If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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???? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best-looking DSLR | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | April 29th 05 05:39 PM |
Panasonic FZ20 vs DSLR | mark.worthington | Digital Photography | 2 | March 18th 05 07:52 PM |
RFD: rec.photo.dslr | Thad | Digital Photography | 21 | September 5th 04 02:22 AM |
RFD: rec.photo.dslr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | September 5th 04 02:22 AM |
Why go dSLR? | Bob | Digital Photography | 69 | June 27th 04 07:22 PM |