Why DSLR makers are evil

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????

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.

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

"Toa" 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, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ Much of which is still down

John A. Stovall wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 16:04:09 -0700, "Rich"
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/

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.

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

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"
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

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
| eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

In article ,
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