a 'professional' seller describes something as 'used' it sometimes looks as if it has been 'used' to knock a nail into a wall!
I have found that the way that a camera or lens is described depends a lot on the sort of person that is selling it. Generally speaking someone who has never sold photography equipment before may describe a particular item as being worse than it really is i.e. as 'used' while someone who is selling it for a living may describe the same item as 'excellent' or even 'mint'.
The only way to decide what something is really like is to study the pictures that accompany it. If they are blurred or out of focus then give it a miss.
If a 'professional' seller describes something as 'used' it sometimes looks as if it has been 'used' to knock a nail into a wall!