starting out as a photographer, I intentionally did not want to be a collector. I kind of considered collectors crazy.
My first SP was a really nice Nikon SP with 50/1.1. the lens elements were separated. I gave $100 for it and a Vivitar T4 24/2.8 lens (value about $100 at the time). It cost me $76 to have the lens repaired at Ray Pierce Camera Repair on Hollywood Blvd in Hollywood. Ray himself took the lens in for repair. Like a fool I traded it for a camera I thought I would shoot more, a Leica M3 with a 50/2 Summicron -- because I didn't want to be a collector. Always regretted that trade.
What got me Nikon collecting was a little out of the way diner in the then tiny town of Saugus, California -- maybe 50 miles(?) north of Los Angeles. I stopped there for a cup of coffee, and picked up the local free paper. Advertised were two Nikon SP's and five lenses, 28/3.5, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, and 135/3.5 "like new" $750. Sure enough, they were like new. I borrowed the $750, and became a Nikon collector. I still have that complete set. damn....
Stephen
My first SP was a really nice Nikon SP with 50/1.1. the lens elements were separated. I gave $100 for it and a Vivitar T4 24/2.8 lens (value about $100 at the time). It cost me $76 to have the lens repaired at Ray Pierce Camera Repair on Hollywood Blvd in Hollywood. Ray himself took the lens in for repair. Like a fool I traded it for a camera I thought I would shoot more, a Leica M3 with a 50/2 Summicron -- because I didn't want to be a collector. Always regretted that trade.
What got me Nikon collecting was a little out of the way diner in the then tiny town of Saugus, California -- maybe 50 miles(?) north of Los Angeles. I stopped there for a cup of coffee, and picked up the local free paper. Advertised were two Nikon SP's and five lenses, 28/3.5, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, and 135/3.5 "like new" $750. Sure enough, they were like new. I borrowed the $750, and became a Nikon collector. I still have that complete set. damn....
Stephen
JohnM
Well-known
I didn't start out to be a collector either...then I started reading sites like cameraquest and things just seemed to happen after that. *sigh*
Can I blame that ad in Saugus too?
Can I blame that ad in Saugus too?
FrankS
Registered User
...two Nikon SP's and five lenses, 28/3.5, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, and 135/3.5 "like new" $750...
With an opportunity like that, you simply have to accept your fate.
With an opportunity like that, you simply have to accept your fate.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
That's not collecting, it's investing.
Trius said:
Only if you are willing to sell.
Sparrow
Veteran
rover said:
So that’s where I’m going wrong
V
varjag
Guest
Your grandchildren will take care of selling part
VinceC
Veteran
We don't collect them. We're just taking care of them for future generations.
The run-up in Nikon values took place in the late 1980s, I think in part connected to the then-roaring Japanese economy ... Collectors in Japan found they could outspend those in other parts of the world and repatriate their historic cameras.
Through the 1970s and most of the 1980s, Nikon RFs were respected, but they not so widely sought that supply and demand were out of balance. I suppose Canon RFs fit that situation today.
I'm an accidental collector. I was happily doing newspaper work overseas with SLRs in the late 1980s when I discovered the Nikon rangefinders just as their prices were heating up. Over the course of a year or 18 months, I managed to put together a decent daily journalism system for just a few thousand dollars -- in order of purchase: an S2, S3 then SP; a 50/1.4; 85/2; 35/2.5; 105/2.5; 135/3.5; 28/3.5 and 35/1.8. A bit later I added a Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5.
I didn't keep good records, but I think I spent I spent roughly $400 for the S2, $900 on the S3 and $900 on the SP (the S3 was and is in better shape then the SP). The S2 and S3 were purchased at photo flea markets in Germany, and I mainly traded SLR bodies and lenses for them ... so I suppose the trades were a good investment ... the rangefinder cameras have more or less held their value while the film SLRs and lenses have declined in value.
For the lenses, I probably spent a total of $1,300 to $1,400 on the Nikkors, mostly buying from New York dealers out of Shutterbug ads. The Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5 was probably an extra $400, plus I had to buy a $200 Leitz finder for it. Back in those days, we didn't have Cosina-Voigtlaender making wide-angles in Nikon S-mount.
Of course, adjusting for inflation, my Nikon rangefinders and lenses have lost value since 1988-1990, when I bought them. Also, I spent another decade givig these cameras and lenses the heavy journalistic use they were built for, and that didn't do anything to help their resale value.
Seventeen years ago, I spent about $4,000 putting together a decent Nikon RF user system. If I'd put that money in low-risk bonds earning 5 percent a year, I'd have $9,000 today ... considerably more than the cameras and lenses are worth. But, of course, I wouldn't have the pictures I took with them. I'd still have pictures, taken by other cameras, but they wouldn't be the same.
The run-up in Nikon values took place in the late 1980s, I think in part connected to the then-roaring Japanese economy ... Collectors in Japan found they could outspend those in other parts of the world and repatriate their historic cameras.
Through the 1970s and most of the 1980s, Nikon RFs were respected, but they not so widely sought that supply and demand were out of balance. I suppose Canon RFs fit that situation today.
I'm an accidental collector. I was happily doing newspaper work overseas with SLRs in the late 1980s when I discovered the Nikon rangefinders just as their prices were heating up. Over the course of a year or 18 months, I managed to put together a decent daily journalism system for just a few thousand dollars -- in order of purchase: an S2, S3 then SP; a 50/1.4; 85/2; 35/2.5; 105/2.5; 135/3.5; 28/3.5 and 35/1.8. A bit later I added a Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5.
I didn't keep good records, but I think I spent I spent roughly $400 for the S2, $900 on the S3 and $900 on the SP (the S3 was and is in better shape then the SP). The S2 and S3 were purchased at photo flea markets in Germany, and I mainly traded SLR bodies and lenses for them ... so I suppose the trades were a good investment ... the rangefinder cameras have more or less held their value while the film SLRs and lenses have declined in value.
For the lenses, I probably spent a total of $1,300 to $1,400 on the Nikkors, mostly buying from New York dealers out of Shutterbug ads. The Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5 was probably an extra $400, plus I had to buy a $200 Leitz finder for it. Back in those days, we didn't have Cosina-Voigtlaender making wide-angles in Nikon S-mount.
Of course, adjusting for inflation, my Nikon rangefinders and lenses have lost value since 1988-1990, when I bought them. Also, I spent another decade givig these cameras and lenses the heavy journalistic use they were built for, and that didn't do anything to help their resale value.
Seventeen years ago, I spent about $4,000 putting together a decent Nikon RF user system. If I'd put that money in low-risk bonds earning 5 percent a year, I'd have $9,000 today ... considerably more than the cameras and lenses are worth. But, of course, I wouldn't have the pictures I took with them. I'd still have pictures, taken by other cameras, but they wouldn't be the same.
Rico
Well-known
I was a gearhead, but not a collector until I found CameraQuest. In particular, the Green Millennium really took my fancy:
Here's hoping the painted-camera urge has passed. Am now sticking to the '60s Chrome Era where my wallet is safe... ha, ha, ha.
In particular, the Green Millennium really took my fancy:Here's hoping the painted-camera urge has passed. Am now sticking to the '60s Chrome Era where my wallet is safe... ha, ha, ha.
MikeL
Go Fish
CameraQuest said:
Can I have that paper delivered up north?