Lotto Winner Cameras?

[distant.star]

I don't know if anyone saw a piece in the LA Times a few days ago -- "Is $6000 Too Much or a Camera?"


http://framework.latimes.com/2012/01/25/nikon-nikon-d4-canon-eos-1d-x/


A few interesting quotes:

"Nikon and Canon recently introduced two new state-of-the-art, high-priced DSLR (digital-single-len-reflex) professional cameras. To be exact, the manufacturers of the Nikon D4 list the suggested retail price as $5999.95, and Canon doesn’t list the price of the EOS-1D X on its site, but chatter on the Web puts it somewhere around $6,800.

"Throw in a few lenses and you’re at the price of a modest new car. Usually the cost of technology goes down with improvements and time, but that doesn’t seem to be happening here.

Who needs a camera this good and this expensive?"

And they answer the question thusly:

1. Professional newspaper or magazine photographers who shoot sports
2. Staff photographers at a National Geographic-type publication
3. Lotto winners

They also make a provocative point that the price of most advanced technology products gets lower as time goes on.

How many Lottery winners among us?

[jrista]

Are there not a fair amount of serious hobbyists, semi-professionals and professionals who are not related to the newsstand, employed by publications, and are not lotto winners, who also use high-end bodies? I think the talented and serious wedding photographers, the serious wildlife photographer, etc. are all capable of buying a 1D X or D4, writing it off as a business expense, and amortizing the debt over a few years, without it being a serious problem. Its not uncommon for a single wedding shoot to be $8000-$10,000 amongst the talented wedding photographers I know, when its all said and done. Outside of the manual labor to process the photos, produce prints, and possibly a wedding book...that could cover the cost of even the 1D X in one job.

Also, I think the list price of the 1D X is lower than the list price of the 1Ds III when it was released. If I remember correctly, the 1Ds III + Kit  listed for $7,999 when it first came out (2007?). Adjusting for inflation over the last few years, that should mean the 1D X + Kit could list for around $8900. The 1Ds III body only seems to run for anywhere from $5000 to $6999 (B&H lists it at $6999) still.  Seems to me, adjusting for inflation or directly comparing current list prices, that the newer tech IS cheaper than the older tech, assuming a list price of $6799 for the 1D X is accurate. Seems like a win-win to me.

[neuroanatomist]

Who needs a camera this good and this expensive?

Anyone who wants one and can afford it...

[lbloom]

This article was obviously written by an ignoramus (word of the day)

[willrobb]

Are there not a fair amount of serious hobbyists, semi-professionals and professionals who are not related to the newsstand, employed by publications, and are not lotto winners, who also use high-end bodies? I think the talented and serious wedding photographers, the serious wildlife photographer, etc. are all capable of buying a 1D X or D4, writing it off as a business expense, and amortizing the debt over a few years, without it being a serious problem. Its not uncommon for a single wedding shoot to be $8000-$10,000 amongst the talented wedding photographers I know, when its all said and done. Outside of the manual labor to process the photos, produce prints, and possibly a wedding book...that could cover the cost of even the 1D X in one job.

With the money in media related shooting really dropping these days I don't think there are so many photographers in those fields using the high end gear unless they are being provided the gear by their agency/paper. AS you rightly said though, weddings (and high end corporate gigs) have much bigger budgets and you could easily buy a 1DX after one or two of the better paying gigs.

[unfocused]

Honestly, this is really one of the more poorly written articles I've seen.

I don't think this newspaper columnist even knows his own industry.

Certainly the No. 1 user would be the photographer who shoots sports for a living, where there’s a need for speed in low light conditions, like dimly lighted outdoor football fields or dingy indoor arenas.

Those dimly lighted outdoor football fields or dingy indoor arenas are far more likely to be found at the high school and small college level. Those events are more likely to be covered by small to medium sized newspaper photographers who often have to cover the cost of the gear themselves. People working in those markets aren't spending $6,000 for a camera – an amount that could well be 20% of their annual salary.

Sloppy writing and sloppy reporting. One more example of the demise of the news business.

[Edwin Herdman]

I got it - and getting rights to cover a sports event in one of the pro avenues will be far more expensive than the cost of providing a stills camera and a good telephoto lens.  The broadcast television equipment, though...that's another story, isn't it?

[briansquibb]

Who needs a camera this good and this expensive?

Anyone who wants one and can afford it...

Indeed.

I won in the lotto of life which is why I can afford the kit I want.

[dr croubie]

Who buys a Porche 911, or a Merc SLK, or an Alfa Spyder, when you can only drive to the same speed-limit as every other joe in his Toyota Corolla?

Yes, there are the people who need this camera, with ethernet ports to upload photos instantly to an editor who can put them on the web within 5 minutes, that can mean the difference between a few million hits and a big fat nothing for the next olympics. Or with 14fps vs 10fps, that's a 40% increased chance of nailing the money-shot.

But then there are those who just want them, and if you're not selling your car for one (or even if you are), that's your right to decide where your money goes. There's a few around these forums i know have pre-ordered a 1dx (i wish i were one of them), some of them will never sell enough prints to pay-back the cost-price, but the utility (the economics-term) they get from it is obviously worth it.

Meanwhile, I'm investing in lotto-tickets...

[evargas]

Who needs a camera this good and this expensive?"

It is not always a need that drives a purchase.

I teach two elective classes at a private high school and I am in charge of marketing/publications. My job does not call for a "need" of a high end dslr. I could probably just buy a 5d mrk II and that would still be more than I need, but the photographer in me "wants" to more.

I took home about 28k this past year.

Quick Breakdown Estimates
$700 Month Rent + Utilities = $8,400
$100 Month Groceries = $1,200
$200 Month Fun money = $2400
$125 Month Phone Bill = $1,500
 
Total "Savings" = $14,500

Soon to be adding a car to the equation, but I make sacrifices for my passion.

Do I need this camera for my work? No. Do I want it? Of course.

Basically, it comes down to each person's own life and situation. Yes most of the contracted pros or big business individuals are going to be able to purchase this with less impact of their funds, but those of us who are willing to sacrifice or have excess "savings" will be right along with them.

The real question is "What are you willing to sacrifice in order to be able to purchase this camera?"

(Or any item for that matter)

P.S. My photography class is gonna fall in love with this camera once I get it. 

[briansquibb]

I am at the totally other extreme - I sell absolutely nothing

I do a lot of pro bono work - probably 3 or 4 days a week.

It would be too complicated and expensive to take on jobs on a semi pro basis - the insurances, marketing, tax issues (VAT) etc.

It is cheaper and a whole lot more fun to do it for nothing - I get some wonderful assignments that would not come my way otherwise.

[Kernuak]

You only need to register for VAT if your turnover is over a certain amount and if profit is less than 50% of your overall earnings, then in theory, you don't need professional indemnity insureance, although if you're shooting something like weddings, then it's probably a good idea anyway. Although I make a loss overall, the fact that I sell a few images means I have to fill in a tax return every year, which is a pain and my marketing is almost non-existent, because of the time factor (and lack of experience in business).

[briansquibb]

You only need to register for VAT if your turnover is over a certain amount and if profit is less than 50% of your overall earnings, then in theory, you don't need professional indemnity insureance, although if you're shooting something like weddings, then it's probably a good idea anyway. Although I make a loss overall, the fact that I sell a few images means I have to fill in a tax return every year, which is a pain and my marketing is almost non-existent, because of the time factor (and lack of experience in business).

Thank you for your advice.

Unfortunately my finances are very complicated already. I do perhaps 10 weddings/christenings/burials a year nowadays and to get the insurance plus expenses would take most of the fees.

As I dont need the income it is easier to have absolutely nothing.

My next shoot is 5 days covering the Dickens Bicentennial in Rochester, Kent covering all events including the theatre http://www.dickensfellowship.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Dickens%20Bicentenary%20Flyer.jpg

[TexPhoto]

This article was obviously written by an ignoramus (word of the day)

Or someone with a sense of humor.  I imagine <5% of the contributors to this blog have a 1 series camera, so it's not exactly common.  Among Canon DSLR owners is probably closer to 1%, but so what. 

[Kernuak]

You only need to register for VAT if your turnover is over a certain amount and if profit is less than 50% of your overall earnings, then in theory, you don't need professional indemnity insureance, although if you're shooting something like weddings, then it's probably a good idea anyway. Although I make a loss overall, the fact that I sell a few images means I have to fill in a tax return every year, which is a pain and my marketing is almost non-existent, because of the time factor (and lack of experience in business).

Thank you for your advice.

Unfortunately my finances are very complicated already. I do perhaps 10 weddings/christenings/burials a year nowadays and to get the insurance plus expenses would take most of the fees.

As I dont need the income it is easier to have absolutely nothing.

My next shoot is 5 days covering the Dickens Bicentennial in Rochester, Kent covering all events including the theatre http://www.dickensfellowship.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Dickens%20Bicentenary%20Flyer.jpg

I know what you mean about complicated, selling a few pictures on the side has definitely complicated things for me. If only governments could come with a way to make finances simple . Good luck with the shoot.