Why DSLR makers are evil

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.

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

In article ,
John A. Stovall 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?

"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

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!!!

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.

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" wrote in message
...
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.


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

"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 in message
oups.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!

But now a days everyone is a photographer!

chuckle

So they would have you believe g

Toa

"Rich" wrote in
oups.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"