[Emil]

Hello guys

When buying used what should one look for?

Many sellers will mention the number of shutter clicks. How many is too much?


Thanks in advance

Emil

[thunderbrick]

Depends on what you are looking for.  Pro or near-pro bodies may have been beat to death with over 100K images.  The bodies are "rated" for so many shots, but I doubt there's much real-world data to back up the projected life cycle.

Consumer grade gear?  Nice and clean, no sensor damage, flash works, focus and zoom smooth should be OK.

I'm pretty sure my D200, D300 and D300s have well over 100K, but I'll have to check.  Never an issue and I am pretty hard on my gear.

[Emil]

Thanks Thunderbrick

Im looking at a D300 in "very good" condition sans lens  for $500. One can buy a new D5300 with lens for a little more. Has technology not advanced to the point that the D300 is the better camera and value even though it may be 7 years old?

[low.pfile]

Thanks Thunderbrick

Im looking at a D300 in "very good" condition sans lens  for $500. One can buy a new D5300 with lens for a little more. Has technology not advanced to the point that the D300 is the better camera and value even though it may be 7 years old?

because you are looking at a DSLR. I recommend taking test shots to evaluate sensor when you are looking at the camera. Especially test small aperture images (f/16) to see if the sensor has spots--blue sky test. Sure you can clean sensors, but sometimes the dust is trapped in the sensor layers--I know I had this issue with a used D3S which I did take test shots on the spot but I failed to do the Blue sky test and my sensor has a small amount of trapped dust. It was professionally cleaned so I know it is not standard dust.

Back to the D300 vs D5300. They are very different cameras. Maximum controls on the D300 vs limited controls on the D5300 ( I had a D5100). The builds are markedly different. The D5300 will feel like a toy after holding a D300. What you need as far as access to controls and what is comfortable in your hands will be your decision.

As far as sensor technology the D5300 has surpassed the D300. Specifically in high ISO

from http://www.dxomark.com

Also, when comparing the two nikons, focus engines should be compared, both AF speed and number of focus points avail.
and viewfinders should be compared. My D5100 was disappointing in this area due to small size.

[thunderbrick]

What's critical to me is frame rate; how many shots per second in jpeg, for example?  Much more solid feel, very durable and feels stable in my hands.  I do a lot of sporting events, wildlife and theater and speed is critical.

What is your intended use?  What did the previous owner use it for?

I think the D300 will take a much broader range of lenses than the more consumer-oriented bodies.

[low.pfile]

I think the D300 will take a much broader range of lenses than the more consumer-oriented bodies.

I agree. I'd choose the D300 in general. if I wanted better low light camera, even with its better sensor I still wouldn't choose the D5300.

[SET Man]

Hey!

    I don't know. I'm a bit hesitant with the idea of buying old digital cameras.

    Personally I don't use Nikon but I'm still using my 12MP Sony DSLR of which I bought back in 2008. It still works fine and 12MP is fine. But if I were to buy these old camera today? The answer will be no. Unless you can get it very cheap with good lens with it.

   With new camera beside more pixels, most of the time you do get better and faster processor and better low light performance. Even kit lenses seem some improvement since 2008.

   Although, the D300 will have better build than the lower end current model for sure. And from what I understand the lower models Nikon no longer have in body screw-driven AF. But if you are going to just stick with kit lens or current lenses than that shouldn't be a problem.

   Anyway, Emil take it slow think it through. See which camera will fit your need better and if possible go to the camera store and check them out in person and see how they feel in your hand.

Take care,
Buddy

[thunderbrick]

Anyway, Emil take it slow think it through. See which camera will fit your need better and if possible go to the camera store and check them out in person and see how they feel in your hand.

Great advice!  What matters more than anything else is how intuitive/comfortable the camera is to you.  In the mid-70s I worked in a great full-service camera store, and once features and price were roughly the same, we always said to go with what feels right in your hand.  Valid then as now!

My friends and I have had great luck with used DLSRs, benefiting greatly from other folks' urge to have the latest and greatest.  Bought my D300s used on CL 4 years ago, along with a D80 for the warden.  My old D200s are going strong in the hands of a young photographer, and I beat the hell out of them.

But be sure to get great glass, not just the kit lenses.  I bought a used 17-55 2.8 Nikon lens a few years back, and everyone who has tried it out saw a big difference between it and the kit lenses.  All of them bought the 2.8 model soon after.

'brick

[Emil]

Wow! Graphs and everything. Thanks guys.

It seems the analogy cannot not be made when buying used cameras as when buying used audio gear. I would be more inclined  into  buying an older, used amp for $1k  than a new one for $1k

So the impression Im getting here, so correct me if Im wrong, is that I'll be able to get great pictures with either camera but you really need to get the feel of them in your hands... a test drive if you will. There is a camera store in my area ( Cameta Camera) that seems to have a big inventory of used gear so a visit should be in order.
Plus, the lens you use is just as more important than the camera itself.

So build quality of the older cameras far surpass the new as I expected. Ive had the D3200 in my hands at Bestbuy and it doses feel like a toy. i assumed it was done purposely to cut down on weight.

Another option i have been toying with was picking up a used D3100 on Craigslist for $200 and purchasing a higher end lens than what the kit provides.

Im probably overthinking this whole thing and spending too much time at Ken Rockwells site

Anyone care to browse the used inventory list for me    Doesnt need to be Nikon.
http://www.cameta.com/dslr-used.cfm

[Bob in St. Louis]

...........spending too much time at Ken Rockwells site.........

That's very easy to do. 

[thunderbrick]

That's very easy to do. 

What little I've seen of his site, I'm not impressed.

[thunderbrick]

So build quality of the older cameras far surpass the new as I expected. Ive had the D3200 in my hands at Bestbuy and it doses feel like a toy. i assumed it was done purposely to cut down on weight.

Another option i have been toying with was picking up a used D3100 on Craigslist for $200 and purchasing a higher end lens than what the kit provides.

Im probably overthinking this whole thing and spending too much time at Ken Rockwells site

Anyone care to browse the used inventory list for me    Doesnt need to be Nikon.

Bad analogy.  Older is not better built.  It is model-specific, just as in audio.

I would strongly advise a decent D300 or D300s over a CL D3100.

Your are over thinking it.

Doesn't need to be Nikon???      You must be a Bose guy!!!!!

 

[Bob in St. Louis]

What little I've seen of his site, I'm not impressed.

When you're as noobish as I, you'd be impressed with him too.
Besides, a guy has to find knowledge somewhere. 

[thunderbrick]

When you're as noobish as I, you'd be impressed with him too.
Besides, a guy has to find knowledge somewhere. 

Yeah, but you're in the automobile business.  You'll say or believe anything.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Ouch.

[Bob in St. Louis]

......but at least I fix them, not sell them. 

[thunderbrick]

Which has the higher margin?  Hmmmmm?   

[SET Man]

Wow! Graphs and everything. Thanks guys.

It seems the analogy cannot not be made when buying used cameras as when buying used audio gear. I would be more inclined  into  buying an older, used amp for $1k  than a new one for $1k

So the impression Im getting here, so correct me if Im wrong, is that I'll be able to get great pictures with either camera but you really need to get the feel of them in your hands... a test drive if you will. There is a camera store in my area ( Cameta Camera) that seems to have a big inventory of used gear so a visit should be in order.
Plus, the lens you use is just as more important than the camera itself.

So build quality of the older cameras far surpass the new as I expected. Ive had the D3200 in my hands at Bestbuy and it doses feel like a toy. i assumed it was done purposely to cut down on weight.

Another option i have been toying with was picking up a used D3100 on Craigslist for $200 and purchasing a higher end lens than what the kit provides.

Im probably overthinking this whole thing and spending too much time at Ken Rockwells site

Anyone care to browse the used inventory list for me    Doesnt need to be Nikon.
http://www.cameta.com/dslr-used.cfm

Hey!

   Oh! No! Not Ken Rockwell!!!! 

   Emil, as for built quality of the camera. You are comparing two series of Nikon here... think of the 5000 series like Honda Civic and D300 series as Honda Accord... is that sounds right?

   Yes, you can get good pictures from both camera, after all you are the one taking the picture not the camera But some cameras will make things a bit easier and faster.

  As for the lens. Yes, for me also... it is all about the lens. I rather have a $2000 lens/zoom on a $1000 body than vice versa. But before you lay down big money for a good lens, think it through before you do. Good lens are not just expensive but also big and heavy. Depend what you are going to use it for and your shooting style you might not need or want to haul around big heavy lens or zoom.

  OK, as for camera. First I have to come clean, I'm a Sony DLSR user and what I'm about to recommend to you right now might seem out of the left field for some here. I have met  you before I think this might work for you and if you are not looking to buy a bunch of lenses than check out the new Sony A6000 mirrorless camera with the kit lens of which is decent to start with and the whole thing is small... actually tiny to me.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029860-REG/sony_ilce6000l_b_alpha_a6000_mirrorless_digital.html

  The whole shebang for $800. And you have option of getting better lens or zooms later on. Like this one...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001009-REG/sony_sel1670z_16_70mm_f_4_za_lens.html

   It is a step up from kit lens... actually way up. And the zoom range is great for all-around, not too big and it is a constant f4 of which is a great thing.

   If I had money I would make this A6000 with it's kit zoom lens my P&S cam. If you go for this make sure you get an extra batt for it.

  Well, that's just my $0.02 but do check it out in person and decide for yourself.

Take care,
Buddy

[thunderbrick]

  Well, that's just my $0.02 but do check it out in person and decide for yourself.

+1!   

[JohnR]

How much are used D700? I think I would look there if looking for a "serious" used DSLR.

The cheaper Nikons might feel like a toy but you don't notice when shooting. And small and light has it's charms... So much depends on what the OP wants to do with the camera which I don't think was stated. If only planning to buy one or two lenses then the vast range of nikon lenses (new and old) isn't an advantage and other systems may offer better value. The MLCs as mentioned by Buddy are an interesting option because you can get adapters for almost any lens system ever invented. I'm playing with one on a Fuji X-M1 -



(With nikon 200mm micro)