Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IF I ONLY BOUGHT IT A YEAR LATER  (Read 18943 times)
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1953



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2009, 10:15:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: AndreNapier
Financial marked being the way it is and my wife inspiration made us sit down and look at hard numbers that we had spend on digital equipment ( mostly MFD ) in the past 5 years and compare one year depreciation on each investment from the point of purchase to the point of sale or upgrade. In just 60 months we wasted ( because there is no better expression ) $105,000. That is the amount that still would be in our packet if we bought exactly the same equipment but just a year later. When money when rolling in it seemed like it really did not matter but now when market bottom down it would be nice to have it.
I think I got enough couple months ago when less than a month after I bought my new Leaf AFI 7, the exact camera sold on Ebay for $12,600 with 80mm AFD from Calumet demo with 340 clicks on it.
Sickening. MFD does not have to be expansive it is just us suckers who have to have the new toys instead of a first class trip around the world with the whole family.
You can trust me that the quality of an image from Ebay's $9500 Aptus 75 is identical as from $35,000 AFI7 II and yes I have thousands of images to prove it.
I promised myself that from now on I will be wiser ( at least until real estate market picks up LOL )
Andre

It's not all price decreases. Last fall I was jonesing for the Nikkor 24-70 zoom that everyone raves about, and now the price has gone up about $200.

I agree with you that a lot of photographers lust after the latest-and-greatest, and the manufacturers seem to take advantage of that!

Peter
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
PatrikR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 10:16:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Geoffrey
- are you sure about that demo on Ebay? I think it was a misnomer,and probably went for the $17900. Maybe you are only out $100k.

Here's one for you Geoff

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=130295095610

 Patrik
Logged

Patrik Raski - Espoo, Finland
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2009, 10:42:32 AM »
ReplyReply

My dad explained the economics of new vs used to me when he bought a two year old car in 1960.  He said he'd probably never buy another new car.  Funny thing is, he actually bought *only* new cars over the next 40 years.
Logged

Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2009, 11:06:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PatrikR

That's a good one. But the AFI demo sale at Calumet appears to have been a typo, and was pulled that day. They listed it again (within 30 minutes) as $17,900. Still a great deal.
Logged

Geoff
Snook
Guest
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2009, 11:09:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gordonsbuck
My dad explained the economics of new vs used to me when he bought a two year old car in 1960.  He said he'd probably never buy another new car.  Funny thing is, he actually bought *only* new cars over the next 40 years.

Yeh he said he would never buy YOU a new car...:+]
Snook
Logged
JDBFreeheel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2009, 11:15:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rethmeier
Please,
no pros pay for film,process and scan!
It's all billed to the client with a loaded invoice.
End of story,
Best,
Willem.

Yes, and as noted, pros should/often do bill for use/rental/processing of the digital back, whether it's rented from a rental house or "rented" from the pro's overhead.  There is a fee for using the digital back that, in theory, offsets, its use and 'replacement' over film processing.  At the short end, it should be a wash, in the long-end, it should help pay off the digital back faster.
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2009, 11:20:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
I can garantee you my MF days are over. Unless they come out with something in the 30-50 megapixel range, which is still over kill (for my work) and has leaf shutter lens', big LCD screen and Light weight and under 10,000us$. Forget it!
There nothing that cannot be done with the current 5DII if you ask me. and it cost 2600.00

I've gone through all stages of digital from the Kodak 760  to today owning two digital backs, three Nikons, three Canons, one Leica and probably have 100 terabytes to show for it.

The first Canon 1ds1's were magic and to this day I think the most ground breaking camera I've ever used, also the most profitable.  We used those cameras around the world until I wore the paint off of them (actually I don't think they have paint).

I was zoned on that camera and could produce jpegs that were very close to the look of the final output which were perfect or web galleries and contact sheets.  My studio manager and I would sit in restaurant patios and uploaded web galleries and laugh about how easy and inexpensive digital was.  I never thought about upgrading until I started reading the forums, which concentrate mostly on pixel crops at 200%.

I knew then I should probably buy three more of those canons, put them in a safety deposit box and resist the urge to ever buy another digital capture device.  

Then Ii got the bug for a bigger file and bought two 1ds2's.  They dropped files, the jpegs for web galleries were very difficult to shoot without red faces, the 4pin firewire was a disaster to keep it connected to a computer and the AA filter was double strength.  They did shoot faster and had a slightly bigger and better lcd, but compared to the original 1ds1's the workload doubled.

So then I moved to medium format and the workload tripled, the usability went down by 1/2 ,  the cost was (at the time 4x the price of a Canon) and the storage  also doubled.

I made money with all of these cameras, but once again, the workload went from having an espresso in the hotel lobby and laughing to sitting in hotel rooms crunching through jpegs to three in the morning.  

I also went from buying with that dreaded feeling of remorse.  I just couldn't get it out of my brain, that bigger is always better, or if so and so just shot the Prada Campaign with a medium format back, I should be also, but I knew that this was more perception than reality.

Now I've come full circle back to the Canons and the Nikons for 75% of my work

We still carry the digital backs but they are only used a small percentage of the time and I don't think that most photographers that work in volume can just have one camera system that does everything.

I also don't have huge remorse about buying anything, because I've used and profited from everything I've purchased, except the 5d2 which I bought for video and have never taken out of the box except once.  Actually that camera will be returned this week because it seems Canon will never give it manual video controls.

I  didn't buy these cameras as a real estate investment, so I assumed they would drop in price, though I must admit I didn't think $30,000 cameras would go to $17,000 in weeks.

Today,  regardless of the economy it's not the costs that will keep me from buying another medium format back, it's just the usability.  

I find the 1ds3's almost magic again and honestly can't imagine going back to a medium format workflow of always having to be tethered, always batch processing jpegs, always dealing with the gltiches, the software upgrades, the hard to see lcd's and the sluggishness of the systems.

The Phase backs and solid, the version 3 software is stable for tethering, but when working under pressure these dslrs are bulletproof and so much easier to get to where I want to be with a lot less back end work.

I don't care about pixel peeping, or 16 vs. 14 bit.  I don't mind sharpening a canon file to suit my style and I love the fact that I can hand hold, push a button and it just shoots and does so all day long, usually on one battery.

I sincerely hope that medium format continues, but I also sincerely hope they adjust their product to fit the market and not just on price.      I have no desire to sell my medium format backs because I will still use them and honestly the prices have dropped so far that it's not going to change my life to dump them off on e-bay.  I also have no desire to beta test or become the expert software guy.  I'll probably use version 3 for tethering until Phase or Apple makes it non workable, but when I look at where medium format is today vs. where it was three years ago, I don't see a big enough leap in usability to justify spending more for something I am using less and less.

Medium format is always just "almost" there when it comes to workflow.  they give is bigger lcd's but they're still challanged, they up the iso, but limit the file size, they offer shaprer files but constantly run the risk of moire and  they give us some lenses we need, take forever for other lenses we must have.  They give us better software, especially for previews, but then require weekly updates to get it right and at features like quickproof processing that takes a class to understand how to make them.  Medium format requires a lot from their customers and it's not just the cost.

I honestly believe if you could transport yourself back in time and hand any film photographer a Canon and a medium format camera, say work for the day with each one and tell me which one costs $20,000 to $40,000 and which one costs $6,500 I am positive they would think the Canon is the more expensive camera.


Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2009, 11:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDBFreeheel
Yes, and as noted, pros should/often do bill for use/rental/processing of the digital back, whether it's rented from a rental house or "rented" from the pro's overhead.  There is a fee for using the digital back that, in theory, offsets, its use and 'replacement' over film processing.  At the short end, it should be a wash, in the long-end, it should help pay off the digital back faster.


Obviously the role of a professional is to turn a profit and even it today's economy that's more than possible.

Still, the days of digital being cheaper than film are gone.  Sure the Cameras have come down in price, though  the back end workflow has doubled, tripled, quadrupled.  The investment in computers, software, calibration devices, monitors, batteries, storage, backups has also more than covered the costs of polaroid, film and processing.

If you get caught up in this digital stuff it's easy to miss the forest for the trees.  You find yourself "studying" a new software, rather than shooting.  You start pulling up comparisions of one file to he next to check detail and if your not careful the camera can become the over riding thought processs, not the photograph and none of us are really paid for our cameras.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6056


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2009, 11:39:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
Blame Calumet not your decision to buy when you did, they ruined the 2nd hand market values for Leaf and Sinar products and aside from that auction they dumped a number of 75 and 75s and LV75 backs for around 10k or less. This is not only wrong unfair to the manufacturer/distributor and other dealers but even worse for their own clients that they charged full price for. Leaf and Sinar are also partially to blame, they should have made a deal with Calumet to either buy all or some of the units back or help move them discretely and protected their dealers and customers. You don't see Phase products dropping in value like this, but I'm sure that they're affected too because of this.

Indeed, how stupid of Calumet to protect their own interests first, instead of everyone else's. Ah, if only everyone involved would collude to keep prices forever high, for the feel-good benefit of early adopters!

As for "... move them discretely...", look for a guy in an oversized trench coat, approaching passerby, and flashing it: "Pssst, buddy! Wanna buy a mint MFDB?  
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2009, 11:45:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Slobodan's sarcasm here. To wish that the retailers would collude to price fix and keep these cameras more expensive than they need to be is insane. IMO your logic is all turned around. Have you not noticed that rates have gone down across the board? Photographers rates, makeup and hair, models rates are lower, retouching, etc etc etc. Just how would higher camera prices help here?
Sheesh.
Logged
Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2009, 12:51:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
Yeh he said he would never buy YOU a new car...:+]
Snook

Aha!  Makes more sense now!
Logged

mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2009, 01:08:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R Russell
Obviously the role of a professional is to turn a profit and even it today's economy that's more than possible.

Still, the days of digital being cheaper than film are gone.  Sure the Cameras have come down in price, though  the back end workflow has doubled, tripled, quadrupled.  The investment in computers, software, calibration devices, monitors, batteries, storage, backups has also more than covered the costs of polaroid, film and processing.

If you get caught up in this digital stuff it's easy to miss the forest for the trees.  You find yourself "studying" a new software, rather than shooting.  You start pulling up comparisions of one file to he next to check detail and if your not careful the camera can become the over riding thought processs, not the photograph and none of us are really paid for our cameras.

Could not agree more. Just bought a new Mac. Now will need Ram & I am going to get Phase One 4.7 to tether with the 1dsMKIII. We do have the 5DII & I think for the money it is a brilliant camera. It doesn't have the work horse feel of the 1DsMKIII but for many photographers it will do the job & with the $ difference they can buy a new computer, ram, hard drives, storage....you know the never ending computer updates. The big challenge that MFD has is that the world wide sales per year is about 5000-6000 units all up. Meaning that Hasselblad, Phase/Mamiya, Leaf & Sinar are all competing for that small market share. I have heard that the 5DII will sell about 300,000 units world wide in the life of that camera. ( over 3 years that is 100,000 units/year) Went to a camera sale the other day & 18 5DII cameras all sold in about 5 minutes, they were new with full warranty in damaged boxes. I heard people were fighting over them!

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
JDBFreeheel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2009, 01:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R Russell
Obviously the role of a professional is to turn a profit and even it today's economy that's more than possible.

Still, the days of digital being cheaper than film are gone.  Sure the Cameras have come down in price, though  the back end workflow has doubled, tripled, quadrupled.  The investment in computers, software, calibration devices, monitors, batteries, storage, backups has also more than covered the costs of polaroid, film and processing.

If you get caught up in this digital stuff it's easy to miss the forest for the trees.  You find yourself "studying" a new software, rather than shooting.  You start pulling up comparisions of one file to he next to check detail and if your not careful the camera can become the over riding thought processs, not the photograph and none of us are really paid for our cameras.

James, great points.  I 100% agree.

My point was also to add that, perhaps with exception of the current dismal economy, pros should be building all the associated costs/time/etc that a digital workflow requires.  It was done the same way in the analog days, it's just that the line items were different.  

As an extremely low-volume image producer and having never used analog processes, I don't have the knowledge to know exactly how the cost/benefit matrix is divided between analog of the 'olden days' and the digital of the current days.  However, my assumption is that costs incurred by a pro are passed on to the customer; it's just that the math may be slightly different to take into account the overhead and depreciation/rolling upgrade costs versus direct cost of specific volume darkroom and scanning services.

-Josh
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 01:26:05 PM by JDBFreeheel » Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2009, 01:47:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I am curious why so many pros talk about using 5D2s, but I barely ever hear anyone talking about the Sony A900. Is there some reason why it is unsuited, or is it just the momentum of existing equipment carrying over into the next generation?
Logged

mattlap2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2009, 01:51:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kumar
SinarBron, Sinar's distributor in the USA also moved a lot of stuff on eBay. So why wouldn't Calumet??
http://myworld.ebay.com/sinarbron&ssPa...:MEFSX:SELLERID

Kumar

Kumar,

Sinar Bron has a demo sale every fall.   First dealers have a crack at the items at a discounted price.   Then it is opened to direct sales to customers.   And then finally it is closed out thru Ebay.

Typically these are sales representative samples, trade show items, or items used for warranty purposes.

I used to work for SBI, and then worked for a dealer.   Dealers always had the first crack.
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2009, 02:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDBFreeheel
James, great points.  I 100% agree.

My point was also to add that, perhaps with exception of the current dismal economy, pros should be building all the associated costs/time/etc that a digital workflow requires.  It was done the same way in the analog days, it's just that the line items were different.  

As an extremely low-volume image producer and having never used analog processes, I don't have the knowledge to know exactly how the cost/benefit matrix is divided between analog of the 'olden days' and the digital of the current days.  However, my assumption is that costs incurred by a pro are passed on to the customer; it's just that the math may be slightly different to take into account the overhead and depreciation/rolling upgrade costs versus direct cost of specific volume darkroom and scanning services.

-Josh

Do not know what market you all are in but where I live the clients are getting cheaper and cheaper and NO WAY pay any kind of Dgitial Tech fees etc.. You all live in a fantasy world. Wish I was there with you.
If I try to cover any extra fees I would be laughed out of every budget.
I think that billing the client everything BS is so 90's and will die soon everywhere. Hopefully not for you all but.......
The clients are the ONLY ones that have benefitted for the move to digital where they had to pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for film and development and polaroids where now a days they hire you expecting everything.
Yeh I understand trying to mix it into the budget, but that does not work for me atleast b/c the prices are what they are and I had to wrk in the digital cost it would therefor up my fees which would keep me out of the running.
I think most people in the USA are still on the bill it to the client attitude, Sounds so New York...:+]
I am the photographer, Lab and retocuher now adys and it takes up all my time.
Yeh retoucher is another item that the clients are starting to put into the final batch of photographers expense!!! UUUUUFFFFFFFFF
I really niss the days off dropping off the film and going to the beach and have a quick surf!!!

Not so sure all the digital crap has been great. And there is NO WAY back now for sure... You guys enjoy the Billing the client attitude while it last....

You know how many retouchers gone photographer I know, the list get's BIGGER every day.
Keep an eye out for this is coming to a theatre near you very soon also...:+}

Snook

Logged
carl dw
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2009, 03:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
Do not know what market you all are in but where I live the clients are getting cheaper and cheaper and NO WAY pay any kind of Dgitial Tech fees etc.. You all live in a fantasy world. Wish I was there with you.
If I try to cover any extra fees I would be laughed out of every budget.
I think that billing the client everything BS is so 90's and will die soon everywhere. Hopefully not for you all but.......
The clients are the ONLY ones that have benefitted for the move to digital where they had to pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for film and development and polaroids where now a days they hire you expecting everything.
Yeh I understand trying to mix it into the budget, but that does not work for me atleast b/c the prices are what they are and I had to wrk in the digital cost it would therefor up my fees which would keep me out of the running.
I think most people in the USA are still on the bill it to the client attitude, Sounds so New York...:+]
I am the photographer, Lab and retocuher now adys and it takes up all my time.
Yeh retoucher is another item that the clients are starting to put into the final batch of photographers expense!!! UUUUUFFFFFFFFF
I really niss the days off dropping off the film and going to the beach and have a quick surf!!!

Not so sure all the digital crap has been great. And there is NO WAY back now for sure... You guys enjoy the Billing the client attitude while it last....

You know how many retouchers gone photographer I know, the list get's BIGGER every day.
Keep an eye out for this is coming to a theatre near you very soon also...:+}

Snook

I was always under the impression that billing the client for cost's incurred was good business sense. If you are not charging for your time, be it with a camera in your hands or sat in front of a computer, then you are paying your client for the privilege of doing their work. If the cost of equipment isn't built into your business model then you are paying for it yourself... this is not taking your work seriously.

Times may be hard, but once you reverse your working practices down the dead-end street of doing stuff for free it is very difficult to return later.

I'd rather supplement my income with something unrelated than devalue my photography.

Let's face it, with the advent of digital, everyone's a photographer now. It's the ones who have a better product, work within their means and take themselves seriously who'll survive and prosper...well apart from those who're born lucky!

...and I'm in the north of England, a far cry from New York!
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2009, 03:04:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
ast....

You know how many retouchers gone photographer I know, the list get's BIGGER every day.

Snook

I would bet that most of them were photographers in the first place.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2009, 04:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
I am curious why so many pros talk about using 5D2s, but I barely ever hear anyone talking about the Sony A900. Is there some reason why it is unsuited, or is it just the momentum of existing equipment carrying over into the next generation?


It's because most of the old Minolta film holdouts that were looking for a full-frame DSLR that could compete and still use their old lenses and equipment left for Canon and Nikon.  Okay not most.  Virtually every last one about 2-3 years ago.

So there's a lag and only the truly old who remember, the few who didn't move to digital and the new to the business are even willing to try Sony.   IMO, Sony should re-name the camera Minolta or maybe Minolta and (by Sony) in small letters under the name.  I think it would help sales.  And but a bit notice somewhere or a list of old lenses that will work for it, because there are hundreds.

Oh, and it is a fine camera that also is worth considering for pro work.  At $2500, it's quite a decent deal for the money, too.  I'd rate it as equal to about 90-95% of what a DB can do.  But for 90-95% of all work, you don't need that last couple of percentage points.  Especially when the weak link usually is the printing and enlargement.

Oh - yes, always buy second generation of a product if possible, and always about a year or so used.  A 5 year old Tacoma, for instance, will drive the same as a new one and last nearly as long.  But $10K less is a no-brainer in savings.
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2009, 04:50:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Snook
Do not know what market you all are in but where I live the clients are getting cheaper and cheaper and NO WAY pay any kind of Dgitial Tech fees etc.. You all live in a fantasy world. Wish I was there with you.
If I try to cover any extra fees I would be laughed out of every budget.
I think that billing the client everything BS is so 90's and will die soon everywhere. Hopefully not for you all but.......
The clients are the ONLY ones that have benefitted for the move to digital where they had to pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for film and development and polaroids where now a days they hire you expecting everything.
Yeh I understand trying to mix it into the budget, but that does not work for me atleast b/c the prices are what they are and I had to wrk in the digital cost it would therefor up my fees which would keep me out of the running.
I think most people in the USA are still on the bill it to the client attitude, Sounds so New York...:+]
I am the photographer, Lab and retocuher now adys and it takes up all my time.
Yeh retoucher is another item that the clients are starting to put into the final batch of photographers expense!!! UUUUUFFFFFFFFF
I really niss the days off dropping off the film and going to the beach and have a quick surf!!!

Not so sure all the digital crap has been great. And there is NO WAY back now for sure... You guys enjoy the Billing the client attitude while it last....

You know how many retouchers gone photographer I know, the list get's BIGGER every day.
Keep an eye out for this is coming to a theatre near you very soon also...:+}

Snook

absolutely right.
"bill it to the client", every dollar you bill to the client is a dollar less that you earn in the end. Clients have a budget and have very little threshold to exceed that.
here in asia we try to fit everything into the budget, at the end of the day the important number is the FINAL number we present them. We're pitching against competitors. The difference between winning and losing a job sometimes can be as little as a $1000 difference.
Given the choice of hiring a digi tech versus getting a smart assistant to save me $400 and do the teching, I'd go with the second option thanks.

Also, one thing I've learnt is not to trust forums too much. A lot of hype was layered on by a lot of people here about MFDB...and that influenced my decision to get one. However it turned out a lot more trouble than it's worth. The depreciation is horrible and honestly waiting 1 year while using a Canon is not a big deal.  Both are cameras, one is just a slightly lower resolution than the other.

Andre, I raise my drink to you, we've all been suckered in to some degree.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 04:53:11 PM by jing q » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad