Poll - Secondhand or new?

[Damien_Demolder]

I spent the early part of my photographic life as an impoverished schoolboy drooling over the secondhand ads in the back of AP – once I’d finished drooling over the rest of the content the magazine published in the 1980s.

In those days I learnt to make do, adapt and compromise, and actually relished the enhanced value for money that comes with existing in the world of previously loved equipment. I suppose I have never recovered from those times, and tend to source most of what I buy from those who no longer need it.

Of course, in those early days the cameras I bought were film models and final image quality was more a factor of the film loaded than the number of modern functions incorporated. It is still the case that with film only the most basic camera is needed, so long as the optics are sound, but until only quite recently the second-hand DSLR market has been filled with models that are outdated by more crucial elements of image quality than the number of metering zones.

Now we have had good resolution, colour and processing speed for some time, the pre-owned DSLR is more likely to be a model worth using. In these recycling times, you can feel you’re saving the planet too.

To take part in our poll How much of your photographic kit did you buy second-hand? click the link.

Thanks for taking part.

damien

And don't forget this week's AP is a secondhand equipment special issue.

[Benchista]

Hmmm, that question depends on how I defined my photography kit...

Of ALL of it, the vast majority is second-hand; of my main system, probably about a third.

[Hotblack]

Pretty much all of mine is from new. Whan I first bought my D50 there weren't many DX lenses on the second hand market. I didn't really want second hand full frame lenses because I'd heard of chromatic abberation problems and unwanted reflections in the sensor chamber (I know! It's not as bad as all that in reality)....and I had the money to afford new.

[El_Sid]

Well that was an easy one - almost all...

By and large I've done pretty well buying used kit, only rarely has a second hand item proved to be a dud - and those were usually very low cost to start with. On occasion I've even picked up stuff very cheap that's proven to be far better than I could have possibly imagined...

On the whole buying used is not something to frightened of - as long as you inspect the item properly and are prepared to negotiate a bit on the price you can generally do quite well. Even taking the occasional gamble on a cheap item can be fun.

[huwevans]

Hmmm, that question depends on how I defined my photography kit...

WHS^

I'm fortunate enough to have a acquired a lot of kit over the decades, and even if we restrict attention to stuff that is still in use then I arguably have several different 'kits', which are used for different purposes. And the new/secondhand question varies wildly depending on what we're talking about.

As it is, I've gone for the 'more than half' option, which is an underestimate if I consider all of my kit, and an underestimate most of the time if I just think about the individual kits I commonly use, but is an overestimate for the particular kit that I most often use. Complicated, isn't it?

[OneTen]

Nearly all of my current kit is new. When I made a living from photography then all the equipment was purchased new, but everything I used as a hobbyist was secondhand.

[zx9]

I voted almost all was bought as used kit, all my 35mm and medium format systems were used. Of my digital kit only the body and flash gun were bought new, if I was buying digital now a s/h mk1 EOS 5D or EOS 1D mk2n would be considered. Both cameras were not often seen on the used market eighteen months ago and those that did come up had either seen very heavy use or were at a price very close to that of discounted new stock.

[Bettina]

More than 50%. I've always been happy with my second hand gear - including my 1DS - and now I have to sell some to finance my 5D MkII. Ah well.

[Nod]

Of what I have and use now, over half is new but if I went back 30 years, ALL was 2nd hand.

[TimF]

"Almost all" for me. My R kit has just one lens bought new (though at the greatly reduced close-out price from SH Photo) and one ex-demo (officially marked as such on the box). The M gear has only two lenses bought new.

It's just a pain that even used Leica gear often costs more than much other makes new price! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[daft_biker]

My 1st DSLR was 2nd hand because it was too cheap to resist but other than that all my cameras and lenses were bought new. Have a 2nd hand set of tripod legs which I've had long enough to have survived 2 camera upgrades...suspect they'll see a few more camera upgrades too

Don't mind buying used gear....but selling stuff....I don't think I could do that

[Fire_Monkey]

All my digital camera kit is new and that was almost true if my film kit. Most of that was new, a couple of lenses were bought second hand.

[Malcolm_Stewart]

What an impossible question to answer correctly. Did you mean by item, or by value?

By item, nearly all my gear is S/H but that includes lots of really low priced, and/or old gear. By value, that's quite different because I've bought two expensive DSLRs new, my 10D and my 5D, and a few lenses whose reputation for quality control was less than stellar. (So that I could return a duffer for exchange with no questions asked. Unfortunately, that's just what I had to do with one well known lens.)

However, my most expensive purchases have been s/h - a mint EF 300 f2.8L IS, and a mint 1D MkIII, and both these have been fine.

[Cuthbert]

All the lenses I've gone out and bought have been 2nd hand. The only lenses I have that were new are a couple of kit lenses.

Most of the bodies I've bought have been new, with the exception of one reconditioned film SLR and a Mamiya C33 (which is at least 3rd, maybe 4th hand).

Flashguns were bought new, one tripod was new, one was found in the loft when I moved in and given a good cleaning.

Overall, I think my split in terms of how much I spent is something like 1/3 S/H against 2/3 new. In terms of just counting up all the bits it works out about even between new and second hand.

[El_Sid]

What an impossible question to answer correctly. Did you mean by item, or by value?

Huh?....

What has value got to do with anything? Secondhand means used or pre-owned by a previous purchaser (or purchasers) while new is the opposite...

[Benchista]

What an impossible question to answer correctly. Did you mean by item, or by value?

Huh?....

What has value got to do with anything? Secondhand means used or pre-owned by a previous purchaser (or purchasers) while new is the opposite...

? Malcolm clearly knows the difference between new and second-hand, he's questioning how you measure "how much" - by value, or by quantity of items. Personally, I automatically assumed by number of items, but it would look different by value, I suppose.

[Manofolympus]

What an impossible question to answer correctly. Did you mean by item, or by value?

Huh?....

What has value got to do with anything? Secondhand means used or pre-owned by a previous purchaser (or purchasers) while new is the opposite...

? Malcolm clearly knows the difference between new and second-hand, he's questioning how you measure "how much" - by value, or by quantity of items. Personally, I automatically assumed by number of items, but it would look different by value, I suppose.

Yes, as a sad film user I have a pile of kit-all bought second hand-but if you added up what I've spent on ebay, car boot sales etc it would come to less than the price of a higher spec dslr-hence the one we have comes to over 50% of the value of what we own!

[El_Sid]

What an impossible question to answer correctly. Did you mean by item, or by value?

Huh?....

What has value got to do with anything? Secondhand means used or pre-owned by a previous purchaser (or purchasers) while new is the opposite...

? Malcolm clearly knows the difference between new and second-hand, he's questioning how you measure "how much" - by value, or by quantity of items. Personally, I automatically assumed by number of items, but it would look different by value, I suppose.

I took it to read as number of items too...

I've bought so much secondhand that, even allowing for the low purchase price of some bits, I suspect I'd come out as almost all using either criterion.......

[huwevans]

Personally, I interpreted it as number of items, and FWIW I only took camera bodies and lenses into account.

[Zou]

Mostly new for me. I have bought precisely one used lens and one used camera - the rest was new. Interestingly enough that one lens is possibly my favourite, and was cheaper than any of the new stuff I have bought.