On Jun 2, 2007, at 7:53 AM, William Robb wrote: > Godfreys point is valid if: > A) There is no significant investment in equipment.
I wouldn't say that I have "no significant investment" in equipment. My work doesn't require $50,000 worth of equipment, however. My Pentax kit (two bodies, eight lenses, accessories) amounts to about $5000-6000 in new gear. That's certainly significant to me. If the work you're doing requires $50,000 worth of equipment and isn't returning income commensurate with that it costs you, your business plan is pretty screwed up. If my equipment investment hasn't returned the money I've spent in income over a three to five year period, it's hardly worth worrying about it: I have far more significant issues. Of course, any Pentax lens with an aperture ring can be used on 4/3 System cameras right now. Even ones without an aperture ring can be used, with only minimum aperture available (or with a little ingenuity, a manual aperture control can be rigged up...). I have the adapters (both Kmount and M42 mount) right here ... along with the Nikon adapter. They could also be used on a Canon EOS body. So these lovely lenses will not be utterly useless even in the event of instant, total vaporization of all Pentax camera bodies in the universe. > B) Money is not an impediment to equipment replacing. As I said above, if I can't manage to make enough money with this kit for it to pay for itself in 3 to 5 years, well, I'm doing something wrong. BTW: If you're a hobbyist and having a rewarding time with photography, *ALL* photo equipment is a luxury purchase, NOT an investment, and should only be paid for with your discretionary income. Once it's purchased, its value is PURELY what you get out of it in use. If you don't get enough value out of it before it falls to bits, well, that's not the equipment's problem. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
