Canon AE-1?????

[G-Mac]

What would a nice Canon AE-1 with wide angle telephoto lens and flash be worth?

Probably not much, I'm sure...does anybody even take film pictures anymore?

Somebody wants to swap me one for something I'd like to unload....no....it's not a gun.

 

[RonJ]

KEH camera is selling the AE1 for between 75 and 200 dollars according to condition. Flash is worth very little. Lens according to brand, speed and condition. I wouldn't pay that much anymore.

 

[Raider]

Camera - about 50.00. Lens maybe about 25.00 if its Canon brand. Maybe $20 more if the rig is mint. The AE1 is a great camera but nobody wants one since digital came along. JMO

Charlie

 

[Texas Star]

You'll need to add at least a 50mm "normal" lens or a 50-55mm macro lens, to get normal pics, and you may need telephoto lenses. A wide angle lens has limited uses.

I'm more into the Olympus OM-1n, but knew a guy who was very pleased with his AE-1.

Be sure that you can get batteries. Many older cameras took a mercury battery that is no longer made. I tried a Radio Shack substitute and it didn't work.

T-Star

 

[Jellybean]

...does anybody even take film pictures anymore?

I do, and I will untill someone makes an affordable digital camera that can take high quality, high resolution photos without batteries.

 

[Bat Guano]

I still have mine from circa 1985, and used them at work prior to that time. It's "obsolete" but I still like it. I also got two from KEH some years ago for my wife and daughter so we would at least be using the same system. I don't do much photography anymore but I do like it and don't plan to upgrade.

I think that the above prices quoted are about ball park.

 

[tom turner]

What would a nice Canon AE-1 with wide angle telephoto lens and flash be worth?

Probably not much, I'm sure...does anybody even take film pictures anymore?

Somebody wants to swap me one for something I'd like to unload....no....it's not a gun.

Hi,

1. THE LENS MIGHT BE WORTH SOME BUCKS . . .
It might depend on what lens you have. If you could post the make (hopefully its a genuine Canon lens), as well as the focal length information (such as: 55mm f/1.2) it would help.

There's a small but eager market out there for manual focus, prime lenses of superior quality from the glory days of 35mm film cameras. Folks are buying adapters which allow them to use these high quality lenses on their auto-focus digital SLR cameras . . . albiet as manual focus only lenses of course.

So . . . the LENS might be worth some money, or not very much, depending upon which lens it is.

2. THE FLASH UNIT
If it is working, and if someone needed a high voltage flash unit for a Canon manual 35mm camera, it might bring a few bucks. However, most folks aren't looking or needing one.

3. THE CAMERA ITSELF
Maybe $50 if it works properly in every way . . . maybe more or less depending upon the condition and a motivated buyer. Having all the materials (box, warranty cards, etc.), with everything in pristine condition would be what most collectors would be wanting.


BACK TO THE LENS . . .
I'm not nit-picking here, but a "wide angle"/"telephoto" lens describes two totally different lens designs, so I can't really tell what you might have. I think you meant that you had a zoom lens.

Again, if you can get back to us with the exact make and information about the lens, you might have one that could bring some nice bucks!

Hope this helps,

Tom

 

[K-22]

I do, and I will untill someone makes an affordable digital camera that can take high quality, high resolution photos without batteries.

Jellybean,
Since you are a film guy, I will ask you. What would a Nikon F-2 Photomic with a DP-1 finder be worth?
It has a 43-86 Nikon mid range zoom. It is in excellent condition.

Best,
Gary

 

[deadin]

Nikon F-2's fall into the "classic collectible" category and seem to be selling for $200-$300 range average. (Sometimes a little more or less...)

I have a Canon EOS-3 that I paid over $1200 for right before I switched to digital. It only has 2 or 3 rolls of film through it and I probably couldn't get more than a couple of hundred out of it. (If I was lucky....)

 

[slowburninsteve]

I just bought a Canon AE-1 Program in mint condition with the 50mm lens, a telephone lens, a wideangle lens, flash unit, an ultraviolet filter, all the original boxes and paperwork for $60 at a yard sale. I then bought a Canon 20-100 zoom lens with a 2x extension off Fleabay for $60 in the original box. I haven't finished the roll of film yet and can't wait to see what the photos will look like!
Steve

 

[David LaPell]

Is it my old AE-1 that I sold here? If it is (mine had two flashes, wide angle, telephoto, standard lenses and a nice case for the whole deal). I think I got around $100 for the whole deal. The only thing I would even need it for now would be outdoor pics, but everything else I use my little Nikon digital.

 

[Jellybean]

Jellybean,
Since you are a film guy, I will ask you. What would a Nikon F-2 Photomic with a DP-1 finder be worth?
It has a 43-86 Nikon mid range zoom. It is in excellent condition.

Best,
Gary

Gary, I'm afraid I don't have a clue. I've always been a Pentax kind of guy and always thought of Nikons as overly expensive.

For many years I used an ME Super, it still works, I still like it, but thought I'd graduate up to something more modern and retire the old ME. I bought a used Pentax ZX-50 for $73, and hate it, to the point that it still has the first roll of film I loaded into it. My son brought over a Sears TLS body he found at a garage sale for $5. It's TTL meter didn't work and it took screw in lenses. I had a screw in lens in my camera box that fit it, so I loaded it up with film and shot a roll using the "sunny day 16 rule". The pictures were absolutely fantastic, so much so that I now use it with a Pentax screw/bayonet adapter ring and all my Pentaxs lenses, along with an ambient light meter.

 

[longranger]

There are things captured in traditional film that no digital camera can emulate.The same holds true to musical instruments as well as recorded music.That "old technology" is going to be valuable one day.Like a 1950's Fender Stratocaster,Gibson Les Paul are worth 10's of thousands of $.Canon A-1's and Nikon F-1's are going to be the hot items for a small group of folks who know how to use them.I see no digital camera copying Ansel Adams work with B/W film.
My view on digital vs traditional film is that digital is convienient not better.
I did crime scene photography for 8 years and when the digital stuff started to show up lawyers were having a field day.The issue was how easy it was to manipulated digital images verses film.Re-touched photos looks like retouched film to a trained eye much harder to detect digital manipulation.Most good Investigators will record in both digital and film.

 

[Texas Star]

Gary, I'm afraid I don't have a clue. I've always been a Pentax kind of guy and always thought of Nikons as overly expensive.

For many years I used an ME Super, it still works, I still like it, but thought I'd graduate up to something more modern and retire the old ME. I bought a used Pentax ZX-50 for $73, and hate it, to the point that it still has the first roll of film I loaded into it. My son brought over a Sears TLS body he found at a garage sale for $5. It's TTL meter didn't work and it took screw in lenses. I had a screw in lens in my camera box that fit it, so I loaded it up with film and shot a roll using the "sunny day 16 rule". The pictures were absolutely fantastic, so much so that I now use it with a Pentax screw/bayonet adapter ring and all my Pentaxs lenses, along with an ambient light meter.

What's a "sunny day 16" rule? Do you mean to shoot at F-16 if it's sunny? Doesn't film speed make a big difference? I usually use ISO 400 or 800 film, to give me some slack in iffy light. And I often shoot in shade, to avoid shadows.

 

[loutent]

What's a "sunny day 16" rule? Do you mean to shoot at F-16 if it's sunny? Doesn't film speed make a big difference? I usually use ISO 400 or 800 film, to give me some slack in iffy light. And I often shoot in shade, to avoid shadows.

Shoot at f/16 with shutter speed closest to the ISO speed you choose (in your case 1/400 or 1/800 sec) - this is correct for a sunny situation. Adjust accordingly by 1 stop each for: cloudy bright - cloudy - overcast - shade - deep shade.

When I used film (and even now with digital) - I find myself often falling back on the "sunny 16" rule.

 

[Texas Star]

Shoot at f/16 with shutter speed closest to the ISO speed you choose (in your case 1/400 or 1/800 sec) - this is correct for a sunny situation. Adjust accordingly by 1 stop each for: cloudy bright - cloudy - overcast - shade - deep shade.

When I used film (and even now with digital) - I find myself often falling back on the "sunny 16" rule.

Mega thanks! The meters on my OM-1's are dead, and might be, even if I could find the right batteries.

One camera shop told me the OM- series was designed to last only 15 years, although that is probably just a wild tale. But the meters often do fritz while the rest of the camera works fine.

Of course, the new all electronic cameras often die within 3-4 years. Maybe less! I've been afraid to put much money into one.

 

[Jellybean]

Texas Star, you can also use the guide inside the film boxes, if you have them with you.

The spot meters built into most cameras are alright for most photos, but they do have a weakness when it comes to black or white subjects. They are based on an 18% grayscale, and white things, like snow, look dirty, or black things, like night, look washed out. If your cameras can take pictures without batteries you can use a handheld light meter to give you your settings and enter them manually. The problem I have with the ZX-50 is that it is made for people that don't want to learn how to take pictures. It has about five automatic picture modes and can also be used in aperature priority or shutter priority modes. It does have a manual mode but it's so different from what I'm used to with it's LCD digital display I'm having a hard time getting used to it.

 

[R. G. Amos]

The F-2 may be worth about 50$; The older F somewhat more. The Nikor 43-89 was a slow (f 3.5 I think) and by Nikon standards a poor performing lens. It was also never wide enough or long enough for really useful work. I would guess it may be worth about 30$

 

[bobcat]

I still have my Canon AE-1 I bought new in 1981 as a gift to myself when I graduated from college. I also have a 70-200(?) telephoto, I can't bring myself to sell it because I know I wouldn't get anything for it. I was looking for a roll of film in wally world a couple of weeks ago so I could fire it up for old times sake and couldn't find any. Sign of the times I guess...

 

[Texas Star]

I still have my Canon AE-1 I bought new in 1981 as a gift to myself when I graduated from college. I also have a 70-200(?) telephoto, I can't bring myself to sell it because I know I wouldn't get anything for it. I was looking for a roll of film in wally world a couple of weeks ago so I could fire it up for old times sake and couldn't find any. Sign of the times I guess...

I'm afraid that the local camera shop will quit processing film and my cameras will then truly be useless. I get film there and at Kroger grocers. But the film selection is often limited.

T-Star