Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Reality check  (Read 10615 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2006, 09:00:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I really thing the p25 give you an excelent imagess and you should not look the cost, and you should not look the cost of p45 either.  I pay $46,00.00 for a van as to much for my house. Why not to spend 30 plus for something the you like and wil be using and maybe get your money back?

BlasR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, if you can afford it, why not going for it.

As an amateur, I would never buy such an item using credit, and I current cannot afford to spend 30.000 US$ cash on a photographic piece of gear that will add little to what I currently have and loose 50% of its value in 2 years, but that is just me.

Watching the latest Woodie Allen movie this evening brought  me about a week worth of happiness for only... 0 Yen, since my friend invited me... I guess that I am lucky to have such cheap ways to happiness... :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2006, 10:18:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Exacly, if you can afford it , and want it. go for it. But don't came here and say it's to much, images are not the great,film it's better or  your wife will kill you or so on.
The reason I got p25 it's because I'm sick in tired of cleanning my sensol from canon 1ds. Plus I can afford it too. And no way I will died in leave my money for my wife spend it with another men if she get marry again,I will spend all now  Just kidding I have 3 kids.


BlasR
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 10:56:54 AM by BlasR » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2006, 10:38:46 AM »
ReplyReply

BlasR, this is getting very "philosophical" - I don't have the luxury of tax-write-offs for photographic equipment either, because I'm not in the business. The rationale for the tax write-offs is that for professionals this is a business investment entitled to depreciation allowance, and accelerated depreciation is allowed for things that depreciate in an accelerated way. The shorter the allowable write-off period the more the up-front cost reduction and the less the reduction available in future years. Hence in "present value" terms (i.e. discounted cash flow) the difference the depreciation period makes depends on one's discount rate and the various write-down time periods the authorities allow. While significant in the short run, over a several year time horizon it probably doesn't make a huge difference whether they let professionals write-off the stuff over a slightly shorter or longer time. The more fundamental issue is what one tells one wife   . In our house it's very simple - I tell her what I'm doing and whatever the degree of front-end skepticism may be, she's usually happy after she sees the results!   Whatever happens when I'm departed from this world is for others to be concerned about - the tax people may call it a "death benefit"  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8086



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2006, 10:40:49 AM »
ReplyReply

All this talk of the high cost of fancy equipment reminds me of my very first view camera: a Calumet 4x5" monorail, bought new when Kodak had just sold the dies to Calumet. It cost me all of $129 new. Of course the lens cost more: I think it was $150 for a 6" Symmar.

And now my lowly Epson 2200 printer drinks that much in ink and paper just about any time I make a few prints.

Yeah, sure. If somebody gave me a P45, or even a P25, I'd find some way of getting a camera to go with it.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2006, 12:02:19 PM »
ReplyReply

When I first saw Nick Rainsford's article on the P45 vs 4x5 film, I just thought, whow! amen to that. Then I saw this thread and Michael's response to the topic starter:
Quote
Seeing the world though ones own restricted experience is, regretably, one of the failings of many in our society.
and I thought, yep, that would be generally North American society. I then had a bit of self analysis as to why I find all this so interesting and why it is that I fall squarely in to Nick Rainsford's camp and the reasons are:
(a) I am not (sadly) a rich dilletante.
( I am not a highly successful professional photographer shooting 4-500 sheets of 4x5 film per month.
So a bit of envy going on there. Leaving aside the obvious tax benefits for pro photographers in the USA investing in very expensive and rapidly depreciating equipment, I still think Nick Rainsford is absolutely bang-on. Here in Wales in the UK, I am absolutely certain that there are no pro-photographers shooting that quantity of 4x5 film. Aside from london, I very much doubt that there are many in England. Most pro photographers will have a mixture of work and will choose and sometimes rent equipment best suited to the task. Mostly there will not be many jobs requiring very high resolution files for large prints.
What would be interesting to know is the demographic of those 1000 P45 sales 'worldwide'. My guess is that at least 50% of them will be in the North American market, with the rest mostly divided up between Japan and Europe.
Here in the Uk, the leading pros (e.g. Adam Woolfitt, Martin Hooper) will do a lot of mouth-watering over these backs, but often will advocate something like a 1DS MKII as a real-world alternative to a 4x5 camera. Meanwhile, the fine-art large format users (e.g. Joe Cornish, David Ward) are sticking with film (I very much doubt that even they shoot 4-500 sheets per month). So, at least in my society, regardless of whether you are pro, amateur or a Sunday variety of photographer, you are unlikely to be buying yourself a P45.....as Nick rainsford writes, the application of rational logic dictates against it. Less emphasis on pixels and more on value for money.....amen to that!
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2006, 05:35:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Drew, you 'get' what I have been saying.

I slightly regret my off-hand comment about my wife being 'speechless' if I casually trotted out and blew $30,000 on something I don't particularly need for my business.

If I had said my 'business partner' or 'accountant' instead, then it is likely that no-one would have even commented and certainly not made any snide remarks.

BlasR - "The reason I got p25 it's because I'm sick in tired of cleanning my sensol from canon 1ds. "

LOL,  and I thought my sensor brush was expensive!  
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2006, 07:19:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
LOL,  and I thought my sensor brush was expensive! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL!

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2006, 07:25:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I slightly regret my off-hand comment about my wife being 'speechless' if I casually trotted out and blew $30,000 on something I don't particularly need for my business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick - Why regret it - just a bit of humour between all of us in this otherwise intelligent discussion!

Peace.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 07:26:52 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2006, 08:40:20 PM »
ReplyReply

edited, nevermind
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 08:41:03 PM by macgyver » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2006, 09:17:32 PM »
ReplyReply

On the more serious side of this discussion, going back to what Michael said on the previous page, while the decision about whether or not to purchase these high-end medium format digital beauties may be a no-brainer for productive professionals and Sunday photographers, there are the Monday-to-Saturday folks who do serious photographic work, not as a profession, but as "prosumers", and for them (us) the decision about going MF is less obviously clear-cut.

Apart from affordability, the over-arching issue is whether or not it is worthwhile, and that is a personal decision which depends essentially on what kind of photographs one wants to make and what one intends to do with them.

Because price and technology forecasting are notoriously difficult, but we are quite confident MF is destined to remain costly over a period of some years for well-known reasons, waiting for it to get cheaper probably isn't a very useful decision factor, so we're back to the quality and purposes of the photographs.

For producing big enlargements or extremely high-resolution photographs that have endless tonal depth and detail, based on results I've seen the MF digital solution is really very compelling, and will likely displace a great deal of MF film over the remainder of this decade.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2006, 09:18:27 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad