What's with the exorbitant pricing for the Electro 35 GSN?

mine was serviced by our micromoogman (black GT) and while it is a big, clunky thingy, the images that come out of it are of very good quality, the meter works well, the rangefinder is bright, big enough and contrasty, etc.

I bought the camera for € 75,-- and hat it serviced, which was cheaper than a 40/2 or any comparable lens for a Leica.
 
I think it is a great camera. I bought a like new one and had it CLA'd. Fantastic images and just a gem of a camera.
 
I think it is a great camera. I bought a like new one and had it CLA'd. Fantastic images and just a gem of a camera.
 
I've been shooting Yashica GSN, GTs, MG-1s, etc. for well into 35-40 years. I probably own 5/6 of them, some I've refurbished and others I need to work on, particularly replacing the POD. Lately however, I've picked up some MG-1s which are generally considerably less expensive then the GSNs but produce fine pictures. I believe the MG-1s have a 5 element lens rather than the 6 element lens of the GSN, but as I check through some pictures I've put on line, I can generally tell which were taken on the MG-1. Three things they lack when compared to the GSN, no B setting, a 2.8 lens and the longest shutter speed of only 2 seconds rather than the 30 seconds of the GSN. But, you can't have everything. However, I notice that the MG-1s are now going up in price as well as the GSNs. But I've picked up some mint MG-1s for around $15-20, sometimes less than that. I generally take one with me when I'm in Russia and/or Ukraine. I think they're quite easy to clean out the viewfinder and sometimes have to resolder the lead wire to the battery holder.
 
I owned a MG-1, and I recognized the similarity to the Yashica GSN lineage immediately. Got rid of it for a song, and now I could kick myself for doing so!
 
I believe one is splitting hairs when they rant about how much better their alternative 35mm , standard lens rangefinders are. They also are large enough to fit the larger paws of some photogs. Shoulda got one three years ago when
money was scarce. It consistently takes sharp, well exposed pics. Peter
 
I think part of it also has to do with the Lomography society recently hawking these for something like $200, which probably shot up the used value due to it's instant cred with that crowd. The camera itself certainly performs as well as any other camera comparable to it in price, I just wouldn't go much over $35 for one without a verifiable CLA because they're common, and ones that are anything short of mint are a dime a dozen. I know when I buy these to flip I never go over $15; they're nice cameras but so common, I see values coming back down to earth quickly. Values are often related to quality, but for cameras like this I feel it's more directly related to quantity; there are just so many out there. Probably up there with Minolta SRTs and Canon AE1s as the most common camera I see, and doing battle with the Argus C3 and Canonet family as the most common fixed lens RF I come across.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
2. For $100-$150 you can have an excellent camera that's been put into good working order by someone who knows. Probably work well for many years.
Click to expand...

I've seen a number of GSN's in the $100++ range that were dogs. Worn out POD's and batteries so corroded in you could not remove them.

People see the high prices on eBay and think their non-working or partly working models are also worth it..

Either way it's a crapshot unless you buy from a reputable seller who advertises them as serviced..
 
colyn said:
I've seen a number of GSN's in the $100++ range that were dogs. Worn out POD's and batteries so corroded in you could not remove them.

People see the high prices on eBay and think their non-working or partly working models are also worth it..

Either way it's a crapshot unless you buy from a reputable seller who advertises them as serviced..
Click to expand...

Yes, part of the problem is uneducated or unscrupulous sellers who claim that their camera is in good condition if it cocks and the shutter clicks, then ask top dollar for it even though the electronics may be completely shot.
 
nparsons13 said:
Yes, part of the problem is uneducated or unscrupulous sellers who claim that their camera is in good condition if it cocks and the shutter clicks, then ask top dollar for it even though the electronics may be completely shot.
Click to expand...
I deal with these people a lot. They either don't know cameras and just buy it because it old or don't know cameras, search for it, see someone ASKING a lot for it on eBay, and think it is worth that.

Then you have the issue of people who claim they have serviced it when they really probably have done nothing more than wipe it off with alcohol. Or the worst, sellers who claim ignorance to it's condition when they probably know darn well it doesn't work!

I only pay top dollar for a camera for my own use if it was backed by a warranty from a major outlet, sold by a well known service tech, or was someone I personally know and trust.
 
Lot of good info in this thread. The market definitely seems to be inflated. Even fair-poor condition cameras are listed and selling for good money.
 
I just checked the past 50 or so sales. The average is between $35-75. That seems about what they were 5 years ago, adjusted for inflation. These are not high prices. No, they're not $9.99 anymore. But neither are any rangefinders. Or film....
 
I don't quite get GSN hype when there are more refined Lynxes. GSN has nice lens but the rest is....I think, term "agricultural" fits here. Wait, RF patch contrast is still better than average for given class, but many other FL RF's have usable patch.
 
The GSN is light duty in design, not agricultural at all; this makes the camera fun for me. The sixties style chrome and the clunk when the shutter and meter come into calibration are acquired tastes to be sure, though. The clunk can be muted with a finger tip, and the shutter sound is very civilized.

The metering and exposure are remarkably predictable.
 
Why would anyone complain about the price of this remarkably capable camera and then
suggest that a Leica M-something or another is a good deal at $500 for a body only ,really, who the heck could tell the difference in a blind test?
Peter
 
mburns said:
The GSN is light duty in design, not agricultural at all; this makes the camera fun for me. The sixties style chrome and the clunk when the shutter and meter come into calibration are acquired tastes to be sure, though. The clunk can be muted with a finger tip, and the shutter sound is very civilized.

The metering and exposure are remarkably predictable.
Click to expand...

After owning 'em I've sold GSN. Not bad camera, but:
- film advancing is rather stiff compared to other cameras. Lynxes are much smoother with this, if just longer stroke. Clunk is a....clunk.
- Shutter sound of Electro is called mouse fart (I mean long squeeky noise during long exposures) other than that leaf shutter is quite silent, as expected.
- Shape is too regular, maybe - too simple, I'd say, too boxy. And it's not a small box, no.

I'm not bashing GSN and don't insist I'm right - just prefering feeling, sounds and operation of older fully mechanical cameras. Lynxes also can be called agricultural, compared to more expensive cameras - I fully realize this, as Konicas too (Auto S2 also is agricultural compared to III or even plain pre-Auto S).
 
Burning Man

Burning Man

Kissomatic- awesome pics of Burning Man...Captures the moment and attitude! So surprised nobody has given any praise for this excellent series.
I just picked up a GSN at a local antique mart, it's mint and once I installed a battery it works perfect. K
 
Reasons for high prices:

1 It's a cult camera for newbies to rangefinders who don't know any better

2 Highly sought after by those who should know better

3 Collectors looking for every variation

4 Price gouging

Any of the above could apply to many cameras, except for No 1. I just paid $2.00 for my latest (pre-G with the original ERC), so bargains are out there.

PF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom