Old Cameras--keep 'em or sell 'em?

I have inherited a couple of cameras. I already have a Minolta Maxxum I don't really care for (original 7000, has slow auto-focus, but otherwise it's decent), so why keep two others. I shoot film so rarely now, I don't know if I want to hang onto these others.

One is a Canon AE1 Program. It has a zoom lens...75-300, I think, plus the standard 50mm FD lens. This one's in nice condition, and I am assuming it works OK after sitting for almost 15 years unused. I see a few body/lens combos selling on eBay, but they don't look like they'll top $100. No motor drive built in, but one can be picked up on eBay.

Another camera, which my mother bought, is a Ricoh Mirai. It has not been used very much, since she fell ill a couple years after buying it. It's point and shoot, but like halfway between that and an SLR.

Come to think of it, she has an 35mm Argus viewfinder camera somewhere around the house too, probably from late 50's or early 60's. Not even sure if it works.

I don't know if I want to hang onto these or not. Only thing that might be neat is to load one SLR with Kodachrome 200 and the other with a good print film, and take both on a trip. Or, I sell everything, along with my Maxxum 7000 body, and get a better camera body, keeping my three Maxxum lenses. (IF my original lenses would work on the newer bodies.)

 

Unless you have the immediate need on using it, sell it all.

Don't whorde stuff when you're not using it, or have no plans to. If you DO, it really sounds like you need to invest in a motor drive and a few things too, maybe repair. If you're willing to go the distance, then pay into it.

If not, eBay. Give it to someone who wants to appreciate it all.

MHO.

 

I don't know, you might want to keep the Canon, the 75-300 is a versatile lens. You could compare the autofocus on it (assuming it has one) vs. your Minolta. Canon is considered better than Minolta, IIRC.

The Ricoh and Mirai aren't worth keeping either, you might just donate them to Goodwill. Don't think they'd sell on EBay.

You say you don't shoot film much anymore, are you shooting digital stills?

I haven't made the leap into digital yet, I use my Nikon and have them scan the negs at high resolution during processing. Don't even bother to get proofs anymore, just proof them on the computer and get prints made if one turns out really good. That pic of the Mustang I posted before was done that way....

Ere

 

I heard the opposite about Minolta vs. Canon. Never have had a problem with picture quality out of my Minolta.

Mirai is a model of Ricoh...there are some selling on eBay right now. It's good for someone who wants point and shoot simplicity with SLR quality--the photos I've seen from this one look quite good. I believe it is early 90's vintage. Haven't played with it yet to see if it has shutter or aperture priority or not. Hate to see it end up at the black hole called Goodwill.

Since most of what I do is for the web, I use my digital camera mainly now. Thing is, I can't afford something like an SLR with a "digital back" on it...I would hang onto at least one SLR, and then get a good film/neg scanner to digitize. It's an extra step (and IMHO not as good as going directly to digital), but I also have dozens of rolls here I want to digitize as well, including some old family pictures of ours.

 

>>I heard the opposite about Minolta vs. Canon. Never have had a problem with picture quality out of my Minolta.<<

At the consumer grade level most are probably about the same, or so close it would take a photophile to tell the difference

>>Hate to see it end up at the black hole called Goodwill. <<

I was thinking that mostly because I dont' think you'd get all that much on EBay and there's always the chance good karma would land the camera in the hands of a budding albeit underprivileged kid via Goodwill.

>>It's an extra step (and IMHO not as good as going directly to digital), but I also have dozens of rolls here I want to digitize as well, including some old family pictures of ours.<<

Speaking as a professional archivist and a photographer, taking the original in film and then scanning it for presentation is preferable than going all-digital when it comes to preservation issues. There is no archival standard for digital files. Well-cared for film, even color, can last hundreds of years and can always be re-formatted. Everything else being equal, you can also get much better resolution in the original image on film than on digital for less money. Then you can do all the manipulation you want later.

Since I know you like old cars, here's an example of the approach I'm following:


It's got all the sharpness, saturation, and contrast one could hope for. And, keeping the negative in a cool dry place will ensure me access to the original image long after several dozen iterations of software/hardware would have made a digital original impossible to access or recover if corrupted.

There are a lot of parallels between how Steve approaches remastering analog originals for digital presentation and this approach to photography.....

Ere

 

What is the F-stop on the 50mm FD lens?

 

Ere:
Great photo, beautiful car. Drooooool.

As for digital vs. film, that's a long difficult debate best left to another thread (I'm all dit cam all the time, can you tell? )

Rudy, if you don't have an emotional attachment to your cameras you might want to sell them and put that money towards more film, another camera, more music, or a wonderful night out with your wife.

If there IS an emotional attachment? I guess keep 'em. I have cameras from both of my late grandfathers that I would never dream of selling. I don't shoot with them, but I can't let them go. They're a part of my family and my past.

Dan C

 

Ummm....we'll skip the 'wife' thing and go with 'girlfriend' for $500, Alex. (I really need to make "the post" in Off-Topic one of these days.)

I'm sort of attached to the Canon, since it was Dad's favorite. The Mirai would be a good step-up for someone stuck with a point/shoot camera.

Agreed about the digital/film debate--if I were on vacation, I'd definitely haul both the digital and the film cameras, since my favorite is shooting landscapes. I have many rolls of slide film I shot out west that I want to digitize.

But if I'm doing photography to put up on the web, digital is faster, and I can shoot several dozen images w/o having to worry about film cost. (Fussy photographer that I can be, I'm only happy with about one in ten photos I shoot. Thank goodness for Photoshop. )

Aside from the cropping and JPEG compression (so I don't eat a ton of bandwidth), I think the digital cam redeemed itself here :

http://www.yellowjackets.com/gallery/showgallery.php?action=viewexhibit&gallery=jotr2001

 

Yikes!
I should keep things generic. "Take your lady out" perhaps.

Dan C

 

Oooops, hope the film/digital digression wasn' t too much of a thread crap! A lot of good points made to help you decide, Rudy. And nice pics, too.

Ere

 

Thanks! Not bad for a refurbished Olympus point and shoot, eh?

I don't mind the digital/film debate, as I still see myself using both. With kids around, though, I find it easier to fire off the digital camera to post pictures online, and to take it with me just about anywhere to grab a picture if need be. I can print out a photo that's 'good enough' on the inkjet, and save me processing rolls of film where I'm only happy with a handful of what I take.

 

Heeheehee....yes, that actually is the plan for Saturday. I really need to update my 'status' in off-topic, when I can think clearly.

 

Off topic so forgive me, but you are "Neil" and not "Rudy"? I should've known this but I assumed you were Rudy. We're on a first name basis here, ain't we?

Dan C

 

Dan--I have been called a lot worse than EITHER name. I go by either name these days...an ex-neighbor of mine took my last name (Troll) and gave it new life. Second time I see him out side, "Howzit goin' Rudy??" It stuck. So Rudy is sorta the "buddy" name used by some friends and former co-workers, and pretty much what I use online everywhere. In fact, many of my "pleasure" websites grew out of my first site, Rudy's Corner, which was a new/improved version of what I was doing on Compuserve all those years ago.

Then again, in high school, I was also called "Tuna". Long story...don't ask. It did force me to start wearing that silly red fishing hat with the blue and white anchors on it to all of the jazz band gigs.

 

keep em.....!

 

I also own an older Sony Hi8 camcorder, a 35mm Minolta point and shoot (which the Maxxum replaced back in '85 or '86), and a Minolta APS point and shoot. Had a Brownie camera but it broke.

I make a good tourist.

 

I wonder if you ever shoot in places where you are in danger of being mugged. You can keep the spare cameras for those ocassions.

 

One of my favorite happy snap cameras was the original Olympus Stylus, the little black clam-shell deal. Simple, friggin indestructible, razer sharp lens. Great little camera, I documented just about every second of my daughter's lives with that thing for about five years.

Dan C

 

I try not to go where I'd be mugged. Fortunately doesn't happen here in the suburbs too often.

Follow-up: I looked at both of the cameras again. The Mirai is cool--it has TTL previewing, a good zoom range, and some neat SLR-like features. It has a grip on the one side that can be rotated...to me, it's a lot more stable to hold than a regular SLR. Not sure I'll keep it yet, but it is a good all-around do everthing camera.

The Canon AE1-Program has some features I've wanted in a camera, especially the depth of field preview. For that reason alone I may hang onto it. I think the battery is nearly dead, since I can't get the electronics to work or the shutter to fire. Still measures 6 volts on the multimeter, but that's under a no-load condition. The zoom is an f4 70-210mm. Not the widest of ranges, but not too bad either. Plus, I have someone who may go with me on trips who may want to use it.

 

The AE-1 with the 70-210 macro might have been the most popular setup during the 80s, along with the cheapo 50mm f 1.8. Along with the cheap 35mm f2.8 (IIRC) you would have a taste of true picture-taking POWER!

 

It is even better if you have the 50mm f 1.4 S.S.C. A classic lens IMO. I have a Cannon FT-b with one and it takes some great photos.