New or Second hand ?

[AspiringPhotographer]

I was talking to an ex-photographer today, and he recommends that i buy a second hand camera.

He said, "its better to buy a second hand camera for £200, than what it is to buy the same camera new for £900".

Now, i would have thought it would make more sense to buy a brand new one, then you can guarentee it'll be good quality.

So, New or Second hand.

Cheers in advance.

Sam

[gordon g]

Secondhand body, and use the savings on the best lenses you can afford. That's where the money will make the biggest difference to image quality.

[MTDancer]

I can see what he means and I live a bargain but £200 is a lot to pay if the camera then develops a fault. I have just bought a Lumix FX38 new where I could have had a second hand canon but I was worried it would go wrong

[Gidders]

I bought a Canon 40D second hand 3 years ago & its been great .

I think you would be unlucky if you had a problem with something 2nd hand with one of the major manufacturers .... and even buying new it can go wrong the day after its out of warranty

I agree with Gordon

[Alex1994]

Second hand all the way. It's silly to spend a vast sum of money on something that will lose half of its value in about a year. So let someone else take the loss and enjoy a nice camera. I bought an EOS 30D for £245 secondhand, it works perfectly and brand new it would've cost me more than twice that.

The camera manufacturers are making you believe that you need the latest most expensive bodies and lenses to get the best quality. Truth be told a 3 or 4 year old camera will give indistinguishable results to the equivalent new one. An EOS 20D is 80% as good as a 50D but significantly cheaper. Meanwhile good glass is forever as bodies come and go, so as Gordon said buy the best lenses you can afford and skimp on the body.

[andy153]

Always the best lenses you can afford - 2nd hand bodies are fine - I've had both new and 2nd hand bodies and lenses - never had any problems.

[Nigel G]

Hi Sam

They're not really giving you the answer you want are they.

Sadly they are right - for whatever your given budget you will get more camera for your money second hand than you will new - and thats because lots of us are seduced by the manufactures latest offerings and put our perfectly good 2/3 year old bodies on ebay or where ever. (Unless you can bluff the wife/girlfriend/husband etc into believing you need them both).

But it you really hanker after the latest whatever - which comes in just over what you can really afford but you convince yourself that the results will justify it - don't worry:-

so do the rest of us

But in my humble opinion there is more to taking good pictures than the man behind the camera - whatever the wisemen say - cos I would suggest that you will be happiest - and therefore most succesful - with what your really wanted.

So - yes the glass is probably more important than the body - but go with the heart not the head - love whatever your buy and share your pictures with the rest of us

[gordon g]

For a hobbyist I'd say there's a lot in what you say Nigel; there is a lot of pleasure to be found in choosing and using good quality tools for any task. Even then, though, I would buy a secondhand version of my prefered model if I could to make the most of my cash, but for someone who is aspiring to a career in photography, as Sam has described him/herself(sorry Sam - not sure there!), the kit has to justify itself in terms of cost and productivity.

[Alex1994]

Do you want a tool or a toy? A better tool will be had second-hand. A new camera has more of a shiny new toy feeling to it.