C100: Is 82 hours of use a lot for a used camera?

A

allahkaram

Well-known member
I'm trying to buy a used c100 mkii. It was used for 82 hours of shooting. Is that a lot for a used camera?
 
allahkaram said:
I'm trying to buy a used c100 mkii. It was used for 82 hours of shooting. Is that a lot for a used camera?
Click to expand...


when used in a survival/beach/saltwater/etc... environment its a lot..
when used in a studio/safe controled environment it's nothing.

overal cosmetic condition says more than hours (unless you get into the 1000's), if there are any scratches ,dents, loose connections missing protection rubbers..etc.. will tell you more how the former owner treated his camera.
And all ofcourse depends on how much of a discount your getting.
 
If memory serves there are no mechanical parts on the C100 - so there isn't anything that could wear internally. As long as the camera LOOKS like it has only had that usage, it's fine. If it looks like it's been thrown down a mountain, steer clear.
 
Plenty of used C100II units now for sale. I've seen some with under 20hrs.. Just need to be in the right place/time. As far as condition, the one I saw with scratches worked as well as my new ones. I'd be concerned with the low-hour ones with no signs of use. Why are they selling so soon? I know projects pop-up (and the 300II forced some sales of C100s) but still need due diligence when buying anything through the hands of someone other than an official retailer.
 
Combat has a good point. As already said, for electronics, hours aren't really important, but really low hours are not necessarily a good thing. In high-reliability systems (telecom for example) manufacturers 'burn in' the equipment for a while to make sure that it won't have an early death. You don't want something with really low hours that hasn't proved itself in the field. Super low hours increases the odds that it will have an early-life defect. 80 hours is brilliant. That should be enough to weed out any latent defects and it is virtually nothing in the life of electronics.
 
JMtheDP said:
If memory serves there are no mechanical parts on the C100 - so there isn't anything that could wear internally. As long as the camera LOOKS like it has only had that usage, it's fine. If it looks like it's been thrown down a mountain, steer clear.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the 100 have an internal ND system like the 300? Those are moving parts. And that system actually scares the hell out of me because it's electronically controlled motor system and not a physical wheel you turn like on most ENG cameras or an F5/55.

Although that design is probably what allows Canon to have a superior ND scheme with finer control with three densities(2, 4 & 6 stops plus "clear") of ND in their cameras instead of just two(3 & 6 stops plus clear) like Sony in the F5/55.
 
We always want what we don't have I guess. I move in & out of LUX extremes all throughout the day. Step-less Auto ND would be my wish...
 
control4userguy said:
We always want what we don't have I guess. I move in & out of LUX extremes all throughout the day. Step-less Auto ND would be my wish...
Click to expand...

I've been an ENG guy for a 1000 years, it's just more natural/instinctual for me to grab the wheel and turn it. I don't know if it has an "auto" function, but the FS5 has variable ND.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top