First Camera, or Money?

[Tumeg]

Today after a shoot, my photography teacher started to talk to me about her first camera, and how much it cost ect.
Then she said, she went to a local pawn shop and they offered her $500 for it. This is a film camera, purchased 10 years ago! They offered $500 for it! (Well, it was $2,000 when new)
But she said that she did not trade it in, because it was her first camera, and she wanted to keep it.


So, my question is. What would you guys do? If it was your first camera, would you trade it for $500+ to get a new lens? Or would you keep it, for the sentimental value?
I personally, would probably trade it in, not sure why I would... But I would, lol

[mellowd]

I'd keep it

[R_Metzel]

I got rid of mine long ago! It is just a tool to me though.

[cowpix]

Gone. Without a second thought. Show me the money.

[Cybnew]

I would keep it...mainly because I still use it. It is an AE-1. I have a film class coming up (just something to take for general ed credit in college), and I thought about getting an eos body, but decided that I would rather use the AE-1...It is a great camera that I doubt I could find one that works as well and as consistently :)

[Mark_Cohran]

I still have mine. It has too much sentimental value to sell. I shot a lot of photos over the years with that camera - an all manual Canon AT-1.

[Kadath]

My first camera was a Nikon F3HP used by the US army, I bought it at auction and beat the hell out if it as much as they did. I sold it for more than I paid for it and bought a lighter weight Nikon 8008s which I still share with my mother in addition to my own 20D. I had no problem giving up that F3 (tho the viewfinder was soooooo sweet), but I dont think I'll ever sell the 8008s, tho it probably isnt worth much today anyway...

[Anke]

Wouldn't think twice, I'd have $500 in my back pocket.

[jakedoguk]

its a girll thing keeping things of sentimental value my daughter has a room full of them
500 is 500 sell sell sell sell

[dave kadolph]

It still has a spot in my bag and I bought it used 31 years ago.

I still load up some film several times a year and shoot a few rolls.

Digital tends to make you a little less careful about choosing your shots and your exposure--IMHO

[butcha27]

I'd sell it for sure, my first camera sits in a cupboard gethering dust, if it was rare maybe I'd re-consider but $500 would be much much much more useful to me!

[John_B]

Tumeg,
It would really depend on my financial situation at the time :)
If I needed the $$$ to get a lens I would sell it ASAP!
If I didn't need the $$$ to get a lens I would keep it ;)

[lungdoc]

I think it depends a lot on the ratio of sentimental value to dollar value. $500 is still decent money. I have an old Minolta XG-7 and lenses that was my first serious camera when I was like 13 years old, it's worth essentially so close to zero that I'll keep it for sentimental value. I might think differently if the money value was significant.

[Dave.H]

After it sat for 10 years collecting dust I just recently gave mine to a local high school so someone new could get some use out of it.

So yeah, I'd get rid of it :p

[_aravena]

Be hard, but maybe. I have all my original gear displayed on a shelf with other relics. Right now though I need the money so I'd probably sell it.

[samnz]

I still have my minolta X700 (1989) and 7xi (1991). I keep them mostly for sentimental value. I don't plan on selling either - besides, I'd be lucky to get $500 for both of them put together :)

[milleker]

My first camera was an antique when I got it (Olympus OM-1) and I still have it. I also have a very low serial numbered Realist Stereo Camera. I'd like to keep them, but if the price is right I sure would get more use out of more modern goodies.

To your question, if you need the money - sell it. If you don't - keep it. What sort of a camera is it? Its funny - I love old film cameras, but my old 10D and other digitals I just dislike. So perhaps its not worth it to keep old Digital cameras? The 10D just takes so long to save, and preview. Though I am thinking of getting it converted to IR and that should breathe some new life into it for me.

[Moschero]

I still have my ae-1 p my parents bought me when I was 18. Yes it does still work, but the shutter squeals like a stabbed pig on the first one or two frames you shoot. That 50 MM 1.4 FD lens takes every bit as good a picture as the EF 50mm 1.4 I have on my 20D and it's a kick showing these digital newbies that yes a film camera can "get it done". The most fun is seeing the reaction of those that have never looked through a manual viewfinder, where the mirror doesn't transmit 40% of the light down to the auto-focus system, "ohhh its so bright! and big!" :D Will I sell it? What the %&)@ for?

[René Damkot]

Still have an Eos 10, Eos 5 and Eos 1n.They don't sell for enough to warrant selling, so I rather keep them... Just for the bloody fun of it.

Still enjoy to load a film in one of them every once in a year :)

[kuanyu]

I still have mine and always will. It's a AE-1 (and a worn out waist bag). It was given to be as a gift to 'open my eyes' by someone I no longer have. Strange thing is I no longer have a photo of that person just memories.

[DocFrankenstein]

This is intriguing.

What I want to know is:
1) Who buys a 2000 dollar camera as their first?
2) What camera was it? Leica? Hassy?

None of the 35mm cams, except leica had pricetags like that. And no shop would offer 500 bucks for them now.

[Mum2J&M]

This is intriguing.

What I want to know is:
1) Who buys a 2000 dollar camera as their first?
2) What camera was it? Leica? Hassy?

None of the 35mm cams, except leica had pricetags like that. And no shop would offer 500 bucks for them now.

Yeah. Mine was kind of a junker considering that it was a true used oldie at the time I bought it. I had a Nikon FG in the 80s. Got rid of that a long time ago. I actually had two of them. Nothing wrong with it. Just felt the need to move on.