Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why DSLR makers are evil

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 21, 2005 8:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If a new innovation (faster processor, memory, new vid card, etc) comes
out
for a computer, if I have any sense at all, I can upgrade my box unless
the
upgrade is completely incompatible with my current technology. Rather
than
having to spend $2000 on a new box, I can spend $400 on a new video
card and
voila! I've got the upgrade.
But, with the camera makers, there is no such thing as incremental
upgrades,
you have to buy a whole, new camera. Now I hear Canon my be offering
another
"upgrade" of their recently released top of the line DSLR. Do they
think that
professional photogs are all rich, that they can drop $8000 on a pro
camera only to have to spend another $8000 9 months down the line for
the latest contraption just to stay competitive? Or am I mistaken and
do pros typically keep equipment (despite upgrades) for a longer
period, say 2-4 years?
Contrast this with the rate of change when cameras shot film. A brand
new pro SLR didn't come around every year. Many pros shot with older
models as well since the new ones were unfamiliar or didn't really
offer much in the way of
enhanced performance to warrant the upgrade. However, when Canon goes
from a
8 to 16 million pixels in seven months, then offers another upgrade in
the same time frame, the pro is obliged to make the change.
With professional salaries likely to have fallen over the past 10 years
(owing to the radical reduction in available work because of the demise
of newspaper and magazine readership) they find themselves faced with
equipment
that not only costs more than SLRs used to, but that is changing at a
far more rapid pace. If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering,
pros will have no
choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay competitive.
Which is unfortunate.

More about : dslr makers evil

August 21, 2005 8:29:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes, I can see that;
"Mr. Client, normally I charge $2000 to shoot
a wedding of this size. But seeing as I need a
new Canon to do it right, the bill will be $10000."
It's all so easy!
-Rich
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

One consideration for everyone to take into consideration is the the
per-photo cost passed on the client may (or may not) be quite different
for film camera vs. the digital...buying film, paying for film
processing, and paying for preview prints were part of the incremental
cost of a job, which was factored in. If you no longer have to buy
film and pay for the processing and previews, you can put some of that
savings into equipment. This model, of course, assumes the photographer
who is not a staffer of a publication or business that might cover the
equipment in its capital expense budget, but who runs a studio or
storefront business. Using some old lab prices, it would cost about
$0.70 per photo to process film and print a 4x6 preview print. If you
shot wedding with 300 photos, that would be about $0.85 per shot for
film and processing and printing. In other words, in 31 jobs shooting
weddings of 300 photos (easily done in one year for a pro with good
quality shooting skills), the $8k body is fully paid for in film and
processing costs!!!

I do not defend the hyper obsolescence, but we as buyers FEED the
behavior by demanding rapid adoption of new technology, or else we
bad-mouth them in newgroups like this (witness all the Canon-shooting
idiots who tell everyone else that their non-Canon is garbage for not
advancing as rapidly as almighty Canon!...BTW, as a Canon shooter I
find such denigrating behavior as childish beyond belief!)

As someone not earning a living in photography, an $8k body is
unjustifiable, and even as a pro photographer I would wish to not have
to keep investing in bodies at such a rapid rate, since it would leave
me more profit in my pocket. But I could easily justify an annual
camera body on the basis of transferred cost structure!!!
Related resources
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:24:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> One consideration for everyone to take into consideration is the the
> per-photo cost passed on the client may (or may not) be quite different
> for film camera vs. the digital...buying film, paying for film
> processing, and paying for preview prints were part of the incremental
> cost of a job, which was factored in. If you no longer have to buy
> film and pay for the processing and previews, you can put some of that
> savings into equipment. This model, of course, assumes the photographer
> who is not a staffer of a publication or business that might cover the
> equipment in its capital expense budget, but who runs a studio or
> storefront business. Using some old lab prices, it would cost about
> $0.70 per photo to process film and print a 4x6 preview print. If you
> shot wedding with 300 photos, that would be about $0.85 per shot for
> film and processing and printing. In other words, in 31 jobs shooting
> weddings of 300 photos (easily done in one year for a pro with good
> quality shooting skills), the $8k body is fully paid for in film and
> processing costs!!!
>
> I do not defend the hyper obsolescence, but we as buyers FEED the
> behavior by demanding rapid adoption of new technology, or else we
> bad-mouth them in newgroups like this (witness all the Canon-shooting
> idiots who tell everyone else that their non-Canon is garbage for not
> advancing as rapidly as almighty Canon!...BTW, as a Canon shooter I
> find such denigrating behavior as childish beyond belief!)
>
> As someone not earning a living in photography, an $8k body is
> unjustifiable, and even as a pro photographer I would wish to not have
> to keep investing in bodies at such a rapid rate, since it would leave
> me more profit in my pocket. But I could easily justify an annual
> camera body on the basis of transferred cost structure!!!

I could probably justify it to IRS, but not myself. My Pentax *istD is
a bit over a year old now, and there's no replacement in sight yet, but
even if there were, I'd leave it for now. The camera is still better
than I am, though by less than it was when I first bought it. When I'm
closer to caught up, I'll buy the next step up, and place the D in the
bag as a back-up. It will still take fine photos for a long, long time,
even if there are 500 other cameras out there with "better" features.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Who are you to say anything is "unjustifiable"? I'm sure my Jaguar
>XJ-6 would have been "unjustifiable" to you. If I can afford it, it
>is justifiable.

Is unjustifiable TO ME, ok????
August 22, 2005 12:45:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Who are you to say anything is "unjustifiable"? I'm sure my Jaguar
XJ-6 would have been "unjustifiable" to you. If I can afford it, it
is justifiable.

You can afford it, but how do you "justify" it? Why do you have to
justify it?
Some people set limits on how much they spend on a hobby. You can
afford the top Canon, but you probably couldn't justify selling your
house to afford to own a top race horse, or even own a baseball team.
Justification takes many forms.
The previous poster's idea of justification could stem from the fact
that
you will probably take the same quality of photos as an amateur with
the top Canon as you would with a 20D or a Rebel XT therefore the idea
of
owing the $8000 body is unjustifiable. However, if the poster felt
another way, he could simply justify it by saying he likes to look at
the camera body
and admire it's workmanship. There is no right or wrong, it's all
personal.
August 22, 2005 2:13:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1124666942.867374.264160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, I can see that;
> "Mr. Client, normally I charge $2000 to shoot
> a wedding of this size. But seeing as I need a
> new Canon to do it right, the bill will be $10000."
> It's all so easy!
> -Rich
>
It used to be you amortized your equipment over 5 years. This is a tax
benefit. The clients used to pay a shooting fee/hourly rate that should
cover equipment costs. But with this 9-18 month product life it is hard to
do, but HINT! the camera you already have hasn't stopped being the camera
you bought. It's just a tool that the photographer uses to create his craft.

But now a days everyone is a photographer!
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:43:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> If a new innovation (faster processor, memory, new vid card, etc) comes
> out
> for a computer, if I have any sense at all, I can upgrade my box unless
> the
> upgrade is completely incompatible with my current technology. Rather
> than
> having to spend $2000 on a new box, I can spend $400 on a new video
> card and
> voila! I've got the upgrade.
> But, with the camera makers, there is no such thing as incremental
> upgrades,

Your computer probably occupies two to 4 cubic feet of volume, nearl all
of which is nothing but air - and it's made that way specifically so that
you can upgrade it. If you want to lug around a 1-cubic-foot camera, then
sure, you can have your upgradeability. Don't expect them to make a one-off
copy just for you, though.

steve
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:08:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 21 Aug 2005 16:04:09 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Are you a Pro, Rich. if not you don't know what you are talking about
and if you were you would be spouting such nonsense.

A Clue: No pro pays for his camera. His clients do with the fees he
charges them.


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <l72ig1h6ngp2ra01fdvb62feaab9lthb1d@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> No pro pays for his camera.

What did they do before they were pro?

The OP was right. digital Camera's are sold on bigger, better, and
disposable.

Oh, and if I shoot, but work a grocery store, do I buy my own camera?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:05:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 21 Aug 2005 17:07:57 -0700, "wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:

snipped
>
>As someone not earning a living in photography, an $8k body is
>unjustifiable, and even as a pro photographer I would wish to not have
>to keep investing in bodies at such a rapid rate, since it would leave
>me more profit in my pocket. But I could easily justify an annual
>camera body on the basis of transferred cost structure!!!

Who are you to say anything is "unjustifiable"? I'm sure my Jaguar
XJ-6 would have been "unjustifiable" to you. If I can afford it, it
is justifiable.


*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Today, I believe that with a DSLR we buy the the analogy of a 35mm camera
body and all the negative film we would be shooting with it. Shooting one
role per day in average results in saving roughly US$7,000 per year ($5 per
role). For pros, DSLRs are much cheaper than 35mm film bodies, even when a
pro has to upgrade his two camera bodies every two years. It is very likely
that since good DSLR cameras are on the market, the life of pros has become
much much easier. No?

Gregor

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:l72ig1h6ngp2ra01fdvb62feaab9lthb1d@4ax.com...
> On 21 Aug 2005 16:04:09 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Are you a Pro, Rich. if not you don't know what you are talking about
> and if you were you would be spouting such nonsense.
>
> A Clue: No pro pays for his camera. His clients do with the fees he
> charges them.
>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
> color of blood in black and white"
>
>
> David Douglas Duncan
> Speaking on why in Vietnam
> he worked only in black and white
> http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:00:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 16:04:09 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Are you a Pro, Rich. if not you don't know what you are talking about
> and if you were you would be spouting such nonsense.
>
> A Clue: No pro pays for his camera. His clients do with the fees he
> charges them.

..... and probably writes all or part of the cost off as a business
expense as the equipment depreciates.


>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
> color of blood in black and white"
>
>
> David Douglas Duncan
> Speaking on why in Vietnam
> he worked only in black and white
> http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
August 22, 2005 6:22:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:1124665449.818064.175860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> However, when Canon goes
> from a
> 8 to 16 million pixels in seven months, then offers another upgrade in
> the same time frame, the pro is obliged to make the change.

I believe the 16MPix camera replaced the 11MPix model.

> With professional salaries likely to have fallen over the past 10 years
> (owing to the radical reduction in available work because of the demise
> of newspaper and magazine readership) they find themselves faced with
> equipment
> that not only costs more than SLRs used to, but that is changing at a
> far more rapid pace. If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering,
> pros will have no
> choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay competitive.
> Which is unfortunate.

Are you suggesting that the Canon 1Ds with its 11MPix is no longer capable
of taking acceptable photos?

Surely the camera still works and lenses are still available and prints at
8x12 still look fine to the customers?

Luckily for me I am not a pro and can carry on using my Canon 10D with
6MPix for a while yet. I am sure that in 2 or 3 years I will replace it,
but by then I will have taken over 25000 photos and got my moneys worth
from it.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> "Mr. Client, normally I charge $2000 to shoot
> a wedding of this size. But seeing as I need a
> new Canon to do it right, the bill will be $10000."
> -Rich

<sigh>

That approach would work if you were planning on having only one client,
ever.

Pro photographers are like any other businessman. They charge a fee
commensurate with their costs/efforts and included in that fee is a
"portion" of the cost associated with the purchase of equipment amortised
over the expected life of that equipment. If they expected a $5,000 camera
to last them two years and expected to have 250 clients per year then that's
only $10 per client

Toa
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:02:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Toa" <toa1614@gmail.com> writes:

> > "Mr. Client, normally I charge $2000 to shoot
> > a wedding of this size. But seeing as I need a
> > new Canon to do it right, the bill will be $10000."
> > -Rich
>
> <sigh>
>
> That approach would work if you were planning on having only one client,
> ever.
>
> Pro photographers are like any other businessman. They charge a fee
> commensurate with their costs/efforts and included in that fee is a
> "portion" of the cost associated with the purchase of equipment amortised
> over the expected life of that equipment. If they expected a $5,000 camera
> to last them two years and expected to have 250 clients per year then that's
> only $10 per client

And if they would have averaged 3 rolls for each of the 250 clients,
which woul have cost $5 each for the film and $20 each for the lab
fee, than in that two years, they've just saved $12,500 in lab fees,
not even counting scanning or printing -- just developing and
proofs/contacts. So that pro would likely have no great dificulty
justifying the expense.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt; Much of which is still down
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:16:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 21 Aug 2005 20:45:31 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>>Who are you to say anything is "unjustifiable"? I'm sure my Jaguar
>XJ-6 would have been "unjustifiable" to you. If I can afford it, it
>is justifiable.
>
>You can afford it, but how do you "justify" it? Why do you have to
>justify it?

I didn't have to "justify it".

>Some people set limits on how much they spend on a hobby. You can
>afford the top Canon, but you probably couldn't justify selling your
>house to afford to own a top race horse, or even own a baseball team.
>Justification takes many forms.
> The previous poster's idea of justification could stem from the fact
>that
>you will probably take the same quality of photos as an amateur with
>the top Canon as you would with a 20D or a Rebel XT therefore the idea
>of
>owing the $8000 body is unjustifiable. However, if the poster felt

No a 20D and Rebel XT will not take the same quality photos as a
1DsMkII.

>another way, he could simply justify it by saying he likes to look at
>the camera body
>and admire it's workmanship. There is no right or wrong, it's all
>personal.

If it personal it's justified.


*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
August 22, 2005 6:00:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> If a new innovation (faster processor, memory, new vid card, etc) comes
> out
> for a computer, if I have any sense at all, I can upgrade my box unless
> the
> upgrade is completely incompatible with my current technology. Rather
> than
> having to spend $2000 on a new box, I can spend $400 on a new video
> card and
> voila! I've got the upgrade.
> But, with the camera makers, there is no such thing as incremental
> upgrades,
> you have to buy a whole, new camera. Now I hear Canon my be offering
> another
> "upgrade" of their recently released top of the line DSLR. Do they
> think that
> professional photogs are all rich, that they can drop $8000 on a pro
> camera only to have to spend another $8000 9 months down the line for
> the latest contraption just to stay competitive? Or am I mistaken and
> do pros typically keep equipment (despite upgrades) for a longer
> period, say 2-4 years?
> Contrast this with the rate of change when cameras shot film. A brand
> new pro SLR didn't come around every year. Many pros shot with older
> models as well since the new ones were unfamiliar or didn't really
> offer much in the way of
> enhanced performance to warrant the upgrade. However, when Canon goes
> from a
> 8 to 16 million pixels in seven months, then offers another upgrade in
> the same time frame, the pro is obliged to make the change.
> With professional salaries likely to have fallen over the past 10 years
> (owing to the radical reduction in available work because of the demise
> of newspaper and magazine readership) they find themselves faced with
> equipment
> that not only costs more than SLRs used to, but that is changing at a
> far more rapid pace. If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering,
> pros will have no
> choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay competitive.
> Which is unfortunate.
>

Obviously, your PC is not an Apple ! But, your PC analogy is a good point.

For what it's worth, a one or two generation old DSLR can do everything
it always could do. Personally, I shoot RAW (yuck) 6 mp on a Kodak DCS
Pro. I could shoot 13.2mp on this camera, but rarely do I need it.
It's a discontinued camera (though with free firmware upgrades) but it
still gives me better performance from OLD Nikon lenses shooting on
APS-size imagers. And while I dislike RAW for many reasons, I haven't
found anything as good or better.

For my less-demanding work, I shoot with an FZ-20 - also from a previous
generation of design.

Too many times improvements are just an excuse to pump the cash-flow
machine.

It's hide-away headlights and vinyl roofs all over again...

Jan
August 22, 2005 6:03:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Some people think a mortgage and food (not to mention therapy) are
justified ...


John A. Stovall wrote:

> On 21 Aug 2005 20:45:31 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Who are you to say anything is "unjustifiable"? I'm sure my Jaguar
>>
>>XJ-6 would have been "unjustifiable" to you. If I can afford it, it
>>is justifiable.
>>
>>You can afford it, but how do you "justify" it? Why do you have to
>>justify it?
>
>
> I didn't have to "justify it".
>
>
>>Some people set limits on how much they spend on a hobby. You can
>>afford the top Canon, but you probably couldn't justify selling your
>>house to afford to own a top race horse, or even own a baseball team.
>>Justification takes many forms.
>> The previous poster's idea of justification could stem from the fact
>>that
>>you will probably take the same quality of photos as an amateur with
>>the top Canon as you would with a 20D or a Rebel XT therefore the idea
>>of
>>owing the $8000 body is unjustifiable. However, if the poster felt
>
>
> No a 20D and Rebel XT will not take the same quality photos as a
> 1DsMkII.
>
>
>>another way, he could simply justify it by saying he likes to look at
>>the camera body
>>and admire it's workmanship. There is no right or wrong, it's all
>>personal.
>
>
> If it personal it's justified.
>
>
> *****************************************************
>
> "Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
> They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
> When God abandoned, these defended,
> And saved the sum of things for pay."
>
> "Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
> A.E. Houseman - 1914
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:11:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> Do they
> think that
> professional photogs are all rich, that they can drop $8000 on a pro
> camera only to have to spend another $8000 9 months down the line for
> the latest contraption just to stay competitive?

Your line-length is wrong.
And i dont think a pro would simply "drop" a $8000 body, he would bring it
to ebay.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:19:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> But now a days everyone is a photographer!

<chuckle>

So they would have you believe <g>

Toa
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:34:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> If a new innovation (faster processor, memory, new vid card, etc)
> comes out
> for a computer, if I have any sense at all, I can upgrade my box
> unless the
> upgrade is completely incompatible with my current technology. Rather
> than
> having to spend $2000 on a new box, I can spend $400 on a new video
> card and
> voila! I've got the upgrade.

And you can do the same with your camera. Ebay off the body and apply
the revenue towards the new one.

Keep all your glass and accessories.

Don't confuse the camera body with the entire photographic system.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:

> If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering, pros will have no
> choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay
> competitive. Which is unfortunate.

Working pros computes the cost of their gear into the cost of running
a business, a cost which they pass down to their clients. It the pro
has a reasonable productivity, this cost is usually a mariginal cost
(pennies per shot) and in any case it is less than the per-shot cost
associated with film, so an annual upgrade cycle is not a problem for
a professional.

It is for for amateurs and part-time photographers (i.e. people that
do not generate a substantial part of the income from photography)
that always having the greatest and latest can be a financial burden.

But nobody forces these people to upgrade! My ten year old 6 Mpx
digicam takes images today that are just as great as it did when
it was new in in 1995. On eBay, this DSLR is cheaper than newer
point and shoots - and it takes less noisy photographs!

Here is a page where my ten year old Kodak compared to my two year
old Canon. The Kodak is winning:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <q5ll2to6hk.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no>, gisle+news@ifi.uio.no
says...
> Here is a page where my ten year old Kodak compared to my two year
> old Canon. The Kodak is winning:
> http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html

Sensor size makes a big, big difference, doesn't it?

How much did you pay for your DCS460c, if you don't mind me asking?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
>>If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering, pros will have no
>>choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay
>>competitive. Which is unfortunate.
>
>
> Working pros computes the cost of their gear into the cost of running
> a business, a cost which they pass down to their clients. It the pro
> has a reasonable productivity, this cost is usually a mariginal cost
> (pennies per shot) and in any case it is less than the per-shot cost
> associated with film, so an annual upgrade cycle is not a problem for
> a professional.

WORKING pros also don't upgrade just because some new gizmo comes on the
market.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 6:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <scgjg1hrtmam0ta3bnufdn3lfv8or1ddt2@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>No a 20D and Rebel XT will not take the same quality photos as a
>1DsMkII.

That's assuming you have lenses with the same f-stop and FOV. If you
have a single, long, sharp, telephoto, the 20D and 350D are going to
resolve a small subject better.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:56:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

no one <noone@nowhere.nohow.invalid> writes:
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:

>>>If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering, pros will have no
>>>choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay
>>>competitive. Which is unfortunate.

>> Working pros computes the cost of their gear into the cost of
>> running a business, a cost which they pass down to their clients.
>> It the pro has a reasonable productivity, this cost is usually a
>> mariginal cost (pennies per shot) and in any case it is less than
>> the per-shot cost associated with film, so an annual upgrade cycle
>> is not a problem for a professional.

> WORKING pros also don't upgrade just because some new gizmo comes on
> the market.

I never said they did.

I just said that in the economics of running a photographic business,
the cost of aquiring a new DSLR body annually is not a substantial
expense.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:59:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> writes:
> How much did you pay for your DCS460c, if you don't mind me asking?

US$ 390.
That was two years ago. Now, they go for even less.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 24, 2005 6:44:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1124665449.818064.175860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca says...
[SNIP]

Think about this for a bit. You bought the camera, and use it to either enjoy
taking pictures, or making money, maybe even enjoying that too. Innovations
come along, as that is what R&D departments do. You have your camera, though
it is now, not the latest/greatest. You are probably NOT their target
audience. The photographer, who has YET to upgrade is. Now, if the new body
offers you enough reason to upgrade, then you fall into that target audience.
To get that, you have to amortize the cost v your rates. Simple as that. I buy
camera bodies about once per decade, as an upgrade, though I may pick up two/
three bodies, when I purchase. Unless the maker offers me something special, I
don't buy for many years.

With my workstations, when I buy, I purchase the maximum machine that I can
get. I've upgraded video cards twice, before I ever got the machine(s),
because a newer, better one was released. The second that I fire up my new
box, it is passe. I use my purchase, until I absolutely can amortize the cost
of a new one, with my clients.

If you need to charge more, then justify it to your clients. If you just want
the newest, then expect to dig deeply into your own pockets.

My new '06 MB S-500 depreciated about $10,000 the day I drove it off the lot,
and in '07 they will completely revise the series. Will I get an '07? Nah, I
may keep the '06 for a decade, or longer. Previous MB went for 5 years, but my
Landcruiser was 13 years and 300,000+ miles when I upgraded. Happens
everywhere you look. It all depends on what is right for you.

Hunt
August 24, 2005 6:48:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <kz8rt3-9DAC50.19315321082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>, kz8rt3
@mail.com says...
>
>In article <l72ig1h6ngp2ra01fdvb62feaab9lthb1d@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> No pro pays for his camera.
>
>What did they do before they were pro?
>
>The OP was right. digital Camera's are sold on bigger, better, and
>disposable.
>
>Oh, and if I shoot, but work a grocery store, do I buy my own camera?

If you have already done so, has it ceased to function? Do you need the newer
model? A pro might justify a quick replacement of a body, but most am's hardly
use the capabilities of what they have. Besides the pros, the only ones who
need the latest/greatest, are those who care to boast about their equipment.

Hunt
August 24, 2005 6:59:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <q5ll2to6hk.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no>, gisle+news@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> If Canon goes to 23m in the next pro offering, pros will have no
>> choice (depending on their work) to upgrade again to stay
>> competitive. Which is unfortunate.
>
>Working pros computes the cost of their gear into the cost of running
>a business, a cost which they pass down to their clients. It the pro
>has a reasonable productivity, this cost is usually a mariginal cost
>(pennies per shot) and in any case it is less than the per-shot cost
>associated with film, so an annual upgrade cycle is not a problem for
>a professional.
>
>It is for for amateurs and part-time photographers (i.e. people that
>do not generate a substantial part of the income from photography)
>that always having the greatest and latest can be a financial burden.
>
>But nobody forces these people to upgrade! My ten year old 6 Mpx
>digicam takes images today that are just as great as it did when
>it was new in in 1995. On eBay, this DSLR is cheaper than newer
>point and shoots - and it takes less noisy photographs!
>
>Here is a page where my ten year old Kodak compared to my two year
>old Canon. The Kodak is winning:
> http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html
>--
>- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/

Gisle,

You are correct. When Leaf first introduced their 4x5 back, I held off buying
one, as they went for ~ US$30,000 with ancillary hardware. Some competitors
jumped on the digital bandwagon, and went to the bank. Years later, I bought
into digital for less than half, and got so very much more. They were still
paying the notes on their early gear, and I hope they did well, but it was
obsolete by the time it was paid off, or written-down. When one "gets into"
certain gear is the trick, just like buying/selling stock. It is all timing.
If I need it, I buy it, so long as *I* (that is a capital "I" for emphasis)
can justify it, or a particular client, can justify it. Simple business math.

Right now, only my Nikon D70 is on a depreciation schedule, all of my 4x5, 2.
25 Hassy gear and tons of strobes have all depreciated to $0, but they all
work fine.

Hunt
!