----- Original Message ----- From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Rv: Don't shoot the messenger ;-)
> 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. The nice thing about hobbiests is that they don't need to justify things with a business plan. Were I in that situation, I wold have a mid level Nikon and a couple of zooms, since that is all my work requires. A 5K investment to run a business is not significant. If your bank won't back you that far, then either your business plan is pretty screwed up, or you are a screw up. > > 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. Well thats really a bullshit statement, isn't it? In the long haul, a 50K investment in lenses should be something that will last several generations. I have a nice Schneider Angulon that is somewhat older than I am, and a really old uncoated Dagor that is probably 75 years old, and is one of the nicest portrait lenses I have ever seen. What we have been discussing is the camera bodies themselves, which are now built uncomfortably close to the level of reliability of a disposable camera. If that falls to bits, it is the equipment's problem, and if it can't be replaced or upgraded down the road, then that becomes the user's problem. You may think that hobbiests have unlimited funds for discretionary purchases, but I suspect if you poll some of the hobby users on the list, you will find that their major discretionary investments in equipment are one off purchases, not to be easily repeated. I have been fortunate in that I have been able to make a significant investment in good lenses over the past few years, I am not so fortunate that I would be able to do the same thing again if it turns out that I have backed a loser camera maker. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
