Jump to content

Strategy of investment in Photography


min_wong1

Recommended Posts

Many of you have changed to digital photography from film. However,

digital techniques are still on the process of developing. Thus, a

digital camera with 2 years life time can consider as "out". Compare

to film camera, digital camera's life time is much shorter. Those of

you who owns 1Ds,D2x,1Dmark2..., are you a professional and making

money by your camera? What will be the best strategy of spending

money on Digital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you question... no... digital is now. most for pros who shoot for magazines, newspapers, advertisements in magazines and etc.. 6-8 megaapix is more than enough. with the new 1ds and 1d that beats out film in details already... spending money depends entirely on what you shoot. and where you shoot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it this way: anything digital - your camera bodies, computers, printers, software, etc - have a "half life" of around 18 months. In that period you can expect at least one up-grade to the kit you've got.

 

"Half life"? Well, you can keep your kit going for ever and day but say, anything over 3 years, this stuff would be pretty redundant technically speaking.

 

Taking another view - in the days of film, camera gear and most photographic equipment was considered an asset of the business and depreciated over a period of time - say 3 to 5 years (I'm still using Leice M-3's that are nearly 50 years old) and this was usually reflected in your business's overhead.

 

Today, all this digital gear is now considered an expense of the business and is now usually written off in the year of purchase. Go figure how you can factor in a Canon EOS-1Ds into this costing scenario. Digital might be convenient, its certainly not cheap - as a business proposition I mean.

 

"What will be the best strategy of spending money on Digital"? Factor it in as an expense of the business and not as an asset.

 

As for Danny Lee's comments - in some area's film is still king I'm afraid. Not all of us shoot news and for the wire services - areas where digital excells. Not all of us are happy snapper pro-sumers who may have the knack of making a few bucks off the snaps we take (there's something of a distinction, as subtle as that may be, between making and taking pictures). In between there is "commercial photography" and, in some sectors, film is still the preferred option. Try humping a 4x5 on an architectural shoot with power plant, computer and all the kit required to shoot digital. Its a joke and no - t&s lenses on a 35 mm camera don't cut the mustard either. While using film, the same can be said about using 8x10 inch format, 6x17 and so forth.

 

From the side of the fence "digital" is a con if ever there was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was like you a while back, questioning about the life span of digicam, in particular, Dslr. I wanted to switch from film to digital but was hesitant because of the rapid changes/upgrade in models that manufacturers put in the market. However, after getting inputs and opinions from fellow photographers in this forum, I realized there is no specific time to make the switch. Its all up the the individual concerned. As digital technology is evolving in quantum leaps, there will be newer technology/design almost everyday, so when is the most appropriate time to invest in a system? I figure that there is no appropriate time. The only appropriate time is when you tell yourself that I WANT to switch, and that will be the day. You have to come to terms with the fact that digital technology will never stop or slow down in the next decade or so, so why bother to think that far. Invest what you can afford and enjoy it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Try humping a 4x5 on an architectural shoot with power plant, computer and all the kit required to shoot digital.</i><P>Try having 10 slides made into high quality 8x12's without being forced to buy a digital camera (film scanner) or forced to pay for drum scans.<P>From this 'side of the fence' all I see is another arguement that justifies film without defining what the hell to do with it, and living in denial that you really need a to take digital pictures of film in this world to practically do anything with it.<P>I see new film scanners introduced every month, yet this absurd obsolete arguement is never applied towards film scanners because I guess that would make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people use their film body for many years and we can consider those film body as antique. I know many people like to collect such thing. Let's face in digital. It's still on its process of developing. We still don't know what a final digital body will end like and when. 1.0x 1.3x 1.5x 1.6x, EFs, Dx...... their are too many uncertainties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want a camera to shoot pics with or to "invest" in? Cameras are tools to shoot pictures, not a method of increasing your financial worth. Take up stamp collecting or coins or something. Most cameras decrease in value over time until some froup of cult followers takes a shining towards it. You probably would have to seal it away from use in order for it to be of increased value... which is a waste of a good camera. Or buy yourself a Leica & be done with it & revel in your mechanical little world while worrying about brassing & such (this isn't a Leica knock since I covet them but lack the funds, just what I see from those who fondle cameras more than actually use them).

 

I am sure some of the first generation P&S digitals will eventually obtain cult collector status kind of like an Atari 2600 when enough years go by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right strategy for investment in digital still is the same as in film photography. Investment in lenses is more stable (and often renders more quality) than investing in a higher priced body.

 

If the short innovation cycles of digital bodies are really an issue depends on very individual factors:

 

Do you shoot many pcitures ? Investment will be compensated by saved film and processing costs.

 

Do you prefer slides ? No choice - go film.

 

Do you think all increases in megapixels are a must have ? The more pixels your camera has, the less improvement will come from the next 1-2 MP of resolution. We are at 8 MP at the mid-priced segment. An increase to 10 MP will bring only about 10% of resolution (or print size) in every axis. Thie calculus is even worse for the 1D/Ds. Is this worth waiting if you see an immediate benefit in digital ?

 

What else can we expect ? Bigger sensors at a reasonable price ? - probably not in the next 5 years. Higher dynamic range ? - more difficult to achieve than more pixels (and most likely not visible in prints). Improvements in controls (flash exposure, focus...) - likely - but that is not a digital issue and was seen from one film body generation to the other too.

 

Ulrich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Digital might be convenient, its certainly not cheap - as a business proposition I mean. "

 

Patrick Litchfield, a prolific shooter and famous fashion / glamour photographer claimes that the year he went digital it saved his business 70,000 gbp in film and processing costs.

 

As a business proposition digital is a massive money saver, it's only for semi-pro's and amateurs that the benefits take time to come through (if ever).

 

In answer to the original question:

 

The digital camera market has matured, any camera bought now will last as long as a film camera under the same conditions. But if you want to be at the forefront of technology it's a great big money pit (for an amateur). The strategy is to buy what you are comfortable with, you only have your conscience (or family) to answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when digital cameras do what you want them to do and the benefits outweigh the costs then it might be time to consider "jumping in". Where the cost/benefits cross is going to be up to you. For a professional it could be rather quickly because of the sheer volume of film and processing. For an amateur you have to look at the costs of both over time versus the benefits and see which one works better for you. If you can find a digital camera that gives you everything you want then there's no reason why it wouldn't still be doing that years from now. You don't have to chase the technology.

 

As far as investment goes, film cameras aren't a good "investment" today either. The market on them has shrunk so much that they lose their value very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1DM2 is a powerful tool. I doubt there are many people, even in the pro ranks, who will ever fully exploit this camera's potential. In 2 years I am sure Canon will have something with more megapixels, faster frame rate, better focus, at half the weight, and 2/3 of the cost...but do I NEED it or do I WANT it. I own a 1DM2, it's more than needed but just what I wanted. I make a little money on the side but this is not my primary source of income. I am confident that I will not outgrow this camera and thats why I bought it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spend the least amount possible on a body that will just pass the grade, and then sink every available penny left into lenses. Did it for film, still doing it for digital.

 

Of course I'm actually getting pretty close to being happy with my lens collection (a couple of L zooms and a few primes) which is kind of scary in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I save $13 for every 36 images I capture with my 3 year old Fuji S2s (6mp). No more carding negatives for reprints! Wohoo.

 

Yes my camera is 3 years old and is NOT obsolete. I guarantee you that my brides cannot tell the difference between a print from 1ds/d2x and my S2. Even at 16x20 they would not know which camera shot which. So that means that my camera will NEVER be obsolete. I will use them until they break and cost more to repair than replace.

 

The increased cost of digital is a MYTH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"From this 'side of the fence' all I see is another arguement that justifies film without defining what the hell to do with it".

 

Scott, I've started a new thread on this topic - http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B4Dh.

 

"We still don't know what a final digital body will end like and when."

 

Min - there will be never be a final "digital body". All the technology in this arena is transient. Resolution and image resolving power will continue to evolve, the technologies to resolve, store and move images will change as will the medium and means to do all this. Today's JPG is likely become something else in the future and so it'll go on. And, the guys punting all this stuff - they're on to a pretty good wicket.

 

"Investment will be compensated by saved film and processing costs."

 

Ulrich - I wouldn't bet on it. What I may have saved on not using film I'm more than making up for in purchases elsewhere be this on CF cards, printing ink, computer hardware and the rest. Costing this out effectively and coming back to the orginal question, "are you a professional and making money by your camera?" - it comes to a pretty close shave. And I make the point again - as convenient as digital may be it is not cheap.

 

Phil, coming on to your point: "saved his business 70,000 gbp in film and processing costs". Coming to that figure is the easy part - as in looking at the business's receipts. And yes, its stems something of a "cash flow" bleed on the business. What is usually missed and not so easy to calculate are the costs of installing computer hardware, software and the rest of the kit to manage one's digital workflow and then having to continually upgrade this lot. What will soon become apparent is that the investment in all this kit soon begins to approach what one may have spent on film and processing in the first place. May not be seen as a direct expense but its there nonetheless.

 

As for the part, "As a business proposition digital is a massive money saver". Its a convenience. Its not a money saver. About the only people winning on this number are the photographer's clients. In going "digital" all that's effectively happened is that a "pre-print processing" stage has been removed from the client's workflow and their books. This was a massive expensive to the people in the print industry - magazines, publishers and the like. This expense has now been shifted on to the photographer's plate which has all parties smiling - except the photographer. This move has introduced a whole new sets of business paradiagms - the major one's being how to effectively recoup costs and expenses, how to cost out these services and all this while keeping faith and keeping one's clients.

 

The above doesn't represent "expert opinion" rather, just some comments of a student from the school of hard knocks. HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the digital vs film argument is different for each person

and their shooting style, what they want out of photography etc.

For my style, for what I like to do, digital is still extremely

expensive. For ME, the math is pretty simple...

 

My EOS-3 cost about $850 new and if it is like my EOS-10s

before it, will last 12 yrs or so. A full frame (for

wide angle, landscape etc) DSLR with similar

capabilities such as the EOS-1Ds goes for about

$5000 on cheatbay. Add computer power, digital

storage to include both cards for the camera and

harddrive space for the computer, add a DVD-writer

and you're quickly approaching $6000. If I (a

film shooter) want to scan my slides or negatives,

to be fair, add the cost of a good film scanner

to the film side of the equation, such as a Minolta

DiMage 5400, about $650. Using film I don't have

the same backup requirements...I have the actual

negative or slide. The $4500 difference will buy

a lot of film and processing, (or in the meantime a

few L lenses)

 

A second problem is the file manipulation and

arrival to a final "product."

 

It's time-consuming in a big way and anything that

costs me time, I cost out at at least $50/hr. If you want to

get beyond mere snapshots, you need to buy, learn and

then use a photo editing package. If you want to

make decent prints, you need a printer (actually

I think the ink is more expensive), photo paper,

and most of all, you need to understand color

management and profiling....unless of course you

send photos out to be printed. The only way any

of the printing process for digital is cheaper than

film, is if you are a lousy photographer and most

of your shots aren't worth printing, or a lazy

photographer and you never get around to printing

your photos. That and although I love black and white

darkroom work, I always hated color, too much like

work. My feelings haven't changed that much working

in color in the digital world...

 

All that said, I suspect that in a few years when

the price of a full frame DSLR such as the Canon

1Ds Mark II falls from the current price of about

$8000 to something in the neighborhood of $1500,

I may bite the bullet and make the switch, or do

both, picking what is best for the job at hand.

 

thanks

jeffl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"keep two Canon 10D bodies ($1500.00 each) and click off about 5000 frames per year each. To shoot 10,000 frames (277 rolls) of C41 print film with one 4 x 6 print for each frame would cost about $4000 USD."

I want to know how many of you, film users develop 277 rolls a year. For many photographer, they really don't click their shutter that often, unless they think and know what they are doing. Even for professional who sells their photo won't sell 277 rolls a year. A good photo which took by thier spirit will worth almost everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait a minute..................Heather, are you saying that the Atari 2600 is worth money? to a collector?................hmmmmmmmmmmm, now where did I store that sucker?!

 

...while we're at it............are Commodore Vic 20's worth money to collectors too?

 

2 years life of a digital is laughable........I know a D100 user who is past that in years, and has turned his "counter" over more than a FEW times. I also know a P&S Kodak digital user for "high art" B&W prints who used his for probably 5 years, and only bought a new digital because the sand (southern California) eventually destroyed it.

 

yeah, it might be 2 years that newer tech comes in and makes your digital "look" obsolete..........but........is it really, or are you just falling for the marketting crap. You know, this "disposable" commodity system door swings both ways. The companies only get away with it because YOU succumb to it by actually believing you need the latest and greatest.

 

I agree, if you are in business, and the new tech gives you an edge, by all means take advantage of it...........but, does it really give you an edge?....really?

 

To the hobbyist, or even some photographic business ventures........you don't need the latest the day it comes out.........skip a couple generations, you'll be much happier in the end

 

IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...